This is what Deal has that everyone wants. Not just a quality program but also an academically solid student body to begin with

It is your use of "quality program" that is difficult, but in agreement with everything else.

We want all DCPS students to have a "quality program" but the parents you are describing want a program that is quality AND has a majority of students well-prepared and ready to tackle difficult ( even advanced ) material.

Anonymous wrote:You have a very strange definition of "quality". A quality school is one that assesses kids and matches instruction to their needs. Not one that gets rid of any kid who is challenging to teach, and then doesn't teach the rest responsively.

Look, teaching to the level most of DCPS is at is what most non-Ward 3 parents are trying to avoid by sending their kids to Deal or Basis. So it is important that quality be there for 7th graders who read like 4th graders, sure. Whatever quality remedial education is. But parents of children who meet or exceed grade level work across the board want something better than starting at remedial in August, beginning new material in October and ending the semester halfway through grade-level material. How can your kid get into a test-in DCPS HS if their school never gets to material they'll be tested on? Or if their school doesn't offer good classes because there are only 3 kids to take Algebra 1 in 8th grade?

If you can tell me what quality remedial Ed is, great. Offer that for those who need it. But don't hold my kid back because many of her peers can't catch on to grade level work. If 90% of a class needs fractions help before doing 6th grade math, the teacher will have to do fractions. It's stuff like this that leads people to flee west or never enter DCPS. If DCPS wants to compete with quality charter programs they need to offer a real no-excuses quality program at middle school.

I agree. It is imperative that educating kids involve meeting them where they are. That's the whole point. We need a mechanism where that point is not all over the map in the same school because that is an almost impossible task to do well if most students need to play catch up.

No one should be denied quality teaching at whatever level they are at ( I.e. failed out ). This may involve different settings for different students but done compassionately and respectfully

You have a very strange definition of "quality". A quality school is one that assesses kids and matches instruction to their needs. Not one that gets rid of any kid who is challenging to teach, and then doesn't teach the rest responsively.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BASIS with a twist?

My thought, as well. It sounded like trolling for BASIS bashers & boosters.

But DCPS can do what Basis cannot because it can accommodate students that are not up for the program elsewhere. I for one would prefer a minimum competency requirement to begin with then an obligation to maintain a minimum gpa.

Anonymous wrote:BASIS with a twist?

My thought, as well. It sounded like trolling for BASIS bashers & boosters.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe you can't do test in but instead do "D-out" as in if you can't maintain a .60 average you are not allowed to enroll the next semester.

That would work. But why not just do test-in and avoid that semester of torture in the first place?

BASIS with a twist?

Maybe you can't do test in but instead do "D-out" as in if you can't maintain a .60 average you are not allowed to enroll the next semester.

Can anyone refer me to some research that suggests that IB Middle Years is a quality program, i.e. leads to better performance on external tests or better critical thinking skills? I've heard such mixed reviews, and I haven't found their websites to be illuminating.

Sounds like a behavior management nightmare.

If a kid is years behind but parents still insist on placing the child there it will be problematic unless said "outsiders" can pull off some kind of miracle - and chances of that are slim.

"If they fail then the school is not for them" - there will no doubt still be some stubborn parents there arguing with teachers about the F's and forcing their kids to return regardless of the fact that their kid is way behind, is struggling, doesn't want to do the work, really doesn't want to be there, and as a result is misbehaving and making all the other kids miserable as a result.

Then you risk unruly students who are not able to do well in such a school.

Rather than a test-in middle school, how about we take one middle school somewhere, or maybe even the closed McFarland location, and establish a middle school that teaches the course load of a quality middle school, e.g., IB middle years, from the get-go, without trying to teach anything remedially to "meet students where they are?"

Students could take a test at entry to show where they are and outsiders could offer support, but the expectation from the beginning would be that the classes would move along regardless of whether students understood the advanced materials, and if they get Fs at the end of the term and fail out, so be it, this school is not for them. Start with that expectation and no child or parent will have excuses.

Wouldn't this solve a major problem with quality and distribution of quality schools in the City? It would require a lot of up front understanding why it was being created and that it would never stoop to remediate, but it would very quickly create something we all want and draw students from throughout the City. Right?