Pp here. We did find more mean girl behavior, by far, at the WOTP wealthy school. It’s one reason our DD is sticking with her Girl Scout troop EOTP, made of all low income minorities. The girls are much nicer. Unfortunately the troop leader is very old school and obsessed with order and bureaucracy. It’s in a church basement and they start by praying... I roll my eyes, but my DD is clear that these peers are kinder and more fun.

Ours lotteries into a highly regarded wotp at 4th. She was doing great in her old school, but now there are more high achievers around her. But she is still at the top of her class, and there are many kids who don’t behave. The “specials” classes are better.

Even many wotp schools stumble starting in 4th. What makes 9+ year olds so much harder to teach?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This hits close to home for me. Our kids were at a title 1 EOTP for a while and are now WOTP. The EOTP school was really stepping up with individualized instruction in early elementary. The principal and teachers were helpful and on board with it. I’m actually not sure they are getting as good of a challenge now. It easier to be comfortable that they aren’t getting a bad education, but the work may not be as challenging as what they were getting.

That probably doesn’t help you with your decision, just another perspective.

To this PP, I want to say thank you so much for this comment
Of all the things I've read on DCUM this month, this is the one that has been bouncing around my brain, and I think actually led my husband and I to decide to keep our child in our EOTP Title 1 school for K next year. He is thriving, reading on a 1st grade level and his teacher is so excited to teach him. Why would we trade that in? We will likely try to get into a really good middle school, even if it means moving, but for now we are staying put and doing what we can to support the school.

You're welcome. And thank you for sharing. I think it's a beautiful thing and stands out from all the negativity we see on here all day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This hits close to home for me. Our kids were at a title 1 EOTP for a while and are now WOTP. The EOTP school was really stepping up with individualized instruction in early elementary. The principal and teachers were helpful and on board with it. I’m actually not sure they are getting as good of a challenge now. It easier to be comfortable that they aren’t getting a bad education, but the work may not be as challenging as what they were getting.

That probably doesn’t help you with your decision, just another perspective.

To this PP, I want to say thank you so much for this comment
Of all the things I've read on DCUM this month, this is the one that has been bouncing around my brain, and I think actually led my husband and I to decide to keep our child in our EOTP Title 1 school for K next year. He is thriving, reading on a 1st grade level and his teacher is so excited to teach him. Why would we trade that in? We will likely try to get into a really good middle school, even if it means moving, but for now we are staying put and doing what we can to support the school.

This is very common the problems being to show around 3rd grade or so

By 5th it gets really bad as most UMC/"motivated folks" have left for charters

but for K-3 almost any school will do

Anonymous wrote:This hits close to home for me. Our kids were at a title 1 EOTP for a while and are now WOTP. The EOTP school was really stepping up with individualized instruction in early elementary. The principal and teachers were helpful and on board with it. I’m actually not sure they are getting as good of a challenge now. It easier to be comfortable that they aren’t getting a bad education, but the work may not be as challenging as what they were getting.

That probably doesn’t help you with your decision, just another perspective.

To this PP, I want to say thank you so much for this comment
Of all the things I've read on DCUM this month, this is the one that has been bouncing around my brain, and I think actually led my husband and I to decide to keep our child in our EOTP Title 1 school for K next year. He is thriving, reading on a 1st grade level and his teacher is so excited to teach him. Why would we trade that in? We will likely try to get into a really good middle school, even if it means moving, but for now we are staying put and doing what we can to support the school.

[guardian]

Anonymous wrote:The web site of the National Association for Gifted Children can point you to many studies:

https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/why-are-gifted-programs-needed

I don't doubt that gifted students who attend excellent neighborhood schools all the way up do about the same in the long-run as students who were enrolled in GT programs. The problem is that without excellent neighborhood schools, the norm in urban centers, the most advanced students generally aren't served well. My own very bright kid has often been bored, particularly in ELA, for years at our JKLM. She's happy at the school, but if we didn't have access to true GT material via on-line courses and Johns Hopkins CTY in the summers, we'd have a real problem. We spend around 10K a year to supplement, much cheaper than 40K+ for Sidwell, NCS, GDS etc.

The website cites studies that are very misleading. They compared GT participants to the general US population. That just says that gifted kids have good outcomes. A true test of the efficacy of the program itself is providing services to half of the kids who had great test scores, and then checking to see if they had better career outcomes than the equally bright kids whoweren't in the GT program. The website also cites the original John's Hopkins Tale t Search. I was an original participant in the Talent Search. They offered services for a fee. Most kids didn't use the services, as they were expensive and far from home. They surveyed everyone though. Did they just include results for they few kids who got servoces? The write up suggests the opposite, that the children's abilities were visible from an early age, not that the GT programs caused their excellent life outcomes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, that's how it works. Parents' money buys GT in DCPS. Without it, no real challenge for the brightest kids.

WHat about charters does this work similarly?

Why would a charter admitting students via an open lottery provide more challenge than a DCPS program with an overwhelmingly UMC population? The only charter offering real challenge for the brightest math students is BASIS, because they weed out most of their students between 6th and 9th grades. Charter parent associations don't raise anywhere near the money of the best-resourced DCPS PTAs. Parents like language immersion charters partly for the extra intellectual challenge they offer, but it's a strange system, substituting language immersion for real GT.

The web site of the National Association for Gifted Children can point you to many studies:

https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/why-are-gifted-programs-needed

I don't doubt that gifted students who attend excellent neighborhood schools all the way up do about the same in the long-run as students who were enrolled in GT programs. The problem is that without excellent neighborhood schools, the norm in urban centers, the most advanced students generally aren't served well. My own very bright kid has often been bored, particularly in ELA, for years at our JKLM. She's happy at the school, but if we didn't have access to true GT material via on-line courses and Johns Hopkins CTY in the summers, we'd have a real problem. We spend around 10K a year to supplement, much cheaper than 40K+ for Sidwell, NCS, GDS etc.

Anonymous wrote:Yup, that's how it works. Parents' money buys GT in DCPS. Without it, no real challenge for the brightest kids.

Montgomery County GT only serves a few percent. Most kids with parents on this board don't qualify, plus class sizes are larger.

Can anyone point me to a study that finds that GT education makes a difference in kids' outcome s? Most GT test in students are upper middle class, i.e., already have advantages that will give them good outcomes. Even if you are not well off, the ability to test in is what gives you the advantahe, not the program itself. Stuyvesant kids coming out of Ivy League schools have the same outcomes as their neighborhood public school roommates.

Anonymous wrote:Yup, that's how it works. Parents' money buys GT in DCPS. Without it, no real challenge for the brightest kids.

WHat about charters does this work similarly?