Reply to D.C. City Council Has Given Up on Improving Schools

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "D.C. City Council Has Given Up on Improving Schools"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote]
Anonymous wrote:

The *actual* answer is for DCPS to institute robust tracking for kids starting in upper elementary and establish more citywide magnet MS and HS. This will keep the UMC (of ALL races) in DCPS. If we are careful to ensure that all those high-performers in high poverty schools are identified, they will benefit too. Open a magnet for all W7 and 8 kids who get 4s on PARCC. For all the other kids, drop all the nonsense and give them double doses of math and phonics.

Kids who have behavioral issues or don’t want to learn get tracked to alternative schools.

Honestly, this feels right to me too. It needs to be “fluid” tracking, so kids who improve aren’t stuck - the appropriate class for you needs to be re-evaluated every year. And I’d support perks for kids on tracks where they need more support (ex: classes with kids at or above grade level have a max of 25 kids, classes where kids are performing a grade below have a max of 20 kids, classes with kids 2+ grades below have a max of 15).

I don’t really understand why this is so controversial. It seems like if my kid was underperforming, I’d want this too (I don’t want my kid to feel hopelessly behind, be confused about math concepts he’s not ready for, etc).

It almost feels like the resistance is about optics - yes, in DC, the below-grade level classes are going to be majority black and the above grade level classes will have most of the white kids. But that’s the sad reality of where these kids are in education right now. The first step to solving a problem is to identify it. If we’re pretending all kids are equally prepared in 4th grade, how in earth can the kids who need more support get it?

Any teachers/educators want to comment? I’m interested in your thoughts.
[/quote]

This is the rational approach that would serve most kids the best.  To that I would add a robust offering of CTE (career/technical) educational offerings.   Since No Child Left Behind passed, "success" has been defined by going to college.  But getting a degree in "marketing" or "communications" from a third rate college, coupled with significant student loan debt, is not going to benefit a low income kid, especially one from multi-generational poverty and dysfunction.  True academic stars may make it to more selective schools, but most kids who get to high school and not on grade level would be much better served by getting a solid footing on the road to a skilled trade certification.  If they spent HS learning a trade skill like electrical or plumbing---they can graduate from HS and within two years be making over $50K/year with no debt.  THAT is a ticket out of poverty. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics