Importance of classmates being at grade levels for reading/math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

To the poster above this one… Actually, here’s the post where the PP explicitly mocks the idea of demographic changes across grade levels.

Yes but it's a post just referencing L-T, not all schools EOTP. Like I would not expect K and 3rd grade to be a substantially different group of kids at Brent or Maury, nor at some of the Title 1 schools EOTP where high-SES families don't go at all or only go for PK and then bail out. L-T might be uniquely in the middle of a gentrification where that's not true, but if so you can just answer the question (this is why I think there are demographic differences between lower and upper elementary at L-T) rather than act incensed that someone would mostly expect the student population at a well-regarded school to be pretty consistent from grade to grade, since at most schools it is consistent because good schools tend to retain families through at least 4th.

Sorry, you knew there was a post denying demographic change at L-T but didn’t make the connection to a post referencing one that talked about demographic change at any EOTP school? Not all EoTP schools mind you, but any. So, for instance, LT.

All non-T1 schools on the Hill have noticeable population shifts from PK to 5th. IB kids leaving are always wealthier than OOB kids coming in on average. The PKs are basically all IB. This isn’t rocket science. Looking at PARCC scores for only 3-5 doesn’t tell you everything about your child’s peers if they’re at the school nearly 3 times that length of time. This all started from someone questioning the claim that the average grade at LT had 5-10% more kids on grade level than the PARCC results show. Especially when you consider that K-2 are larger grades than 3-5, this strikes me as almost certainly true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

To the poster above this one… Actually, here’s the post where the PP explicitly mocks the idea of demographic changes across grade levels.

Yes but it's a post just referencing L-T, not all schools EOTP. Like I would not expect K and 3rd grade to be a substantially different group of kids at Brent or Maury, nor at some of the Title 1 schools EOTP where high-SES families don't go at all or only go for PK and then bail out. L-T might be uniquely in the middle of a gentrification where that's not true, but if so you can just answer the question (this is why I think there are demographic differences between lower and upper elementary at L-T) rather than act incensed that someone would mostly expect the student population at a well-regarded school to be pretty consistent from grade to grade, since at most schools it is consistent because good schools tend to retain families through at least 4th.

You are completely incorrect if you think the PK population at Brent (which has only a few percentage points higher IB rate than LT overall) is demographically the same as 3rd-5th. It’s all shades of change, but the change is really at all of these schools with wealthy IB areas.

Brent is at least 10 years ahead of L-T in terms of gentrification though. L-T was a Title 1 school a very short time ago. I think this is part of the reason the L-T poster on this thread is getting so defensive about L-T, because there is this perception that L-T only recently entered the conversation as one of the "good" schools on the Hill. You don't see Brent and Maury parents getting upset about this because they don't feel they have anything to defend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If school LSATs are trying to make any real attempt at the role they’re supposed to play, they better be reviewing aggregated data about school performance across many metrics including internal test scores. How else could they assess if the school plan was being met, etc?

Not all schools have that level of analysis on their LSAT committee. Perhaps they should, but it's a volunteer committee and not everyone has the knowledge, skills, or time to do that kind of thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

If the internal data shared at LSAT meeting is public, why not share it here? And what internal data? Is L-T doing testing of K or 1st graders on their own? That would be fascinating.

Are you the same poster who though PK and 4th grade classes were demographically then same anywhere EOTP? Because of course schools do their own testing of K and 1st graders. You seem very confident on a lot of points while seemingly having never stepped foot in any EOTP DCPS much less L-T.

I don't think anyone made any such statement. The conversation has been explicitly about L-T and I actually haven't seen anyone discuss any other EOTP schools on here at all. I get schools gentrify but if that's what's behind lower than expected scores in higher grades, then it would seem that the real answer to OP's question is not "yes, having more peers at grade level is important" but instead "having higher SES peers is important." Related answers, but not exactly the same.

I know schools do iReady and other testing in classrooms to asses student progress in early elementary grades but I was not aware that schools aggregated that data and reported it out -- I thought it was intended just as a tool for teaching the specific student and tracking their progress, or making sure they are placed in the right groups for reading and math. I've never seen aggregated data on this from my school, just my individual student's test results. That's why I asked.

My kid is at an "EOTP" elementary, for what it is worth.

