Anonymous wrote:

arowe wrote:Stuff like the Cornerstones, etc. The folks at DCPS can tell you a lot about this, I can only mention a little.

Thanks. Interesting to me as Cornerstones is a program being paid for in large part by a foundation grant to the DCPS. Even more interests to balance.

arowe wrote:Stuff like the Cornerstones, etc. The folks at DCPS can tell you a lot about this, I can only mention a little.

arowe wrote:I'll try to offer in unpolished form a few reasons why I think DCPS isn't particularly enamored of IB, some of which they might state publicly and some of which they might not. Some of these may be overstatements and some may just be off base, but they're what I think is going on.

1. It's apparently done very differently from normal courses, so you have to hire and train up a corps of teachers who are willing to put in the extra work and extra professional development time to do it, and they have to stay committed to one school for some serious time to make it really go. DCPS already has challenges getting and keeping staff.
2. While IB sounds great from a superficial first glance, it doesn't seem to add a tremendous amount of value within the context of DCPS. To be blunt, they put it into Eastern, etc., and for what? It's harder for everyone and it doesn't seem like any educational magic has happened.
3. There are the costs and ramp up time, as others have mentioned.
4. DCPS has other ideas for programmatic improvement to benefit student outcomes that don't involve making this radical a change in teaching and learning.
5. DCPS believes they can implement global education and dual language programming without having to sign up for the complexity of IB.
6. The people who are asking for it are a tiny minority who typically vote with their feet to not attend the schools where they suggest expensive, disruptive new programs of dubious benefit to the majority of students.
7. DCPS folks believe that parents and local homeowners asking for it are just looking for a proxy for quality, know little to nothing about the program, and DCPS teaching and learning is fundamentally sound (with the unstated implications that motivated students respond well to it in the right settings (i.e., Tenleytown) and unprepared students will fail or avoid IB, particularly where the gap between current student ability and challenge presented is yawning).
8. Those asking for it are effectively, if not openly, asking for school-level segregation/tracking instead of inter-school segregation, and possibly even magnet-type separation from the community. At minimum, they are seeking a way for some children to stay in an advanced track or tracks separate from the majority who are not at grade level and minimize interaction, at least on an educational basis.
9. Maybe - maybe - they think that niche educational programming at odds with the norms for DCPS is one of the reasons for charters and they should do that kind of thing, not DCPS, which has to shoulder the burden of educating those who don't want niche programming.

I'm trying to lay out other folks' thinking, so it's pretty likely some of this is not right. But I think these are all things people should recognize if they want to make IB a priority for new school programs. I think there are a lot of positives that can be said about IB - this article was inspiring to me - http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/stunning-surge-in-graduation-rate-as-rainier-beach-gamble-pays-off/ but I don't realistically believe DCPS is going to go down the road to IB at MacFarland (or Roosevelt) of its own accord.

arowe wrote:I'll try to offer in unpolished form a few reasons why I think DCPS isn't particularly enamored of IB, some of which they might state publicly and some of which they might not. Some of these may be overstatements and some may just be off base, but they're what I think is going on.

1. It's apparently done very differently from normal courses, so you have to hire and train up a corps of teachers who are willing to put in the extra work and extra professional development time to do it, and they have to stay committed to one school for some serious time to make it really go. DCPS already has challenges getting and keeping staff.
2. While IB sounds great from a superficial first glance, it doesn't seem to add a tremendous amount of value within the context of DCPS. To be blunt, they put it into Eastern, etc., and for what? It's harder for everyone and it doesn't seem like any educational magic has happened.
3. There are the costs and ramp up time, as others have mentioned.
4. DCPS has other ideas for programmatic improvement to benefit student outcomes that don't involve making this radical a change in teaching and learning.
5. DCPS believes they can implement global education and dual language programming without having to sign up for the complexity of IB.
6. The people who are asking for it are a tiny minority who typically vote with their feet to not attend the schools where they suggest expensive, disruptive new programs of dubious benefit to the majority of students.
7. DCPS folks believe that parents and local homeowners asking for it are just looking for a proxy for quality, know little to nothing about the program, and DCPS teaching and learning is fundamentally sound (with the unstated implications that motivated students respond well to it in the right settings (i.e., Tenleytown) and unprepared students will fail or avoid IB, particularly where the gap between current student ability and challenge presented is yawning).
8. Those asking for it are effectively, if not openly, asking for school-level segregation/tracking instead of inter-school segregation, and possibly even magnet-type separation from the community. At minimum, they are seeking a way for some children to stay in an advanced track or tracks separate from the majority who are not at grade level and minimize interaction, at least on an educational basis.
9. Maybe - maybe - they think that niche educational programming at odds with the norms for DCPS is one of the reasons for charters and they should do that kind of thing, not DCPS, which has to shoulder the burden of educating those who don't want niche programming.

I'm trying to lay out other folks' thinking, so it's pretty likely some of this is not right. But I think these are all things people should recognize if they want to make IB a priority for new school programs. I think there are a lot of positives that can be said about IB - this article was inspiring to me - http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/stunning-surge-in-graduation-rate-as-rainier-beach-gamble-pays-off/ but I don't realistically believe DCPS is going to go down the road to IB at MacFarland (or Roosevelt) of its own accord.

Anonymous wrote:I was at the meeting last night, and think IB at MacFarland and Roosevelt would be the perfect compliment to "international focus" DCPS claims to want at Roosevelt and MacFarland. It would be a strong signal to parents that DCPS is taking the push to improve middle school offering seriously and to make the non-dual language strand at the schools attractive. There were a number of parents at the meeting last night (including me) who are concerned - based on our experience at the elementary level at schools with DL and non-DL strands - that there is friction between the two strands, so beefing up the non-DL strand is important to for a cohesive community.

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't they answer these questions:

If the DL program were not here, what would make the program attractive to people in this community?

Some of us have options to go to Deal what’s the in pitch to us and those families?

Well when you talk about marketing, what kind of advanced programming are you marketing to non dual language parents?

... So they may have advanced math and we should do their marketing for them? They could really work on this.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initial IB certification takes several years and usually a staff member dedicated to the process.

Yes, this what they always say. But, is that their reason for not pursuing it?

Who knows? So far as I know the only DCPS IB high school programs are at Banneker and Eastern and there seems to be a strong push toward AP city-wide. Maybe they just prefer paying $ to the College Board instead of the IB folks?

Presumably, someone at DCPS knows which is why I asked Andy if he has insight into their thinking. BTW, given the fact that MacFarland is a middle school, the most relevant comparison is Deal. Since some neighborhoods are being reassigned from Deal to MacFarland, that makes Deal's example even more relevant.

If DCPS's excuse is that IB certification will take too long and require a staff person, I think a lot of people will feel let down (to put it mildly). I hope they have a much better explanation than that. They certainly don't want to start this process out by saying IB was okay for the WotP school, but will take too long for MacFarland.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initial IB certification takes several years and usually a staff member dedicated to the process.

Yes, this what they always say. But, is that their reason for not pursuing it?

Who knows? So far as I know the only DCPS IB high school programs are at Banneker and Eastern and there seems to be a strong push toward AP city-wide. Maybe they just prefer paying $ to the College Board instead of the IB folks?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initial IB certification takes several years and usually a staff member dedicated to the process.

Yes, this what they always say. But, is that their reason for not pursuing it?