By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About racism.
Hardy 6th grade IB parent: indeed my DC was asked by IB parents how she was doing at school with so many black peers... whether of not she was comfortable etc..If she was doing playdates (now hangouts) wit them...

I think you are being absolutely honest here...and that makes me a little sad.

However, many IB families who avoid Hardy happily enroll their kids in Latin (44% AA) and BASIS (48% AA). Avoiding the AA demographic must not be the top priority for those families...

Right -- The priority could be avoiding the perception of inferiority. Hardy is perceived as inferior among a certain group of IB parents and Latin and Basis are not. Hardy has baggage. The charters do not. Parents who win the lottery are willing to commute every day to avoid being perceived as being inferior. Granted, some parents prefer the academic focus of those charters and would travel long distances from any part of the city to send their kids there, but I'm betting that is not the primary motivator for many IB Hardy parents.

Here's another possibility, PP. The IB families who choose Latin and BASIS over Hardy do so not because they fear being thought of as inferior by others, but rather because those schools do, in fact, offer better educations than Hardy does.

Maybe, but that's a perception too, that's hard to quantify. It would be interesting to know if those same parents would have chosen Deal over the charters, if it had been an option. I'd guess probably some would -- if they prefer a classics- or STEM- based education, but more would opt for the geographically convenient Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About racism.
Hardy 6th grade IB parent: indeed my DC was asked by IB parents how she was doing at school with so many black peers... whether of not she was comfortable etc..If she was doing playdates (now hangouts) wit them...

I think you are being absolutely honest here...and that makes me a little sad.

However, many IB families who avoid Hardy happily enroll their kids in Latin (44% AA) and BASIS (48% AA). Avoiding the AA demographic must not be the top priority for those families...

I get that. I believe the people who make comments like this are most likely in the minority if they live in DC.

Not really. PP here. I do not mean that racism is the only reason why IB parents do not send their kids to Hardy. But is certainly one of the reasons for many. They genuinely think their DCs will not be comfortable.

I mean, just ask any Hardy IB parent, they'll all confirm and elaborate. We've been talking extensively about this.

And Hardy has a higher % of Blacks than those charters do, right? and will continue to, unless more IB families opt for Hardy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About racism.
Hardy 6th grade IB parent: indeed my DC was asked by IB parents how she was doing at school with so many black peers... whether of not she was comfortable etc..If she was doing playdates (now hangouts) wit them...

I think you are being absolutely honest here...and that makes me a little sad.

However, many IB families who avoid Hardy happily enroll their kids in Latin (44% AA) and BASIS (48% AA). Avoiding the AA demographic must not be the top priority for those families...

The opposite is also true: many IB families avoided Basis and Latin and happily enrolled their kids at Hardy. This year Basis 6th grade was under-enrolled, and yet several IB families sent their kids to Hardy.

Basis, Hardy, Latin families clearly show no aversion to AA demographics. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of all of the IB families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am delighted to see all the statistics backing up the point that I perceive as so obvious: The more IB parents families their kids to Hardy, the more scores at Hardy will start reflecting IB families.

What is hard to understand about this? Nothing -- except there have been other psych/perception forces at work over the last few years that have clouded even the most logical/statistical minds.

It seems like the parents who say they are waiting for the scores to go up before they send their kids to Hardy are really saying - they're more influenced by gossip and innuendo than they are by statistics and common sense.

Perhaps they recognize that the emperor has no clothes. The percentage of white kids scoring "advanced" is much higher at Deal than Hardy.

http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Compare.aspx?tab=1&school=405,246

Thank you! I had asked OP for this analysis, with no response so far.

Those results debunk this whole thread. The proportion of white kids who score advanced at deal is essentially double than hardy, both in reading and math. Over 50% vs 27%. Over 70% vs 42%. That's certainly not peanuts. And parents notice.

And what do parents determine? That Hardy will not be good enough for their kids until the scores go up, but the scores won't go up until kids like theirs go to Hardy, therefore they will keep waiting, complaining about the scores, sending their kids to private for middle school, if they can't do Deal, then to Wilson for high school where kids like theirs are mingling with Hardy kids and kids from all over DC, but somehow it's OK now.

I predict OP will be back -- but let's give him a break for tonight.

