Wilson honors for all - how has it worked?

[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...

OP here - I am in total agreement with your points. Also, my kids have been to the Wilson Theater and the Wilson pool, they have never been inside the school building. I thought the idea that Deal kids would be familiar with the school completely clueless and insensitive, familiarity with the neighborhood is not familiarity with the school. I understand the challenges of a shadow day option when you have 500 or more potential incoming kids, but her "my way or the highway" attitude was off-putting. She did come across as a strong leader and caring about the kids' education, but she is also a SJW that is trying to use the Wilson resources of strong kids to bring up struggling kids. I think this is a priority for DCPS in general so I suspect this plays well downtown, and I also would support it if it is working and benefiting all the kids. That is the million dollar question.

One issue that puzzles me is why there are significant ongoing achievement gaps at Wilson. The school basically has no OOB slots available beyond those students that are coming in through the two feeders, Deal and Hardy, which are both strong middle schools. I would expect strong across the board achievement given this background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“It worked darn well for me” is not evidence that tracking works systematically. Seems like you’ll be happier in another school system, so good luck to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not true. Deal had shadow days for feeder schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

OP here - I am in total agreement with your points. Also, my kids have been to the Wilson Theater and the Wilson pool, they have never been inside the school building. I thought the idea that Deal kids would be familiar with the school completely clueless and insensitive, familiarity with the neighborhood is not familiarity with the school. I understand the challenges of a shadow day option when you have 500 or more potential incoming kids, but her "my way or the highway" attitude was off-putting. She did come across as a strong leader and caring about the kids' education, but she is also a SJW that is trying to use the Wilson resources of strong kids to bring up struggling kids. I think this is a priority for DCPS in general so I suspect this plays well downtown, and I also would support it if it is working and benefiting all the kids. That is the million dollar question.

One issue that puzzles me is why there are significant ongoing achievement gaps at Wilson. The school basically has no OOB slots available beyond those students that are coming in through the two feeders, Deal and Hardy, which are both strong middle schools. I would expect strong across the board achievement given this background.

Jesus. Are you just looking for stuff to get upset about? I never had a “shadow” day at my HS, which was similarly located right near my MS. My kids are at Deal, and if I want them to see the school, I’ll call the school and ask about options for tours, etc. I’m also confident that they’ll be fine the day they start if they’ve never been in the building! The idea that she’s being “clueless and insensitive” is really grade A, upper NW bullshit.

But, of course, the bolded part above is the giveaway. I hope you find a school that better meets your sensibilities than Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

OP here - I am in total agreement with your points. Also, my kids have been to the Wilson Theater and the Wilson pool, they have never been inside the school building. I thought the idea that Deal kids would be familiar with the school completely clueless and insensitive, familiarity with the neighborhood is not familiarity with the school. I understand the challenges of a shadow day option when you have 500 or more potential incoming kids, but her "my way or the highway" attitude was off-putting. She did come across as a strong leader and caring about the kids' education, but she is also a SJW that is trying to use the Wilson resources of strong kids to bring up struggling kids. I think this is a priority for DCPS in general so I suspect this plays well downtown, and I also would support it if it is working and benefiting all the kids. That is the million dollar question.

One issue that puzzles me is why there are significant ongoing achievement gaps at Wilson. The school basically has no OOB slots available beyond those students that are coming in through the two feeders, Deal and Hardy, which are both strong middle schools. I would expect strong across the board achievement given this background.

This doesn't puzzle me at all. Some kids come from a background that is so lacking in resources beginning early in life, that simply attending school with rich/middle class kids won't bring them up to speed by high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s no evidence that ‘Honors for All’ works, so the debate is anecdote vs. wishful thinking.


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.

“It worked darn well for me” is not evidence that tracking works systematically. Seems like you’ll be happier in another school system, so good luck to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“It worked darn well for me” is not evidence that tracking works systematically. Seems like you’ll be happier in another school system, so good luck to you.

There’s no evidence that ‘Honors for All’ works, so the debate is anecdote vs. wishful thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What the research has shown EVERY TIME that this has actually been studied is that in tiered classes the actually "top 10%" of the class (i.e. the smartest 10%) is NEVER ACTUALLY PLACED in the highest tier class. Put another way, when researchers actually give a series of tests to kids, they find that there are many kids in the lowest level classes who score better than kids in the top level classes and many more who score better than kids in the intermediate classes. In other words, the kids that everybody thinks are the "top 10%" aren't, and the kids that everybody thinks are the bottom 10% likewise aren't. As far as I know, this is consistent every time this is studied. You can claim that in your case it wasn't, but you should realize that almost everybody -- parents, teachers, students -- in the schools where the research was done said the same thing.

