waitlist data up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CMIs special needs population is performing at a lower level than at most other schools.

I’m glad the PPP is pleased, but it isn’t necessarily a reason to keep the school open. Unless something dramatic happens quickly it will be facing closure in a few years. The model isn’t working.

This. As a founding parent of CMI who left, this is very important. The model of CMI when created was innovative. The ED is not sticking to the plan and is only serving one type of SN student (her son). Great if that works for you, sucks if your kid isn’t helped. And if you are neurotypical kids...or at kids...or kids of color...ha!

That being said, she knows all the buzz words. So people keep applying...but look at retention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMIs special needs population is performing at a lower level than at most other schools.

I’m glad the PPP is pleased, but it isn’t necessarily a reason to keep the school open. Unless something dramatic happens quickly it will be facing closure in a few years. The model isn’t working.

This. As a founding parent of CMI who left, this is very important. The model of CMI when created was innovative. The ED is not sticking to the plan and is only serving one type of SN student (her son). Great if that works for you, sucks if your kid isn’t helped. And if you are neurotypical kids...or at kids...or kids of color...ha!

That being said, she knows all the buzz words. So people keep applying...but look at retention.

I still can’t believe they only have 200 pk3 on waitlist. My guess is they go through at least 100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CMIs special needs population is performing at a lower level than at most other schools.

I’m glad the PPP is pleased, but it isn’t necessarily a reason to keep the school open. Unless something dramatic happens quickly it will be facing closure in a few years. The model isn’t working.

Yes. Facing closure. Cause that's a responsible conclusion based on facts. I really hope you are a troll, and not so very emotionally invested that your brain simply stopped working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CMIs special needs population is performing at a lower level than at most other schools.

How do you figure this? When I read through the School QSRs, the notes on teacher interactions with kids with SN at CMI seemed much more favorable than other schools (like, say, Bridges) with a substantial SPED population. When I look at the PARCC scores for kids with disabilities CMI seems to, again, do better than other charters with a substantial SPED population and better than some of the "HRCS". Ditto for the school report cards. I have yet to meet a parent of a child with moderate to severe special needs (a kid like mine, who DCPS would place in a segregated classroom) who told me that they left CMI because they thought a different DC Public or Charter school could provide a better education for their child. (If you are a parent who has found such a public school, please, tell me about it, because I have literally been looking everywhere I can think of for this information for the past three years!!!)

I'm not saying CMI is perfect. I'm not saying CMI will serve every kid with special needs well. Kids from CMI who the school can't serve get private placements at Ivymount and other special needs schools (not as often as, say, Two Rivers, but . . .) But these claims that CMI is "failing" special needs kids compared to other DC public schools sound way off base to me.

[Anonymous]

I recognize that other families at CMI have had different experiences than ours, some significantly less positive. And while we remain concerned that the school may not be a viable option for middle school for our children, we have been entirely happy with the experiences of both of our (typical) children. Both are performing above grade level and have shown significant growth each year.

And while testing clearly has not been CMIs strong point, to say that they are performing well below every other school on every metrics simply is not true. Take for instance CMI’s 3rd grade math PARCC scores from 2018, which were ~2% points below Murch and Yu Ying and above those for MV and Stokes. Broken down further, CMI 3rd grade math scores were the 3rd highest in DC for students with disabilities (37.5%), the 5th highest for white students (91.7%), and the 12th highest for males (76.9%). 3rd grade ELA scores on the other hand were not so good, in fact down right horrible. I will give you that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recognize that other families at CMI have had different experiences than ours, some significantly less positive. And while we remain concerned that the school may not be a viable option for middle school for our children, we have been entirely happy with the experiences of both of our (typical) children. Both are performing above grade level and have shown significant growth each year.

And while testing clearly has not been CMIs strong point, to say that they are performing well below every other school on every metrics simply is not true. Take for instance CMI’s 3rd grade math PARCC scores from 2018, which were ~2% points below Murch and Yu Ying and above those for MV and Stokes. Broken down further, CMI 3rd grade math scores were the 3rd highest in DC for students with disabilities (37.5%), the 5th highest for white students (91.7%), and the 12th highest for males (76.9%). 3rd grade ELA scores on the other hand were not so good, in fact down right horrible. I will give you that.