Parents, everywhere, determine that they don't like being manipulated about what is best for their kids. If there is a credible and solid plan and leadership team to improve certain school, a good number of them may opt in. But misleading conclusions based on faulty analysis is certainly not the same as a credible and solid plan. OP seems to be a great and very capable guy...but may have drank too much political kool aid.

Oh my, we're so confident about the difference between correlation and causality, aren't we, pp? And I don't mean guessing whether OP has drunk too much kool aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just going to respond to this part:

anonymous wrote: Since this is important, I’ll belabor the point: in DC, “white” is a clean proxy for high income. This does not mean all high income people are white. But what it does mean is that if you’re high income, whether white or AA, the best predictor of your child’s scores is given by the “white” average since this average represents only high income students.

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism. There are so many studies that say that AA kids from highly educated, affluent homes where parents own books, and read to them, and value their education, are not protected from racism. They are subjected to disproportionate discipline, and low expectations, which leads to achievement gaps that continue to exist even when income, parental education, time spent reading, and other factors are taken into account.

Similarly, there are plenty of white kids growing up in DC whose parents don't take them to the library, or have homes full of books, or give a shit about their education. But because of their skin color, teachers and others treat them as if they were growing up in households that do these things, and hold them to the same high expectations.

this is spot on!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just going to respond to this part:

anonymous wrote: Since this is important, I’ll belabor the point: in DC, “white” is a clean proxy for high income. This does not mean all high income people are white. But what it does mean is that if you’re high income, whether white or AA, the best predictor of your child’s scores is given by the “white” average since this average represents only high income students.

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism. There are so many studies that say that AA kids from highly educated, affluent homes where parents own books, and read to them, and value their education, are not protected from racism. They are subjected to disproportionate discipline, and low expectations, which leads to achievement gaps that continue to exist even when income, parental education, time spent reading, and other factors are taken into account.

Similarly, there are plenty of white kids growing up in DC whose parents don't take them to the library, or have homes full of books, or give a shit about their education. But because of their skin color, teachers and others treat them as if they were growing up in households that do these things, and hold them to the same high expectations.

this is spot on!

OP -- your use of the adjective "white" to convey a virtue suggests to bias in your assessment. With the deep racial default lines in DC, your choice of words is truly unfortunate. I don't agree that everyone who meets your so-called virtuous category is the beneficiary of systematic racism, because doing so would suggest that academic achievement is a zero sum game, which it clearly is not. There's room for everyone to succeed but great challenges for many, not the least of which related to race and poverty. My child doesn't succeed because others are impoverished or because higher expectations based on skin color, but a socially just society would work to remove obstacles related to race and poverty so the expectations and outcomes are less disparate across demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just going to respond to this part:

anonymous wrote: Since this is important, I’ll belabor the point: in DC, “white” is a clean proxy for high income. This does not mean all high income people are white. But what it does mean is that if you’re high income, whether white or AA, the best predictor of your child’s scores is given by the “white” average since this average represents only high income students.

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism. There are so many studies that say that AA kids from highly educated, affluent homes where parents own books, and read to them, and value their education, are not protected from racism. They are subjected to disproportionate discipline, and low expectations, which leads to achievement gaps that continue to exist even when income, parental education, time spent reading, and other factors are taken into account.

Similarly, there are plenty of white kids growing up in DC whose parents don't take them to the library, or have homes full of books, or give a shit about their education. But because of their skin color, teachers and others treat them as if they were growing up in households that do these things, and hold them to the same high expectations.

this is spot on!

OP -- your use of the adjective "white" to convey a virtue suggests to bias in your assessment. With the deep racial default lines in DC, your choice of words is truly unfortunate. I don't agree that everyone who meets your so-called virtuous category is the beneficiary of systematic racism, because doing so would suggest that academic achievement is a zero sum game, which it clearly is not. There's room for everyone to succeed but great challenges for many, not the least of which related to race and poverty. My child doesn't succeed because others are impoverished or because higher expectations based on skin color, but a socially just society would work to remove obstacles related to race and poverty so the expectations and outcomes are less disparate across demographics.

OP here.

No, no it doesn't. You clearly did not read the preamble of the initial post, or, if you did, you failed to understand what those words meant.

"White" is a category for which we have DCCAS data. While it literally refers to race, in DC we can use "white" to proxy for other, non-racial characteristics. That is exactly what I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just going to respond to this part:

anonymous wrote: Since this is important, I’ll belabor the point: in DC, “white” is a clean proxy for high income. This does not mean all high income people are white. But what it does mean is that if you’re high income, whether white or AA, the best predictor of your child’s scores is given by the “white” average since this average represents only high income students.