You’ve seen your own kids scores but are surprised the schools administer the tests? Nothing in your original post had anything to do with sharing the data in an aggregated fashion; you questioned the idea that schools did the testing.

Sigh. I feel like you are intentionally misreading my posts and being antagonizing for no reason. I view iReady and other classroom assessments differently than PARCC and other school assessments. The goal of iReady is to see where a specific kid is at so that they can be properly placed at the right level, and also so that a teacher (and parents) can track progress across the year or from year to year. It's child-specific. PARCC testing is not intended to be child-specific (though some people use it that way, it's not the reason these tests are administered) -- it's a school-wide assessment that is INTENDED to be aggregated in order to evaluate school performance.

I have never heard of schools using iReady scoring as an internal schoolwide assessment tool and I've never heard of a school reporting out in an LSAT meeting "here are the iReady scores aggregated for this year's K class." That doesn't happen at my school. So when someone (I guess you) asserted that L-T reported out "internal testing" for K-2nd grade, I was interested and wanted to know more, and it didn't occur to me that you were talking about iReady scoring because that's not been my experience or interaction with the iReady testing for my kid.

Instead you have repeatedly insulted me and taken a snide tone, and I don't know why. Sounds like L-T is a good school with some great test scores and a lot of feedback for parents on how kids are doing in the classroom. Why are you so angry? Not everyone has that at their school so maybe you could be a bit less defensive (no idea why you'd be defensive when people seem to universally agree L-T is doing a good job) and actually answer questions instead of acting like it's rude to ask.

I’m actually not the person who said anything about internal reporting, but your original post came across as very snarky. Maybe you didn’t realize how your tone sounded. I think it’s very unlikely your school doesn’t review its internal testing data in this manner, but perhaps they aren’t as transparent with parents in general or you don’t go to LSAT meetings. PARCC data also serves student specific purposes (eg, school entry cut offs), so the distinction you’re drawing between PARCC and iReady/DIBELS/MAP/ANET/etc testing is weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

To the poster above this one… Actually, here’s the post where the PP explicitly mocks the idea of demographic changes across grade levels.

Yes but it's a post just referencing L-T, not all schools EOTP. Like I would not expect K and 3rd grade to be a substantially different group of kids at Brent or Maury, nor at some of the Title 1 schools EOTP where high-SES families don't go at all or only go for PK and then bail out. L-T might be uniquely in the middle of a gentrification where that's not true, but if so you can just answer the question (this is why I think there are demographic differences between lower and upper elementary at L-T) rather than act incensed that someone would mostly expect the student population at a well-regarded school to be pretty consistent from grade to grade, since at most schools it is consistent because good schools tend to retain families through at least 4th.

You are completely incorrect if you think the PK population at Brent (which has only a few percentage points higher IB rate than LT overall) is demographically the same as 3rd-5th. It’s all shades of change, but the change is really at all of these schools with wealthy IB areas.

Brent is at least 10 years ahead of L-T in terms of gentrification though. L-T was a Title 1 school a very short time ago. I think this is part of the reason the L-T poster on this thread is getting so defensive about L-T, because there is this perception that L-T only recently entered the conversation as one of the "good" schools on the Hill. You don't see Brent and Maury parents getting upset about this because they don't feel they have anything to defend.

Absolutely true with respect to Brent having gentrified a long time ago. Although it is interesting to compare scores and IB percentages and see that they’re not in very different places now. Somewhat different? Absolutely, Brent’s IB is richer and whiter to begin with. But very different? No. There’s a bigger difference between Brent and Maury in terms of IB v OOB than between LT and Brent by a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

If the internal data shared at LSAT meeting is public, why not share it here? And what internal data? Is L-T doing testing of K or 1st graders on their own? That would be fascinating.

Are you the same poster who though PK and 4th grade classes were demographically then same anywhere EOTP? Because of course schools do their own testing of K and 1st graders. You seem very confident on a lot of points while seemingly having never stepped foot in any EOTP DCPS much less L-T.

I don't think anyone made any such statement. The conversation has been explicitly about L-T and I actually haven't seen anyone discuss any other EOTP schools on here at all. I get schools gentrify but if that's what's behind lower than expected scores in higher grades, then it would seem that the real answer to OP's question is not "yes, having more peers at grade level is important" but instead "having higher SES peers is important." Related answers, but not exactly the same.

