Anonymous wrote:Actually, according to the Madison principal, Madison (the stronger school) caps the number of pupil placements it will accept to roughly equal the number of students transferring out for IB. Otherwise, it would get additional pupil placements from Marshall and South Lakes, and the school is already full. I heard some other AP schools are even more restrictive now on allowing pupil placements from IB schools.

"the stronger school" puhleeezz... so 100 students prefer to go do IB and 100 students want to come play sports - just tweakin' you; but using the NMSF that someone posted earlier, Madison had 8 and Marshall 7. SATs are equal within the margin of error, and yet Marshall FRMS are more than 2x higher. On what basis do you expect Madison would get additinoal placements from Marshall - there's no word there of any restrictions on pupil placement requests (according to a PTA member). I've heard the rumors that schools are more restrictive (my neighbor says that Marshall is reported to be closed to pupil placements) but I've yet to hear of anyone not being placed.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, according to the Madison principal, Madison (the stronger school) caps the number of pupil placements it will accept to roughly equal the number of students transferring out for IB. Otherwise, it would get additional pupil placements from Marshall and South Lakes, and the school is already full. I heard some other AP schools are even more restrictive now on allowing pupil placements from IB schools.

Are there always more people in that area wanting to switch from Marshall to Madison than the other way round or does it vary by year?

Actually, according to the Madison principal, Madison (the stronger school) caps the number of pupil placements it will accept to roughly equal the number of students transferring out for IB. Otherwise, it would get additional pupil placements from Marshall and South Lakes, and the school is already full. I heard some other AP schools are even more restrictive now on allowing pupil placements from IB schools.

If you look at both NMSFs and SATs, the scores for AP schools are better. Add to that the low number of students at most IB schools in FCPS receiving IB diplomas and the dual inferences that (1) higher SES families prefer AP and (2) IB isn't serving most of the student populations at BI schools very well seem quite reasonable.

You can hypothesize that higher SES families would be indifferent to AP vs. IB, if only IB were at more higher SES schools, but facts that tend to negate that hypothesis include: (1) when FCPS tried to install IB at a high SES school (Woodson), the parents worked to have that decision reversed; and (2) few parents at other high SES schools with AP want IB (i.e., they are not asking to swap AP with IB or pupil placing in large numbers), despite IB's alleged strengths and the ability of parents at those high SES schools to observe the impact of IB at other schools that have had IB for 15-20 years and are not that far away.

To be accurate, the NMSF and SAT performance should be calculated for the IB population and not for the whole school. Otherwise, the comparison is clouded by the SES factor, which is likely to be overwhelming.

Your second assertion may also be problematic; IB may serve the IB students very well, but not the rest of the school population. The same could be said for AP - i.e. it works for those who take AP and does little or nothing for those who don't.

I'm not familiar with the example of Woodson, but it certainly is a useful example that should be carefully considered before any changes to the curriculum are made.

Jeff Litz, the Principal at Marshall, reportedly told parents last night that approximately 100 students pupil placed from Madison (AP) to Marshall (IB) and approximately 100 students pupil placed from Marshall to Madison. The comparison is probably somewhat unique in that both of these school districts are relatively high SES. Madison has a strong sports culture/program and actively recruits strong athletes. The IB program is very highly regarded in these districts as well and Marshall IB is very successful in graduation rates (~98%), international scoring and college placement. This isn't a typical IB program.

There are good reasons to maintain IB in the system - but at how many schools etc are something that the Administration should review. Every program should be subject to ongoing reviews of cost, efficiency and outcomes.

AP is cheaper.
More people in Fairfax County prefer AP.
It gives students more flexibility in courses taken.

Why is this even a decision?

Get rid of it--at best, put it in two schools.

Anonymous wrote:retain/attract - both are true. I think the number of pupil placements division wide for IB is approximately 500 each year.

good students improve test scores (by definition) but I can't isolate the impact of IB vs. SES vs. other factors (sports, music, languages, theatre etc).

the # of NMSF recipients isn't useful information to my mind - this designation is determined in large part by performance on PSATs administered in the sophomore year, before IB instruction begins (IB is a two year program in FCPS). The PSATs are for college bound students and will reflect SES differences (e.g. tutoring and individual student ambitions). It might be more relevant to analyze NMSF recipients in the specific IB program, rather than in a school that has IB. I don't have access to this data.

there aren't that many pupil placements so your assertion that "the lowest performing IB schools lose many students to AP schools" is debatable - it would be useful data to know. It seems more likely that people avoid IB districts when moving, although we know of families who have intentionally sought out IB - this data is more difficult to obtain.

IB and AP both clearly work for high SES and for motivated/resourced students/families. AP may be easier for non-native english speakers/writers with an interest in more quantitative studies. IB has a different focus that is clearly attractive to many families. Low SES students/families need a lot of motivation/support/remediation to track into these high level, fast paced curriculums and be successful.

