Wilson honors for all - how has it worked?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It sounds like an excellent model and a common sense, simple and effective approach to the a racial inequity that should not exist in the first place. I hope they continue it.[/quote]

So all common sense about creating tiered classes and really pushing the highest achievers doesn’t matter as long as each class is diverse. I’m genuinely curious about parents who putt diversity over all other academic pursuits for their kids.[/quote]

The main issues with tiered classes is that pretty much every time they have been studied, it's been clearly shown that students aren't actually assigned to tiers based on ability, so the entire basis for this model is completely flawed from the start:

"The Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS) was a comprehensive survey of mathematics taught and learned around the world... For the SIMS study, 8th graders in all four tracks completed a pretest of pre-algebra arithmetic skills at the beginning of the year. Researchers examined the distribution of scores on the test by student and by math track. Although it was expected that class-type performance would be different, Kifer and colleagues' (1993) analysis of student and classroom performance found considerable score overlap among tracks.

[b]Only half of the students who achieved the top 10 scores on the pretest and one-third of the students in the top 25 had actually been placed in the algebra-level classes.[/b] Inequities existed on the other end of the proficiency spectrum as well: [b]Nearly 50 percent of the students assigned to remedial classes had scores that were better than 25 percent of the students in general math.[/b] In addition, Kifer and colleagues found that [b]5 of the 23 remedial classes had higher mean scores than 75 percent of the students in general math, 50 percent of the students in pre-algebra, and 25 percent of the students in algebra.[/b]"

https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7342.html

These results have been replicated repeatedly -- over and over and over in school district after school district.

Some other issues:
1. The research shows that tiered classes are largely ineffective and increasing student learning.

2. The quality of teaching is lower in lower-track classes. Less experienced teachers tend to teach them, fewer resources are devoted to them and teachers are less engaged.

Here's an abstract of one of the first articles to systematically make these points: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7342.html.

Basically. like a lot of "common sense", tiered classrooms totally fail to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.



[/quote]

+1

Thank you, this is so helpful.[/quote]



Truly. This is such important information to have in this conversation. [/quote]


So why not just use a test to assign people to classes?

In my high school growing up, the smartest and most academic students were in the advanced classes; the struggling students were not. In between, among the generally bright students, there were surely some imperfect assignments, but overall it worked well. [/quote]

The research suggests that tracking didn’t work as well as you think it did in your school. That’s why research is critical - kids, teachers and parents often think they in the right classes, but when they are tested it turns out they never are.

[Anonymous]

Are those studies focused on high school?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It sounds like an excellent model and a common sense, simple and effective approach to the a racial inequity that should not exist in the first place. I hope they continue it.[/quote]

So all common sense about creating tiered classes and really pushing the highest achievers doesn’t matter as long as each class is diverse. I’m genuinely curious about parents who putt diversity over all other academic pursuits for their kids.[/quote]

The main issues with tiered classes is that pretty much every time they have been studied, it's been clearly shown that students aren't actually assigned to tiers based on ability, so the entire basis for this model is completely flawed from the start:

"The Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS) was a comprehensive survey of mathematics taught and learned around the world... For the SIMS study, 8th graders in all four tracks completed a pretest of pre-algebra arithmetic skills at the beginning of the year. Researchers examined the distribution of scores on the test by student and by math track. Although it was expected that class-type performance would be different, Kifer and colleagues' (1993) analysis of student and classroom performance found considerable score overlap among tracks.

[b]Only half of the students who achieved the top 10 scores on the pretest and one-third of the students in the top 25 had actually been placed in the algebra-level classes.[/b] Inequities existed on the other end of the proficiency spectrum as well: [b]Nearly 50 percent of the students assigned to remedial classes had scores that were better than 25 percent of the students in general math.[/b] In addition, Kifer and colleagues found that [b]5 of the 23 remedial classes had higher mean scores than 75 percent of the students in general math, 50 percent of the students in pre-algebra, and 25 percent of the students in algebra.[/b]"

https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7342.html

These results have been replicated repeatedly -- over and over and over in school district after school district.

Some other issues:
1. The research shows that tiered classes are largely ineffective and increasing student learning.

2. The quality of teaching is lower in lower-track classes. Less experienced teachers tend to teach them, fewer resources are devoted to them and teachers are less engaged.

Here's an abstract of one of the first articles to systematically make these points: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7342.html.

