Anonymous wrote:this is the thing--if you did some testing or competitive application at the end of elementary school there would still be some kids who would be eligible to go even from the worst schools (esp. if you did a broad cutoff and then lotteried after that or did top 5% of students from each school as an alternative). waiting til high school makes it impossible for those children.
-signed, person from asian country where poor parents were able to go to great schools and college because of testing
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think application middle schools that would follow the application high schools like Banneker, SWW or Ellington would be a great idea. They would have to be smaller than their HS counterparts, so 8th graders who did not attend one of the magnets could still have opportunity to apply to the HS. There's no reason not to have these options in MS and only in HS.
Yes, there is. Or at least there is an argument for it. The argument is that students develop at their own pace, often even on different trajectories in reading and math. This is why there is no separation in elementary school. You'll hear countless stories of students who did so-so in elementary but all of a sudden 'got it' in middle. And the reverse, of students who aren't getting it in elementary but then suddenly do in middle school. Add to that the often different developments in reading and math, and you can easily see that separating students at age 10 into 'you get it' and 'you don't so much' may not serve most students well. European models doing just that are heavily debated and have struggled to develop pathways to cross over.
IMHO, if some sort of separation is called for at that age, a much more promising model for middle school is the differentiation or tracking under one and the same roof, so that students can enroll in regular or advanced options flexibly. Some may be consistently advanced on all subjects, others only in some subjects; some may start off regular, then move on to advanced, and vice versa. You'll find this practiced in various forms at Stuart-Hobson and Hardy, and Deal also I believe. It can be a little confusing to investigate it all because of a flux in terminology, some politically accepted and some not so much. And you'll want to check what's truly behind it, whether they are models in name only or also in practice.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:While it might skew high-SES, there will also be plenty of low-SES kids who can and will make the cut. So why deny the low-SES kids the opportunity also? Seems like cutting your own nose off to spite your face.
And also, how would a test in school get a bigger slice? There's no inherent greater cost in running a test-in school - and in fact potentially LESS as the test-in group will probably also have less overhead in terms of disciplinary issues, special needs, et cetera - the areas that do rack up significant costs.
But what if there weren't? Do you think the powers that be in DC would let this happen? DC has the largest black/white performance gap of any place in the nation based on many different tests. Any reasonably difficult test would skew very heavily white.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is a problem in DC as well. Only a few middle schools have the appropriate coursework to make a student eligible for the competitive high schools. And those middle schools are neighborhood schools which restrict enrollment to a certain geographic area unless you are lucky in a lottery. Completely unjust and unfair. Test-in middle schools would be more fair by testing academic aptitude rather than just achievement
Technically, no. Students will come out of Latin, Basis, Kipp, and Howard Math/Science equally prepared.
Disagree because, in most cases, high SES plus good school trumps low SES plus good school. Too many kids needing remedial work are in classes at all these schools for the best students to be as well prepared as those at Deal. The only real differentiation on the list is for math at BASIS. And even the strongest Deal kids aren't keeping up the MS test-in magnet crowed in Fairfax and MoCo.
Anonymous wrote:While it might skew high-SES, there will also be plenty of low-SES kids who can and will make the cut. So why deny the low-SES kids the opportunity also? Seems like cutting your own nose off to spite your face.
And also, how would a test in school get a bigger slice? There's no inherent greater cost in running a test-in school - and in fact potentially LESS as the test-in group will probably also have less overhead in terms of disciplinary issues, special needs, et cetera - the areas that do rack up significant costs.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Call it as you want it to be... Test-in really means keep out.
And that's the bottom line.
When 80% of your school system is below basic proficiency, the crabs are always going to pull the achievers back into the pot. This is the same mentality that sees an influx of middle-class taxpaying residents into the city and sees it as a great injustice because "some are being left behind."
Anonymous wrote:good luck testing into Stuyvessant if you haven't either come from the "right" middle school or the right "cram school" for prep
Anonymous wrote:Call it as you want it to be... Test-in really means keep out.