I know schools do iReady and other testing in classrooms to asses student progress in early elementary grades but I was not aware that schools aggregated that data and reported it out -- I thought it was intended just as a tool for teaching the specific student and tracking their progress, or making sure they are placed in the right groups for reading and math. I've never seen aggregated data on this from my school, just my individual student's test results. That's why I asked.

My kid is at an "EOTP" elementary, for what it is worth.

You’ve seen your own kids scores but are surprised the schools administer the tests? Nothing in your original post had anything to do with sharing the data in an aggregated fashion; you questioned the idea that schools did the testing.

Sigh. I feel like you are intentionally misreading my posts and being antagonizing for no reason. I view iReady and other classroom assessments differently than PARCC and other school assessments. The goal of iReady is to see where a specific kid is at so that they can be properly placed at the right level, and also so that a teacher (and parents) can track progress across the year or from year to year. It's child-specific. PARCC testing is not intended to be child-specific (though some people use it that way, it's not the reason these tests are administered) -- it's a school-wide assessment that is INTENDED to be aggregated in order to evaluate school performance.

I have never heard of schools using iReady scoring as an internal schoolwide assessment tool and I've never heard of a school reporting out in an LSAT meeting "here are the iReady scores aggregated for this year's K class." That doesn't happen at my school. So when someone (I guess you) asserted that L-T reported out "internal testing" for K-2nd grade, I was interested and wanted to know more, and it didn't occur to me that you were talking about iReady scoring because that's not been my experience or interaction with the iReady testing for my kid.

Instead you have repeatedly insulted me and taken a snide tone, and I don't know why. Sounds like L-T is a good school with some great test scores and a lot of feedback for parents on how kids are doing in the classroom. Why are you so angry? Not everyone has that at their school so maybe you could be a bit less defensive (no idea why you'd be defensive when people seem to universally agree L-T is doing a good job) and actually answer questions instead of acting like it's rude to ask.

I’m actually not the person who said anything about internal reporting, but your original post came across as very snarky. Maybe you didn’t realize how your tone sounded. I think it’s very unlikely your school doesn’t review its internal testing data in this manner, but perhaps they aren’t as transparent with parents in general or you don’t go to LSAT meetings. PARCC data also serves student specific purposes (eg, school entry cut offs), so the distinction you’re drawing between PARCC and iReady/DIBELS/MAP/ANET/etc testing is weird.

The post I was replying to literally said "Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more." It is weird that you find my post "snarky".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

If the internal data shared at LSAT meeting is public, why not share it here? And what internal data? Is L-T doing testing of K or 1st graders on their own? That would be fascinating.

Are you the same poster who though PK and 4th grade classes were demographically then same anywhere EOTP? Because of course schools do their own testing of K and 1st graders. You seem very confident on a lot of points while seemingly having never stepped foot in any EOTP DCPS much less L-T.

I don't think anyone made any such statement. The conversation has been explicitly about L-T and I actually haven't seen anyone discuss any other EOTP schools on here at all. I get schools gentrify but if that's what's behind lower than expected scores in higher grades, then it would seem that the real answer to OP's question is not "yes, having more peers at grade level is important" but instead "having higher SES peers is important." Related answers, but not exactly the same.

I know schools do iReady and other testing in classrooms to asses student progress in early elementary grades but I was not aware that schools aggregated that data and reported it out -- I thought it was intended just as a tool for teaching the specific student and tracking their progress, or making sure they are placed in the right groups for reading and math. I've never seen aggregated data on this from my school, just my individual student's test results. That's why I asked.

My kid is at an "EOTP" elementary, for what it is worth.

You’ve seen your own kids scores but are surprised the schools administer the tests? Nothing in your original post had anything to do with sharing the data in an aggregated fashion; you questioned the idea that schools did the testing.

Sigh. I feel like you are intentionally misreading my posts and being antagonizing for no reason. I view iReady and other classroom assessments differently than PARCC and other school assessments. The goal of iReady is to see where a specific kid is at so that they can be properly placed at the right level, and also so that a teacher (and parents) can track progress across the year or from year to year. It's child-specific. PARCC testing is not intended to be child-specific (though some people use it that way, it's not the reason these tests are administered) -- it's a school-wide assessment that is INTENDED to be aggregated in order to evaluate school performance.

