Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

There are not enough middle class kids to go around. Do you live in this city?

Sorry to say I’m sure she does. This is the way the governing class in DC is now thinking about “equity.” You can look forward to proposals to do away with IB schools and start a city-wide lottery this year.

You don't understand. There are "literally" in the true since of the word not enough middle class kids in the entire city, even with a citywide lottery, to the percentages that dingbat suggested. Nuke all the charters and it would still be so. Spread all the middle class kids around equally and you would still have every school with a vast majority of poor students. I can't believe how ignorant of your city some of you are.

I don't think anyone is ignorant of the demographics of DC...the point is that these policies need to be set on a federal level. UMC/wealthy people will always try to separate themselves - any race, any culture, any period through history. They will find workarounds unless it's a clear, strict requirement.

The only other solution floated here - make DC schools attractive to wealthier families so they stick around - is not feasible. To make a school that serves majority poor children attractive would require a huge, huge investment of funds, which no one is lining up to provide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

There are not enough middle class kids to go around. Do you live in this city?

Sorry to say I’m sure she does. This is the way the governing class in DC is now thinking about “equity.” You can look forward to proposals to do away with IB schools and start a city-wide lottery this year.

You don't understand. There are "literally" in the true since of the word not enough middle class kids in the entire city, even with a citywide lottery, to the percentages that dingbat suggested. Nuke all the charters and it would still be so. Spread all the middle class kids around equally and you would still have every school with a vast majority of poor students. I can't believe how ignorant of your city some of you are.

I don't think anyone is ignorant of the demographics of DC...the point is that these policies need to be set on a federal level. UMC/wealthy people will always try to separate themselves - any race, any culture, any period through history. They will find workarounds unless it's a clear, strict requirement.

The only other solution floated here - make DC schools attractive to wealthier families so they stick around - is not feasible. To make a school that serves majority poor children attractive would require a huge, huge investment of funds, which no one is lining up to provide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

How does a legal maximum of 20% poor kids per school work when more than 20% of the kids in the district are poor?

Send them to the suburbs - Potomac, Bethesda, etc. Make it impossible for the rich families to run.
Yes, long bus rides aren't great (though many of these suburbs are very close). But given that we're not going to solve affordable housing/segregation/poverty anytime soon, this is objectively the best way to support poor kids in our current reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

There are not enough middle class kids to go around. Do you live in this city?

Sorry to say I’m sure she does. This is the way the governing class in DC is now thinking about “equity.” You can look forward to proposals to do away with IB schools and start a city-wide lottery this year.

You don't understand. There are "literally" in the true since of the word not enough middle class kids in the entire city, even with a citywide lottery, to the percentages that dingbat suggested. Nuke all the charters and it would still be so. Spread all the middle class kids around equally and you would still have every school with a vast majority of poor students. I can't believe how ignorant of your city some of you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

How does a legal maximum of 20% poor kids per school work when more than 20% of the kids in the district are poor?

Send them to the suburbs - Potomac, Bethesda, etc. Make it impossible for the rich families to run.
Yes, long bus rides aren't great (though many of these suburbs are very close). But given that we're not going to solve affordable housing/segregation/poverty anytime soon, this is objectively the best way to support poor kids in our current reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

How does a legal maximum of 20% poor kids per school work when more than 20% of the kids in the district are poor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

The *actual* answer is for DCPS to institute robust tracking for kids starting in upper elementary and establish more citywide magnet MS and HS. This will keep the UMC (of ALL races) in DCPS. If we are careful to ensure that all those high-performers in high poverty schools are identified, they will benefit too. Open a magnet for all W7 and 8 kids who get 4s on PARCC. For all the other kids, drop all the nonsense and give them double doses of math and phonics.

Kids who have behavioral issues or don’t want to learn get tracked to alternative schools.

Honestly, this feels right to me too. It needs to be “fluid” tracking, so kids who improve aren’t stuck - the appropriate class for you needs to be re-evaluated every year. And I’d support perks for kids on tracks where they need more support (ex: classes with kids at or above grade level have a max of 25 kids, classes where kids are performing a grade below have a max of 20 kids, classes with kids 2+ grades below have a max of 15).

I don’t really understand why this is so controversial. It seems like if my kid was underperforming, I’d want this too (I don’t want my kid to feel hopelessly behind, be confused about math concepts he’s not ready for, etc).

It almost feels like the resistance is about optics - yes, in DC, the below-grade level classes are going to be majority black and the above grade level classes will have most of the white kids. But that’s the sad reality of where these kids are in education right now. The first step to solving a problem is to identify it. If we’re pretending all kids are equally prepared in 4th grade, how in earth can the kids who need more support get it?

Any teachers/educators want to comment? I’m interested in your thoughts.

What?!? NO!

Tracking is the opposite of equity!

Keeping the lottery is the way to go.

Anonymous wrote:If you take away the good IB schools in NW and force bussing + random school assignments across the city, the middle class and above will totally abandon the public system. Look at San Francisco, that strategy is a total disaster!

Anonymous wrote:OMG. I can't believe that the idea of a city-wide lottery is STILL being floated. This was floated over 10 years ago prior to the last boundary re-adjustment. It tanked in part because the education "professionals" who were pushing this idea were found not to follow it themselves---one of the biggest proponents had moved from Takoma Park because he didn't think the MS was good enough for his kids. You cannot make this stuff up. If you dig down on the backgrounds of the alleged educators who push this stuff, you will generally find that most of them elect to send their own children to schools that are either private, charter with some form of honors/non-honors classes, or public schools in areas with very little poverty.

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

The *actual* answer is for DCPS to institute robust tracking for kids starting in upper elementary and establish more citywide magnet MS and HS. This will keep the UMC (of ALL races) in DCPS. If we are careful to ensure that all those high-performers in high poverty schools are identified, they will benefit too. Open a magnet for all W7 and 8 kids who get 4s on PARCC. For all the other kids, drop all the nonsense and give them double doses of math and phonics.

Kids who have behavioral issues or don’t want to learn get tracked to alternative schools.

Honestly, this feels right to me too. It needs to be “fluid” tracking, so kids who improve aren’t stuck - the appropriate class for you needs to be re-evaluated every year. And I’d support perks for kids on tracks where they need more support (ex: classes with kids at or above grade level have a max of 25 kids, classes where kids are performing a grade below have a max of 20 kids, classes with kids 2+ grades below have a max of 15).

I don’t really understand why this is so controversial. It seems like if my kid was underperforming, I’d want this too (I don’t want my kid to feel hopelessly behind, be confused about math concepts he’s not ready for, etc).

It almost feels like the resistance is about optics - yes, in DC, the below-grade level classes are going to be majority black and the above grade level classes will have most of the white kids. But that’s the sad reality of where these kids are in education right now. The first step to solving a problem is to identify it. If we’re pretending all kids are equally prepared in 4th grade, how in earth can the kids who need more support get it?

Any teachers/educators want to comment? I’m interested in your thoughts.