It will be a larger cohort, for those concerned about that. Starting next year there will be 100 6th graders as Young's oldest students reach that grade. And then the next year there will be 100 6th and 7th, and then 100 at 6th, 7th, and 8th the year after that and ongoing.

The Open House poster is right - not everything is taught via expeditions. Expeditions and problem-based tasks are a big foundation of the school, but the students still learn math and ELA in pretty traditional/current standard ways (in my non-educator opinion). There are also mini-units on science and history topics that happen outside of expeditions. Yet it's true, I don't know that TR ever quizzes on months of the year - my kids are doing OK on that though. LOL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ actually, I’m wrong. 2R4 is listed on the graphic. But I’m right that it’s not a huge feeder.

That graphic only shows numbers if the feeder school sent 10 or more kids to SWW in a single year. TR has fewer than 50 8th graders each year. The only way it would appear on the graphic is if it was sending more than 20% of graduates to SWW - no school in DC is sending that many kids.

In 2017-18, TR sent kids to Duke Ellington, SWW, Banneker, and McKinley Tech, all of which are selective DC schools.

That is why we are not looking at TR at all for middle. Too small class size, not enough higher performing peer group.

someone once posted on DCUM that their TR middle schooler did not know all the months of the year in order. I found that mind-blowing.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/516488.page

Can someone please point me towards the thread that has the Walls feeder graphic that's being discussed here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ actually, I’m wrong. 2R4 is listed on the graphic. But I’m right that it’s not a huge feeder.

That graphic only shows numbers if the feeder school sent 10 or more kids to SWW in a single year. TR has fewer than 50 8th graders each year. The only way it would appear on the graphic is if it was sending more than 20% of graduates to SWW - no school in DC is sending that many kids.

In 2017-18, TR sent kids to Duke Ellington, SWW, Banneker, and McKinley Tech, all of which are selective DC schools.

That is why we are not looking at TR at all for middle. Too small class size, not enough higher performing peer group.

Anonymous wrote:^^ actually, I’m wrong. 2R4 is listed on the graphic. But I’m right that it’s not a huge feeder.

That graphic only shows numbers if the feeder school sent 10 or more kids to SWW in a single year. TR has fewer than 50 8th graders each year. The only way it would appear on the graphic is if it was sending more than 20% of graduates to SWW - no school in DC is sending that many kids.

In 2017-18, TR sent kids to Duke Ellington, SWW, Banneker, and McKinley Tech, all of which are selective DC schools.

^^ actually, I’m wrong. 2R4 is listed on the graphic. But I’m right that it’s not a huge feeder.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know anything, but I understand from my child currently at School Without Walls High School that a good number of students from Two Rivers MS attend SWW. That is a solid indicator of academic rigor for kids that are up to it to me.

Two Rivers may be an excellent school, plus I’m sure your child at Walls has some bright friends who came from there.

That said, there’s another recent thread that contains a just-released enrollment report. In it is an interesting graphic of all the feeder schools that send kids to Walls. The numbers from Two Rivers appear to be so small that the school didn’t even make the graphic (which lists perhaps 20 or so other schools).

Anyway, I’ve known a few families quite happy at TwoRivers. I’m sure it’s a wonderful school. It just does not seem to be a significant feeder to Walls (assuming the graphic was right).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rigor seeking PP should send their kid to BASIS. They will fit right in.

I'm actually open-minded, but if you're so allergic to even discussing or explaining the 2rivers model, it makes me wonder what's going on.

By all means wonder away. 2R tends to be a no drama environment. Parents are too busy to worry about DCUM drama.

PP, I’m not sure if any TR middle parents who could actually answer your question have weighed in. I recently went on a tour of the middle school. Math, Spanish, art/music, and for the most part ELA are not taught with the Expeditionary Learning model. Social studies and science are. I don’t think “rigor” is their bag, but I have heard that the kids excel at synthesizing knowledge when they leave the school (from a teacher who sees kids coming from a range of schools.)

Anonymous wrote:The rigor seeking PP should send their kid to BASIS. They will fit right in.

I'm actually open-minded, but if you're so allergic to even discussing or explaining the 2rivers model, it makes me wonder what's going on.

