Why are HRCS so popular? Test scores stink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this is from FOCUS (the charter advocacy / lobbying group) so it has a point of view.

But it has some interesting cuts on the data with a particular eye toward disadvantaged students.

http://focusdc.org/sites/focusdc.org/files/FOCUS%20Press%20Release%20Final.pdf

Is this a fair analysis? What are they missing or what did they get wrong?

The most struggling DCPS elementary schools show alarming results. There are dozens of schools where students testing at grade level can be counted on a single hand with fingers to spare. Any charter putting up those metrics would have trouble remaining operational without marked year over year improvement. There's not a huge difference among top charter achievers vs top DCPS achievers but you see different outcomes at the bottom.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not inspired by ITS's scores, and I say that as a long time parent. 25/18 for AA kids may be better than the DC average, but it is awful. 62/62 for white kids is quite poor also, especially compared to WOTP white scores, e.g., 81/84 at Key.

I want my bright child challenged and lifted by a room full of smart kids. Sadly, it looks like I've been kidding myself about ITS.

You assume that your "bright child" is not being enriched based on test scores? You picked the wrong school if that's the metric you care about.

+1. also, being surrounded by a "room full of smart kids" is not exactly real life. in real life, some people have book smarts, some people do not. some people have common sense, some people do not. insulating your child so that they are surrounded by people just like them is not really doing them any favors in life.

Not exactly real life? It is for some (see: Sidwell and other top privates). Not to be blunt, but putting a bright child in a classroom where > 50% of the kids are borderline innumerate and/or illiterate is a terrible waste of potential.

[Anonymous]

Aren't the students who are the most disadvantaged (those at the bottom) the proof in the pudding?

DCPS can't do the job for them. Plain and simple, charters do more with less and produce better results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not inspired by ITS's scores, and I say that as a long time parent. 25/18 for AA kids may be better than the DC average, but it is awful. 62/62 for white kids is quite poor also, especially compared to WOTP white scores, e.g., 81/84 at Key.

I want my bright child challenged and lifted by a room full of smart kids. Sadly, it looks like I've been kidding myself about ITS.

You assume that your "bright child" is not being enriched based on test scores? You picked the wrong school if that's the metric you care about.

If my bright child is surrounded by peers who are demonstrably not on grade level, I assume she will not be as challenged (enriched) as she could be. Not to mention: the teachers will be under pressure to prioritize "closing the gap" at the expense of the (bored?) kids who already know the material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. The title of the post was rude and a little inflammatory. I apologize. Poor choice of words. I started this thread, not to pit charter and DCPS but because there seems to be a double standard when it comes to not so stellar test scores from DCPS Title I schools. Take JO Wilson as an example, only because I saw some recent no-so-flattering comments about the school. The test scores are on par with some of these charters. 24% ELA and 35% math. Yet, when someone wanted feedback about the school, everyone jumped on the poster saying it was a terrible school and never to enroll their child there. Why? It seems to have some pretty good programs too. It's not just JO Wilson but you can plug in a lot of DCPS Title I schools that are doing just as well, if not better than these HRCS like Marie Reed, Barnard, Thomson. Yet, when anyone suggests enrolling their child at one of these schools, you get the most negative feedback. Why? And why are the waitlists for these other schools into the hundreds?

Safety comes to mind. I know an outgoing, civic-minded, long-term resident of the District. She is AA and told me a few years ago that her great granddaughter would go to Marie Reed over her dead body.

She's still living and the child is not at Marie Reed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. The title of the post was rude and a little inflammatory. I apologize. Poor choice of words. I started this thread, not to pit charter and DCPS but because there seems to be a double standard when it comes to not so stellar test scores from DCPS Title I schools. Take JO Wilson as an example, only because I saw some recent no-so-flattering comments about the school. The test scores are on par with some of these charters. 24% ELA and 35% math. Yet, when someone wanted feedback about the school, everyone jumped on the poster saying it was a terrible school and never to enroll their child there. Why? It seems to have some pretty good programs too. It's not just JO Wilson but you can plug in a lot of DCPS Title I schools that are doing just as well, if not better than these HRCS like Marie Reed, Barnard, Thomson. Yet, when anyone suggests enrolling their child at one of these schools, you get the most negative feedback. Why? And why are the waitlists for these other schools into the hundreds?

Safety comes to mind. I know an outgoing, civic-minded, long-term resident of the District. She is AA and told me a few years ago that her great granddaughter would go to Marie Reed over her dead body.

She's still living and the child is not at Marie Reed.

Then these long-term residents are relying on information that is outdated and simply wrong. I would have no qualms sending my DC to Marie Reed.

[Anonymous]

I think scores of 3+ is more indicative for PARCC scores. I'd be more concerned if there is a large population in the 1 and 2 bucket. A lot easier to bridge the gap between and 3 and 4. That can simply be matter of technical/mouse issues. This goes for all schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I for one didn't expect the MV numbers to be above those of CMI and ITS.

MV only shows scores 3rd-5th, ITS includes 3-7th. Compare grade for grade.

You can't - all that's available on OSSE is 3rd and 4th for ITS. Must not be enough students in 5th-7th to report publicly.

CMI's scores are 10% higher if you don't include the special education students, fwiw.

Wow! where do you see that?

From any school's results page scroll to bottom and click on 'special populations' http://results.osse.dc.gov/school/3069

Don't get too excited. Almost every school has a 10% bump if you factor out special education.

