PARCC data is up

[Anonymous]

Its very possible that the schools are actually better. The curriculums are very different that those of most HRCSs -- for example, all kids learn to read in K and K is generally much more rigorous.

Not sure which HRCS the original PP was referring to, but the common wisdom seems to be that the kids in immersion programs should be meeting their peers in traditional programs by the 5th grade. Who knows if that’s backed by research but it makes sense to me that at least at 3rd and possibly 4th, comparing traditional to immersion programs is apples to oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Its very possible that the schools are actually better. The curriculums are very different that those of most HRCSs -- for example, all kids learn to read in K and K is generally much more rigorous.

Not sure which HRCS the original PP was referring to, but the common wisdom seems to be that the kids in immersion programs should be meeting their peers in traditional programs by the 5th grade. Who knows if that’s backed by research but it makes sense to me that at least at 3rd and possibly 4th, comparing traditional to immersion programs is apples to oranges.

As prior poster it’s true I was looking at immersion Lamb, YY, MV, but also ITS. Did not look up others which may show similar trend. Did see that by fifth they seem to catch up to average more or less in immersion, although not quite.

[Anonymous]

As prior poster it’s true I was looking at immersion Lamb, YY, MV, but also ITS. Did not look up others which may show similar trend. Did see that by fifth they seem to catch up to average more or less in immersion, although not quite.

YY’s 5th grade white and AA students exceeded their respective demographic DC averages in both ELA and Math, though there is still a huge gap between the scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are literally judging their life choices if you are doing what's in the message chain above.

And? Some life choices are proven to be better than others with respect to family income and parenting, for a start. Should you not be judged if you make the "life choice" to start using heroin when you have as first grader, or rob a bank?

Of course you shouldn’t be judged. Who are you to judge anybody?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Its very possible that the schools are actually better. The curriculums are very different that those of most HRCSs -- for example, all kids learn to read in K and K is generally much more rigorous.

Not sure which HRCS the original PP was referring to, but the common wisdom seems to be that the kids in immersion programs should be meeting their peers in traditional programs by the 5th grade. Who knows if that’s backed by research but it makes sense to me that at least at 3rd and possibly 4th, comparing traditional to immersion programs is apples to oranges.

As prior poster it’s true I was looking at immersion Lamb, YY, MV, but also ITS. Did not look up others which may show similar trend. Did see that by fifth they seem to catch up to average more or less in immersion, although not quite.[/quote

I didn't compare to any other schools, but if you look at DCB's scores this year you see a big jump between 3rd and 5th with 5th performing much better.

[Anonymous]

I thought the research on dual language programs led to the view that 7th grade was when you were supposed to get to parity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I was trying to find data on how multiple sub-groups fared - at-risk male, black male, etc - and came across figures I hadn't seen before for at-risk whites in DC. There were 81 at-risk whites reported in the 2018 public school report card data. 28 had a median growth percentile for math (MGP). For the 28, their MGP for math was 27. For 'not at-risk white', their MGP was 61. At-risk makes a huge difference on performance - no surprise there.

Do you have this data (crosstab of race and/or ethnicity and at-risk city-wide)? I think it's probably not meaningful at the school level because of the small sample size, but I would (especially) like to see if there's a way to tease out something from the citywide data to describe the interaction of the "at-risk" designation and race.

You can find available data for SY17-18 at this link https://osse.dc.gov/page/dc-school-report-card-resource-library under the 2018 STAR Framework Cross-Tabulated Student Group Data File. The 2019 cross-tabulated student group data is not yet available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One statistic that isn't reported anywhere is the correlation between two parent households and PARCC scores. I have no idea whether there is a statistical significance but I bet there probably is---but no one has tracked it. I have observed that my children's friends who are coming from split HH have less consistency in study habits (i.e., one parent is lax while the other is more vigilant). Instead of focusing on racial/ethnic differences, it might be more informative to know about family structures.

Yes, I've seen this play out several times with friends even within high SES households. It's very hard to keep track of assignments, exams etc when there are two households involved. I've seen two parents with wildly different household rules---mom enforces study time and dad allows unlimited screen time (or vice verse) . Or this even used as a weapon in adult fights--dad allows kids' grades to tank as a way of getting back at mom. One of my good friends is going through this last scenario right now--her ex husband is using their rising 10th grader (and refusing to enforce studying) as a pawn to get back at her. Adults can be jerks.

And then you have households where only one parent is involved or primarily only one parent is involved. I imagine it's exceedingly difficult to be on top of a kid's study habits if you're doing it all.