1) OSSE used to release the level of disabilities (1 for least number of hours to 4 for fully self-contained). But the proficiency scores are not broken down that way - so it's hard to do an apples to apples comparison. Below I pulled school-wide proficiency on ELA from a handful of schools that have specialized programs or classrooms for students with SN as a proxy.

Proficiency (4 or 5)
CMI 17.6
Lafayette 31.03 (has specialized SN classrooms - denoting students needing 15+ hours of specialized instruction)
Murch 25.7 (specialized SN classrooms)
Bridges 14.2 (specialized SN classrooms)
SWS 50% (SN inclusion program + medically fragile students)
SWW@FS 21.5% (SN inclusion program)

2) The Floortime approach CMI has spent thousands of dollars in consulting on has 0 peer-reviewed studies demonstrating its effectiveness, which as a taxpayer and SN public school parent makes me crazy (just as it makes me crazy that it's really tough to get Orton-Gillingham instruction for students with dyslexia).

We either invest in things that are not proven to be effective or refuse to use things that do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recognize that other families at CMI have had different experiences than ours, some significantly less positive. And while we remain concerned that the school may not be a viable option for middle school for our children, we have been entirely happy with the experiences of both of our (typical) children. Both are performing above grade level and have shown significant growth each year.

And while testing clearly has not been CMIs strong point, to say that they are performing well below every other school on every metrics simply is not true. Take for instance CMI’s 3rd grade math PARCC scores from 2018, which were ~2% points below Murch and Yu Ying and above those for MV and Stokes. Broken down further, CMI 3rd grade math scores were the 3rd highest in DC for students with disabilities (37.5%), the 5th highest for white students (91.7%), and the 12th highest for males (76.9%). 3rd grade ELA scores on the other hand were not so good, in fact down right horrible. I will give you that.

1) OSSE used to release the level of disabilities (1 for least number of hours to 4 for fully self-contained). But the proficiency scores are not broken down that way - so it's hard to do an apples to apples comparison. Below I pulled school-wide proficiency on ELA from a handful of schools that have specialized programs or classrooms for students with SN as a proxy.

Proficiency (4 or 5)
CMI 17.6
Lafayette 31.03 (has specialized SN classrooms - denoting students needing 15+ hours of specialized instruction)
Murch 25.7 (specialized SN classrooms)
Bridges 14.2 (specialized SN classrooms)
SWS 50% (SN inclusion program + medically fragile students)
SWW@FS 21.5% (SN inclusion program)

2) The Floortime approach CMI has spent thousands of dollars in consulting on has 0 peer-reviewed studies demonstrating its effectiveness, which as a taxpayer and SN public school parent makes me crazy (just as it makes me crazy that it's really tough to get Orton-Gillingham instruction for students with dyslexia).

We either invest in things that are not proven to be effective or refuse to use things that do.

Still? I remember asking the principal about the evidence base for Floortime. She told me to check a website, but generally seemed unbothered by the lack of efficacy data for this approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMIs special needs population is performing at a lower level than at most other schools.

How do you figure this? When I read through the School QSRs, the notes on teacher interactions with kids with SN at CMI seemed much more favorable than other schools (like, say, Bridges) with a substantial SPED population. When I look at the PARCC scores for kids with disabilities CMI seems to, again, do better than other charters with a substantial SPED population and better than some of the "HRCS". Ditto for the school report cards. I have yet to meet a parent of a child with moderate to severe special needs (a kid like mine, who DCPS would place in a segregated classroom) who told me that they left CMI because they thought a different DC Public or Charter school could provide a better education for their child. (If you are a parent who has found such a public school, please, tell me about it, because I have literally been looking everywhere I can think of for this information for the past three years!!!)

