Latin replication pulled from PCSB agenda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure ask them to work harder. Let's give them supplies and money to do that. Very few schools in America, much less districts or states have "closed" the achievement gap. Take a look at Wilson/Deal. BY plopping right into Ward 7 my best guess is that WL was trying to expand access to its speciality offering and be more responsive to that community. I'm guessing they would even learn and grow by being IN that community. But let's take a step back..a school wants to expand simply to be more equitable, and get screamed at for not being equitable enough. So bo Socrates for the Ward 7 kids. Everyone would prefer to be right than do right. #nogooddeadgoesunpunished #noplatoforyou! #onlyinDC #publiceducationisanightmare

They don't necessarily need more money. Perhaps they could get out and go visit some peer institutions and learn how others are getting better results with the same populations. BASIS, Deal, DCI and Hardy are all doing better with those subgroups.

Maybe the charter board should beg DCI and BASIS to expand into ward 7? Latin is not a Basis or a KIPP. Its a one of school without a national organization and resources behind it. If the good citizens of DC dont want it to expand, it shouldn't. The good children of ward 7 can read Latin on buildings, but not in school.

Not according to the analysis presented at the charter board meeting. If considering the performance of at-risk students, BASIS would have earned 32 on the PMF (Tier 3 - low performing). So while Latin is also low at 39 for at-risk performance, they are doing somewhat better than BASIS.

DCI isn't doing great either with at-risk based on what was presented at the PCSB meeting.

And Latin is doing not as well with non-at risk Black students than the others. That's the weird part.

The data presented about DCI, BASIS etc and at-risk was done to prove that the pmf is a poor measurement of at-risk students -- and that some sort of adversity adjustment should be added to the PMF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure ask them to work harder. Let's give them supplies and money to do that. Very few schools in America, much less districts or states have "closed" the achievement gap. Take a look at Wilson/Deal. BY plopping right into Ward 7 my best guess is that WL was trying to expand access to its speciality offering and be more responsive to that community. I'm guessing they would even learn and grow by being IN that community. But let's take a step back..a school wants to expand simply to be more equitable, and get screamed at for not being equitable enough. So bo Socrates for the Ward 7 kids. Everyone would prefer to be right than do right. #nogooddeadgoesunpunished #noplatoforyou! #onlyinDC #publiceducationisanightmare

They don't necessarily need more money. Perhaps they could get out and go visit some peer institutions and learn how others are getting better results with the same populations. BASIS, Deal, DCI and Hardy are all doing better with those subgroups.

Maybe the charter board should beg DCI and BASIS to expand into ward 7? Latin is not a Basis or a KIPP. Its a one of school without a national organization and resources behind it. If the good citizens of DC dont want it to expand, it shouldn't. The good children of ward 7 can read Latin on buildings, but not in school.

Not according to the analysis presented at the charter board meeting. If considering the performance of at-risk students, BASIS would have earned 32 on the PMF (Tier 3 - low performing). So while Latin is also low at 39 for at-risk performance, they are doing somewhat better than BASIS.

Facts. So welcome. Does Basis also counsel out kids for academics?

[Anonymous]

Bye the bye, ask anyone who works in assessment - there is bias and lack of equity in the test themselves. Yet if you go to any decent school (which Latin is) you will have a lot of educational experiences and apply to college with a lot of other information and experiences that they will find compelling. I dont disagree they should try their best to serve all students. I dont disagree they should reflect constantly on approach and methodology. Yet I'm also pretty sure they're not asleep at the wheel and decided randomly to put an expansion IN WARD 7. There is a lot of commitment and integrity behind that.

[Anonymous]

I need to do what other here have tried to do and once again put out there that it is extremely problematic that Latin is not doing well by its middle-class, non-at risk student of color population. What is up with that? Totally unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I need to do what other here have tried to do and once again put out there that it is extremely problematic that Latin is not doing well by its middle-class, non-at risk student of color population. What is up with that? Totally unacceptable.

Maybe the school isn’t doing well by any group, but UMC white families are doing a lot of extra supplementing to stay on grade level. That was certainly the dirty little secret at our old school.

[Anonymous]

Just FYI - PMF tiers and PARCC proficiency are not the same thing.

PMF factors in PARCC 4+ achievement, PARCC growth for grades 3-8, student attendance, PARCC 3+ achievement ...

The concerns expressed about Latin by the PCSB Board members were about its black and at risk student 4+ PARCC achievement scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI - PMF tiers and PARCC proficiency are not the same thing.

PMF factors in PARCC 4+ achievement, PARCC growth for grades 3-8, student attendance, PARCC 3+ achievement ...

The concerns expressed about Latin by the PCSB Board members were about its black and at risk student 4+ PARCC achievement scores.