If you look at both NMSFs and SATs, the scores for AP schools are better. Add to that the low number of students at most IB schools in FCPS receiving IB diplomas and the dual inferences that (1) higher SES families prefer AP and (2) IB isn't serving most of the student populations at BI schools very well seem quite reasonable.

You can hypothesize that higher SES families would be indifferent to AP vs. IB, if only IB were at more higher SES schools, but facts that tend to negate that hypothesis include: (1) when FCPS tried to install IB at a high SES school (Woodson), the parents worked to have that decision reversed; and (2) few parents at other high SES schools with AP want IB (i.e., they are not asking to swap AP with IB or pupil placing in large numbers), despite IB's alleged strengths and the ability of parents at those high SES schools to observe the impact of IB at other schools that have had IB for 15-20 years and are not that far away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Same principle as putting AAP centers in some of the low performing schools. Cover up poor test scores of the local students. There are two ways to improve test scores: bring low kids up or add high performing students.

Well, what would really help is making sure that kids have stable lives at home -- food, housing, healthcare -- but let's all act as though what happens in school is entirely dependent on school.

I bet you are saying that as you make sure you live in a high income area.

Anonymous wrote:
Same principle as putting AAP centers in some of the low performing schools. Cover up poor test scores of the local students. There are two ways to improve test scores: bring low kids up or add high performing students.

Well, what would really help is making sure that kids have stable lives at home -- food, housing, healthcare -- but let's all act as though what happens in school is entirely dependent on school.

retain/attract - both are true. I think the number of pupil placements division wide for IB is approximately 500 each year.

good students improve test scores (by definition) but I can't isolate the impact of IB vs. SES vs. other factors (sports, music, languages, theatre etc).

the # of NMSF recipients isn't useful information to my mind - this designation is determined in large part by performance on PSATs administered in the sophomore year, before IB instruction begins (IB is a two year program in FCPS). The PSATs are for college bound students and will reflect SES differences (e.g. tutoring and individual student ambitions). It might be more relevant to analyze NMSF recipients in the specific IB program, rather than in a school that has IB. I don't have access to this data.

there aren't that many pupil placements so your assertion that "the lowest performing IB schools lose many students to AP schools" is debatable - it would be useful data to know. It seems more likely that people avoid IB districts when moving, although we know of families who have intentionally sought out IB - this data is more difficult to obtain.

IB and AP both clearly work for high SES and for motivated/resourced students/families. AP may be easier for non-native english speakers/writers with an interest in more quantitative studies. IB has a different focus that is clearly attractive to many families. Low SES students/families need a lot of motivation/support/remediation to track into these high level, fast paced curriculums and be successful.

Anonymous wrote:there seem to be several issues wrapped up in this AP v IB discussion; (1) neither AP nor IB is more appropriate or successful for most low SES students - both IB and AP are demanding curriculum taught at fast pace and require lots of additional support to the student to be successful. To the extent IB may be more "writing intensive", it may be even more difficult for those students who are not highly capable in writing english. (2) IB was put into low SES schools in FCPS to attract higher SES/more ambitious students - apparently, it was not intended to be utilized by the majority of the "regular" students - so the differentiation between IB and "regular" students was an inevitable distinction. Attracting higher SES, more capable/motivated students to IB in lower SES HSs was, in part, simply a way to meet accreditation and testing benchmarks (3) it is inappropriate to gauge the success of the IB programs by looking at overall school metrics (NMS, SATs etc.), given the small and distinct population of these students described before. (4) low SES students need much more support and remedial work to be successful in competing with high SES students (this is a generalization for discussion purposes - there are clearly exceptions in both populations). Jay Matthews is a well known proponent for challenging all students and has advocated that VA replace the recently abandoned HS History SOL with a required IB History class. His point is, apparently, that encouraging critical thinking and a broad perspective, are fundamental to learning - so, even if the students fails to pass the exam, the exercise of trying to grapple with the material and different perspectives and to write about them is productive of "learning". (5) the arguments for consolidating IB programs into a few schools makes economic sense - it would also make clear the weaknesses of the several schools where IB students bring up the overall benchmark scores.

Is this your personal opinion because:

(1) Probably most would agree with this.

(2) IB was installed more to retain higher SES students than to attract them, although that's semantics. Is there any evidence that having IB at any high school has actually helped those schools meet accreditation or testing benchmarks? The high schools in FCPS that have flirted the most with non-accreditation, like Stuart and Mount Vernon, are IB schools.

(3) That's a matter of opinion - if IB schools did, in fact, serve as magnets that attract high-performing students , you might expect to see overall improvements in broader test scores and you'd certainly expect to see more than a dozen or so NMSFs coming from the eight high/secondary schools with IB programs (each of the top AP schools often has this many alone).