Basically. like a lot of "common sense", tiered classrooms totally fail to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.



[/quote]

+1

Thank you, this is so helpful.[/quote]



Truly. This is such important information to have in this conversation. [/quote]


So why not just use a test to assign people to classes?

In my high school growing up, the smartest and most academic students were in the advanced classes; the struggling students were not. In between, among the generally bright students, there were surely some imperfect assignments, but overall it worked well. [/quote]

The research suggests that tracking didn’t work as well as you think it did in your school. That’s why research is critical - kids, teachers and parents often think they in the right classes, but when they are tested it turns out they never are. [/quote]

And yet it did work well in my school. The suggestion of the research is not accurate in that case.

But this is the main point: According to the above research, even when the placements were done subjective teacher decisions (rather than more objectively by test), the errors were between advanced and the two general levels or between the general levels and remedial.

*Despite some randomness in the middle, they still were not putting the most struggling and the most advanced in the same class, which is exactly what ‘Honors for All” does.*

[Anonymous]

(Excepting from above comment die to screwed up quoting.)

And yet it did work well in my school. The suggestion of the research is not accurate in that case.

But this is the main point: According to the above research, even when the placements were done subjective teacher decisions (rather than more objectively by test), the errors were between advanced and the two general levels or between the general levels and remedial.

*Despite some randomness in the middle, they still were not putting the most struggling and the most advanced in the same class, which is exactly what ‘Honors for All” does.*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(Excepting from above comment die to screwed up quoting.)

And yet it did work well in my school. The suggestion of the research is not accurate in that case.

But this is the main point: According to the above research, even when the placements were done subjective teacher decisions (rather than more objectively by test), the errors were between advanced and the two general levels or between the general levels and remedial.

*Despite some randomness in the middle, they still were not putting the most struggling and the most advanced in the same class, which is exactly what ‘Honors for All” does.*

How do you know it worked in your school? From your perspective it did. And when I was tracked, it seemed like it was working, too. But “working” simply meant that I ended up in a class full of kids just like me, who had the advantages that ensured we tested well, had good work habits, had parents who expected us to go to college, etc. (Oh, and were almost exclusively white!) How is that “working”? All it did was reinforce the advantages and disadvantages built into society through intergenerational wealth transfer, housing segregation, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(Excepting from above comment die to screwed up quoting.)

And yet it did work well in my school. The suggestion of the research is not accurate in that case.

But this is the main point: According to the above research, even when the placements were done subjective teacher decisions (rather than more objectively by test), the errors were between advanced and the two general levels or between the general levels and remedial.

*Despite some randomness in the middle, they still were not putting the most struggling and the most advanced in the same class, which is exactly what ‘Honors for All” does.*

What the study quoted above shows is not that tracking doesn't work, or that it can't work, but that it's usually poorly implemented -- the kids are often assigned to the objectively wrong track. If that's happening, then it's not really tracking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(Excepting from above comment die to screwed up quoting.)

And yet it did work well in my school. The suggestion of the research is not accurate in that case.

But this is the main point: According to the above research, even when the placements were done subjective teacher decisions (rather than more objectively by test), the errors were between advanced and the two general levels or between the general levels and remedial.

*Despite some randomness in the middle, they still were not putting the most struggling and the most advanced in the same class, which is exactly what ‘Honors for All” does.*

How do you know it worked in your school? From your perspective it did. And when I was tracked, it seemed like it was working, too. But “working” simply meant that I ended up in a class full of kids just like me, who had the advantages that ensured we tested well, had good work habits, had parents who expected us to go to college, etc. (Oh, and were almost exclusively white!) How is that “working”? All it did was reinforce the advantages and disadvantages built into society through intergenerational wealth transfer, housing segregation, etc.

It worked darn well for me. I was in G &T and then the highest level classes in middle and high school. Your premise is that only white kids are in these classes. That’s not true. Maybe they are a majority but not exclusive. Why would you not want each child to be fully challenged? How do you expect the top 10% of the class to be in with kids in the 50% or lower? I live in DC and we are raising our son in DC. If some of you DC parents want to to believe your illusion if you have a child in the top 10% of the class, that the child will be challenged to their full potential in honors for all so be it. They won’t.
Education cannot fix external issues related to poverty, and if you think not tracking will, that’s your opinion. But we are out. I know what’s it’s like to bored and not be challenged in school, and I would never wish it on any child let alone my child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean to challenge high achievers? This is such a common thing that parents say, but then they also expect that their high achiever kids will get straight As. So is the request to challenge with course material that gets really smart kids Bs and Cs, and then grade on a curve?

