Two Rivers elementary families -- what is your MS plan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with most of the factors above. Another seemed to be that the emphasis on “community” and “warmth” slipped into a toxic positivity / gaslighting / head in the sand/ conflict averse approach to addressing problems. When teachers raised problems administrators didn’t make hard choices to confront the problems. The strong warm culture started to feel full of buzzwords, doublespeak, smiles and songs about community “we are the boat”, and reading the mission in unison at every gathering - literally - etc. Meanwhile educators were supported less and less and kid’s were not thriving/ learning much and deep parent engagement was rebuffed.

Spot on. Former TR patent and the "toxic positivity" was awful-- it basically means you can't have a useful conversation with the administration or anyone on the FSA about anything because if you aren't all rah-rah-TR-is-amazing, people will just avoid you and not respond to emails. I think people are afraid to confront realities because it's easier to be avoidant and pretend everything is great.

I also just personally can't stand all that stuff like reading the mission statement together. It's cult-like. If you want to stay mission-driven then the focus should be on accountability. Make sure that major decisions or consistent with your core mission and be able to explain to people how that is the case. But just reciting stuff together out loud is not a form of accountability and actually feels like a manipulation tactic to get people not to ask questions or criticize. Again: cult-like.

All of this is spot on. I’ll just add that I found the parent community at TRY overall very bizarre and cult-like, particularly around the COVID closures. There were glaring issues that no one seemed concerned with—the former TRY ES principal basically didn’t bother to show up the second half of the year. The year after we left, both 5th grade teachers quit mid-year and there was NO substitute/no full time replacements hired for the remainder of the year. Someone else mentioned the MS issues—additional days off to deal with “behavior issues”.
Again: cult-like (or ignorant).

This is how I'd describe our experience at ITDS, so it baffles me that so many people are proposing it as the alternative. ITDS always struck me as simply a whiter, richer TR. Same behavior mismanagement and low academic standards but somehow a bit more palatable for reasons I didn't understand. They even have a bunch of TR's old staff.

I agree... I think there are a bunch of key differences.

1) Building not as bad as TR4th-- their playground and the atrium's terrible acoustics and inefficient use of space. ITDS' building isn't great, but it's okay, and they do have a city rec center right outside.

2) ITDS didn't try to expand, so their leadership didn't get over-stressed like TR's did.

3) ITDS is operating a much smaller middle school and I think that makes it easier in some ways.

4) Yes there are a lot of TR staff and TR kids-- I knew TR was in a bad way when TR staff started moving their kids out of TR. But my sense is that ITDS only hires TR staff who they feel are seeing the problems with TR and wanting to make a break with that. The last principal they hired from TR who only stayed a year... well... that was a whole different situation

5) ITDS' prior head of school annoyed me but I think she was pretty good in some ways. The new head of school I like a lot, and she came from being a principal at an EOTR DCPS so she has a lot of experience with high-needs kids, and a very good sense of how other schools operate. Unlike the prior HOS whose whole world was ITDS.

6) The academic standards at ITDS could be higher but they aren't always super low either. Some of the teachers expect real work and explicitly teach math, grammar, etc.

7) ITDS is very understanding of behavior if it's special needs-related, but if it's not special needs-related, they definitely will dish out consequences to middle school students. They do have detention (they don't call it that of course), and they will have kids sit out certain fun things if they can't behave. This of course runs counter to their claim of being a restorative justice school, but whatever. Talking big philosophy and then doing more practical stuff in real life is very on brand for ITDS.

We hated TR and looked at ITDS (wound up at a DCPS we are happy with ultimately but did list ITDS in the lottery) and this is pretty much our impression. I will say that ITDS had a lot of the same "cult-like" tone that TR has -- I cannot tell if this is just a charter thing or unique to these two schools. After several years at TR this is like nails on a chalkboard to me because I've heard it so many times and it comes off as so fake and meaningless at this point. But we talked to a bunch of ITDS parents including some good friends who live in Edgewood and the school just does not sound as dysfunctional as TR. Plus people seem generally to see the middle school as a meaningful option (even if many parents are also looking at other options -- ITDS middle is very small and has no HS feed so I get this). I think if that's the only school we'd gotten into in the library we probably would have taken it as an acceptable improvement over TR. They have some similarities but just the fact that people seem to like the middle school and they don't have such aggressive attrition after ECE indicated to me that it was a bit more functional.

I will say that my experience at TR soured me on charters generally and I now get why people often dislike them. We have friends who are happy at charters including ITDS and LAMB, but now that I get what it really means for a school to be not really accountable to anyone I am really unimpressed. We've been in a strong DCPS for 2 years now and the quality of teaching and responsiveness of the school to families and the community is just night and day. Curriculum is also really good -- I look back at TR and feel like I don't know can you even call what they do a curriculum? I still have my bones to pick (I don't like our principal) but overall it's just a better set up. Charters are the wild west and TR is a great example of what happens when your cowtown has a bad sheriff (whereas a bad principal within DCPS turns out to not be a big deal if the teaching staff is experienced and good and the PTA and families are involved and give a damn).

On a forum of ignorant takes, this is top 10. Every charter is its own LEA. The cultures, academic approaches, staffing models and physical plants are specific to each LEA. It is simply ignorant to equate "charters" to "DCPS". Setting aside the LEA issue, the idea of indicting all of DCPS over one poorly run ES would be equivalently dumb.

Other than that you nailed it.

When theres an issue in DCPS, there's the Instructional Superintendent, the Ombudsman, and other offices where a parent can escalate an issue. Not saying they will get what they want but there is somewhere to turn. Not so with charters-- there's the board of each school, which tends to be pretty passive and stocked with loyal booster parents, and then there's the PCSB. But short of actual llegalities, the PCSB won't do anything. "Flexibility" in their view includes the flexibility to mismanage a school into the ground. That's the bottom line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with most of the factors above. Another seemed to be that the emphasis on “community” and “warmth” slipped into a toxic positivity / gaslighting / head in the sand/ conflict averse approach to addressing problems. When teachers raised problems administrators didn’t make hard choices to confront the problems. The strong warm culture started to feel full of buzzwords, doublespeak, smiles and songs about community “we are the boat”, and reading the mission in unison at every gathering - literally - etc. Meanwhile educators were supported less and less and kid’s were not thriving/ learning much and deep parent engagement was rebuffed.

Spot on. Former TR patent and the "toxic positivity" was awful-- it basically means you can't have a useful conversation with the administration or anyone on the FSA about anything because if you aren't all rah-rah-TR-is-amazing, people will just avoid you and not respond to emails. I think people are afraid to confront realities because it's easier to be avoidant and pretend everything is great.

I also just personally can't stand all that stuff like reading the mission statement together. It's cult-like. If you want to stay mission-driven then the focus should be on accountability. Make sure that major decisions or consistent with your core mission and be able to explain to people how that is the case. But just reciting stuff together out loud is not a form of accountability and actually feels like a manipulation tactic to get people not to ask questions or criticize. Again: cult-like.