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism. There are so many studies that say that AA kids from highly educated, affluent homes where parents own books, and read to them, and value their education, are not protected from racism. They are subjected to disproportionate discipline, and low expectations, which leads to achievement gaps that continue to exist even when income, parental education, time spent reading, and other factors are taken into account.

Similarly, there are plenty of white kids growing up in DC whose parents don't take them to the library, or have homes full of books, or give a shit about their education. But because of their skin color, teachers and others treat them as if they were growing up in households that do these things, and hold them to the same high expectations.

this is spot on!

OP -- your use of the adjective "white" to convey a virtue suggests to bias in your assessment. With the deep racial default lines in DC, your choice of words is truly unfortunate. I don't agree that everyone who meets your so-called virtuous category is the beneficiary of systematic racism, because doing so would suggest that academic achievement is a zero sum game, which it clearly is not. There's room for everyone to succeed but great challenges for many, not the least of which related to race and poverty. My child doesn't succeed because others are impoverished or because higher expectations based on skin color, but a socially just society would work to remove obstacles related to race and poverty so the expectations and outcomes are less disparate across demographics.

OP here.

No, no it doesn't. You clearly did not read the preamble of the initial post, or, if you did, you failed to understand what those words meant.

"White" is a category for which we have DCCAS data. While it literally refers to race, in DC we can use "white" to proxy for other, non-racial characteristics. That is exactly what I did.

+100. You explained it very clearly in the opening post. (Where I disagree is on the need to analyze Proficient outcomes to validate, or not, your main conclusions)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just going to respond to this part:

anonymous wrote: Since this is important, I’ll belabor the point: in DC, “white” is a clean proxy for high income. This does not mean all high income people are white. But what it does mean is that if you’re high income, whether white or AA, the best predictor of your child’s scores is given by the “white” average since this average represents only high income students.

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism. There are so many studies that say that AA kids from highly educated, affluent homes where parents own books, and read to them, and value their education, are not protected from racism. They are subjected to disproportionate discipline, and low expectations, which leads to achievement gaps that continue to exist even when income, parental education, time spent reading, and other factors are taken into account.

Similarly, there are plenty of white kids growing up in DC whose parents don't take them to the library, or have homes full of books, or give a shit about their education. But because of their skin color, teachers and others treat them as if they were growing up in households that do these things, and hold them to the same high expectations.

this is spot on!

OP -- your use of the adjective "white" to convey a virtue suggests to bias in your assessment. With the deep racial default lines in DC, your choice of words is truly unfortunate. I don't agree that everyone who meets your so-called virtuous category is the beneficiary of systematic racism, because doing so would suggest that academic achievement is a zero sum game, which it clearly is not. There's room for everyone to succeed but great challenges for many, not the least of which related to race and poverty. My child doesn't succeed because others are impoverished or because higher expectations based on skin color, but a socially just society would work to remove obstacles related to race and poverty so the expectations and outcomes are less disparate across demographics.

OP here.

No, no it doesn't. You clearly did not read the preamble of the initial post, or, if you did, you failed to understand what those words meant.

"White" is a category for which we have DCCAS data. While it literally refers to race, in DC we can use "white" to proxy for other, non-racial characteristics. That is exactly what I did.

+100. You explained it very clearly in the opening post. (Where I disagree is on the need to analyze Proficient outcomes to validate, or not, your main conclusions)

OP here.

You mean "advanced-only" outcomes, but I hear you. I have looked at the numbers but I don't believe much can be concluded from them. The sample sizes are just too small for reliable inference. The variability in performance is large year-to-year. (This is what happens with small samples. You need larger samples for things to settle down.)

For example, the percentage of 8th grade white students testing advanced in math at Hardy goes from 27% one year (11 students) to 60% the following year. This is not atypical. This suggests that any conclusions based on averages that haven't settled down are problematic without also considering the variance.

Since people seem to desire some analysis even if it isn't robust, I'll provide something as long as everyone acknowledges at the outset that it may be meaningless.

