Boundary study question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, the only thing that will cause change is to credibly promise and deliver coursework that is on and above grade level to children who are at that level. That will make a difference. And you can do that now, if you are willing to spend the money.

I think a lot of committee members share this view, including the EOTR members who want DCPS to offer the same level of coursework and programming that people in certain other parts of the city seem to get. A big area of discussion for the committee is how far people from 7 & 8 travel for school and how to reduce that, not by taking away opportunity but providing what those parents want for their kids, which is a great education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other high schools are not as good in actual education, because they do not offer the same coursework. Their "advanced" classes are only pretend-advanced.

Also, are there specific examples you can cite? I’ve been wanting to better pin down these differences and it would be helpful to have some specific examples I can run down further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other high schools are not as good in actual education, because they do not offer the same coursework. Their "advanced" classes are only pretend-advanced.

Also, are there specific examples you can cite? I’ve been wanting to better pin down these differences and it would be helpful to have some specific examples I can run down further.

Nobody is going to believe there is on grade level coursework until more than a handful of kids pass the math PARCC, for starters. Yes the PARCC sucks, let's get a different test instead, sure. But you gotta deliver some passing scores--enough to report as something other than "n less than 10".

Also do a better job sharing success. If kids or teachers win awards or whatever, push out that information.

You should be inviting feeder group parents to visit the school, observe classes and teaching, and se student work. Redact the kids' names if you like. Put their work in an online scrapbook that people can see. How about some videos of teachers live teaching? Whatever you can come up with to show quality. But people are still gonna ask why almost all the kids fail the PARCC.

It feels like the attitude is "Our schools are fine, take our word for it or you are a racist". And that really puts people off. If your schools really are quality and the instruction really is on grade level, there should be something you can show us. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other high schools are not as good in actual education, because they do not offer the same coursework. Their "advanced" classes are only pretend-advanced.

Also, are there specific examples you can cite? I’ve been wanting to better pin down these differences and it would be helpful to have some specific examples I can run down further.

Every school where most kids fail the Algebra I PARCC is an example. You say you are providing quality and grade-level instruction. Yet they fail. Why?

[Anonymous]

I think the only think that's going to work is a massive long-term cash investment in high-intensity tutoring and summer programs to help kids catch up to grade level, starting in 3rd grade. Right now, most high schools cannot succeed because the entering 9th grade class is so far behind.

I know the data on small class sizes isn't great, but if you're willing to do team-teaching, or do smaller class sizes for the purpose of more fine-grained differentiation, that would help. So for example, for the 6th graders at a middle school a school could offer separate classes of 3rd grade math, 4th grade math, 5th grade math, 6th grade math, 7th grade math, and 8th grade math. So that kids had a class that was actually at their level-- as woefully behind as they may be-- and so that the kids who actually are on or above grade level can have that content. Rather than pretending that everyone is ready for grade level coursework, which we all know isn't true. And rather than pretending that a single teacher can differentiate across 5 grade levels, which we all know isn't true. Basically spend more money, actually "meet kids where they are" in a way that is effective, and stop b*lshitting us parents.

[Anonymous]

The answer is tracking. It’s the way to separate kids by ability level and the teacher can focus the curriculum at that level.

But we can’t have that because it’s not equitable. So let’s socially promote everyone, put everyone in the same class, and those that have options leave DCPS altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other high schools are not as good in actual education, because they do not offer the same coursework. Their "advanced" classes are only pretend-advanced.

Also, are there specific examples you can cite? I’ve been wanting to better pin down these differences and it would be helpful to have some specific examples I can run down further.

Every school where most kids fail the Algebra I PARCC is an example. You say you are providing quality and grade-level instruction. Yet they fail. Why?

NP with another example. I’ve observed in many DCPS classrooms. I’ve seen AP classes in some schools that are covering material that should be learned in September in March. Clearly that is not teaching the AP class. It also sets those kids up for failure in college because they’ve been told they took the course. But they really haven’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other high schools are not as good in actual education, because they do not offer the same coursework. Their "advanced" classes are only pretend-advanced.

Also, are there specific examples you can cite? I’ve been wanting to better pin down these differences and it would be helpful to have some specific examples I can run down further.

Every school where most kids fail the Algebra I PARCC is an example. You say you are providing quality and grade-level instruction. Yet they fail. Why?

“Do most kids fail the Algebra I PARCC” is a terrible metric if your goal is to get more high school tracking.

My 9th grader got a 5 on the Algebra II PARCC at a high school where most students who took the Algebra I PARCC failed it. If my child had been forced to repeat Algebra I, the Algebra I proficiency rate surely would have gone up. Is that what you want? No, it’s the exact opposite of what you want.

The number you want to look at is the pass rate for 9th graders taking math PARCCs other than Algebra I. That’s what will tell you if the school is successfully teaching its strongest students at the level they are capable of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other high schools are not as good in actual education, because they do not offer the same coursework. Their "advanced" classes are only pretend-advanced.

Also, are there specific examples you can cite? I’ve been wanting to better pin down these differences and it would be helpful to have some specific examples I can run down further.

Every school where most kids fail the Algebra I PARCC is an example. You say you are providing quality and grade-level instruction. Yet they fail. Why?

“Do most kids fail the Algebra I PARCC” is a terrible metric if your goal is to get more high school tracking.

My 9th grader got a 5 on the Algebra II PARCC at a high school where most students who took the Algebra I PARCC failed it. If my child had been forced to repeat Algebra I, the Algebra I proficiency rate surely would have gone up. Is that what you want? No, it’s the exact opposite of what you want.

The number you want to look at is the pass rate for 9th graders taking math PARCCs other than Algebra I. That’s what will tell you if the school is successfully teaching its strongest students at the level they are capable of.