Also, if you can get access to the 1976 paper that I linked to above, you'll see that the dynamics in how school plays out for most of us (bored, disengaged, disruptive kids in "lower" classes, more engaged, higher achieving kids in "upper" classes) seem to be possible to replicate by pretty much randomly assigning kids to tiered classes. Upper classes and gifted programs tend to be staffed by the most engaged teachers and be full of the kinds of kids whose parents push for them to be in gifted classes, so the class environment tends to be more engaging. Likewise, lower classes tend to be taught by less engaged, less experienced teachers and to have fewer resources (not to mention the stigma of everybody involved knowing that they are in the dumb class), so the environment is less engaging and there is less success.

With respect to race, no one is saying that gifted and talented or top tier classes are ENTIRELY white (at least since the not since the 70s, when that was the explicit policy of many schools, like it was the policy of at least some recently desegregated schools to put black kids in special ed). But again, EVERY TIME this has been studied, it's been shown that top tiered classes are DISPROPORTIONATELY non-minority and higher income. Taken together, the evidence shows that richer, whiter kids tend to get put into top tier classes and poorer, browner kids tend to get put into lower classes to some extent REGARDLESS OF ABILITY (i.e. smart poor kids are to some extent put in lower classes and rich dumb kids in upper classes). And, once tracking starts in lower grades, differences in achievement persist and grow partly because to the nature of the opportunities that kids get. So, by high school, the results that people take for granted and blame on society and the home environment can also to some extent be explained by school policy.

I am not at all sure that "honors for all" is the best or even a good solution. Previously it was my understanding that kids at Wilson could be put in honors classes by asking for them, and there are certainly kids who don't want to be in honors (either they don't want to do the work or they struggle to pass on-level classes and feel that honors is setting them up to fail -- which was the case for one kid I know). Involuntary tracking is a terrible and unfair solution, but I don't think that's what Wilson had. When kids who could do the work CAN choose to be in honors and don't, then there are a bunch of much thornier issues to sort out, and I am not really competent to address them, as I suspect most PPs likewise aren't.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the most recent PPs -- I too was "off put" by the Principal's attitude towards Deal kids. It didn't give me a good feeling that my DD would be too supported by the Administration at Wilson.

As for "Honors for All" - the concept is a good one, and it appeals to my sense of social justice and need to increase equity.

HOWEVER, my DD, who *is* a high achiever has had bad experiences at Deal with the similar concept; e.g. she is one of 2 high achievers in her English class this year and she has told me that she cringes when the teacher praises her work and she gets teased for being the "smart girl". She has also told me that she would have enjoyed reading To Kill a Mockingbird, except that it was being taught in English class! I don't want my DD to have to "hide her light under a bushel" and I don't like her being turned off of subjects because she is not being challenged. The thought of 2 more years of this at Wilson is really concerning...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What the research has shown EVERY TIME that this has actually been studied is that in tiered classes the actually "top 10%" of the class (i.e. the smartest 10%) is NEVER ACTUALLY PLACED in the highest tier class. Put another way, when researchers actually give a series of tests to kids, they find that there are many kids in the lowest level classes who score better than kids in the top level classes and many more who score better than kids in the intermediate classes. In other words, the kids that everybody thinks are the "top 10%" aren't, and the kids that everybody thinks are the bottom 10% likewise aren't. As far as I know, this is consistent every time this is studied. You can claim that in your case it wasn't, but you should realize that almost everybody -- parents, teachers, students -- in the schools where the research was done said the same thing.

Also, if you can get access to the 1976 paper that I linked to above, you'll see that the dynamics in how school plays out for most of us (bored, disengaged, disruptive kids in "lower" classes, more engaged, higher achieving kids in "upper" classes) seem to be possible to replicate by pretty much randomly assigning kids to tiered classes. Upper classes and gifted programs tend to be staffed by the most engaged teachers and be full of the kinds of kids whose parents push for them to be in gifted classes, so the class environment tends to be more engaging. Likewise, lower classes tend to be taught by less engaged, less experienced teachers and to have fewer resources (not to mention the stigma of everybody involved knowing that they are in the dumb class), so the environment is less engaging and there is less success.