I have never heard of schools using iReady scoring as an internal schoolwide assessment tool and I've never heard of a school reporting out in an LSAT meeting "here are the iReady scores aggregated for this year's K class." That doesn't happen at my school. So when someone (I guess you) asserted that L-T reported out "internal testing" for K-2nd grade, I was interested and wanted to know more, and it didn't occur to me that you were talking about iReady scoring because that's not been my experience or interaction with the iReady testing for my kid.

Instead you have repeatedly insulted me and taken a snide tone, and I don't know why. Sounds like L-T is a good school with some great test scores and a lot of feedback for parents on how kids are doing in the classroom. Why are you so angry? Not everyone has that at their school so maybe you could be a bit less defensive (no idea why you'd be defensive when people seem to universally agree L-T is doing a good job) and actually answer questions instead of acting like it's rude to ask.

I’m actually not the person who said anything about internal reporting, but your original post came across as very snarky. Maybe you didn’t realize how your tone sounded. I think it’s very unlikely your school doesn’t review its internal testing data in this manner, but perhaps they aren’t as transparent with parents in general or you don’t go to LSAT meetings. PARCC data also serves student specific purposes (eg, school entry cut offs), so the distinction you’re drawing between PARCC and iReady/DIBELS/MAP/ANET/etc testing is weird.

The post I was replying to literally said "Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more." It is weird that you find my post "snarky".

That post is also snarky. But does that mean you are the previous poster who didn’t realize there was demographic change? Because, if so, it’s weird you immediately claimed you knew that was true. And if not, then you’re replying to a snarky post that wasn’t aimed at you at all (and in fact was reply to something you said you knew to be untrue), so I’m not sure why you’d be offended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

If the internal data shared at LSAT meeting is public, why not share it here? And what internal data? Is L-T doing testing of K or 1st graders on their own? That would be fascinating.

Are you the same poster who though PK and 4th grade classes were demographically then same anywhere EOTP? Because of course schools do their own testing of K and 1st graders. You seem very confident on a lot of points while seemingly having never stepped foot in any EOTP DCPS much less L-T.

I don't think anyone made any such statement. The conversation has been explicitly about L-T and I actually haven't seen anyone discuss any other EOTP schools on here at all. I get schools gentrify but if that's what's behind lower than expected scores in higher grades, then it would seem that the real answer to OP's question is not "yes, having more peers at grade level is important" but instead "having higher SES peers is important." Related answers, but not exactly the same.

I know schools do iReady and other testing in classrooms to asses student progress in early elementary grades but I was not aware that schools aggregated that data and reported it out -- I thought it was intended just as a tool for teaching the specific student and tracking their progress, or making sure they are placed in the right groups for reading and math. I've never seen aggregated data on this from my school, just my individual student's test results. That's why I asked.

My kid is at an "EOTP" elementary, for what it is worth.

You’ve seen your own kids scores but are surprised the schools administer the tests? Nothing in your original post had anything to do with sharing the data in an aggregated fashion; you questioned the idea that schools did the testing.

Sigh. I feel like you are intentionally misreading my posts and being antagonizing for no reason. I view iReady and other classroom assessments differently than PARCC and other school assessments. The goal of iReady is to see where a specific kid is at so that they can be properly placed at the right level, and also so that a teacher (and parents) can track progress across the year or from year to year. It's child-specific. PARCC testing is not intended to be child-specific (though some people use it that way, it's not the reason these tests are administered) -- it's a school-wide assessment that is INTENDED to be aggregated in order to evaluate school performance.

I have never heard of schools using iReady scoring as an internal schoolwide assessment tool and I've never heard of a school reporting out in an LSAT meeting "here are the iReady scores aggregated for this year's K class." That doesn't happen at my school. So when someone (I guess you) asserted that L-T reported out "internal testing" for K-2nd grade, I was interested and wanted to know more, and it didn't occur to me that you were talking about iReady scoring because that's not been my experience or interaction with the iReady testing for my kid.

Instead you have repeatedly insulted me and taken a snide tone, and I don't know why. Sounds like L-T is a good school with some great test scores and a lot of feedback for parents on how kids are doing in the classroom. Why are you so angry? Not everyone has that at their school so maybe you could be a bit less defensive (no idea why you'd be defensive when people seem to universally agree L-T is doing a good job) and actually answer questions instead of acting like it's rude to ask.