I think that part of being challenged is not necessarily tackling the most complex material or racing through it as fast as possible, but learning in an environment where there are multiple perspectives and figuring out how to find a truth within it - I mean, that's what history and ELA is about. But it does require strong teaching to get there.

Parents here don't really care about anything beyond bragging rights.

To the first quote no. Parents who just want their kids to get straight A’s or like grade inflation are fixated on the grade, not what the child is learning. Look at TJ. All these kids are at the top of their class and likely cruised thru middle school with straight A’s. They were not challenged to their full potential. TJ last year graduated with over 250 students and only 16 or so got straight A’s. So the bar was set very high, and most students didn’t get straight A’s or even A’s and B’s. But guarantee all the kids learned a whole lot more than if they were left at their in-boundary school. So you can’t group all these parents together. Is it the grade or is it being challenged no matter what the grade? I’ll take the latter any day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like an excellent model and a common sense, simple and effective approach to the a racial inequity that should not exist in the first place. I hope they continue it.

So all common sense about creating tiered classes and really pushing the highest achievers doesn’t matter as long as each class is diverse. I’m genuinely curious about parents who putt diversity over all other academic pursuits for their kids.

The main issues with tiered classes is that pretty much every time they have been studied, it's been clearly shown that students aren't actually assigned to tiers based on ability, so the entire basis for this model is completely flawed from the start:

"The Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS) was a comprehensive survey of mathematics taught and learned around the world... For the SIMS study, 8th graders in all four tracks completed a pretest of pre-algebra arithmetic skills at the beginning of the year. Researchers examined the distribution of scores on the test by student and by math track. Although it was expected that class-type performance would be different, Kifer and colleagues' (1993) analysis of student and classroom performance found considerable score overlap among tracks.

Only half of the students who achieved the top 10 scores on the pretest and one-third of the students in the top 25 had actually been placed in the algebra-level classes. Inequities existed on the other end of the proficiency spectrum as well: Nearly 50 percent of the students assigned to remedial classes had scores that were better than 25 percent of the students in general math. In addition, Kifer and colleagues found that 5 of the 23 remedial classes had higher mean scores than 75 percent of the students in general math, 50 percent of the students in pre-algebra, and 25 percent of the students in algebra."

https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7342.html

These results have been replicated repeatedly -- over and over and over in school district after school district.

Some other issues:
1. The research shows that tiered classes are largely ineffective and increasing student learning.

2. The quality of teaching is lower in lower-track classes. Less experienced teachers tend to teach them, fewer resources are devoted to them and teachers are less engaged.

Here's an abstract of one of the first articles to systematically make these points: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7342.html.

Basically. like a lot of "common sense", tiered classrooms totally fail to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

You misrepresent the research. And your link is to a paper from 1987, which is now over thirty years old. An honest assessment of the research is that it shows that non-tracked programs hurt the lowest and highest performing students. This is not a surprise to anyone who has attended a school or taught at one.

And very few high schools in the nation have such a large distribution of students who perform at the very low end and the very high end. Wilson High School in this sense is truly unique. And so it is much more important for Wilson--relative to other more homogeneous high schools--to recognize that students have vastly different needs that require tailored instruction (e.g., on-level vs true honors classes). To intentionally not tailor instruction to a child's needs at a school such as Wilson is unethical.

The best study done on this topic was done by the “Chicago Consortium for School Research" (CCSR) which is part of the University of Chicago. Their 2010 study is titled "College Prep for All? What We’ve Learned from Chicago’s Efforts". Looking at a 10-year period, CCSR measured the impact of the City of Chicago’s implementation of a program in 1997 that was similar to Wilson High School’s “Honors for All”. Chicago ended remedial class for English, math, science, and social studies which meant that all students were now enrolled in college prep classes (thus the tag "college prep for all"). It was no surprise that CCSR found “there were no positive effects on student achievement” and that students at the low-end and high-end were both negatively impacted.