All of this is spot on. I’ll just add that I found the parent community at TRY overall very bizarre and cult-like, particularly around the COVID closures. There were glaring issues that no one seemed concerned with—the former TRY ES principal basically didn’t bother to show up the second half of the year. The year after we left, both 5th grade teachers quit mid-year and there was NO substitute/no full time replacements hired for the remainder of the year. Someone else mentioned the MS issues—additional days off to deal with “behavior issues”.
Again: cult-like (or ignorant).

This is how I'd describe our experience at ITDS, so it baffles me that so many people are proposing it as the alternative. ITDS always struck me as simply a whiter, richer TR. Same behavior mismanagement and low academic standards but somehow a bit more palatable for reasons I didn't understand. They even have a bunch of TR's old staff.

I agree... I think there are a bunch of key differences.

1) Building not as bad as TR4th-- their playground and the atrium's terrible acoustics and inefficient use of space. ITDS' building isn't great, but it's okay, and they do have a city rec center right outside.

2) ITDS didn't try to expand, so their leadership didn't get over-stressed like TR's did.

3) ITDS is operating a much smaller middle school and I think that makes it easier in some ways.

4) Yes there are a lot of TR staff and TR kids-- I knew TR was in a bad way when TR staff started moving their kids out of TR. But my sense is that ITDS only hires TR staff who they feel are seeing the problems with TR and wanting to make a break with that. The last principal they hired from TR who only stayed a year... well... that was a whole different situation

5) ITDS' prior head of school annoyed me but I think she was pretty good in some ways. The new head of school I like a lot, and she came from being a principal at an EOTR DCPS so she has a lot of experience with high-needs kids, and a very good sense of how other schools operate. Unlike the prior HOS whose whole world was ITDS.

6) The academic standards at ITDS could be higher but they aren't always super low either. Some of the teachers expect real work and explicitly teach math, grammar, etc.

7) ITDS is very understanding of behavior if it's special needs-related, but if it's not special needs-related, they definitely will dish out consequences to middle school students. They do have detention (they don't call it that of course), and they will have kids sit out certain fun things if they can't behave. This of course runs counter to their claim of being a restorative justice school, but whatever. Talking big philosophy and then doing more practical stuff in real life is very on brand for ITDS.

We hated TR and looked at ITDS (wound up at a DCPS we are happy with ultimately but did list ITDS in the lottery) and this is pretty much our impression. I will say that ITDS had a lot of the same "cult-like" tone that TR has -- I cannot tell if this is just a charter thing or unique to these two schools. After several years at TR this is like nails on a chalkboard to me because I've heard it so many times and it comes off as so fake and meaningless at this point. But we talked to a bunch of ITDS parents including some good friends who live in Edgewood and the school just does not sound as dysfunctional as TR. Plus people seem generally to see the middle school as a meaningful option (even if many parents are also looking at other options -- ITDS middle is very small and has no HS feed so I get this). I think if that's the only school we'd gotten into in the library we probably would have taken it as an acceptable improvement over TR. They have some similarities but just the fact that people seem to like the middle school and they don't have such aggressive attrition after ECE indicated to me that it was a bit more functional.

I will say that my experience at TR soured me on charters generally and I now get why people often dislike them. We have friends who are happy at charters including ITDS and LAMB, but now that I get what it really means for a school to be not really accountable to anyone I am really unimpressed. We've been in a strong DCPS for 2 years now and the quality of teaching and responsiveness of the school to families and the community is just night and day. Curriculum is also really good -- I look back at TR and feel like I don't know can you even call what they do a curriculum? I still have my bones to pick (I don't like our principal) but overall it's just a better set up. Charters are the wild west and TR is a great example of what happens when your cowtown has a bad sheriff (whereas a bad principal within DCPS turns out to not be a big deal if the teaching staff is experienced and good and the PTA and families are involved and give a damn).

On a forum of ignorant takes, this is top 10. Every charter is its own LEA. The cultures, academic approaches, staffing models and physical plants are specific to each LEA. It is simply ignorant to equate "charters" to "DCPS". Setting aside the LEA issue, the idea of indicting all of DCPS over one poorly run ES would be equivalently dumb.

Other than that you nailed it.

Uh, thanks for calling me dumb?

Of course I understand how charters work-- my kids attended one. And having been through it, the fact that charters have their own LEA and and are not accountable to, specifically, curriculum and staffing standards of DCPS, turns out to have major drawbacks. Because a lot of what is happening at TR could not happen at even the lowest performing DCPS, because even the lowest performing DCPS has to follow district-approved curriculum and needs teachers who meet certain minimum standards. Whereas TR offers this weird substandard curriculum and regularly replaces departing teachers with under qualified people.

There are often course charters where that freedom can be beneficial-- some charters actually require extra certifications for teachers (in things like Montessori or dual language) that directly serve their goals as an independent LEA. But the risk of the opposite happening is always there-- a charter run amok, married to a weak curriculum that doesn't work and is not grounded in a tested pedagogy, and hiring inexperienced teachers (often at a discount because charters pay less than DCPS and are unable to offer comparable benefits).

I didn't get it until I was in it, and now I get it and have a new skepticism of the charter model and the risks it carries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with most of the factors above. Another seemed to be that the emphasis on “community” and “warmth” slipped into a toxic positivity / gaslighting / head in the sand/ conflict averse approach to addressing problems. When teachers raised problems administrators didn’t make hard choices to confront the problems. The strong warm culture started to feel full of buzzwords, doublespeak, smiles and songs about community “we are the boat”, and reading the mission in unison at every gathering - literally - etc. Meanwhile educators were supported less and less and kid’s were not thriving/ learning much and deep parent engagement was rebuffed.

Spot on. Former TR patent and the "toxic positivity" was awful-- it basically means you can't have a useful conversation with the administration or anyone on the FSA about anything because if you aren't all rah-rah-TR-is-amazing, people will just avoid you and not respond to emails. I think people are afraid to confront realities because it's easier to be avoidant and pretend everything is great.

I also just personally can't stand all that stuff like reading the mission statement together. It's cult-like. If you want to stay mission-driven then the focus should be on accountability. Make sure that major decisions or consistent with your core mission and be able to explain to people how that is the case. But just reciting stuff together out loud is not a form of accountability and actually feels like a manipulation tactic to get people not to ask questions or criticize. Again: cult-like.

All of this is spot on. I’ll just add that I found the parent community at TRY overall very bizarre and cult-like, particularly around the COVID closures. There were glaring issues that no one seemed concerned with—the former TRY ES principal basically didn’t bother to show up the second half of the year. The year after we left, both 5th grade teachers quit mid-year and there was NO substitute/no full time replacements hired for the remainder of the year. Someone else mentioned the MS issues—additional days off to deal with “behavior issues”.
Again: cult-like (or ignorant).