I’m actually not the person who said anything about internal reporting, but your original post came across as very snarky. Maybe you didn’t realize how your tone sounded. I think it’s very unlikely your school doesn’t review its internal testing data in this manner, but perhaps they aren’t as transparent with parents in general or you don’t go to LSAT meetings. PARCC data also serves student specific purposes (eg, school entry cut offs), so the distinction you’re drawing between PARCC and iReady/DIBELS/MAP/ANET/etc testing is weird.

The post I was replying to literally said "Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more." It is weird that you find my post "snarky".

That post is also snarky. But does that mean you are the previous poster who didn’t realize there was demographic change? Because, if so, it’s weird you immediately claimed you knew that was true. And if not, then you’re replying to a snarky post that wasn’t aimed at you at all (and in fact was reply to something you said you knew to be untrue), so I’m not sure why you’d be offended.

I wasn't offended, I was asking a genuine question, which was interpreted as "snarky" even though I don't see the wording as snarky at all and the post prior to mine was actually pretty aggressively snarky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread kind of makes me jealous of the vast majority of American parents who just enroll their kids in their suburban boundary school because that’s what’s available to them. Though I realize it’s a double edge sword, if those schools don’t work for their kid, most parents do not have another option. Moving or private school aren’t realistic to most of our country, where in the DC UMC it seems almost like a given if things aren’t working out.

it is extremely coming throughout the rest of the country for parents to choose where they live specifically for the school their home is zoned for. Yes, they just send their kid to the local school, but they didn’t randomly end up where they did.

DC seems to be full of more oblivious parents who wake up one day and realize the house they bought with the great walk to all the bars and coffee shops is zoned for a terrible school.

Other cities - not all of them, but a lot - have test-in programs and schools for kids with academic needs that won't be met otherwise. People outside have of DC have expressed surprise when I explain that, no, that's not a thing here. Obviously at some point as a parent you figure that out, but maybe not before you've moved here or bought a house.

I generally think people know their schools aren’t good but plan to lottery, go private, or move if it doesn’t work out. And for the most part, families who are buying in DC for the last ~10 years have the ability to do that. People buying for the schools in the burbs are often doing that because they know it’s their best option, whether the reason is that they can’t afford to move again or go private, or there isn’t really an option to go to an OOB or charter.

Because back then there was no Latin or Basis stealing the above average scoring kids out of the public system. The more charters, the more problems, DCPS has.

I will say time went by very fast and when we bought in 2012 SH had a better reputation.

[Anonymous]

A big problem that I see is the 5th-grade exodus to the charters that start in 5th. Maury, Brent, L-T (and probably Watkins) see a major number of students leave after 4th grade to join Basis and Latin, which then allows for the same number of spots open to OOB students looking for a "better" MS feeder. It's the DCPS-Charter musical chair routine.

If the PCSB did not authorize charters to start these in-between grade schools (5th-12Th), more kids could finish elementary in peace and the test scores would look a whole lot different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread kind of makes me jealous of the vast majority of American parents who just enroll their kids in their suburban boundary school because that’s what’s available to them. Though I realize it’s a double edge sword, if those schools don’t work for their kid, most parents do not have another option. Moving or private school aren’t realistic to most of our country, where in the DC UMC it seems almost like a given if things aren’t working out.

it is extremely coming throughout the rest of the country for parents to choose where they live specifically for the school their home is zoned for. Yes, they just send their kid to the local school, but they didn’t randomly end up where they did.

DC seems to be full of more oblivious parents who wake up one day and realize the house they bought with the great walk to all the bars and coffee shops is zoned for a terrible school.

Other cities - not all of them, but a lot - have test-in programs and schools for kids with academic needs that won't be met otherwise. People outside have of DC have expressed surprise when I explain that, no, that's not a thing here. Obviously at some point as a parent you figure that out, but maybe not before you've moved here or bought a house.

I generally think people know their schools aren’t good but plan to lottery, go private, or move if it doesn’t work out. And for the most part, families who are buying in DC for the last ~10 years have the ability to do that. People buying for the schools in the burbs are often doing that because they know it’s their best option, whether the reason is that they can’t afford to move again or go private, or there isn’t really an option to go to an OOB or charter.