With respect to race, no one is saying that gifted and talented or top tier classes are ENTIRELY white (at least since the not since the 70s, when that was the explicit policy of many schools, like it was the policy of at least some recently desegregated schools to put black kids in special ed). But again, EVERY TIME this has been studied, it's been shown that top tiered classes are DISPROPORTIONATELY non-minority and higher income. Taken together, the evidence shows that richer, whiter kids tend to get put into top tier classes and poorer, browner kids tend to get put into lower classes to some extent REGARDLESS OF ABILITY (i.e. smart poor kids are to some extent put in lower classes and rich dumb kids in upper classes). And, once tracking starts in lower grades, differences in achievement persist and grow partly because to the nature of the opportunities that kids get. So, by high school, the results that people take for granted and blame on society and the home environment can also to some extent be explained by school policy.

I am not at all sure that "honors for all" is the best or even a good solution. Previously it was my understanding that kids at Wilson could be put in honors classes by asking for them, and there are certainly kids who don't want to be in honors (either they don't want to do the work or they struggle to pass on-level classes and feel that honors is setting them up to fail -- which was the case for one kid I know). Involuntary tracking is a terrible and unfair solution, but I don't think that's what Wilson had. When kids who could do the work CAN choose to be in honors and don't, then there are a bunch of much thornier issues to sort out, and I am not really competent to address them, as I suspect most PPs likewise aren't.

You are misreading the research again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

OP here - I am in total agreement with your points. Also, my kids have been to the Wilson Theater and the Wilson pool, they have never been inside the school building. I thought the idea that Deal kids would be familiar with the school completely clueless and insensitive, familiarity with the neighborhood is not familiarity with the school. I understand the challenges of a shadow day option when you have 500 or more potential incoming kids, but her "my way or the highway" attitude was off-putting. She did come across as a strong leader and caring about the kids' education, but she is also a SJW that is trying to use the Wilson resources of strong kids to bring up struggling kids. I think this is a priority for DCPS in general so I suspect this plays well downtown, and I also would support it if it is working and benefiting all the kids. That is the million dollar question.

One issue that puzzles me is why there are significant ongoing achievement gaps at Wilson. The school basically has no OOB slots available beyond those students that are coming in through the two feeders, Deal and Hardy, which are both strong middle schools. I would expect strong across the board achievement given this background.

Jesus. Are you just looking for stuff to get upset about? I never had a “shadow” day at my HS, which was similarly located right near my MS. My kids are at Deal, and if I want them to see the school, I’ll call the school and ask about options for tours, etc. I’m also confident that they’ll be fine the day they start if they’ve never been in the building! The idea that she’s being “clueless and insensitive” is really grade A, upper NW bullshit.

But, of course, the bolded part above is the giveaway. I hope you find a school that better meets your sensibilities than Wilson.

I'm the PP who first mentioned the lack of Open House or Shadow days. And I very much disagree with you on it being grade A, upper NW bullshit but thanks for your opinion. I think in a school system such as ours where there is a choice of charter, magnet and IB - kids/parents should be able to easily see a school while making the decision. Deal is huge school and still manages to do a shadow day for all it's feeder schools. I think it is more critical for Deal as that is a huge change. And no - I don't need a shadow day but it would have been helpful to have an easy way to do a comparison between the feel of Wilson and meeting it's staff while dealing with the application process.

Finally - it isn't so much that there isn't either option - it was her dismissive attitude of it. If she had simply said..."we don't do it ...we don't have the resources" - that would have been fine. But, to then dismiss the Deal kids multiple times as having already seen the place. Also, Wilson didn't come to the High School night at Deal. Why not? These are easy ways to get the community on your side. Good public relations can serve to make your job easier which in turn makes the school a better place.

No they are not obligated to but Wilson is a public school which serves our kids - they can pretend to actually care that they want them there. Then again...Albright/Neal have just spoiled me forever I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Finally - it isn't so much that there isn't either option - it was her dismissive attitude of it. If she had simply said..."we don't do it ...we don't have the resources" - that would have been fine. But, to then dismiss the Deal kids multiple times as having already seen the place. Also, Wilson didn't come to the High School night at Deal. Why not? These are easy ways to get the community on your side. Good public relations can serve to make your job easier which in turn makes the school a better place.

No they are not obligated to but Wilson is a public school which serves our kids - they can pretend to actually care that they want them there. Then again...Albright/Neal have just spoiled me forever I suppose.