Yes but recalculating the PMF for Latin for just those students shows that the PMF tier would also change -- to low performing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI - PMF tiers and PARCC proficiency are not the same thing.

PMF factors in PARCC 4+ achievement, PARCC growth for grades 3-8, student attendance, PARCC 3+ achievement ...

The concerns expressed about Latin by the PCSB Board members were about its black and at risk student 4+ PARCC achievement scores.

Yes but recalculating the PMF for Latin for just those students shows that the PMF tier would also change -- to low performing.

True. I think the point is that PMF is flawed. It masks struggling students at schools with low percentages of at-risk students (Basis, Latin, DCI) and perhaps understates performance of schools that are majority at-risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI - PMF tiers and PARCC proficiency are not the same thing.

PMF factors in PARCC 4+ achievement, PARCC growth for grades 3-8, student attendance, PARCC 3+ achievement ...

The concerns expressed about Latin by the PCSB Board members were about its black and at risk student 4+ PARCC achievement scores.

Yes but recalculating the PMF for Latin for just those students shows that the PMF tier would also change -- to low performing.

True. I think the point is that PMF is flawed. It masks struggling students at schools with low percentages of at-risk students (Basis, Latin, DCI) and perhaps understates performance of schools that are majority at-risk.

+1 I think that Basis, Latin and DCI provide a good (great) school offering for many students. But there are schools with much lower PMF scores that are providing a good or even better option for other students. The PMF should recognize all of these schools. Schools should be rated on how they are contributing to student outcomes not on how student characteristics are contributing to the school.

No tool is going to be perfect. There will be flaws but what is absolutely shocking is that the PCSB knows that there is bias and isn't actively working to continually address the bias. Instead they are actively working to stop people from talking about it. Nowhere in the PCSB meeting materials can the public testimony and charts provided on the at-risk issue be found. They also will not produce their own studies on this. The first time the information on bias came out was because a lawyer for a closing school requested it as part of legal proceedings. The documentation showed that the PCSB had calculations proving bias in the PMF going back several years.

PCSB board members need to govern better. They need to be held accountable for allowing their staff to continue to advance a flawed tool as the main driver of high stakes decisions -- especially when adverse decisions primarily affect the most vulnerable kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need to do what other here have tried to do and once again put out there that it is extremely problematic that Latin is not doing well by its middle-class, non-at risk student of color population. What is up with that? Totally unacceptable.

Maybe the school isn’t doing well by any group, but UMC white families are doing a lot of extra supplementing to stay on grade level. That was certainly the dirty little secret at our old school.

How are learning challenges factored in? Do any of of these MC black families self select Latin because it's a small school? Which schools did they come from previously compared to the white kids and how were they prepared there? Also, how much reading and supplementing in the home (as above)? Last, why do we care so much about these awful tests that are inherently biased anyway?

[Anonymous]

The reason I ask the ball is the dirty little secret is a lot of really on the ball MC black kids/families are absolutely coveted by DC independent schools and offered full rides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI - PMF tiers and PARCC proficiency are not the same thing.

PMF factors in PARCC 4+ achievement, PARCC growth for grades 3-8, student attendance, PARCC 3+ achievement ...

The concerns expressed about Latin by the PCSB Board members were about its black and at risk student 4+ PARCC achievement scores.

Yes but recalculating the PMF for Latin for just those students shows that the PMF tier would also change -- to low performing.

True. I think the point is that PMF is flawed. It masks struggling students at schools with low percentages of at-risk students (Basis, Latin, DCI) and perhaps understates performance of schools that are majority at-risk.

+1 I think that Basis, Latin and DCI provide a good (great) school offering for many students. But there are schools with much lower PMF scores that are providing a good or even better option for other students. The PMF should recognize all of these schools. Schools should be rated on how they are contributing to student outcomes not on how student characteristics are contributing to the school.

No tool is going to be perfect. There will be flaws but what is absolutely shocking is that the PCSB knows that there is bias and isn't actively working to continually address the bias. Instead they are actively working to stop people from talking about it. Nowhere in the PCSB meeting materials can the public testimony and charts provided on the at-risk issue be found. They also will not produce their own studies on this. The first time the information on bias came out was because a lawyer for a closing school requested it as part of legal proceedings. The documentation showed that the PCSB had calculations proving bias in the PMF going back several years.

PCSB board members need to govern better. They need to be held accountable for allowing their staff to continue to advance a flawed tool as the main driver of high stakes decisions -- especially when adverse decisions primarily affect the most vulnerable kids.

And rile people up and close down schools doing good work with DCs most vulnerable students? If I'm reading correctly, yes they should and everyone getting hot and bothered here should turn their energies to demanding that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need to do what other here have tried to do and once again put out there that it is extremely problematic that Latin is not doing well by its middle-class, non-at risk student of color population. What is up with that? Totally unacceptable.