CCSR study - https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/college-prep-all-what-weve-learned-chicagos-efforts
CCSR Press Release regarding study titled "Chicago’s college-prep-for-all policy failed to improve student achievement" - https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/press-releases/211PressReleaseCollegePrep.pdf

Here is CCSR’s description of the study:

To examine the consequences of the new curriculum on students’ outcomes, the research teams compare outcomes for students in Chicago before and after policy implementation in three subject areas: English, math, and science. In the study described in this brief, the focus is on two mandatory ninth grade courses: Algebra I and English I. This focus was selected because ninth grade coursework often serves as a “gatekeeper” in many schools for more advanced study, and remedial coursework was common in Chicago prior to 1997 in both subjects. Under the new policy, students were required to take Algebra I and English I in the ninth grade (or a higher course in the math or English sequence, such as geometry, Algebra II, or English II)….

In CCSR’s words, here is a partial summary of their research results:

There Were No Positive Effects on Student Achievement

One of the key premises of mandatory curriculum policies is that greater equity in course-taking will lead to improvements in student learning (as measured by tests and grades) and college readiness (as measured by test score gains and increases in advanced course-taking). While students were considerably more likely to earn English I and Algebra I credits by the end of ninth grade, the researchers found no evidence of these kinds of broader impacts on academic outcomes as a result of the new curriculum policy. Specifically, test scores in math and English were unaffected by the increase in college-preparatory coursework in the ninth grade. Furthermore, grades declined in both subjects for lower-skill students, and these students were significantly more likely to fail their ninth grade English or math course. Absenteeism also significantly increased among students with stronger skills in both subjects…

Test scores in math and English did not improve for either low- or high-skill students, and reading test scores actually declined for the highest- skilled students; ninth grade math and reading grades declined for low-skill students; failure rates in both subjects increased for low-skill students

The New Mandatory Curriculum had Negative Effects on Graduation Rates and College Enrollment

Another key argument for mandatory curricula is that these coursework reforms will help students get to college and complete their degrees. Yet the researchers found evidence to the contrary in Chicago Public Schools...

Implications for State and Federal Policy

These findings have important implications for policymakers looking to enhance access to college-preparatory classes and implement a mandatory curriculum or other course-taking requirements in states or districts. While the Chicago Public Schools 1997 reform did reduce inequities in coursework by entering skill level, race and ethnicity, and special education status, the policy had no effects on the major outcomes these kinds of curricular reforms are designed to impact. Test scores did not rise among ninth-graders, students were no more likely to take advanced math classes beyond Algebra II, and they were no more likely to attend college. Moreover, the policy change produced a number of adverse consequences: math grades declined, math failures increased, absenteeism rose among average- and higher-skilled students, and graduation and college-going rates declined.

The Chicago experience should serve as a cautionary tale for those who advocate for similar mandatory curriculum policies in their cities and states.

When Wilson HS quickly implemented "Honors For All", Principal Martin and the Wilson Diversity Committee never mentioned the Chicago study to parents or students despite its obvious relevance. I would like to know why.

On the Kojo Nnamdi show last week, Principal Martin said that she was surprised that the school did not get much negative push back from parents to the implementation of "Honors for All" and she attributed the lack of pushback in part to an FAQ produced by the Diversity Committee. That FAQ did not mention the Chicago study and also was misleading/factually incorrect which helps explain the lack of pushback. It is time to re-evaluate Honors for All and to do that Wilson needs to be transparent with data that would allow students and parents to measure the impact of the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like an excellent model and a common sense, simple and effective approach to the a racial inequity that should not exist in the first place. I hope they continue it.

So all common sense about creating tiered classes and really pushing the highest achievers doesn’t matter as long as each class is diverse. I’m genuinely curious about parents who putt diversity over all other academic pursuits for their kids.

The main issues with tiered classes is that pretty much every time they have been studied, it's been clearly shown that students aren't actually assigned to tiers based on ability, so the entire basis for this model is completely flawed from the start:

"The Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS) was a comprehensive survey of mathematics taught and learned around the world... For the SIMS study, 8th graders in all four tracks completed a pretest of pre-algebra arithmetic skills at the beginning of the year. Researchers examined the distribution of scores on the test by student and by math track. Although it was expected that class-type performance would be different, Kifer and colleagues' (1993) analysis of student and classroom performance found considerable score overlap among tracks.