(4) This is probably true, but over time Matthews has simply moved towards the view that it's good to expose lower SES students to either AP or IB classes, regardless of whether they can pass the exams.

(5) This is debatable, because the lowest performing IB schools currently lose many students to AP schools, whether through people pupil placements or avoiding neighborhoods zoned for those schools entirely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a conceit to think having four IB schools would make them "magnets." It's the AP schools in the higher SES areas that are truly magnets, as they attract the highest achieving students.

The only way to have an IB "magnet" is to limit admission and then require students to seek the full diploma, as at RM in MoCo. Otherwise you just have one more school that would be better served by AP.

They serve as a magnet because typically about 3-4 other high schools feed into them. This is the way Marshall High School is working now.

Yes, but on the other hand many people avoid the Marshall district entirely because it's IB. You have to consider the net effect.

Anonymous wrote:there seem to be several issues wrapped up in this AP v IB discussion; (1) neither AP nor IB is more appropriate or successful for most low SES students - both IB and AP are demanding curriculum taught at fast pace and require lots of additional support to the student to be successful. To the extent IB may be more "writing intensive", it may be even more difficult for those students who are not highly capable in writing english. (2) IB was put into low SES schools in FCPS to attract higher SES/more ambitious students - apparently, it was not intended to be utilized by the majority of the "regular" students - so the differentiation between IB and "regular" students was an inevitable distinction. Attracting higher SES, more capable/motivated students to IB in lower SES HSs was, in part, simply a way to meet accreditation and testing benchmarks (3) it is inappropriate to gauge the success of the IB programs by looking at overall school metrics (NMS, SATs etc.), given the small and distinct population of these students described before. (4) low SES students need much more support and remedial work to be successful in competing with high SES students (this is a generalization for discussion purposes - there are clearly exceptions in both populations). Jay Matthews is a well known proponent for challenging all students and has advocated that VA replace the recently abandoned HS History SOL with a required IB History class. His point is, apparently, that encouraging critical thinking and a broad perspective, are fundamental to learning - so, even if the students fails to pass the exam, the exercise of trying to grapple with the material and different perspectives and to write about them is productive of "learning". (5) the arguments for consolidating IB programs into a few schools makes economic sense - it would also make clear the weaknesses of the several schools where IB students bring up the overall benchmark scores.

Same principle as putting AAP centers in some of the low performing schools. Cover up poor test scores of the local students. There are two ways to improve test scores: bring low kids up or add high performing students.

there seem to be several issues wrapped up in this AP v IB discussion; (1) neither AP nor IB is more appropriate or successful for most low SES students - both IB and AP are demanding curriculum taught at fast pace and require lots of additional support to the student to be successful. To the extent IB may be more "writing intensive", it may be even more difficult for those students who are not highly capable in writing english. (2) IB was put into low SES schools in FCPS to attract higher SES/more ambitious students - apparently, it was not intended to be utilized by the majority of the "regular" students - so the differentiation between IB and "regular" students was an inevitable distinction. Attracting higher SES, more capable/motivated students to IB in lower SES HSs was, in part, simply a way to meet accreditation and testing benchmarks (3) it is inappropriate to gauge the success of the IB programs by looking at overall school metrics (NMS, SATs etc.), given the small and distinct population of these students described before. (4) low SES students need much more support and remedial work to be successful in competing with high SES students (this is a generalization for discussion purposes - there are clearly exceptions in both populations). Jay Matthews is a well known proponent for challenging all students and has advocated that VA replace the recently abandoned HS History SOL with a required IB History class. His point is, apparently, that encouraging critical thinking and a broad perspective, are fundamental to learning - so, even if the students fails to pass the exam, the exercise of trying to grapple with the material and different perspectives and to write about them is productive of "learning". (5) the arguments for consolidating IB programs into a few schools makes economic sense - it would also make clear the weaknesses of the several schools where IB students bring up the overall benchmark scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a conceit to think having four IB schools would make them "magnets." It's the AP schools in the higher SES areas that are truly magnets, as they attract the highest achieving students.

The only way to have an IB "magnet" is to limit admission and then require students to seek the full diploma, as at RM in MoCo. Otherwise you just have one more school that would be better served by AP.

They serve as a magnet because typically about 3-4 other high schools feed into them. This is the way Marshall High School is working now.

Which high schools does Marshall draw from? How many kids from each?

Anonymous wrote:It's a conceit to think having four IB schools would make them "magnets." It's the AP schools in the higher SES areas that are truly magnets, as they attract the highest achieving students.

The only way to have an IB "magnet" is to limit admission and then require students to seek the full diploma, as at RM in MoCo. Otherwise you just have one more school that would be better served by AP.

They serve as a magnet because typically about 3-4 other high schools feed into them. This is the way Marshall High School is working now.