Anonymous wrote:Ideological reasons are well intentioned but an utter disaster in practice. When for example you have a middle school classroom where some of the kids are already capable of reading at a college level, and others can't read at all, there's so much disparity that no teacher can meet any of their needs effectively. Even with superstar teachers, there will always be students missing out, the classroom will be always dysfunctional and uncohesive as a whole.
Anonymous wrote:Ideological reasons are well intentioned but an utter disaster in practice. When for example you have a middle school classroom where some of the kids are already capable of reading at a college level, and others can't read at all, there's so much disparity that no teacher can meet any of their needs effectively. Even with superstar teachers, there will always be students missing out, the classroom will be always dysfunctional and uncohesive as a whole.
Anonymous wrote:Okay, no. Not true. Watkins has made enormous changes in the past year, implementing ability grouping and real differentiation at all levels. Last year, very little. This year, tons. This was clearly a priority of the new(ish) principal and had not been going on in the past. Same story at lots of other schools -- happens when leadership wills it to, not because this is something that organically occurs under normal operating conditions in DCPS.
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the deep skepticism about differentiation.
I went to a Montessori school through 4th grade. They didn't talk about differentiation back then -- but in order to meet the needs of a couple dozen kids ages 6-9 within a single classroom, you HAVE to be successfully providing differentiation, whatever you want to call it.
So I take it as given that, yes, differentiation can work, and work well. If DCPS -isn't- doing it well, that doesn't inevitably mean DC needs G&T programs -- maybe that means we need to get better at differentiation.
And it's a lot easier to get better at differentiation if you teachers and administration can focus on that, instead of spending all their time explaining for the 8 millionth time that no, they don't have a G&T program.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure I see your point.
Why worry about backlash over G&T when CURRENTLY no kids in DCPS are being given adequate educational choices regardless of whether or not they are G&T?
At least a G&T program would start to address the needs - and would allow DCPS to be able to start focusing on the other kids whose educational needs aren't being met either.
The way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. But instead all we have is endless paralysis and hand-wringing, and as a result nothing gets done.
First, there are kids in DCPS that are being given adequate educational choices. Unfortunately, it is not widespread and they are now virtually impossible to get into by OOB lottery.
You are solving a problem that you see as a way to keep your children in the system (assuming of course your children qualify) and it will likely be viewed politically as giving more to the haves while not addressing the needs of the kids that DC is failing miserably that do not have choices (by choices I mean parents that can and will vote with their feet and ensure their kids are educated). From the way you write, it is clear that you are educated and likely were not raised in DCPS so you chose to move here and you probably had opportunities to think about your child's educational outcomes along the way and decided you could make a go of it in some manner. The children most under served by DC do not have a choice. It would be nice/good/ideal for your children to be well served by DCPS. That said, your children will be fine because you will make choices to ensure this. I will do the same if it stops working for us. We might not like the choices, but there are plenty of good public and private schools in the area, we just may have to move or make financial choices we wish we did not have to make.
I support a GT program (and I think my children would qualify). But, I do not think it will happen because of the political landscape until you make more schools effective for the kids in the most need.
But we should extrapolate on that last sentence. Aren't the kids in need truly the smart ones in underserved communities? They are the ones who have the most to lose in this lowered standards environment and the most to gain from a gifted program. I get why people are averse to the idea...ie: the good students would leave and lower the bar even more for the rest of the public school population. But a mediocre education does nothing for the intellectually gifted child and therefore nothing for the greater good of society.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The cognitive dissonance involved in having test-in high schools in DCPS but no test-in options at lower grades is amazing. So, it's magically okay at 9th grade to offer programs of particular interest to the highest-achieving students but dangerous and wrong-headed at 8th? Or 6th? Or 2nd? One could argue that it's actually much more inclusive to do so at the younger elementary grades when the effects of the achievement gap are less pronounced and gifted kids of all background could be ID's and supported early on. Wake up, DCPS. If you want to continue hemorrhaging those kids to Charters, then great, by all means, proceed. Want to capture those families and keep them in neighborhood schools? Start serving them in a rich, meaningful way.
There has to be way to identify gifted kids who are less privileged, besides relying on straight scores.