I'm not saying CMI is perfect. I'm not saying CMI will serve every kid with special needs well. Kids from CMI who the school can't serve get private placements at Ivymount and other special needs schools (not as often as, say, Two Rivers, but . . .) But these claims that CMI is "failing" special needs kids compared to other DC public schools sound way off base to me.

Let me just say, as a CMI parent, I know of two former CMI kids who were failed by the school. Getting private placement is not as easy as you think. CMI does not help to do so (because it looks bad on them). I don't know if CMI is better or worse (I would assume it's better) - but getting a private placement from CMI is not an easy thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recognize that other families at CMI have had different experiences than ours, some significantly less positive. And while we remain concerned that the school may not be a viable option for middle school for our children, we have been entirely happy with the experiences of both of our (typical) children. Both are performing above grade level and have shown significant growth each year.

And while testing clearly has not been CMIs strong point, to say that they are performing well below every other school on every metrics simply is not true. Take for instance CMI’s 3rd grade math PARCC scores from 2018, which were ~2% points below Murch and Yu Ying and above those for MV and Stokes. Broken down further, CMI 3rd grade math scores were the 3rd highest in DC for students with disabilities (37.5%), the 5th highest for white students (91.7%), and the 12th highest for males (76.9%). 3rd grade ELA scores on the other hand were not so good, in fact down right horrible. I will give you that.

12th highest for males? Seriously? Now you are just grasping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recognize that other families at CMI have had different experiences than ours, some significantly less positive. And while we remain concerned that the school may not be a viable option for middle school for our children, we have been entirely happy with the experiences of both of our (typical) children. Both are performing above grade level and have shown significant growth each year.

And while testing clearly has not been CMIs strong point, to say that they are performing well below every other school on every metrics simply is not true. Take for instance CMI’s 3rd grade math PARCC scores from 2018, which were ~2% points below Murch and Yu Ying and above those for MV and Stokes. Broken down further, CMI 3rd grade math scores were the 3rd highest in DC for students with disabilities (37.5%), the 5th highest for white students (91.7%), and the 12th highest for males (76.9%). 3rd grade ELA scores on the other hand were not so good, in fact down right horrible. I will give you that.

1) OSSE used to release the level of disabilities (1 for least number of hours to 4 for fully self-contained). But the proficiency scores are not broken down that way - so it's hard to do an apples to apples comparison. Below I pulled school-wide proficiency on ELA from a handful of schools that have specialized programs or classrooms for students with SN as a proxy.

Proficiency (4 or 5)
CMI 17.6
Lafayette 31.03 (has specialized SN classrooms - denoting students needing 15+ hours of specialized instruction)
Murch 25.7 (specialized SN classrooms)
Bridges 14.2 (specialized SN classrooms)
SWS 50% (SN inclusion program + medically fragile students)
SWW@FS 21.5% (SN inclusion program)

2) The Floortime approach CMI has spent thousands of dollars in consulting on has 0 peer-reviewed studies demonstrating its effectiveness, which as a taxpayer and SN public school parent makes me crazy (just as it makes me crazy that it's really tough to get Orton-Gillingham instruction for students with dyslexia).

We either invest in things that are not proven to be effective or refuse to use things that do.

Still? I remember asking the principal about the evidence base for Floortime. She told me to check a website, but generally seemed unbothered by the lack of efficacy data for this approach.

Association for Science in Autism Study has shown that Floortime actually can do more harm (in a random control study). But whatever! It's Creative Minds! It has Chinese!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recognize that other families at CMI have had different experiences than ours, some significantly less positive. And while we remain concerned that the school may not be a viable option for middle school for our children, we have been entirely happy with the experiences of both of our (typical) children. Both are performing above grade level and have shown significant growth each year.

And while testing clearly has not been CMIs strong point, to say that they are performing well below every other school on every metrics simply is not true. Take for instance CMI’s 3rd grade math PARCC scores from 2018, which were ~2% points below Murch and Yu Ying and above those for MV and Stokes. Broken down further, CMI 3rd grade math scores were the 3rd highest in DC for students with disabilities (37.5%), the 5th highest for white students (91.7%), and the 12th highest for males (76.9%). 3rd grade ELA scores on the other hand were not so good, in fact down right horrible. I will give you that.