This is how I'd describe our experience at ITDS, so it baffles me that so many people are proposing it as the alternative. ITDS always struck me as simply a whiter, richer TR. Same behavior mismanagement and low academic standards but somehow a bit more palatable for reasons I didn't understand. They even have a bunch of TR's old staff.

I agree... I think there are a bunch of key differences.

1) Building not as bad as TR4th-- their playground and the atrium's terrible acoustics and inefficient use of space. ITDS' building isn't great, but it's okay, and they do have a city rec center right outside.

2) ITDS didn't try to expand, so their leadership didn't get over-stressed like TR's did.

3) ITDS is operating a much smaller middle school and I think that makes it easier in some ways.

4) Yes there are a lot of TR staff and TR kids-- I knew TR was in a bad way when TR staff started moving their kids out of TR. But my sense is that ITDS only hires TR staff who they feel are seeing the problems with TR and wanting to make a break with that. The last principal they hired from TR who only stayed a year... well... that was a whole different situation

5) ITDS' prior head of school annoyed me but I think she was pretty good in some ways. The new head of school I like a lot, and she came from being a principal at an EOTR DCPS so she has a lot of experience with high-needs kids, and a very good sense of how other schools operate. Unlike the prior HOS whose whole world was ITDS.

6) The academic standards at ITDS could be higher but they aren't always super low either. Some of the teachers expect real work and explicitly teach math, grammar, etc.

7) ITDS is very understanding of behavior if it's special needs-related, but if it's not special needs-related, they definitely will dish out consequences to middle school students. They do have detention (they don't call it that of course), and they will have kids sit out certain fun things if they can't behave. This of course runs counter to their claim of being a restorative justice school, but whatever. Talking big philosophy and then doing more practical stuff in real life is very on brand for ITDS.

We hated TR and looked at ITDS (wound up at a DCPS we are happy with ultimately but did list ITDS in the lottery) and this is pretty much our impression. I will say that ITDS had a lot of the same "cult-like" tone that TR has -- I cannot tell if this is just a charter thing or unique to these two schools. After several years at TR this is like nails on a chalkboard to me because I've heard it so many times and it comes off as so fake and meaningless at this point. But we talked to a bunch of ITDS parents including some good friends who live in Edgewood and the school just does not sound as dysfunctional as TR. Plus people seem generally to see the middle school as a meaningful option (even if many parents are also looking at other options -- ITDS middle is very small and has no HS feed so I get this). I think if that's the only school we'd gotten into in the library we probably would have taken it as an acceptable improvement over TR. They have some similarities but just the fact that people seem to like the middle school and they don't have such aggressive attrition after ECE indicated to me that it was a bit more functional.

I will say that my experience at TR soured me on charters generally and I now get why people often dislike them. We have friends who are happy at charters including ITDS and LAMB, but now that I get what it really means for a school to be not really accountable to anyone I am really unimpressed. We've been in a strong DCPS for 2 years now and the quality of teaching and responsiveness of the school to families and the community is just night and day. Curriculum is also really good -- I look back at TR and feel like I don't know can you even call what they do a curriculum? I still have my bones to pick (I don't like our principal) but overall it's just a better set up. Charters are the wild west and TR is a great example of what happens when your cowtown has a bad sheriff (whereas a bad principal within DCPS turns out to not be a big deal if the teaching staff is experienced and good and the PTA and families are involved and give a damn).

On a forum of ignorant takes, this is top 10. Every charter is its own LEA. The cultures, academic approaches, staffing models and physical plants are specific to each LEA. It is simply ignorant to equate "charters" to "DCPS". Setting aside the LEA issue, the idea of indicting all of DCPS over one poorly run ES would be equivalently dumb.

Other than that you nailed it.

Uh, thanks for calling me dumb?

Of course I understand how charters work-- my kids attended one. And having been through it, the fact that charters have their own LEA and and are not accountable to, specifically, curriculum and staffing standards of DCPS, turns out to have major drawbacks. Because a lot of what is happening at TR could not happen at even the lowest performing DCPS, because even the lowest performing DCPS has to follow district-approved curriculum and needs teachers who meet certain minimum standards. Whereas TR offers this weird substandard curriculum and regularly replaces departing teachers with under qualified people.

There are often course charters where that freedom can be beneficial-- some charters actually require extra certifications for teachers (in things like Montessori or dual language) that directly serve their goals as an independent LEA. But the risk of the opposite happening is always there-- a charter run amok, married to a weak curriculum that doesn't work and is not grounded in a tested pedagogy, and hiring inexperienced teachers (often at a discount because charters pay less than DCPS and are unable to offer comparable benefits).

I didn't get it until I was in it, and now I get it and have a new skepticism of the charter model and the risks it carries.

Agree. I think a lot of parents were seduced by the potential of charters and the freedom that came with a bit of independence from DCPS. What could possibly be bad about untethering yourself from the worst school system in the nation? But in practice, they sucked. Same corruption, low standards, and poor behavior management but now with little to no oversight. The only good thing about charters is that they're easier to sue.

[Anonymous]

Parents are funny. They need to feel vindicated and sure of their choices. So imagine all this pro dcps nonsense coming about lately. People never want to accept the reality they are in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with most of the factors above. Another seemed to be that the emphasis on “community” and “warmth” slipped into a toxic positivity / gaslighting / head in the sand/ conflict averse approach to addressing problems. When teachers raised problems administrators didn’t make hard choices to confront the problems. The strong warm culture started to feel full of buzzwords, doublespeak, smiles and songs about community “we are the boat”, and reading the mission in unison at every gathering - literally - etc. Meanwhile educators were supported less and less and kid’s were not thriving/ learning much and deep parent engagement was rebuffed.

Spot on. Former TR patent and the "toxic positivity" was awful-- it basically means you can't have a useful conversation with the administration or anyone on the FSA about anything because if you aren't all rah-rah-TR-is-amazing, people will just avoid you and not respond to emails. I think people are afraid to confront realities because it's easier to be avoidant and pretend everything is great.

I also just personally can't stand all that stuff like reading the mission statement together. It's cult-like. If you want to stay mission-driven then the focus should be on accountability. Make sure that major decisions or consistent with your core mission and be able to explain to people how that is the case. But just reciting stuff together out loud is not a form of accountability and actually feels like a manipulation tactic to get people not to ask questions or criticize. Again: cult-like.

All of this is spot on. I’ll just add that I found the parent community at TRY overall very bizarre and cult-like, particularly around the COVID closures. There were glaring issues that no one seemed concerned with—the former TRY ES principal basically didn’t bother to show up the second half of the year. The year after we left, both 5th grade teachers quit mid-year and there was NO substitute/no full time replacements hired for the remainder of the year. Someone else mentioned the MS issues—additional days off to deal with “behavior issues”.
Again: cult-like (or ignorant).

This is how I'd describe our experience at ITDS, so it baffles me that so many people are proposing it as the alternative. ITDS always struck me as simply a whiter, richer TR. Same behavior mismanagement and low academic standards but somehow a bit more palatable for reasons I didn't understand. They even have a bunch of TR's old staff.

