MS Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I can speak to what motivates me. I know several EH families and they’re constantly trying to get other people to send their high performing kids to EH so their own children will have a good cohort because they struck out in the lottery. They come on this website and post misleading things about the test scores in every thread, including this one. If they truly thought the school was good, they wouldn’t be trying to change its demographics so desperately. It’s gross.


Yes, same. The same families that talk over and over again about the theater productions, the soccer, the swim team, golf, etc.
I never hear anything about strong academics, it's all about the clubs and sports opportunities.

The fact is, if all of the higher SES families in the EH district sent their kids to EH, the test scores would be a lot different, the ranking would be different, and the classroom experience/rigor would likely improve, without anything else changing. That doesn’t mean it’s not working for the families who are there now, but of course the families want it to continue on an upward trajectory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Out of curiosity I pulled "not economically disadvantaged" PARCC scores for all middle school grades. I think the key takeaway for me is that there is clearly value in knowing both the percentage AND number of students passing within a demographic. (I would maybe also argue that a significantly higher number of "not economically disadvantaged" students at a school seems correlated with higher pass rate for those students.)

Obviously there are still a wide range of incomes represented in "not economically disadvantaged," likely accounting for some of the differences in pass percentages below. Still , I personally find this more useful than "white" as a proxy for UMC/MC, particularly as the data is more available/less likely to be suppressed.


Middle school ELA 4s and 5s for those not economically disadvantaged:

Deal 82% (982 students)

Latin Cooper 75% (54)

BASIS 74% (288)

Latin 73% (254)

Hardy 73% (327)

Oyster-Adams 71% (129)

Inspired Teaching 64% (61)

DCI 59% (374)

Center City Trinidad 59% (17)

DC Prep Benning 58% (38)

Eliot-Hine 58% (72)

Sojourner Truth 58% (68)

School Without Walls at Francis Stevens 57% (86)

Center City Congress Heights 56% (19)

Stuart-Hobson 55% (137)

Center City Brightwood 55% (23)

Washington Global 54% (37)

Paul 53% (65)

Two Rivers 52% (80)

Capitol Hill Montessori 52% (27)

Wheatley 50% (6)


Middle school Math 4s and 5s for those not economically disadvantaged:

Deal 69% (823)

BASIS 65% (254)

Hardy 60% (269)

Latin Cooper 58% (42)

Latin 57% (197)

DCI 45% (286)

DC Prep Edgewood 38% (38)

Center City Congress Heights 35% (12)

Eliot-Hine 33% (41)

School Without Walls at Francis-Stevens 32% (50)

Sojourner Truth 32% (37)

Center City Brightwood 31% (13)

KIPP KEY 29% (36)

Center City Trinidad 29% (8)

KIPP Honor 28% (19)

Center City Petworth 26% (11)

DC Prep Benning 26% (17)

Stuart-Hobson 26% (64)

Note: in math, data is suppressed for some schools including Oyster-Adams, Inspired Teaching, and Two Rivers

I realize I love looking at data more than the average person, but part of what is interesting about it (and has already been mentioned on this thread) is how it can be displayed/presented in so many different ways. I appreciate how this poster put the total number of students achieving a score. Because depending on how you look at/care about the data, it can be interpreted differently.
Everybody on here always talks about 'I want my child to have a large enough cohort to be advanced with, etc.' Some of these schools are just bigger sample sizes, but when you get to the smaller/mid-sized ones, for math for example -- Latin Cooper and EH have almost the same size number of kids scoring 4/5. Stuart Hobson looks to be at the bottom, but they have a higher number of kids scoring 4/5 then all but 4 of those schools. Similar in ELA - many schools towards the bottom had higher numbers of kids scoring 4/5 than schools above them. So if the concern is truthfully 'will there be enough kids scoring at 'x' test score so my kid can have their cohort - at least to me, this data kind of reinforces what some people have been saying all along. There are lots of options to choose from that have a good cohort of high achievers (again, if you are using PARCC as your metric for high achievement).
In the end, like was said yesterday, I don't think anybody is suggesting EH or any Cap Hill MS is the magical perfect school, just showing that there are kids doing well there.
I find those spreadsheets so clunky, so thanks to whoever pulled this data out!

Nobody is suggesting EH is a “magical perfect school” because 33% proficient in a “not economically disadvantaged” category is abysmal.

Only 33% of the not economically disadvantage students could get a 4 on PARCC? What on earth is going on at EH?? 70% of these students should earn a 4 simply by not being economically disadvantaged. Is EH making these students worse than they should be?

“Not economically disadvantaged” is a very broad category and may include a lot of students whose parents don’t submit the data. EH also has several self-contained SN classrooms that may be included in that tally.

The fact remains that if your kid goes into EH scoring 4s/5s they will leave with 4s and 5s. Only you can say if the contamination of being with less-advantaged kids outweighs the positives.

The SY22-23 8th grade class at E-H had 75 kids who took PARCC. 15 got a 4 or 5 in ELA. Less than 5% (so 3 or fewer) got a 4 or 5 on math.