We care about kids improving over time. Since the data are a panel (many students each tested in three separate years), we can track scores over time for Deal and Hardy. Students' 6th grade scores likely represent their stock of testing-proficiency when they arrive at the school. So, let's see how these same students do in 8th grade. The same caveat about small sample sizes applies here, so I'll just say that I don't know the worth of this type of analysis.

So, what the following numbers calculate is the difference in %advanced for white students between 8th grade and these same students in 6th grade. For example, we look at the %advanced for 8th graders in 2014 and the %advanced for 6th graders in 2012. We can only do three cohorts at each school since some 8th grade data is unreported at Hardy (because the samples are too small (not enough white students)) and some 6th grade data are missing at Deal.

In reading, the schools are pretty similar. For three years in which Deal numbers can be calculated, there were 18%, 28% and 19% more advanced scorers in 8th grade than there were in 6th grade. (These are the same students, modulo joining or leaving the school.) For Hardy, the improvements were 15%, 21% and 15%.

For math, at Deal there were 1%, 1% and 12% more advanced scorers in 8th grade than in the same cohort at 6th. For Hardy, there were 7%, 7% and 10% more advanced scorers in 8th.

I don't know what, if anything, can be concluded from these numbers. But they paint a somewhat different picture than simply looking at the %advanced by themselves. (I'll post another point in a separate reply now.)

[Anonymous]

OP again.

Note that comparing Hardy %advanced today to Deal %advanced today does not fit with any of the claims I've made here. In fact, one of my main points in the initial post, underlined and separated out, was

"Hardy, today, is pretty similar to Deal of six or seven years ago"

In light of this, the percentage of advanced whites 8th graders at Deal 6-7 years ago were:
Reading:
2006-2007: 72%
2007-2008: 59%
2008-2009: 67%
At Hardy, the most recent data available show:
Reading:
2009-2010: 70%
2010-2011: 50%
2011-2012: 42%

For math,
Deal:
2006-2007: 62%
2007-2008: 51%
2008-2009: 56%
Hardy:
2009-2010: 60%
2010-2011: 50%
2011-2012: 42%

Again, for the umpteenth time, the small samples sizes makes Hardy's number much more variable. The difference between 60% and 42% at Hardy is almost certainly not statistically significant; it is the result of random sampling error.

[Anonymous]

On track to be a future IB-Hardy parent here. What will it take for me to send DC to Hardy for real? 1) Overall improvement in the school scores for the school (not just when you slice and dice) and 2) more assurance that other kids from feeders are going (ie. would love if more kids from DC's class are also going so they know other kids going) - don't care about race in that equation, but to me, that's part of the appeal of going to a neighborhood public school and making teen years easier on us all.

[Anonymous]

I think you're trying to calculate Median Growth Percentile (MGP), which is a more powerful statistic, but quoted much less (perhaps because people don't understand it). This scores how much students grow relative to the average growth in DCPS. I also think this is a key metric in determining how "good" a school is rather than just the scores.

Deal has higher MGP than Hardy last year and this year in both Math and Reading, but neither stands out as amazingly above average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just going to respond to this part:

anonymous wrote: Since this is important, I’ll belabor the point: in DC, “white” is a clean proxy for high income. This does not mean all high income people are white. But what it does mean is that if you’re high income, whether white or AA, the best predictor of your child’s scores is given by the “white” average since this average represents only high income students.

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism. [b]There are so many studies that say that AA kids from highly educated, affluent homes where parents own books, and read to them, and value their education, are not protected from racism. They are subjected to disproportionate discipline, and low expectations, which leads to achievement gaps that continue to exist even when income, parental education, time spent reading, and other factors are taken into account.

Similarly, there are plenty of white kids growing up in DC whose parents don't take them to the library, or have homes full of books, or give a shit about their education. But because of their skin color, teachers and others treat them as if they were growing up in households that do these things, and hold them to the same high expectations.
[/b]

this is spot on!

In DC they are perhaps more frequently taunted, bullied and intimidated by other black kids who deride their academic interests, study and work efforts as "acting white."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just going to respond to this part:

anonymous wrote: Since this is important, I’ll belabor the point: in DC, “white” is a clean proxy for high income. This does not mean all high income people are white. But what it does mean is that if you’re high income, whether white or AA, the best predictor of your child’s scores is given by the “white” average since this average represents only high income students.