Okay. But it's still a problem if most of the kids taking the Algebra I class fail the Algebra I PARCC, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other high schools are not as good in actual education, because they do not offer the same coursework. Their "advanced" classes are only pretend-advanced.

Also, are there specific examples you can cite? I’ve been wanting to better pin down these differences and it would be helpful to have some specific examples I can run down further.

Every school where most kids fail the Algebra I PARCC is an example. You say you are providing quality and grade-level instruction. Yet they fail. Why?

“Do most kids fail the Algebra I PARCC” is a terrible metric if your goal is to get more high school tracking.

My 9th grader got a 5 on the Algebra II PARCC at a high school where most students who took the Algebra I PARCC failed it. If my child had been forced to repeat Algebra I, the Algebra I proficiency rate surely would have gone up. Is that what you want? No, it’s the exact opposite of what you want.

The number you want to look at is the pass rate for 9th graders taking math PARCCs other than Algebra I. That’s what will tell you if the school is successfully teaching its strongest students at the level they are capable of.

No one wants your kid to repeat Algebra I. But we want kids enrolled in Algebra I to actually learn the subject. That’s clearly not happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, the only thing that will cause change is to credibly promise and deliver coursework that is on and above grade level to children who are at that level. That will make a difference. And you can do that now, if you are willing to spend the money.

I think a lot of committee members share this view, including the EOTR members who want DCPS to offer the same level of coursework and programming that people in certain other parts of the city seem to get. A big area of discussion for the committee is how far people from 7 & 8 travel for school and how to reduce that, not by taking away opportunity but providing what those parents want for their kids, which is a great education.

Won't happen as long the outsized voices that pervert the concept of "equity" continue to convince decisionmakers that advanced classes and academic rigor are a violation of their absurd idea of equity. Hard work and consequences aren't allowed at most DCPS schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other high schools are not as good in actual education, because they do not offer the same coursework. Their "advanced" classes are only pretend-advanced.

Also, are there specific examples you can cite? I’ve been wanting to better pin down these differences and it would be helpful to have some specific examples I can run down further.

Every school where most kids fail the Algebra I PARCC is an example. You say you are providing quality and grade-level instruction. Yet they fail. Why?

NP with another example. I’ve observed in many DCPS classrooms. I’ve seen AP classes in some schools that are covering material that should be learned in September in March. Clearly that is not teaching the AP class. It also sets those kids up for failure in college because they’ve been told they took the course. But they really haven’t.

AP for all! Welcome to "equity" DC style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The answer is tracking. It’s the way to separate kids by ability level and the teacher can focus the curriculum at that level.

But we can’t have that because it’s not equitable. So let’s socially promote everyone, put everyone in the same class, and those that have options leave DCPS altogether.

Cue the usual DCUM subjects who will now chime in with the "18 year old in your kid's 5th grade class" boogeyman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other high schools are not as good in actual education, because they do not offer the same coursework. Their "advanced" classes are only pretend-advanced.

Also, are there specific examples you can cite? I’ve been wanting to better pin down these differences and it would be helpful to have some specific examples I can run down further.

Every school where most kids fail the Algebra I PARCC is an example. You say you are providing quality and grade-level instruction. Yet they fail. Why?

“Do most kids fail the Algebra I PARCC” is a terrible metric if your goal is to get more high school tracking.

My 9th grader got a 5 on the Algebra II PARCC at a high school where most students who took the Algebra I PARCC failed it. If my child had been forced to repeat Algebra I, the Algebra I proficiency rate surely would have gone up. Is that what you want? No, it’s the exact opposite of what you want.

The number you want to look at is the pass rate for 9th graders taking math PARCCs other than Algebra I. That’s what will tell you if the school is successfully teaching its strongest students at the level they are capable of.

No one wants your kid to repeat Algebra I. But we want kids enrolled in Algebra I to actually learn the subject. That’s clearly not happening.

I guess my point is, by far the easiest way for a school to get to majority proficient in Algebra I is to manipulate the group of high school students who are taking the Algebra I PARCC, either by forcing proficient students to repeat Algebra I, forcing proficient students to repeat the Algebra I PARCC (as BASIS did this year), or excluding students from the school. You should focus on a less manipulable measure, such as total 9th grade math proficiency rate. (Or really what you want to focus on is the total 8th grade math proficiency rate, since the problem with high school Algebra I is too many students with weak pre-algebra foundations.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The committee hasn’t discussed things at that level of detail yet, so nobody knows the answer. At the last meeting the consultants said they would devise various scenarios and then the committee would discuss in September. So that will be where some of these details become on the table.

But I’d say any requests for another MS to feed JR or MacArthur will run into a fundamental question of what is the citywide vision. It’s not possible for everyone who wants to feed to those schools to do it - or Deal & Hardy. “Alice Deal for All” does not literally mean Deal and its HS are so large that all DCPS students go there.

So if some more people got rights to WOTP schools then what does that mean for the next group of people one neighborhood farther east? The ideal scenario is that eventually othet HS become comparable in reputation (some educators argue they are already as good in actual education, though that’s tough to really evaluate rigorously). Is there a path to achieve that?

Moving the next set of parents to have rights across the park doesn’t lead to a gradual chain of future actions that eventually leads to a stable education system - the only stable end point in that direction is “Deal for All Literally” which is impossible.

So, what is the action the committee can take this year which puts the system on a trajectory to continue a positive direction, from the viewpoint of all parents in all wards, that then continues the next time boundaries change and the next time and so on?

In the medium run, I don't think MacArthur will take more than a couple OOB lottery students. It is only big enough to take the incoming Hardy population.