Only half of the students who achieved the top 10 scores on the pretest and one-third of the students in the top 25 had actually been placed in the algebra-level classes. Inequities existed on the other end of the proficiency spectrum as well: Nearly 50 percent of the students assigned to remedial classes had scores that were better than 25 percent of the students in general math. In addition, Kifer and colleagues found that 5 of the 23 remedial classes had higher mean scores than 75 percent of the students in general math, 50 percent of the students in pre-algebra, and 25 percent of the students in algebra."

https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7342.html

These results have been replicated repeatedly -- over and over and over in school district after school district.

Some other issues:
1. The research shows that tiered classes are largely ineffective and increasing student learning.

2. The quality of teaching is lower in lower-track classes. Less experienced teachers tend to teach them, fewer resources are devoted to them and teachers are less engaged.

Here's an abstract of one of the first articles to systematically make these points: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7342.html.

Basically. like a lot of "common sense", tiered classrooms totally fail to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

You misrepresent the research. And your link is to a paper from 1987, which is now over thirty years old. An honest assessment of the research is that it shows that non-tracked programs hurt the lowest and highest performing students. This is not a surprise to anyone who has attended a school or taught at one.

And very few high schools in the nation have such a large distribution of students who perform at the very low end and the very high end. Wilson High School in this sense is truly unique. And so it is much more important for Wilson--relative to other more homogeneous high schools--to recognize that students have vastly different needs that require tailored instruction (e.g., on-level vs true honors classes). To intentionally not tailor instruction to a child's needs at a school such as Wilson is unethical.

The best study done on this topic was done by the “Chicago Consortium for School Research" (CCSR) which is part of the University of Chicago. Their 2010 study is titled "College Prep for All? What We’ve Learned from Chicago’s Efforts". Looking at a 10-year period, CCSR measured the impact of the City of Chicago’s implementation of a program in 1997 that was similar to Wilson High School’s “Honors for All”. Chicago ended remedial class for English, math, science, and social studies which meant that all students were now enrolled in college prep classes (thus the tag "college prep for all"). It was no surprise that CCSR found “there were no positive effects on student achievement” and that students at the low-end and high-end were both negatively impacted.

CCSR study - https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/college-prep-all-what-weve-learned-chicagos-efforts
CCSR Press Release regarding study titled "Chicago’s college-prep-for-all policy failed to improve student achievement" - https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/press-releases/211PressReleaseCollegePrep.pdf

Here is CCSR’s description of the study:

To examine the consequences of the new curriculum on students’ outcomes, the research teams compare outcomes for students in Chicago before and after policy implementation in three subject areas: English, math, and science. In the study described in this brief, the focus is on two mandatory ninth grade courses: Algebra I and English I. This focus was selected because ninth grade coursework often serves as a “gatekeeper” in many schools for more advanced study, and remedial coursework was common in Chicago prior to 1997 in both subjects. Under the new policy, students were required to take Algebra I and English I in the ninth grade (or a higher course in the math or English sequence, such as geometry, Algebra II, or English II)….

In CCSR’s words, here is a partial summary of their research results:

There Were No Positive Effects on Student Achievement

One of the key premises of mandatory curriculum policies is that greater equity in course-taking will lead to improvements in student learning (as measured by tests and grades) and college readiness (as measured by test score gains and increases in advanced course-taking). While students were considerably more likely to earn English I and Algebra I credits by the end of ninth grade, the researchers found no evidence of these kinds of broader impacts on academic outcomes as a result of the new curriculum policy. Specifically, test scores in math and English were unaffected by the increase in college-preparatory coursework in the ninth grade. Furthermore, grades declined in both subjects for lower-skill students, and these students were significantly more likely to fail their ninth grade English or math course. Absenteeism also significantly increased among students with stronger skills in both subjects…

Test scores in math and English did not improve for either low- or high-skill students, and reading test scores actually declined for the highest- skilled students; ninth grade math and reading grades declined for low-skill students; failure rates in both subjects increased for low-skill students

The New Mandatory Curriculum had Negative Effects on Graduation Rates and College Enrollment

Another key argument for mandatory curricula is that these coursework reforms will help students get to college and complete their degrees. Yet the researchers found evidence to the contrary in Chicago Public Schools...