12th highest for males? Seriously? Now you are just grasping.

I really am not. That means their math scores (4+) were higher than the following schools:
Eaton, Mann, Murch, Hearst, Shepherd, Hyde-Addison, Yu Ying, Inspired Teaching, Stokes, Mundo Verde...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recognize that other families at CMI have had different experiences than ours, some significantly less positive. And while we remain concerned that the school may not be a viable option for middle school for our children, we have been entirely happy with the experiences of both of our (typical) children. Both are performing above grade level and have shown significant growth each year.

And while testing clearly has not been CMIs strong point, to say that they are performing well below every other school on every metrics simply is not true. Take for instance CMI’s 3rd grade math PARCC scores from 2018, which were ~2% points below Murch and Yu Ying and above those for MV and Stokes. Broken down further, CMI 3rd grade math scores were the 3rd highest in DC for students with disabilities (37.5%), the 5th highest for white students (91.7%), and the 12th highest for males (76.9%). 3rd grade ELA scores on the other hand were not so good, in fact down right horrible. I will give you that.

How do you know your kids are performing above grade level? Those teacher provided assessments are not the best tool to rely on. I bet you the 3rd grade parents thought their typical kids were above grade level until they started taking PARCC.

Overall ELA 23%
White ELA 33%
Black ELA 15%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recognize that other families at CMI have had different experiences than ours, some significantly less positive. And while we remain concerned that the school may not be a viable option for middle school for our children, we have been entirely happy with the experiences of both of our (typical) children. Both are performing above grade level and have shown significant growth each year.

And while testing clearly has not been CMIs strong point, to say that they are performing well below every other school on every metrics simply is not true. Take for instance CMI’s 3rd grade math PARCC scores from 2018, which were ~2% points below Murch and Yu Ying and above those for MV and Stokes. Broken down further, CMI 3rd grade math scores were the 3rd highest in DC for students with disabilities (37.5%), the 5th highest for white students (91.7%), and the 12th highest for males (76.9%). 3rd grade ELA scores on the other hand were not so good, in fact down right horrible. I will give you that.

12th highest for males? Seriously? Now you are just grasping.

I really am not. That means their math scores (4+) were higher than the following schools:
Eaton, Mann, Murch, Hearst, Shepherd, Hyde-Addison, Yu Ying, Inspired Teaching, Stokes, Mundo Verde...

When you have 13 males taking the test, it's an anomaly, not a trend. Also, you didn't mention that those same 13 males that got 79% in math, got a whopping 7% in ELA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recognize that other families at CMI have had different experiences than ours, some significantly less positive. And while we remain concerned that the school may not be a viable option for middle school for our children, we have been entirely happy with the experiences of both of our (typical) children. Both are performing above grade level and have shown significant growth each year.

And while testing clearly has not been CMIs strong point, to say that they are performing well below every other school on every metrics simply is not true. Take for instance CMI’s 3rd grade math PARCC scores from 2018, which were ~2% points below Murch and Yu Ying and above those for MV and Stokes. Broken down further, CMI 3rd grade math scores were the 3rd highest in DC for students with disabilities (37.5%), the 5th highest for white students (91.7%), and the 12th highest for males (76.9%). 3rd grade ELA scores on the other hand were not so good, in fact down right horrible. I will give you that.

12th highest for males? Seriously? Now you are just grasping.

I really am not. That means their math scores (4+) were higher than the following schools:
Eaton, Mann, Murch, Hearst, Shepherd, Hyde-Addison, Yu Ying, Inspired Teaching, Stokes, Mundo Verde...

When you have 13 males taking the test, it's an anomaly, not a trend. Also, you didn't mention that those same 13 males that got 79% in math, got a whopping 7% in ELA.

Lol it doesn’t matter if 10 out of 13 boys past math if they can’t read their PARCC report. If a tree falls in the forest....

[Anonymous]

If you pull kids out to teach to the test, they are going to do well. As you know CMI did this year.