Does that make you feel good? Here's an extension of your logic: let's factor out AAs, ELLs, and FARMS. Whatever schools still remain will probably look very high performing all-of-a-sudden.

(There is a point to the public part of public education.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because hrcs parents like to say they're not into test scores, man!

And then sneer and wring their hands at Powell/Bancroft/Tubman/Barnard et al. Because, I mean, have you seen the test scores? We're not into them, but pedagogy. Man. If you only educated yourself like I have, and learned how important these things are, you'd be doing Montessori unicorn immersion elvish with Larlito too.

Were you high when you typed this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For Yu Ying:

All students: 51% ELA/59% Math

3rd Grade: 31/46
4th Grade: 69/68
5th Grade: 69/73

What is going on with 3rd grade which is the current 4th?!?

Two things:
1. Re ELA, the current 4th are the first cohort to receive 100% Chinese instruction in PK4. Previous years used the day of Chinese/day of English model. One year less of English instruction = lessened English proficiency.
2. This is the bubble class--6 (now 5) classes in the grade rather than 4 (as for all other grades K & above). This means that at least two classes each year are getting teachers who didn't teach that grade the previous year. Again, it's easy to imagine that these kids with less-experienced teachers learned less.

We're in a younger grade at YY and I agree with this. Less English instruction makes a difference - but it tends to even out later, research shows.

Also, this is the year for which YY went through its entire waitlist (hard to imagine at this point, I know). So there's less self-selectivity.

I don't know how third grade does in general with such tests (are they usually worse than older grades). Have a current third grader who is not terribly proficient with mice (used to iPads).

Do you hear yourself? Yuk.[/qu

Seriously. As a parent in this cohorts class I find that statement ridiculous and offensive.

And untrue. When the testing kids in 4th and 5th grades applied to Yu Ying, everyone who wanted to get in got accepted into Yu Ying and their scores are higher than the bubble class scores. So the self selectivity factor is moot for the testing grades 3, 4 and 5. The only difference between the bubble 3rd grade class and the 4th and 5th grades is that the bubble class preK was 100% Mandarin while the 4th and 5th grade got 50% English/50% Mandarin in preK4... And that YY had to scramble for teachers for the bubble class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not inspired by ITS's scores, and I say that as a long time parent. 25/18 for AA kids may be better than the DC average, but it is awful. 62/62 for white kids is quite poor also, especially compared to WOTP white scores, e.g., 81/84 at Key.

I want my bright child challenged and lifted by a room full of smart kids. Sadly, it looks like I've been kidding myself about ITS.

You assume that your "bright child" is not being enriched based on test scores? You picked the wrong school if that's the metric you care about.

+1. also, being surrounded by a "room full of smart kids" is not exactly real life. in real life, some people have book smarts, some people do not. some people have common sense, some people do not. insulating your child so that they are surrounded by people just like them is not really doing them any favors in life.

Not exactly real life? It is for some (see: Sidwell and other top privates). Not to be blunt, but putting a bright child in a classroom where > 50% of the kids are borderline innumerate and/or illiterate is a terrible waste of potential.

Not all Sidwell kids and their ilk are bright. They are lucky in their life circumstances. Wealth can mask the lack of book smarts...poverty cannot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because hrcs parents like to say they're not into test scores, man!

And then sneer and wring their hands at Powell/Bancroft/Tubman/Barnard et al. Because, I mean, have you seen the test scores? We're not into them, but pedagogy. Man. If you only educated yourself like I have, and learned how important these things are, you'd be doing Montessori unicorn immersion elvish with Larlito too.

Were you high when you typed this?

Not at all. I hate pot. Are you always so humorless? Oh wait. Dcurbanmom? The answer is of course, yes.

[Anonymous]

Again, we see the same people who make excuses for their affluent progeny not doing well (although I realize with this crowd, few will admit to less than double 4s), condemn entire schools and the children in them for low test scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For Yu Ying:

All students: 51% ELA/59% Math

3rd Grade: 31/46
4th Grade: 69/68
5th Grade: 69/73

What is going on with 3rd grade which is the current 4th?!?

By race grades 3-5:

White: 59/74
AA: 34/39
Two or more races: 71/78

It's always been the "don't care about Chinese, as much as we are just happy to be here" class. They've always been the laziest, least generous and least productive group. It's the bubble class. Everyone hates them, but they did help pay for the facility.

You hate a bunch of eight year olds, because you think they aren't dedicated enough. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because hrcs parents like to say they're not into test scores, man!

And then sneer and wring their hands at Powell/Bancroft/Tubman/Barnard et al. Because, I mean, have you seen the test scores? We're not into them, but pedagogy. Man. If you only educated yourself like I have, and learned how important these things are, you'd be doing Montessori unicorn immersion elvish with Larlito too.

Preach it sister. This is it. Test scores don't matter when your kids attend a hippy dippy charter school. Somehow it's an appropriate metric to gauge quality of neighborhood schools. Guess what, DCPS offers arts integration, montessori, dual language, you name it. These charter people who claim it's not the test scores, it's the programming options kill me. I don't see any of these same people enrolling their kids into Savoy or Langdon. Programming my ass.

What grade is your child in? Third or older? If you have a child in a title 1 school in 3rd, I'm happy to hear your opinion on this. If we are talking about a ECE kid...move along.

I have a fifth grader. (I am op though, not pp.) We do now attend a charter school. We did attend a dcps. Academics wasnt what made us switch from one to the other. Academically, I say with all of my inborn privilege and external comforts, is not a problem for the kid.