I agree... I think there are a bunch of key differences.

1) Building not as bad as TR4th-- their playground and the atrium's terrible acoustics and inefficient use of space. ITDS' building isn't great, but it's okay, and they do have a city rec center right outside.

2) ITDS didn't try to expand, so their leadership didn't get over-stressed like TR's did.

3) ITDS is operating a much smaller middle school and I think that makes it easier in some ways.

4) Yes there are a lot of TR staff and TR kids-- I knew TR was in a bad way when TR staff started moving their kids out of TR. But my sense is that ITDS only hires TR staff who they feel are seeing the problems with TR and wanting to make a break with that. The last principal they hired from TR who only stayed a year... well... that was a whole different situation

5) ITDS' prior head of school annoyed me but I think she was pretty good in some ways. The new head of school I like a lot, and she came from being a principal at an EOTR DCPS so she has a lot of experience with high-needs kids, and a very good sense of how other schools operate. Unlike the prior HOS whose whole world was ITDS.

6) The academic standards at ITDS could be higher but they aren't always super low either. Some of the teachers expect real work and explicitly teach math, grammar, etc.

7) ITDS is very understanding of behavior if it's special needs-related, but if it's not special needs-related, they definitely will dish out consequences to middle school students. They do have detention (they don't call it that of course), and they will have kids sit out certain fun things if they can't behave. This of course runs counter to their claim of being a restorative justice school, but whatever. Talking big philosophy and then doing more practical stuff in real life is very on brand for ITDS.

We hated TR and looked at ITDS (wound up at a DCPS we are happy with ultimately but did list ITDS in the lottery) and this is pretty much our impression. I will say that ITDS had a lot of the same "cult-like" tone that TR has -- I cannot tell if this is just a charter thing or unique to these two schools. After several years at TR this is like nails on a chalkboard to me because I've heard it so many times and it comes off as so fake and meaningless at this point. But we talked to a bunch of ITDS parents including some good friends who live in Edgewood and the school just does not sound as dysfunctional as TR. Plus people seem generally to see the middle school as a meaningful option (even if many parents are also looking at other options -- ITDS middle is very small and has no HS feed so I get this). I think if that's the only school we'd gotten into in the library we probably would have taken it as an acceptable improvement over TR. They have some similarities but just the fact that people seem to like the middle school and they don't have such aggressive attrition after ECE indicated to me that it was a bit more functional.

I will say that my experience at TR soured me on charters generally and I now get why people often dislike them. We have friends who are happy at charters including ITDS and LAMB, but now that I get what it really means for a school to be not really accountable to anyone I am really unimpressed. We've been in a strong DCPS for 2 years now and the quality of teaching and responsiveness of the school to families and the community is just night and day. Curriculum is also really good -- I look back at TR and feel like I don't know can you even call what they do a curriculum? I still have my bones to pick (I don't like our principal) but overall it's just a better set up. Charters are the wild west and TR is a great example of what happens when your cowtown has a bad sheriff (whereas a bad principal within DCPS turns out to not be a big deal if the teaching staff is experienced and good and the PTA and families are involved and give a damn).

On a forum of ignorant takes, this is top 10. Every charter is its own LEA. The cultures, academic approaches, staffing models and physical plants are specific to each LEA. It is simply ignorant to equate "charters" to "DCPS". Setting aside the LEA issue, the idea of indicting all of DCPS over one poorly run ES would be equivalently dumb.

Other than that you nailed it.

Uh, thanks for calling me dumb?

Of course I understand how charters work-- my kids attended one. And having been through it, the fact that charters have their own LEA and and are not accountable to, specifically, curriculum and staffing standards of DCPS, turns out to have major drawbacks. Because a lot of what is happening at TR could not happen at even the lowest performing DCPS, because even the lowest performing DCPS has to follow district-approved curriculum and needs teachers who meet certain minimum standards. Whereas TR offers this weird substandard curriculum and regularly replaces departing teachers with under qualified people.

There are often course charters where that freedom can be beneficial-- some charters actually require extra certifications for teachers (in things like Montessori or dual language) that directly serve their goals as an independent LEA. But the risk of the opposite happening is always there-- a charter run amok, married to a weak curriculum that doesn't work and is not grounded in a tested pedagogy, and hiring inexperienced teachers (often at a discount because charters pay less than DCPS and are unable to offer comparable benefits).

I didn't get it until I was in it, and now I get it and have a new skepticism of the charter model and the risks it carries.

Agree. I think a lot of parents were seduced by the potential of charters and the freedom that came with a bit of independence from DCPS. What could possibly be bad about untethering yourself from the worst school system in the nation? But in practice, they sucked. Same corruption, low standards, and poor behavior management but now with little to no oversight. The only good thing about charters is that they're easier to sue.

Back when many of these charters were founded, they really were better than EOTP DCPS, even if they were also quite bad. Part of what's happening now is DCPS' improvement is drawing kids away from Two Rivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with most of the factors above. Another seemed to be that the emphasis on “community” and “warmth” slipped into a toxic positivity / gaslighting / head in the sand/ conflict averse approach to addressing problems. When teachers raised problems administrators didn’t make hard choices to confront the problems. The strong warm culture started to feel full of buzzwords, doublespeak, smiles and songs about community “we are the boat”, and reading the mission in unison at every gathering - literally - etc. Meanwhile educators were supported less and less and kid’s were not thriving/ learning much and deep parent engagement was rebuffed.

Spot on. Former TR patent and the "toxic positivity" was awful-- it basically means you can't have a useful conversation with the administration or anyone on the FSA about anything because if you aren't all rah-rah-TR-is-amazing, people will just avoid you and not respond to emails. I think people are afraid to confront realities because it's easier to be avoidant and pretend everything is great.

I also just personally can't stand all that stuff like reading the mission statement together. It's cult-like. If you want to stay mission-driven then the focus should be on accountability. Make sure that major decisions or consistent with your core mission and be able to explain to people how that is the case. But just reciting stuff together out loud is not a form of accountability and actually feels like a manipulation tactic to get people not to ask questions or criticize. Again: cult-like.

All of this is spot on. I’ll just add that I found the parent community at TRY overall very bizarre and cult-like, particularly around the COVID closures. There were glaring issues that no one seemed concerned with—the former TRY ES principal basically didn’t bother to show up the second half of the year. The year after we left, both 5th grade teachers quit mid-year and there was NO substitute/no full time replacements hired for the remainder of the year. Someone else mentioned the MS issues—additional days off to deal with “behavior issues”.
Again: cult-like (or ignorant).

This is how I'd describe our experience at ITDS, so it baffles me that so many people are proposing it as the alternative. ITDS always struck me as simply a whiter, richer TR. Same behavior mismanagement and low academic standards but somehow a bit more palatable for reasons I didn't understand. They even have a bunch of TR's old staff.

I agree... I think there are a bunch of key differences.