+1 and Amen on Albright/Neal!!

the other thing that bothers me is that despite being dismissive of Deal (and the Deal parents), I expect that they will want these same Deal parents to contribute $$$ to the PTA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

OP here - I am in total agreement with your points. Also, my kids have been to the Wilson Theater and the Wilson pool, they have never been inside the school building. I thought the idea that Deal kids would be familiar with the school completely clueless and insensitive, familiarity with the neighborhood is not familiarity with the school. I understand the challenges of a shadow day option when you have 500 or more potential incoming kids, but her "my way or the highway" attitude was off-putting. She did come across as a strong leader and caring about the kids' education, but she is also a SJW that is trying to use the Wilson resources of strong kids to bring up struggling kids. I think this is a priority for DCPS in general so I suspect this plays well downtown, and I also would support it if it is working and benefiting all the kids. That is the million dollar question.

One issue that puzzles me is why there are significant ongoing achievement gaps at Wilson. The school basically has no OOB slots available beyond those students that are coming in through the two feeders, Deal and Hardy, which are both strong middle schools. I would expect strong across the board achievement given this background.

Jesus. Are you just looking for stuff to get upset about? I never had a “shadow” day at my HS, which was similarly located right near my MS. My kids are at Deal, and if I want them to see the school, I’ll call the school and ask about options for tours, etc. I’m also confident that they’ll be fine the day they start if they’ve never been in the building! The idea that she’s being “clueless and insensitive” is really grade A, upper NW bullshit.

But, of course, the bolded part above is the giveaway. I hope you find a school that better meets your sensibilities than Wilson.

I'm the PP who first mentioned the lack of Open House or Shadow days. And I very much disagree with you on it being grade A, upper NW bullshit but thanks for your opinion. I think in a school system such as ours where there is a choice of charter, magnet and IB - kids/parents should be able to easily see a school while making the decision. Deal is huge school and still manages to do a shadow day for all it's feeder schools. I think it is more critical for Deal as that is a huge change. And no - I don't need a shadow day but it would have been helpful to have an easy way to do a comparison between the feel of Wilson and meeting it's staff while dealing with the application process.

Finally - it isn't so much that there isn't either option - it was her dismissive attitude of it. If she had simply said..."we don't do it ...we don't have the resources" - that would have been fine. But, to then dismiss the Deal kids multiple times as having already seen the place. Also, Wilson didn't come to the High School night at Deal. Why not? These are easy ways to get the community on your side. Good public relations can serve to make your job easier which in turn makes the school a better place.

No they are not obligated to but Wilson is a public school which serves our kids - they can pretend to actually care that they want them there. Then again...Albright/Neal have just spoiled me forever I suppose.

I am the OP and the poster with the bolded comment. I am actually pretty liberal and I support social justice and I asked to hear what the experience with honors for all, I am not looking to undermine it but am looking for what evidence is there one way or the other on whether it actually works. I was not commenting on the shadow day with the bolded comment, she was absolutely clear that her priority is closing the achievement gap over serving high achieving kids, hence the SJW comment. She thinks high achieving kids will be just fine, and they well may be. My kids are high achieving kids, they are my priority, and I want to understand how this is working.

[Anonymous]

I would hope that we could all agree that putting kids in tracked classes only based on teacher recommendations and not on quantitive data is a mistake. I think we could also all agree that there are kids who are capable of doing higher level work who are not being pushed to do it - either because of lack of access or a host of other issues - and we should be pushing and challenging these kids. This is the group of kids that I think really benefits with "Honors for All."

However, to overlook that almost 1/3 of Wilson students who took PARCC last year scored in the lowest two levels on the ELA section and to think that these kids can do honors level work right now is foolish, IMO. Our goal for them should be that they get to the point where they can do advanced work, but right now, they need some intensive, remedial support, and it's unclear to me whether or not these kids are getting the support they need in their English classes (even with only 20 kids per teacher) to overcome what is most likely a multi-year deficit in reading, writing, and comprehension skills. Seems like wishful thinking that they are going to get to grade-level skills in the "honors for all" model, unless every teacher is an absolute superstar and the teachers all have the resources they need to support these kids where they are and build their skills to where they need to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

THIS. Obviously. Completely agree and admire your clear-eyed chutzpah and analytical skills, PP. Pretend otherwise at the expense of your children, folks.