Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should have a 2E twice exceptional program for gifted students with something else (ADHD, ASD, dyslexia, etc.). My friend says that Montgomery county has such a program.

I used to teach in MCPS. MCPS GT program is actually high quality and requires a great deal of testing into the program, teacher recommendations and the curriculum is superb. I don't see DCPS doing anything like this. Having had experience in both MCPS and DCPS, I will give credit to MoCo county, they screw up a lot of things but teacher quality and it's GT program is not one of them.

This is an indictment of MoCo (and G&T programs in public schools), not a selling point. G&T programs get disproportionate resources and attention (including the best teachers), at the expense of everything else.

I grew up in the sort of test-in, recommendation-based G&T program that some people so desperately want in DCPS. I had classes with the same 30ish kids from 6th to 12th grade. It was socially stifling and narrow, but also provided highly coveted rigor and attention that was denied to 95% of students. I much prefer the heterogenous, open-AP enrollment experience my kids have had in DCPS. With good teachers, these classes are strong, and all kids have access.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the BASIS example could be apposite to the situation. I would make it of that rigor and promote the hell out of it, but make it clear that it's rigorous, period, there are always other schools for you.

Then I would site it in Anacostia. Accessible to the Hill but across the River.

I actually believe it would be extremely popular, contrary to some views of the potential of EOTR kids. That said, I think a no-excuses academic rigor should be quietly accompanied by some serious tutoring. Not by the same staff.

This is explicitly being talked about as an add-on to existing schools to make them more attractive. Not a standalone option. These exist already and they're not run the way you're suggesting.

What is the existing standalone elementary or middle school G&T option?

Not standalone options. Programs at existing MSs and HSs, like what's being suggested here. (Which the board member clarified was not G&T.) Advanced math options, IB, AP classes, "early college". All of this exists and it doesn't make these schools more broadly attractive because of the implementation.

Huh?

The text says "Dual language, International Baccalaureate, additional advanced placement classes, and open-enrollment gifted and talented programming (which DCPS does not currently offer anywhere)."

The "does not currently offer elsewhere" is modifying only "open-enrollment g&t". It was already clarified that they're not actually talking about g&t. IB, AP classes, and other attempts at advanced classes are already offered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the BASIS example could be apposite to the situation. I would make it of that rigor and promote the hell out of it, but make it clear that it's rigorous, period, there are always other schools for you.

Then I would site it in Anacostia. Accessible to the Hill but across the River.

I actually believe it would be extremely popular, contrary to some views of the potential of EOTR kids. That said, I think a no-excuses academic rigor should be quietly accompanied by some serious tutoring. Not by the same staff.

This is explicitly being talked about as an add-on to existing schools to make them more attractive. Not a standalone option. These exist already and they're not run the way you're suggesting.

What is the existing standalone elementary or middle school G&T option?

Not standalone options. Programs at existing MSs and HSs, like what's being suggested here. (Which the board member clarified was not G&T.) Advanced math options, IB, AP classes, "early college". All of this exists and it doesn't make these schools more broadly attractive because of the implementation.

Huh?

The text says "Dual language, International Baccalaureate, additional advanced placement classes, and open-enrollment gifted and talented programming (which DCPS does not currently offer anywhere)."

Open-enrollment GT can work if the classes in question are so rigorous that those who take them are permitted sink (vs. swim). See above. That's clearly not what DCPS is planning.

I came up through ES and MS GT programs in NYC, which were a v. mixed bag. There wasn't nearly enough challenge for the stronger students in regular classes and most of the kids selected as "gifted" were, unsurprisingly, white, UMC and heavily prepped for GT screening exams. Flash forward 40 years and NYC has dropped ES test-in GT.

What I'd like to see DCPS move toward is the intelligent, balanced system Arlington is phasing in to add middle school rigor, never mind nonsense about open-enrollment GT programming for advanced classes that don't exist.

In Arlington, the ES curriculum is tougher than in DCPS and 7th and 8th graders can freely sign up for upper level "intensified" classes in core subjects. However, if a particular intensified class isn't recommended by a core subject teacher for a 6th grade student entering 7th grade, or for a 7th grade student entering 8th, families are encouraged to think twice about enrolling for the upcoming year. They're told that content won't be dumbed down to cater to academic stragglers. Arlington practices flex tracking: kids can drop down to regular classes, or jump up to intensified classes, during the school year. They aren't locked in to a level that isn't working for them.

Open-enrollment G&T is an oxymoron.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Advisory Committee member here: we shredded this draft recommendation to pieces. First, we don’t want any language about “some committee members” because we want to operate as a team and present consensus.
Second, we challenged that “gifted and talented” may not be the buzzword they meant and pushed for a more accurate description of the type of programs DME wants to pursue.

No matter what you call it, adding more advanced options to schools where the vast majority of kids aren't at grade level without making those options test-in has been tried already and has not made those schools more attractive.