Also — PP’s premise seems to be that getting a 5 on PARCC is the pinnacle of student achievement. Sure, a kid who’s getting 5s easily in 4th is also likely getting them in 8th, but that doesn’t actually tell you anything about whether he is achieving his full potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Out of curiosity I pulled "not economically disadvantaged" PARCC scores for all middle school grades. I think the key takeaway for me is that there is clearly value in knowing both the percentage AND number of students passing within a demographic. (I would maybe also argue that a significantly higher number of "not economically disadvantaged" students at a school seems correlated with higher pass rate for those students.)

Obviously there are still a wide range of incomes represented in "not economically disadvantaged," likely accounting for some of the differences in pass percentages below. Still , I personally find this more useful than "white" as a proxy for UMC/MC, particularly as the data is more available/less likely to be suppressed.


Middle school ELA 4s and 5s for those not economically disadvantaged:

Deal 82% (982 students)

Latin Cooper 75% (54)

BASIS 74% (288)

Latin 73% (254)

Hardy 73% (327)

Oyster-Adams 71% (129)

Inspired Teaching 64% (61)

DCI 59% (374)

Center City Trinidad 59% (17)

DC Prep Benning 58% (38)

Eliot-Hine 58% (72)

Sojourner Truth 58% (68)

School Without Walls at Francis Stevens 57% (86)

Center City Congress Heights 56% (19)

Stuart-Hobson 55% (137)

Center City Brightwood 55% (23)

Washington Global 54% (37)

Paul 53% (65)

Two Rivers 52% (80)

Capitol Hill Montessori 52% (27)

Wheatley 50% (6)


Middle school Math 4s and 5s for those not economically disadvantaged:

Deal 69% (823)

BASIS 65% (254)

Hardy 60% (269)

Latin Cooper 58% (42)

Latin 57% (197)

DCI 45% (286)

DC Prep Edgewood 38% (38)

Center City Congress Heights 35% (12)

Eliot-Hine 33% (41)

School Without Walls at Francis-Stevens 32% (50)

Sojourner Truth 32% (37)

Center City Brightwood 31% (13)

KIPP KEY 29% (36)

Center City Trinidad 29% (8)

KIPP Honor 28% (19)

Center City Petworth 26% (11)

DC Prep Benning 26% (17)

Stuart-Hobson 26% (64)

Note: in math, data is suppressed for some schools including Oyster-Adams, Inspired Teaching, and Two Rivers

I realize I love looking at data more than the average person, but part of what is interesting about it (and has already been mentioned on this thread) is how it can be displayed/presented in so many different ways. I appreciate how this poster put the total number of students achieving a score. Because depending on how you look at/care about the data, it can be interpreted differently.
Everybody on here always talks about 'I want my child to have a large enough cohort to be advanced with, etc.' Some of these schools are just bigger sample sizes, but when you get to the smaller/mid-sized ones, for math for example -- Latin Cooper and EH have almost the same size number of kids scoring 4/5. Stuart Hobson looks to be at the bottom, but they have a higher number of kids scoring 4/5 then all but 4 of those schools. Similar in ELA - many schools towards the bottom had higher numbers of kids scoring 4/5 than schools above them. So if the concern is truthfully 'will there be enough kids scoring at 'x' test score so my kid can have their cohort - at least to me, this data kind of reinforces what some people have been saying all along. There are lots of options to choose from that have a good cohort of high achievers (again, if you are using PARCC as your metric for high achievement).
In the end, like was said yesterday, I don't think anybody is suggesting EH or any Cap Hill MS is the magical perfect school, just showing that there are kids doing well there.
I find those spreadsheets so clunky, so thanks to whoever pulled this data out!

Nobody is suggesting EH is a “magical perfect school” because 33% proficient in a “not economically disadvantaged” category is abysmal.

Only 33% of the not economically disadvantage students could get a 4 on PARCC? What on earth is going on at EH?? 70% of these students should earn a 4 simply by not being economically disadvantaged. Is EH making these students worse than they should be?

“Not economically disadvantaged” is a very broad category and may include a lot of students whose parents don’t submit the data. EH also has several self-contained SN classrooms that may be included in that tally.

The fact remains that if your kid goes into EH scoring 4s/5s they will leave with 4s and 5s. Only you can say if the contamination of being with less-advantaged kids outweighs the positives.

The SY22-23 8th grade class at E-H had 75 kids who took PARCC. 15 got a 4 or 5 in ELA. Less than 5% (so 3 or fewer) got a 4 or 5 on math.

The 8th grade year appears to be an outlier in terms of attrition but FWIW the graduating 8th graders I know went to great HSs.

This was directly in response to: "The fact remains that if your kid goes into EH scoring 4s/5s they will leave with 4s and 5s."

This is objectively false according to the most recent data. Why make a claim that's not backed up by data?

It's this sort of behavior that makes it hard to trust anything that's said about this school.

+100