Because back then there was no Latin or Basis stealing the above average scoring kids out of the public system. The more charters, the more problems, DCPS has.

I will say time went by very fast and when we bought in 2012 SH had a better reputation.

Yes those sneaky charter schools, snatching students away!

Or maybe their parents are choosing Latin and BASIS because DCPS can't get it together to offer an adequate middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A big problem that I see is the 5th-grade exodus to the charters that start in 5th. Maury, Brent, L-T (and probably Watkins) see a major number of students leave after 4th grade to join Basis and Latin, which then allows for the same number of spots open to OOB students looking for a "better" MS feeder. It's the DCPS-Charter musical chair routine.

If the PCSB did not authorize charters to start these in-between grade schools (5th-12Th), more kids could finish elementary in peace and the test scores would look a whole lot different.

Such a weak take. Setting aside that PCSB has no reason to care what this does to DCPS ES, what you are doing is blaming parents for having the audacity to choose MS and HS that provide a good education. As one of those families, and with all due respect, take tat weak sauce and good luck at Eastern.

[Anonymous]

this! for the original poster with a toddler LT is perfectly fine through 4th and you can probably save your current angst for then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big problem that I see is the 5th-grade exodus to the charters that start in 5th. Maury, Brent, L-T (and probably Watkins) see a major number of students leave after 4th grade to join Basis and Latin, which then allows for the same number of spots open to OOB students looking for a "better" MS feeder. It's the DCPS-Charter musical chair routine.

If the PCSB did not authorize charters to start these in-between grade schools (5th-12Th), more kids could finish elementary in peace and the test scores would look a whole lot different.

Such a weak take. Setting aside that PCSB has no reason to care what this does to DCPS ES, what you are doing is blaming parents for having the audacity to choose MS and HS that provide a good education. As one of those families, and with all due respect, take tat weak sauce and good luck at Eastern.

I actually don't think this is a weak take. My kids go to LT and I 100% plan to enter the lottery for BASIS & Latin x 2 and I do not feel bad about that... I prefer those schools to what I know of S-H, but I value a guaranteed HS path because I don't want to move. I do not feel bad about making that judgment call and I will be open about my choice. That said, I very much wish that charter middle schools started in 6th like DCPS schools and I think DC messed up big time in differentiating the starting grade between the two systems for any number of reasons. I would LOVE to leave my kids at LT for 5th grade and still have the charter option and I bet most Brent/Maury/SWS/Watkins parents feel the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread kind of makes me jealous of the vast majority of American parents who just enroll their kids in their suburban boundary school because that’s what’s available to them. Though I realize it’s a double edge sword, if those schools don’t work for their kid, most parents do not have another option. Moving or private school aren’t realistic to most of our country, where in the DC UMC it seems almost like a given if things aren’t working out.

it is extremely coming throughout the rest of the country for parents to choose where they live specifically for the school their home is zoned for. Yes, they just send their kid to the local school, but they didn’t randomly end up where they did.

DC seems to be full of more oblivious parents who wake up one day and realize the house they bought with the great walk to all the bars and coffee shops is zoned for a terrible school.

Other cities - not all of them, but a lot - have test-in programs and schools for kids with academic needs that won't be met otherwise. People outside have of DC have expressed surprise when I explain that, no, that's not a thing here. Obviously at some point as a parent you figure that out, but maybe not before you've moved here or bought a house.

I generally think people know their schools aren’t good but plan to lottery, go private, or move if it doesn’t work out. And for the most part, families who are buying in DC for the last ~10 years have the ability to do that. People buying for the schools in the burbs are often doing that because they know it’s their best option, whether the reason is that they can’t afford to move again or go private, or there isn’t really an option to go to an OOB or charter.

I think we all keep thinking the schools will get better by the time our kids are in them. We started at our title 1 IB in PK3, now kid is in 4th grade. We have been shut out of lottery every single year. The school has been better than expected but sadly all the friends we made in early grades have all moved, or gone to charters. Socially its ok, but there are no play dates or birthday invites etc. Lots of kids are driven to school and we don't meet the parents at playgorund etc. We are definitely moving before middle school. We had hoped that after 7 or 8 years the middle school feed would be a better option but its not. I have lived in DC for 25 years and realize it takes close to 20 years to turn a DCPS middle school around