Implications for State and Federal Policy

These findings have important implications for policymakers looking to enhance access to college-preparatory classes and implement a mandatory curriculum or other course-taking requirements in states or districts. While the Chicago Public Schools 1997 reform did reduce inequities in coursework by entering skill level, race and ethnicity, and special education status, the policy had no effects on the major outcomes these kinds of curricular reforms are designed to impact. Test scores did not rise among ninth-graders, students were no more likely to take advanced math classes beyond Algebra II, and they were no more likely to attend college. Moreover, the policy change produced a number of adverse consequences: math grades declined, math failures increased, absenteeism rose among average- and higher-skilled students, and graduation and college-going rates declined.

The Chicago experience should serve as a cautionary tale for those who advocate for similar mandatory curriculum policies in their cities and states.

When Wilson HS quickly implemented "Honors For All", Principal Martin and the Wilson Diversity Committee never mentioned the Chicago study to parents or students despite its obvious relevance. I would like to know why.

On the Kojo Nnamdi show last week, Principal Martin said that she was surprised that the school did not get much negative push back from parents to the implementation of "Honors for All" and she attributed the lack of pushback in part to an FAQ produced by the Diversity Committee. That FAQ did not mention the Chicago study and also was misleading/factually incorrect which helps explain the lack of pushback. It is time to re-evaluate Honors for All and to do that Wilson needs to be transparent with data that would allow students and parents to measure the impact of the program.

So now we have people presenting competing studies. I would like/have to see a meta study on this.

[Anonymous]

Please contact the principal about data points that provide insight about honors for all. It is available and she has presented on it to parents and the school community. Nothing is being hidden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please contact the principal about data points that provide insight about honors for all. It is available and she has presented on it to parents and the school community. Nothing is being hidden.

Right, PP who feels like it was dishonest probably doesn't have kids in DCPS or if s/he does they are likely in Pre-K.

[Anonymous]

Finding this a very interesting conversation. A few points I would bring up from the meeting for 8th graders.
- Is anyone tracking the data to see if this works or not. I have to admit, I was against this as it seemed arbitrary but if it does indeed increase the number of low SES kids in high classes - I am all for it.
- I also liked the description of this breaking down and integrating social circles better. But, again - I will be curious to see if it really works. I find my kids at Deal already have a fairly diverse group of friends.

- Finally, was anyone else bothered by her apparent dislike/apathy towards Deal kids? No open house, no shadow days prior to doing the application process. Several comments about how Deal kids already know everything about Wilson because we share a campus. Very odd. My kids have never been in Wilson...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Finding this a very interesting conversation. A few points I would bring up from the meeting for 8th graders.
- Is anyone tracking the data to see if this works or not. I have to admit, I was against this as it seemed arbitrary but if it does indeed increase the number of low SES kids in high classes - I am all for it.
- I also liked the description of this breaking down and integrating social circles better. But, again - I will be curious to see if it really works. I find my kids at Deal already have a fairly diverse group of friends.

- Finally, was anyone else bothered by her apparent dislike/apathy towards Deal kids? No open house, no shadow days prior to doing the application process. Several comments about how Deal kids already know everything about Wilson because we share a campus. Very odd. My kids have never been in Wilson...

Shadow days are for choice schools (charter and DCPS application schools) and private schools that need to attract applicants OR when the transition is a big one such as ES to HS.

Some sort of orientation days in August before school starts is the norm. Look at all surrounding counties and you will see the same thing.

Besides - Wilson is terribly overcrowded as it is. If 20-30 students choose to go elsewhere that's probably a good thing from the DCPS and Wilson perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Finding this a very interesting conversation. A few points I would bring up from the meeting for 8th graders.
- Is anyone tracking the data to see if this works or not. I have to admit, I was against this as it seemed arbitrary but if it does indeed increase the number of low SES kids in high classes - I am all for it.
- I also liked the description of this breaking down and integrating social circles better. But, again - I will be curious to see if it really works. I find my kids at Deal already have a fairly diverse group of friends.

- Finally, was anyone else bothered by her apparent dislike/apathy towards Deal kids? No open house, no shadow days prior to doing the application process. Several comments about how Deal kids already know everything about Wilson because we share a campus. Very odd. My kids have never been in Wilson...

My kids' social circles are both racially and academically diverse coming out of Deal, so trying to achieve something social that already exists seems a poor reason to alter an academic program. And I agree that Deal kids don't know anything about Wilson unless they have a sibling there! We never went to Wilson except for the pool on weekends, and were not seriously considering Wilson until the Open House blew us away. Very short sighted to eliminate that vital outreach.