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism. There are so many studies that say that AA kids from highly educated, affluent homes where parents own books, and read to them, and value their education, are not protected from racism. They are subjected to disproportionate discipline, and low expectations, which leads to achievement gaps that continue to exist even when income, parental education, time spent reading, and other factors are taken into account.

Similarly, there are plenty of white kids growing up in DC whose parents don't take them to the library, or have homes full of books, or give a shit about their education. But because of their skin color, teachers and others treat them as if they were growing up in households that do these things, and hold them to the same high expectations.

this is spot on!

OP -- your use of the adjective "white" to convey a virtue suggests to bias in your assessment. With the deep racial default lines in DC, your choice of words is truly unfortunate. I don't agree that everyone who meets your so-called virtuous category is the beneficiary of systematic racism, because doing so would suggest that academic achievement is a zero sum game, which it clearly is not. There's room for everyone to succeed but great challenges for many, not the least of which related to race and poverty. My child doesn't succeed because others are impoverished or because higher expectations based on skin color, but a socially just society would work to remove obstacles related to race and poverty so the expectations and outcomes are less disparate across demographics.

OP here.

No, no it doesn't. You clearly did not read the preamble of the initial post, or, if you did, you failed to understand what those words meant.

"White" is a category for which we have DCCAS data. While it literally refers to race, in DC we can use "white" to proxy for other, non-racial characteristics. That is exactly what I did.

+100. You explained it very clearly in the opening post. (Where I disagree is on the need to analyze Proficient outcomes to validate, or not, your main conclusions)

OP here.

You mean "advanced-only" outcomes, but I hear you. I have looked at the numbers but I don't believe much can be concluded from them. The sample sizes are just too small for reliable inference. The variability in performance is large year-to-year. (This is what happens with small samples. You need larger samples for things to settle down.)

For example, the percentage of 8th grade white students testing advanced in math at Hardy goes from 27% one year (11 students) to 60% the following year. This is not atypical. This suggests that any conclusions based on averages that haven't settled down are problematic without also considering the variance.

Since people seem to desire some analysis even if it isn't robust, I'll provide something as long as everyone acknowledges at the outset that it may be meaningless.

We care about kids improving over time. Since the data are a panel (many students each tested in three separate years), we can track scores over time for Deal and Hardy. Students' 6th grade scores likely represent their stock of testing-proficiency when they arrive at the school. So, let's see how these same students do in 8th grade. The same caveat about small sample sizes applies here, so I'll just say that I don't know the worth of this type of analysis.

So, what the following numbers calculate is the difference in %advanced for white students between 8th grade and these same students in 6th grade. For example, we look at the %advanced for 8th graders in 2014 and the %advanced for 6th graders in 2012. We can only do three cohorts at each school since some 8th grade data is unreported at Hardy (because the samples are too small (not enough white students)) and some 6th grade data are missing at Deal.

In reading, the schools are pretty similar. For three years in which Deal numbers can be calculated, there were 18%, 28% and 19% more advanced scorers in 8th grade than there were in 6th grade. (These are the same students, modulo joining or leaving the school.) For Hardy, the improvements were 15%, 21% and 15%.

For math, at Deal there were 1%, 1% and 12% more advanced scorers in 8th grade than in the same cohort at 6th. For Hardy, there were 7%, 7% and 10% more advanced scorers in 8th.

I don't know what, if anything, can be concluded from these numbers. But they paint a somewhat different picture than simply looking at the %advanced by themselves. (I'll post another point in a separate reply now.)

OP -- you're blind to optics. DCPS provides that data but you go a step further and draw dubious conclusions from it. Plenty of racially white kids in DC are not academically proficient. Many parents of all color have expectations that "proficient" is not much of a goal.

However, if you were an actual parent with a child at this school or any other you'd also know that the DCCAS is a highly flawed measurement tool and that many parents do not evaluate a school or its students based on standardized test scores. There are many other ways to evaluate schools -- consider that most children enter elementary school well before testing grades and that some other factors must account for why parents opt for a school where no such evaluation is performed on younger students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just going to respond to this part:

anonymous wrote: Since this is important, I’ll belabor the point: in DC, “white” is a clean proxy for high income. This does not mean all high income people are white. But what it does mean is that if you’re high income, whether white or AA, the best predictor of your child’s scores is given by the “white” average since this average represents only high income students.