Maybe the school isn’t doing well by any group, but UMC white families are doing a lot of extra supplementing to stay on grade level. That was certainly the dirty little secret at our old school.

How are learning challenges factored in? Do any of of these MC black families self select Latin because it's a small school? Which schools did they come from previously compared to the white kids and how were they prepared there? Also, how much reading and supplementing in the home (as above)? Last, why do we care so much about these awful tests that are inherently biased anyway?

14% of WL MS students are considered students with disabilities (with formal IEPs). The vast majority of those students' plans are classified as Level 1 -- which is the least amount of specialized instruction at <5 hours per week. (Special ed levels range from 1-4, which 4 being for students in a special program or self-contained classroom for a majority of their time). WL, like every other school, receives additional earmarked funds to help support the costs associated with educating students with SN.

19% of WL MS students with disabilities (formal IEPs, suggesting learning challenges) are proficient or advanced, so 2% more reach this level more than the at-risk kids. Of course, students with disabilities may also be at-risk, or students of color. The public data simply isn't clear.

As for the awful tests ... different question. But standardized tests in general, specifically the SAT, are predictive of success in college. But that is a topic for another board and another thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI - PMF tiers and PARCC proficiency are not the same thing.

PMF factors in PARCC 4+ achievement, PARCC growth for grades 3-8, student attendance, PARCC 3+ achievement ...

The concerns expressed about Latin by the PCSB Board members were about its black and at risk student 4+ PARCC achievement scores.

Yes but recalculating the PMF for Latin for just those students shows that the PMF tier would also change -- to low performing.

True. I think the point is that PMF is flawed. It masks struggling students at schools with low percentages of at-risk students (Basis, Latin, DCI) and perhaps understates performance of schools that are majority at-risk.

+1 I think that Basis, Latin and DCI provide a good (great) school offering for many students. But there are schools with much lower PMF scores that are providing a good or even better option for other students. The PMF should recognize all of these schools. Schools should be rated on how they are contributing to student outcomes not on how student characteristics are contributing to the school.

No tool is going to be perfect. There will be flaws but what is absolutely shocking is that the PCSB knows that there is bias and isn't actively working to continually address the bias. Instead they are actively working to stop people from talking about it. Nowhere in the PCSB meeting materials can the public testimony and charts provided on the at-risk issue be found. They also will not produce their own studies on this. The first time the information on bias came out was because a lawyer for a closing school requested it as part of legal proceedings. The documentation showed that the PCSB had calculations proving bias in the PMF going back several years.

PCSB board members need to govern better. They need to be held accountable for allowing their staff to continue to advance a flawed tool as the main driver of high stakes decisions -- especially when adverse decisions primarily affect the most vulnerable kids.

And rile people up and close down schools doing good work with DCs most vulnerable students? If I'm reading correctly, yes they should and everyone getting hot and bothered here should turn their energies to demanding that.

You are so right. All well and good to debate this in an anonymous forum but then nothing happens. Honestly, looking at the at-risk analysis shows that the schools doing poorly are generally still doing poorly. It's the schools that look average under the PMF that are doing pretty well with at-risk kids and much better than the "highly regarded" schools. Unfortunately, the average schools are not allowed to expand and are threatened by the PCSB in ways that the "highly regarded" schools are not.

[Anonymous]

These 20+ schools - DCPS and charter - are doing the best job with at-risk kids, at least from an achievement perspective measured by PARCC according to Empower K12, a local education data group. Doing the best means at-risk students achieving at higher than expected rates compared to the city norm.

Few of these schools are mentioned on this board due to their demographics.

https://empowerk12.org/?blogcategory=Bold+Schools

2018 list

DC Prep Benning ES (Ward 7)
DC Prep Benning MS (Ward 7)
DC Prep Edgewood MS (Ward 5)
Friendship Blow-Pierce MS (Ward 5)
Friendship Chamberlain MS (Ward 6)
H.D. Cooke ES (Ward 1)
Ketcham ES (Ward 8)
KIPP Heights ES (Ward 8)
KIPP KEY MS (Ward 7)
KIPP LEAD ES (Ward 6)
KIPP Promise ES (Ward 7)
KIPP Quest ES (Ward 7)
Marie Reed ES (Ward 1)
Rocketship Rise ES (Ward 8)
Thurgood Marshall Academy (Ward 8)
Truesdell EC (Ward 4)
Washington Leadership Academy (Ward 5)

Honorable mention goes to seven additional schools that nearly made the Bold Performance cut:

Barnard ES (Ward 4)
Friendship Tech Prep HS (Ward 8)
Ingenuity Prep (Ward 8)
KIPP Spring ES (Ward 5)
Noyes EC (Ward 5)
Stanton ES (Ward 8)
Walker-Jones EC (Ward 6)