The rigor seeking PP should send their kid to BASIS. They will fit right in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any academic rigor? I think my kid would like expeditionary learning, but not if there's a lack of actual individual content learning in math.

19 kids took the PARCC test for Algebra in 8th grade last year, which is considered more rigorous than "8th grade math" (the alternative PARCC). More than 1/3 of 7th and 8th graders got 4s or 5s on PARCC math. More than half of 7th and 8th graders got 4s and 5s on PARCC ELA.

For me, this is good evidence that there are high-performing kids in the cohort and that they are learning content.

um, no. first, those are pretty dismal scores. second, just because a kid gets a 4 or 5 doesn't say anything about what kids are actually learning and how.

I disagree, especially because the school accepts kids by lottery from the entire city, including new 5th and 6th graders. What is your metric to demonstrate that the kids at TR are not learning content or that the cohort is insufficiently strong academically?

I asked a question about the actual instructional style, and it was answered with (rather dismal) PARCC scores. I'm interested to learn how kids are actually taught. Because "expeditionary learning" doesn't really seem like a great way to learn the kinds of things you have to be learning to get a base of knowledge, which really starts to ramp up in middle school. Furthermore, it also seems like a terrible way to close performance gaps because it doesn't focus on fundamentals. I think my kid would benefit from some aspects of that style (as I understand it) but frankly it sounds more apt for preschoolers, not for middle schoolers. So yes, I'd like to know more, beyond the PARCC scores, which tell me very little.

Seriously please stay far away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any academic rigor? I think my kid would like expeditionary learning, but not if there's a lack of actual individual content learning in math.

19 kids took the PARCC test for Algebra in 8th grade last year, which is considered more rigorous than "8th grade math" (the alternative PARCC). More than 1/3 of 7th and 8th graders got 4s or 5s on PARCC math. More than half of 7th and 8th graders got 4s and 5s on PARCC ELA.

For me, this is good evidence that there are high-performing kids in the cohort and that they are learning content.

um, no. first, those are pretty dismal scores. second, just because a kid gets a 4 or 5 doesn't say anything about what kids are actually learning and how.

I disagree, especially because the school accepts kids by lottery from the entire city, including new 5th and 6th graders. What is your metric to demonstrate that the kids at TR are not learning content or that the cohort is insufficiently strong academically?

I asked a question about the actual instructional style, and it was answered with (rather dismal) PARCC scores. I'm interested to learn how kids are actually taught. Because "expeditionary learning" doesn't really seem like a great way to learn the kinds of things you have to be learning to get a base of knowledge, which really starts to ramp up in middle school. Furthermore, it also seems like a terrible way to close performance gaps because it doesn't focus on fundamentals. I think my kid would benefit from some aspects of that style (as I understand it) but frankly it sounds more apt for preschoolers, not for middle schoolers. So yes, I'd like to know more, beyond the PARCC scores, which tell me very little.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any academic rigor? I think my kid would like expeditionary learning, but not if there's a lack of actual individual content learning in math.

19 kids took the PARCC test for Algebra in 8th grade last year, which is considered more rigorous than "8th grade math" (the alternative PARCC). More than 1/3 of 7th and 8th graders got 4s or 5s on PARCC math. More than half of 7th and 8th graders got 4s and 5s on PARCC ELA.

For me, this is good evidence that there are high-performing kids in the cohort and that they are learning content.

um, no. first, those are pretty dismal scores. second, just because a kid gets a 4 or 5 doesn't say anything about what kids are actually learning and how.

I disagree, especially because the school accepts kids by lottery from the entire city, including new 5th and 6th graders. What is your metric to demonstrate that the kids at TR are not learning content or that the cohort is insufficiently strong academically?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any academic rigor? I think my kid would like expeditionary learning, but not if there's a lack of actual individual content learning in math.

19 kids took the PARCC test for Algebra in 8th grade last year, which is considered more rigorous than "8th grade math" (the alternative PARCC). More than 1/3 of 7th and 8th graders got 4s or 5s on PARCC math. More than half of 7th and 8th graders got 4s and 5s on PARCC ELA.

For me, this is good evidence that there are high-performing kids in the cohort and that they are learning content.

um, no. first, those are pretty dismal scores. second, just because a kid gets a 4 or 5 doesn't say anything about what kids are actually learning and how.