The lower-income parents EOTR who go to the no excuses charters want higher expectations and behavioral standards, which this doesn't give them. The UMC families want actually more rigorous academic options and on-grade-level peer groups. No one is going to go to Anacostia HS because it adds more AP classes when the students already aren't passing the ones that exist now.

+100

Well stated. AP classes by name only is the same thing as an open enrollment gifted and talented program.

+1. The overwhelming majority of kids at Anacostia HS are way below grade level.

How exactly is a G & T program going to help them?? What you need is remedial classes, after school tutoring, maybe year round schools to try to bring these kids up. Maybe they can’t get up to grade level but at least wont be so far below.

You want a real G & T program in Anacostia high school? Then you need to start a real G & T program at the elementary schools that feed into Anacostia and on up the chain.

Open enrollment G & T is basically just a name DCPS wants to have at these very poorly performing HS to try to attract families but it’s obvious the poor strategy and something in name only.

Anonymous wrote:They should have a 2E twice exceptional program for gifted students with something else (ADHD, ASD, dyslexia, etc.). My friend says that Montgomery county has such a program.

That only makes sense if you also have a standard G&T program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describe the entry requirements for BASIS

They have a) a lot of self-selection and b) high attrition rates. You think a DCPS program in ward 7 or 8 is going to have either of those? There is already "advanced" programming at these schools and it doesn't play out like BASIS.

+1. The biggest selling point of BASIS is its high attrition rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the BASIS example could be apposite to the situation. I would make it of that rigor and promote the hell out of it, but make it clear that it's rigorous, period, there are always other schools for you.

Then I would site it in Anacostia. Accessible to the Hill but across the River.

I actually believe it would be extremely popular, contrary to some views of the potential of EOTR kids. That said, I think a no-excuses academic rigor should be quietly accompanied by some serious tutoring. Not by the same staff.

This is explicitly being talked about as an add-on to existing schools to make them more attractive. Not a standalone option. These exist already and they're not run the way you're suggesting.

What is the existing standalone elementary or middle school G&T option?

Not standalone options. Programs at existing MSs and HSs, like what's being suggested here. (Which the board member clarified was not G&T.) Advanced math options, IB, AP classes, "early college". All of this exists and it doesn't make these schools more broadly attractive because of the implementation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the BASIS example could be apposite to the situation. I would make it of that rigor and promote the hell out of it, but make it clear that it's rigorous, period, there are always other schools for you.

Then I would site it in Anacostia. Accessible to the Hill but across the River.

I actually believe it would be extremely popular, contrary to some views of the potential of EOTR kids. That said, I think a no-excuses academic rigor should be quietly accompanied by some serious tutoring. Not by the same staff.

This is explicitly being talked about as an add-on to existing schools to make them more attractive. Not a standalone option. These exist already and they're not run the way you're suggesting.

What is the existing standalone elementary or middle school G&T option?

Anonymous wrote:I think the BASIS example could be apposite to the situation. I would make it of that rigor and promote the hell out of it, but make it clear that it's rigorous, period, there are always other schools for you.

Then I would site it in Anacostia. Accessible to the Hill but across the River.

I actually believe it would be extremely popular, contrary to some views of the potential of EOTR kids. That said, I think a no-excuses academic rigor should be quietly accompanied by some serious tutoring. Not by the same staff.

This is explicitly being talked about as an add-on to existing schools to make them more attractive. Not a standalone option. These exist already and they're not run the way you're suggesting.

Anonymous wrote:I think the BASIS example could be apposite to the situation. I would make it of that rigor and promote the hell out of it, but make it clear that it's rigorous, period, there are always other schools for you.

Then I would site it in Anacostia. Accessible to the Hill but across the River.

I actually believe it would be extremely popular, contrary to some views of the potential of EOTR kids. That said, I think a no-excuses academic rigor should be quietly accompanied by some serious tutoring. Not by the same staff.

Given DCPs grading scale this would not work. They won’t kick kids out, they won’t fail kids and they wouldn’t allow comps or whatever the end of year tests Basis gives to be promoted to the next grade. DCPS just passes kids along. It’s not the teachers it’s institutional.

I think the BASIS example could be apposite to the situation. I would make it of that rigor and promote the hell out of it, but make it clear that it's rigorous, period, there are always other schools for you.

Then I would site it in Anacostia. Accessible to the Hill but across the River.

I actually believe it would be extremely popular, contrary to some views of the potential of EOTR kids. That said, I think a no-excuses academic rigor should be quietly accompanied by some serious tutoring. Not by the same staff.

Anonymous wrote:Advisory Committee member here: we shredded this draft recommendation to pieces. First, we don’t want any language about “some committee members” because we want to operate as a team and present consensus.
Second, we challenged that “gifted and talented” may not be the buzzword they meant and pushed for a more accurate description of the type of programs DME wants to pursue.

I'm listening to it now and I would not say "shredded to pieces". Mainly one person called the name disingenuous but was okay with the concept. Which I agree with-- it's a vague and meaningless term, much like other DCPS window-dressing on crappy, below-grade instruction.