1) Building not as bad as TR4th-- their playground and the atrium's terrible acoustics and inefficient use of space. ITDS' building isn't great, but it's okay, and they do have a city rec center right outside.

2) ITDS didn't try to expand, so their leadership didn't get over-stressed like TR's did.

3) ITDS is operating a much smaller middle school and I think that makes it easier in some ways.

4) Yes there are a lot of TR staff and TR kids-- I knew TR was in a bad way when TR staff started moving their kids out of TR. But my sense is that ITDS only hires TR staff who they feel are seeing the problems with TR and wanting to make a break with that. The last principal they hired from TR who only stayed a year... well... that was a whole different situation

5) ITDS' prior head of school annoyed me but I think she was pretty good in some ways. The new head of school I like a lot, and she came from being a principal at an EOTR DCPS so she has a lot of experience with high-needs kids, and a very good sense of how other schools operate. Unlike the prior HOS whose whole world was ITDS.

6) The academic standards at ITDS could be higher but they aren't always super low either. Some of the teachers expect real work and explicitly teach math, grammar, etc.

7) ITDS is very understanding of behavior if it's special needs-related, but if it's not special needs-related, they definitely will dish out consequences to middle school students. They do have detention (they don't call it that of course), and they will have kids sit out certain fun things if they can't behave. This of course runs counter to their claim of being a restorative justice school, but whatever. Talking big philosophy and then doing more practical stuff in real life is very on brand for ITDS.

We hated TR and looked at ITDS (wound up at a DCPS we are happy with ultimately but did list ITDS in the lottery) and this is pretty much our impression. I will say that ITDS had a lot of the same "cult-like" tone that TR has -- I cannot tell if this is just a charter thing or unique to these two schools. After several years at TR this is like nails on a chalkboard to me because I've heard it so many times and it comes off as so fake and meaningless at this point. But we talked to a bunch of ITDS parents including some good friends who live in Edgewood and the school just does not sound as dysfunctional as TR. Plus people seem generally to see the middle school as a meaningful option (even if many parents are also looking at other options -- ITDS middle is very small and has no HS feed so I get this). I think if that's the only school we'd gotten into in the library we probably would have taken it as an acceptable improvement over TR. They have some similarities but just the fact that people seem to like the middle school and they don't have such aggressive attrition after ECE indicated to me that it was a bit more functional.

I will say that my experience at TR soured me on charters generally and I now get why people often dislike them. We have friends who are happy at charters including ITDS and LAMB, but now that I get what it really means for a school to be not really accountable to anyone I am really unimpressed. We've been in a strong DCPS for 2 years now and the quality of teaching and responsiveness of the school to families and the community is just night and day. Curriculum is also really good -- I look back at TR and feel like I don't know can you even call what they do a curriculum? I still have my bones to pick (I don't like our principal) but overall it's just a better set up. Charters are the wild west and TR is a great example of what happens when your cowtown has a bad sheriff (whereas a bad principal within DCPS turns out to not be a big deal if the teaching staff is experienced and good and the PTA and families are involved and give a damn).

On a forum of ignorant takes, this is top 10. Every charter is its own LEA. The cultures, academic approaches, staffing models and physical plants are specific to each LEA. It is simply ignorant to equate "charters" to "DCPS". Setting aside the LEA issue, the idea of indicting all of DCPS over one poorly run ES would be equivalently dumb.

Other than that you nailed it.

Uh, thanks for calling me dumb?

Of course I understand how charters work-- my kids attended one. And having been through it, the fact that charters have their own LEA and and are not accountable to, specifically, curriculum and staffing standards of DCPS, turns out to have major drawbacks. Because a lot of what is happening at TR could not happen at even the lowest performing DCPS, because even the lowest performing DCPS has to follow district-approved curriculum and needs teachers who meet certain minimum standards. Whereas TR offers this weird substandard curriculum and regularly replaces departing teachers with under qualified people.

There are often course charters where that freedom can be beneficial-- some charters actually require extra certifications for teachers (in things like Montessori or dual language) that directly serve their goals as an independent LEA. But the risk of the opposite happening is always there-- a charter run amok, married to a weak curriculum that doesn't work and is not grounded in a tested pedagogy, and hiring inexperienced teachers (often at a discount because charters pay less than DCPS and are unable to offer comparable benefits).

I didn't get it until I was in it, and now I get it and have a new skepticism of the charter model and the risks it carries.

Did you really just type the bolded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with most of the factors above. Another seemed to be that the emphasis on “community” and “warmth” slipped into a toxic positivity / gaslighting / head in the sand/ conflict averse approach to addressing problems. When teachers raised problems administrators didn’t make hard choices to confront the problems. The strong warm culture started to feel full of buzzwords, doublespeak, smiles and songs about community “we are the boat”, and reading the mission in unison at every gathering - literally - etc. Meanwhile educators were supported less and less and kid’s were not thriving/ learning much and deep parent engagement was rebuffed.

Spot on. Former TR patent and the "toxic positivity" was awful-- it basically means you can't have a useful conversation with the administration or anyone on the FSA about anything because if you aren't all rah-rah-TR-is-amazing, people will just avoid you and not respond to emails. I think people are afraid to confront realities because it's easier to be avoidant and pretend everything is great.

I also just personally can't stand all that stuff like reading the mission statement together. It's cult-like. If you want to stay mission-driven then the focus should be on accountability. Make sure that major decisions or consistent with your core mission and be able to explain to people how that is the case. But just reciting stuff together out loud is not a form of accountability and actually feels like a manipulation tactic to get people not to ask questions or criticize. Again: cult-like.

All of this is spot on. I’ll just add that I found the parent community at TRY overall very bizarre and cult-like, particularly around the COVID closures. There were glaring issues that no one seemed concerned with—the former TRY ES principal basically didn’t bother to show up the second half of the year. The year after we left, both 5th grade teachers quit mid-year and there was NO substitute/no full time replacements hired for the remainder of the year. Someone else mentioned the MS issues—additional days off to deal with “behavior issues”.
Again: cult-like (or ignorant).

This is how I'd describe our experience at ITDS, so it baffles me that so many people are proposing it as the alternative. ITDS always struck me as simply a whiter, richer TR. Same behavior mismanagement and low academic standards but somehow a bit more palatable for reasons I didn't understand. They even have a bunch of TR's old staff.

I agree... I think there are a bunch of key differences.

1) Building not as bad as TR4th-- their playground and the atrium's terrible acoustics and inefficient use of space. ITDS' building isn't great, but it's okay, and they do have a city rec center right outside.

2) ITDS didn't try to expand, so their leadership didn't get over-stressed like TR's did.

3) ITDS is operating a much smaller middle school and I think that makes it easier in some ways.