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism. There are so many studies that say that AA kids from highly educated, affluent homes where parents own books, and read to them, and value their education, are not protected from racism. They are subjected to disproportionate discipline, and low expectations, which leads to achievement gaps that continue to exist even when income, parental education, time spent reading, and other factors are taken into account.

Similarly, there are plenty of white kids growing up in DC whose parents don't take them to the library, or have homes full of books, or give a shit about their education. But because of their skin color, teachers and others treat them as if they were growing up in households that do these things, and hold them to the same high expectations.

this is spot on!

OP -- your use of the adjective "white" to convey a virtue suggests to bias in your assessment. With the deep racial default lines in DC, your choice of words is truly unfortunate. I don't agree that everyone who meets your so-called virtuous category is the beneficiary of systematic racism, because doing so would suggest that academic achievement is a zero sum game, which it clearly is not. There's room for everyone to succeed but great challenges for many, not the least of which related to race and poverty. My child doesn't succeed because others are impoverished or because higher expectations based on skin color, but a socially just society would work to remove obstacles related to race and poverty so the expectations and outcomes are less disparate across demographics.

OP here.

No, no it doesn't. You clearly did not read the preamble of the initial post, or, if you did, you failed to understand what those words meant.

"White" is a category for which we have DCCAS data. While it literally refers to race, in DC we can use "white" to proxy for other, non-racial characteristics. That is exactly what I did.

+100. You explained it very clearly in the opening post. (Where I disagree is on the need to analyze Proficient outcomes to validate, or not, your main conclusions)

OP here.

You mean "advanced-only" outcomes, but I hear you. I have looked at the numbers but I don't believe much can be concluded from them. The sample sizes are just too small for reliable inference. The variability in performance is large year-to-year. (This is what happens with small samples. You need larger samples for things to settle down.)

For example, the percentage of 8th grade white students testing advanced in math at Hardy goes from 27% one year (11 students) to 60% the following year. This is not atypical. This suggests that any conclusions based on averages that haven't settled down are problematic without also considering the variance.

Since people seem to desire some analysis even if it isn't robust, I'll provide something as long as everyone acknowledges at the outset that it may be meaningless.

We care about kids improving over time. Since the data are a panel (many students each tested in three separate years), we can track scores over time for Deal and Hardy. Students' 6th grade scores likely represent their stock of testing-proficiency when they arrive at the school. So, let's see how these same students do in 8th grade. The same caveat about small sample sizes applies here, so I'll just say that I don't know the worth of this type of analysis.

So, what the following numbers calculate is the difference in %advanced for white students between 8th grade and these same students in 6th grade. For example, we look at the %advanced for 8th graders in 2014 and the %advanced for 6th graders in 2012. We can only do three cohorts at each school since some 8th grade data is unreported at Hardy (because the samples are too small (not enough white students)) and some 6th grade data are missing at Deal.

In reading, the schools are pretty similar. For three years in which Deal numbers can be calculated, there were 18%, 28% and 19% more advanced scorers in 8th grade than there were in 6th grade. (These are the same students, modulo joining or leaving the school.) For Hardy, the improvements were 15%, 21% and 15%.

For math, at Deal there were 1%, 1% and 12% more advanced scorers in 8th grade than in the same cohort at 6th. For Hardy, there were 7%, 7% and 10% more advanced scorers in 8th.

I don't know what, if anything, can be concluded from these numbers. But they paint a somewhat different picture than simply looking at the %advanced by themselves. (I'll post another point in a separate reply now.)

OP -- you're blind to optics. DCPS provides that data but you go a step further and draw dubious conclusions from it. Plenty of racially white kids in DC are not academically proficient. Many parents of all color have expectations that "proficient" is not much of a goal.

However, if you were an actual parent with a child at this school or any other you'd also know that the DCCAS is a highly flawed measurement tool and that many parents do not evaluate a school or its students based on standardized test scores. There are many other ways to evaluate schools -- consider that most children enter elementary school well before testing grades and that some other factors must account for why parents opt for a school where no such evaluation is performed on younger students.

OP here:

I'll take that as a compliment. I don't care about optics. I'm not trying to sell an agenda here.

As for your statement, I have the data: more than 9 out of 10 white students in DCPS are proficient or advanced in both math and reading. Greater than 90%. In both subjects. For the most recent year, it was 92% in reading and 92% in math. Your "plenty" is actually 165 or so out of almost 2100 white students in DCPS. Try again.