4) Yes there are a lot of TR staff and TR kids-- I knew TR was in a bad way when TR staff started moving their kids out of TR. But my sense is that ITDS only hires TR staff who they feel are seeing the problems with TR and wanting to make a break with that. The last principal they hired from TR who only stayed a year... well... that was a whole different situation

5) ITDS' prior head of school annoyed me but I think she was pretty good in some ways. The new head of school I like a lot, and she came from being a principal at an EOTR DCPS so she has a lot of experience with high-needs kids, and a very good sense of how other schools operate. Unlike the prior HOS whose whole world was ITDS.

6) The academic standards at ITDS could be higher but they aren't always super low either. Some of the teachers expect real work and explicitly teach math, grammar, etc.

7) ITDS is very understanding of behavior if it's special needs-related, but if it's not special needs-related, they definitely will dish out consequences to middle school students. They do have detention (they don't call it that of course), and they will have kids sit out certain fun things if they can't behave. This of course runs counter to their claim of being a restorative justice school, but whatever. Talking big philosophy and then doing more practical stuff in real life is very on brand for ITDS.

We hated TR and looked at ITDS (wound up at a DCPS we are happy with ultimately but did list ITDS in the lottery) and this is pretty much our impression. I will say that ITDS had a lot of the same "cult-like" tone that TR has -- I cannot tell if this is just a charter thing or unique to these two schools. After several years at TR this is like nails on a chalkboard to me because I've heard it so many times and it comes off as so fake and meaningless at this point. But we talked to a bunch of ITDS parents including some good friends who live in Edgewood and the school just does not sound as dysfunctional as TR. Plus people seem generally to see the middle school as a meaningful option (even if many parents are also looking at other options -- ITDS middle is very small and has no HS feed so I get this). I think if that's the only school we'd gotten into in the library we probably would have taken it as an acceptable improvement over TR. They have some similarities but just the fact that people seem to like the middle school and they don't have such aggressive attrition after ECE indicated to me that it was a bit more functional.

I will say that my experience at TR soured me on charters generally and I now get why people often dislike them. We have friends who are happy at charters including ITDS and LAMB, but now that I get what it really means for a school to be not really accountable to anyone I am really unimpressed. We've been in a strong DCPS for 2 years now and the quality of teaching and responsiveness of the school to families and the community is just night and day. Curriculum is also really good -- I look back at TR and feel like I don't know can you even call what they do a curriculum? I still have my bones to pick (I don't like our principal) but overall it's just a better set up. Charters are the wild west and TR is a great example of what happens when your cowtown has a bad sheriff (whereas a bad principal within DCPS turns out to not be a big deal if the teaching staff is experienced and good and the PTA and families are involved and give a damn).

On a forum of ignorant takes, this is top 10. Every charter is its own LEA. The cultures, academic approaches, staffing models and physical plants are specific to each LEA. It is simply ignorant to equate "charters" to "DCPS". Setting aside the LEA issue, the idea of indicting all of DCPS over one poorly run ES would be equivalently dumb.

Other than that you nailed it.

Uh, thanks for calling me dumb?

Of course I understand how charters work-- my kids attended one. And having been through it, the fact that charters have their own LEA and and are not accountable to, specifically, curriculum and staffing standards of DCPS, turns out to have major drawbacks. Because a lot of what is happening at TR could not happen at even the lowest performing DCPS, because even the lowest performing DCPS has to follow district-approved curriculum and needs teachers who meet certain minimum standards. Whereas TR offers this weird substandard curriculum and regularly replaces departing teachers with under qualified people.

There are often course charters where that freedom can be beneficial-- some charters actually require extra certifications for teachers (in things like Montessori or dual language) that directly serve their goals as an independent LEA. But the risk of the opposite happening is always there-- a charter run amok, married to a weak curriculum that doesn't work and is not grounded in a tested pedagogy, and hiring inexperienced teachers (often at a discount because charters pay less than DCPS and are unable to offer comparable benefits).

I didn't get it until I was in it, and now I get it and have a new skepticism of the charter model and the risks it carries.

Did you really just type the bolded?

DP: Something equally bad could happen, but the exact problems of TR could not happen. DCPS controls its curriculum and it isn't up to the individual schools-- there are certain approved curricula that DCPS principals have a choice among. A DCPS school would not be allowed to go as far from basic academics as TR has gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with most of the factors above. Another seemed to be that the emphasis on “community” and “warmth” slipped into a toxic positivity / gaslighting / head in the sand/ conflict averse approach to addressing problems. When teachers raised problems administrators didn’t make hard choices to confront the problems. The strong warm culture started to feel full of buzzwords, doublespeak, smiles and songs about community “we are the boat”, and reading the mission in unison at every gathering - literally - etc. Meanwhile educators were supported less and less and kid’s were not thriving/ learning much and deep parent engagement was rebuffed.

Spot on. Former TR patent and the "toxic positivity" was awful-- it basically means you can't have a useful conversation with the administration or anyone on the FSA about anything because if you aren't all rah-rah-TR-is-amazing, people will just avoid you and not respond to emails. I think people are afraid to confront realities because it's easier to be avoidant and pretend everything is great.

I also just personally can't stand all that stuff like reading the mission statement together. It's cult-like. If you want to stay mission-driven then the focus should be on accountability. Make sure that major decisions or consistent with your core mission and be able to explain to people how that is the case. But just reciting stuff together out loud is not a form of accountability and actually feels like a manipulation tactic to get people not to ask questions or criticize. Again: cult-like.

All of this is spot on. I’ll just add that I found the parent community at TRY overall very bizarre and cult-like, particularly around the COVID closures. There were glaring issues that no one seemed concerned with—the former TRY ES principal basically didn’t bother to show up the second half of the year. The year after we left, both 5th grade teachers quit mid-year and there was NO substitute/no full time replacements hired for the remainder of the year. Someone else mentioned the MS issues—additional days off to deal with “behavior issues”.
Again: cult-like (or ignorant).

This is how I'd describe our experience at ITDS, so it baffles me that so many people are proposing it as the alternative. ITDS always struck me as simply a whiter, richer TR. Same behavior mismanagement and low academic standards but somehow a bit more palatable for reasons I didn't understand. They even have a bunch of TR's old staff.

I agree... I think there are a bunch of key differences.

1) Building not as bad as TR4th-- their playground and the atrium's terrible acoustics and inefficient use of space. ITDS' building isn't great, but it's okay, and they do have a city rec center right outside.

2) ITDS didn't try to expand, so their leadership didn't get over-stressed like TR's did.

3) ITDS is operating a much smaller middle school and I think that makes it easier in some ways.

4) Yes there are a lot of TR staff and TR kids-- I knew TR was in a bad way when TR staff started moving their kids out of TR. But my sense is that ITDS only hires TR staff who they feel are seeing the problems with TR and wanting to make a break with that. The last principal they hired from TR who only stayed a year... well... that was a whole different situation

5) ITDS' prior head of school annoyed me but I think she was pretty good in some ways. The new head of school I like a lot, and she came from being a principal at an EOTR DCPS so she has a lot of experience with high-needs kids, and a very good sense of how other schools operate. Unlike the prior HOS whose whole world was ITDS.

6) The academic standards at ITDS could be higher but they aren't always super low either. Some of the teachers expect real work and explicitly teach math, grammar, etc.

7) ITDS is very understanding of behavior if it's special needs-related, but if it's not special needs-related, they definitely will dish out consequences to middle school students. They do have detention (they don't call it that of course), and they will have kids sit out certain fun things if they can't behave. This of course runs counter to their claim of being a restorative justice school, but whatever. Talking big philosophy and then doing more practical stuff in real life is very on brand for ITDS.

We hated TR and looked at ITDS (wound up at a DCPS we are happy with ultimately but did list ITDS in the lottery) and this is pretty much our impression. I will say that ITDS had a lot of the same "cult-like" tone that TR has -- I cannot tell if this is just a charter thing or unique to these two schools. After several years at TR this is like nails on a chalkboard to me because I've heard it so many times and it comes off as so fake and meaningless at this point. But we talked to a bunch of ITDS parents including some good friends who live in Edgewood and the school just does not sound as dysfunctional as TR. Plus people seem generally to see the middle school as a meaningful option (even if many parents are also looking at other options -- ITDS middle is very small and has no HS feed so I get this). I think if that's the only school we'd gotten into in the library we probably would have taken it as an acceptable improvement over TR. They have some similarities but just the fact that people seem to like the middle school and they don't have such aggressive attrition after ECE indicated to me that it was a bit more functional.

I will say that my experience at TR soured me on charters generally and I now get why people often dislike them. We have friends who are happy at charters including ITDS and LAMB, but now that I get what it really means for a school to be not really accountable to anyone I am really unimpressed. We've been in a strong DCPS for 2 years now and the quality of teaching and responsiveness of the school to families and the community is just night and day. Curriculum is also really good -- I look back at TR and feel like I don't know can you even call what they do a curriculum? I still have my bones to pick (I don't like our principal) but overall it's just a better set up. Charters are the wild west and TR is a great example of what happens when your cowtown has a bad sheriff (whereas a bad principal within DCPS turns out to not be a big deal if the teaching staff is experienced and good and the PTA and families are involved and give a damn).

On a forum of ignorant takes, this is top 10. Every charter is its own LEA. The cultures, academic approaches, staffing models and physical plants are specific to each LEA. It is simply ignorant to equate "charters" to "DCPS". Setting aside the LEA issue, the idea of indicting all of DCPS over one poorly run ES would be equivalently dumb.

Other than that you nailed it.

Uh, thanks for calling me dumb?

Of course I understand how charters work-- my kids attended one. And having been through it, the fact that charters have their own LEA and and are not accountable to, specifically, curriculum and staffing standards of DCPS, turns out to have major drawbacks. Because a lot of what is happening at TR could not happen at even the lowest performing DCPS, because even the lowest performing DCPS has to follow district-approved curriculum and needs teachers who meet certain minimum standards. Whereas TR offers this weird substandard curriculum and regularly replaces departing teachers with under qualified people.

There are often course charters where that freedom can be beneficial-- some charters actually require extra certifications for teachers (in things like Montessori or dual language) that directly serve their goals as an independent LEA. But the risk of the opposite happening is always there-- a charter run amok, married to a weak curriculum that doesn't work and is not grounded in a tested pedagogy, and hiring inexperienced teachers (often at a discount because charters pay less than DCPS and are unable to offer comparable benefits).

I didn't get it until I was in it, and now I get it and have a new skepticism of the charter model and the risks it carries.

Did you really just type the bolded?

DP: Something equally bad could happen, but the exact problems of TR could not happen. DCPS controls its curriculum and it isn't up to the individual schools-- there are certain approved curricula that DCPS principals have a choice among. A DCPS school would not be allowed to go as far from basic academics as TR has gone.

DCPS can also (and does regularly) yank in effective leadership from a struggling school. They aren't amazing at managing principals, but they are responsive when a leader is clearly a bad fit for a school.

Also, the worst DCPS schools tend to get that way because they are overwhelmed with challenges inherent to the populations they serve -- poverty, homelessness, neighborhood crime all make it harder to get the fundamentals right at a neighborhood school. These are schools that are serving as social workers and family supports, a source of basic nutrition. Those schools aren't failing because they can't figure out how to teach 3rd grade math to MC and UMC kids with stable homes and lots of parental support.

It would be hard to find a DCPS school with the same demographics as TR that is so bad at educating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with most of the factors above. Another seemed to be that the emphasis on “community” and “warmth” slipped into a toxic positivity / gaslighting / head in the sand/ conflict averse approach to addressing problems. When teachers raised problems administrators didn’t make hard choices to confront the problems. The strong warm culture started to feel full of buzzwords, doublespeak, smiles and songs about community “we are the boat”, and reading the mission in unison at every gathering - literally - etc. Meanwhile educators were supported less and less and kid’s were not thriving/ learning much and deep parent engagement was rebuffed.

Spot on. Former TR patent and the "toxic positivity" was awful-- it basically means you can't have a useful conversation with the administration or anyone on the FSA about anything because if you aren't all rah-rah-TR-is-amazing, people will just avoid you and not respond to emails. I think people are afraid to confront realities because it's easier to be avoidant and pretend everything is great.

I also just personally can't stand all that stuff like reading the mission statement together. It's cult-like. If you want to stay mission-driven then the focus should be on accountability. Make sure that major decisions or consistent with your core mission and be able to explain to people how that is the case. But just reciting stuff together out loud is not a form of accountability and actually feels like a manipulation tactic to get people not to ask questions or criticize. Again: cult-like.

All of this is spot on. I’ll just add that I found the parent community at TRY overall very bizarre and cult-like, particularly around the COVID closures. There were glaring issues that no one seemed concerned with—the former TRY ES principal basically didn’t bother to show up the second half of the year. The year after we left, both 5th grade teachers quit mid-year and there was NO substitute/no full time replacements hired for the remainder of the year. Someone else mentioned the MS issues—additional days off to deal with “behavior issues”.
Again: cult-like (or ignorant).

This is how I'd describe our experience at ITDS, so it baffles me that so many people are proposing it as the alternative. ITDS always struck me as simply a whiter, richer TR. Same behavior mismanagement and low academic standards but somehow a bit more palatable for reasons I didn't understand. They even have a bunch of TR's old staff.

I agree... I think there are a bunch of key differences.

1) Building not as bad as TR4th-- their playground and the atrium's terrible acoustics and inefficient use of space. ITDS' building isn't great, but it's okay, and they do have a city rec center right outside.

2) ITDS didn't try to expand, so their leadership didn't get over-stressed like TR's did.

3) ITDS is operating a much smaller middle school and I think that makes it easier in some ways.

4) Yes there are a lot of TR staff and TR kids-- I knew TR was in a bad way when TR staff started moving their kids out of TR. But my sense is that ITDS only hires TR staff who they feel are seeing the problems with TR and wanting to make a break with that. The last principal they hired from TR who only stayed a year... well... that was a whole different situation

5) ITDS' prior head of school annoyed me but I think she was pretty good in some ways. The new head of school I like a lot, and she came from being a principal at an EOTR DCPS so she has a lot of experience with high-needs kids, and a very good sense of how other schools operate. Unlike the prior HOS whose whole world was ITDS.

6) The academic standards at ITDS could be higher but they aren't always super low either. Some of the teachers expect real work and explicitly teach math, grammar, etc.

7) ITDS is very understanding of behavior if it's special needs-related, but if it's not special needs-related, they definitely will dish out consequences to middle school students. They do have detention (they don't call it that of course), and they will have kids sit out certain fun things if they can't behave. This of course runs counter to their claim of being a restorative justice school, but whatever. Talking big philosophy and then doing more practical stuff in real life is very on brand for ITDS.

We hated TR and looked at ITDS (wound up at a DCPS we are happy with ultimately but did list ITDS in the lottery) and this is pretty much our impression. I will say that ITDS had a lot of the same "cult-like" tone that TR has -- I cannot tell if this is just a charter thing or unique to these two schools. After several years at TR this is like nails on a chalkboard to me because I've heard it so many times and it comes off as so fake and meaningless at this point. But we talked to a bunch of ITDS parents including some good friends who live in Edgewood and the school just does not sound as dysfunctional as TR. Plus people seem generally to see the middle school as a meaningful option (even if many parents are also looking at other options -- ITDS middle is very small and has no HS feed so I get this). I think if that's the only school we'd gotten into in the library we probably would have taken it as an acceptable improvement over TR. They have some similarities but just the fact that people seem to like the middle school and they don't have such aggressive attrition after ECE indicated to me that it was a bit more functional.

I will say that my experience at TR soured me on charters generally and I now get why people often dislike them. We have friends who are happy at charters including ITDS and LAMB, but now that I get what it really means for a school to be not really accountable to anyone I am really unimpressed. We've been in a strong DCPS for 2 years now and the quality of teaching and responsiveness of the school to families and the community is just night and day. Curriculum is also really good -- I look back at TR and feel like I don't know can you even call what they do a curriculum? I still have my bones to pick (I don't like our principal) but overall it's just a better set up. Charters are the wild west and TR is a great example of what happens when your cowtown has a bad sheriff (whereas a bad principal within DCPS turns out to not be a big deal if the teaching staff is experienced and good and the PTA and families are involved and give a damn).

On a forum of ignorant takes, this is top 10. Every charter is its own LEA. The cultures, academic approaches, staffing models and physical plants are specific to each LEA. It is simply ignorant to equate "charters" to "DCPS". Setting aside the LEA issue, the idea of indicting all of DCPS over one poorly run ES would be equivalently dumb.

Other than that you nailed it.

Uh, thanks for calling me dumb?

Of course I understand how charters work-- my kids attended one. And having been through it, the fact that charters have their own LEA and and are not accountable to, specifically, curriculum and staffing standards of DCPS, turns out to have major drawbacks. Because a lot of what is happening at TR could not happen at even the lowest performing DCPS, because even the lowest performing DCPS has to follow district-approved curriculum and needs teachers who meet certain minimum standards. Whereas TR offers this weird substandard curriculum and regularly replaces departing teachers with under qualified people.

There are often course charters where that freedom can be beneficial-- some charters actually require extra certifications for teachers (in things like Montessori or dual language) that directly serve their goals as an independent LEA. But the risk of the opposite happening is always there-- a charter run amok, married to a weak curriculum that doesn't work and is not grounded in a tested pedagogy, and hiring inexperienced teachers (often at a discount because charters pay less than DCPS and are unable to offer comparable benefits).

I didn't get it until I was in it, and now I get it and have a new skepticism of the charter model and the risks it carries.

Did you really just type the bolded?

DP: Something equally bad could happen, but the exact problems of TR could not happen. DCPS controls its curriculum and it isn't up to the individual schools-- there are certain approved curricula that DCPS principals have a choice among. A DCPS school would not be allowed to go as far from basic academics as TR has gone.

DCPS can also (and does regularly) yank in effective leadership from a struggling school. They aren't amazing at managing principals, but they are responsive when a leader is clearly a bad fit for a school.

Also, the worst DCPS schools tend to get that way because they are overwhelmed with challenges inherent to the populations they serve -- poverty, homelessness, neighborhood crime all make it harder to get the fundamentals right at a neighborhood school. These are schools that are serving as social workers and family supports, a source of basic nutrition. Those schools aren't failing because they can't figure out how to teach 3rd grade math to MC and UMC kids with stable homes and lots of parental support.

It would be hard to find a DCPS school with the same demographics as TR that is so bad at educating.

Yeah they're willing to fire principals. They're willing to fire principals even when parents don't want them to! Unfortunately, they don't always have a better principal to replace them with.

And 1000x this, what happened at Two Rivers *relative to demographics* is really shocking. The DCPS schools that struggle have a MUCH higher at-risk percentage than Two Rivers did back when it started to struggle.

[Anonymous]

Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Yeah ultimately one of the smartest things ITDS has done is stay small. This helps with behavioral problems too-- fewer students makes it easier to nip problems in the bud and there are also just fewer problems to begin with.

TR really got way over their skis with the Young expansion. Two campuses, two elementary schools, plus the middle school. And the 4th Street campus was already divided between two buildings. They had one kind of narrow problem -- they were outgrowing 4th st -- which they didn't solve (they are still there and now it's older and crappier) but they created several other, newer problems.

ITDS leaned into their small space and made it work for them. TR tried to be a bunch of things at once when really they were only doing a so-so job to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does TR really do “expeditionary learning” in older grades?

There are attempts in some classrooms. Its not a robust curriculum approach past kindergarten.

The problem is that it is their official curriculum. So if it's not followed or not followed closely, what you get is a patchwork with no consistency. This is why they need to completely overhaul their curriculum. This is also one of the major reasons behind teacher attrition.

I think the reluctance to let go of EL is that they view it as a differentiator from DCPS and other charters. Without it it's really unclear what TR is offering.

This is also often a problem with Montessori charters in upper grades (past 3rd or so) which is why they often see a lot of attrition at that point as parents want to acclimate kids to a traditional classroom. But none of the Montessori schools abandon their principal method in K! Also Montessori has some real support as a method in ECE grades where's EL is just some trendy approach TR latched onto for some reason.

I'm sure that they do, but I've never really grasped what it is other than a bunch of field trips and like, projects about the field trips.

ITDS doesn't have any particular angle and yet is successful. I think the main thing they're offering is a small middle school, which some people love and some people don't want, and a very high adult-child ratio due to all the student teachers. And of course a bunch of high-SES kids and decent test scores. I wouldn't say the differentiation is really that good, they just have a lot of kids who are smart.

Your definition of "success" differs from my own. Also differs from what the word actually means. "Better than a lousy comparator" is not what that word means.