Interesting. I'm a single parent, but I have only one child. What I have noticed is that a lot of married people have 2+ kids, and have a very difficult time staying on top of all of their kids' activities and assignments. Of course the research does bear this out.

https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-only-children-are-more-successful-2013-11

[Anonymous]

Number of siblings might also play a role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also be aware of wide variation in special needs and ELL populations. Some schools operate specialized classrooms for autism, behavior support, etc. Some schools refuse to. Some schools push out the harder kids so their at-risk population is the easier group of at-risk kids. Some schools have the challenge of mid-year entries, others refuse to share in that work.

Yep - I don't think you could use that crosstab data to describe school-level results with any degree of accuracy due to small sample size, population variation between schools, etc. But I do think that there are a bunch of middle and upper middle class black kids (and parents) in DC who are looking at achievement gaps in their schools and citywide and wondering how schools are serving kids like theirs.

Totally agree. OSSE might give you the data if you asked.

I am really struck by the number of supposedlly HRCS that have an achievement gap despite having low at-risk and also a substantial population of non-at-risk AA kids, some who are not even low-income.

Yep, me too. But if close to half the black kids at a school in the testing grades are at-risk and <2% of the white kids are at-risk (which is kinda roughly how my back of the envelope calculations show it would play out), that is really significant.

Yes. And sometimes the non-at-risk AA kids are not performing very well. Why??? Schools should be prepared to answer.

At our school it's the white kids who are performing lower than the average. And most kids are white. So what does that say? The other races are doing better than expected.

I have no clue. Does grade level analysis reveal any patterns?

Hmm, grade 4 and 5, not enough white to assess (so maybe "most" was overstating). Grade 3 was about average. So those few in 4 and 5 tipped it lower than average (for whites). I guess that's not a super big deal but it was similar last year.

It's the same at some other HRCS. I think I figured out why - white data averages are skewed by WOTP DCPS who score very high. Anyone else may expect to score lower, somewhat... Could that be it? My only question there would be, does this mean WOTP schools are better. or just richer? What do we attribute this to?

Not necessarily a WOTP thing. White kids at Shepherd scored a 94 on both sections, so as well as or better than WOTP schools.

Just adding--a few years ago at a meet and greet I recall meeting a white mom who seemed to turn her nose up at Shepherd, stating that CMI seemed to fit her educational philosophy more. I guess her kids may have actually done better had she sent them to Shepherd (her IB).

DP here and never had kids at CMI. Your statement isn't fair. CMI is very good with social emotional skills and more up-to-date child development philosophies, stronger SPED program, etc. Shepherd has very outdated practices, isn't AT ALL progressive, generally falls behind with social emotional skills of teachers, has a very poor SPED program, etc. You could argue that her white child might have scored higher on PARCC if she sent her kids to Shepherd, but that mom was right on target that CMI fit her educational philosophy more if she was looking for a more progressive model.

Kudos to Shepherd for teaching ELA and math to white kids, they deserve that (I won't get into the gap here). We shouldn't diminish this accomplishment, but there are reasons some IB families choose other public options over Shepherd aside from PARCC scores. There's no excuse for how the school operates given the high SES levels of the IB community. Let's see what this school year brings and if the new leadership team can improve some of these weaknesses. I hope they start by inviting all IB residents to discuss the issues and delve into the reasons that many IB parents choose other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also be aware of wide variation in special needs and ELL populations. Some schools operate specialized classrooms for autism, behavior support, etc. Some schools refuse to. Some schools push out the harder kids so their at-risk population is the easier group of at-risk kids. Some schools have the challenge of mid-year entries, others refuse to share in that work.

Yep - I don't think you could use that crosstab data to describe school-level results with any degree of accuracy due to small sample size, population variation between schools, etc. But I do think that there are a bunch of middle and upper middle class black kids (and parents) in DC who are looking at achievement gaps in their schools and citywide and wondering how schools are serving kids like theirs.

Totally agree. OSSE might give you the data if you asked.

I am really struck by the number of supposedlly HRCS that have an achievement gap despite having low at-risk and also a substantial population of non-at-risk AA kids, some who are not even low-income.

Yep, me too. But if close to half the black kids at a school in the testing grades are at-risk and <2% of the white kids are at-risk (which is kinda roughly how my back of the envelope calculations show it would play out), that is really significant.

Yes. And sometimes the non-at-risk AA kids are not performing very well. Why??? Schools should be prepared to answer.

At our school it's the white kids who are performing lower than the average. And most kids are white. So what does that say? The other races are doing better than expected.

I have no clue. Does grade level analysis reveal any patterns?

Hmm, grade 4 and 5, not enough white to assess (so maybe "most" was overstating). Grade 3 was about average. So those few in 4 and 5 tipped it lower than average (for whites). I guess that's not a super big deal but it was similar last year.

It's the same at some other HRCS. I think I figured out why - white data averages are skewed by WOTP DCPS who score very high. Anyone else may expect to score lower, somewhat... Could that be it? My only question there would be, does this mean WOTP schools are better. or just richer? What do we attribute this to?

Not necessarily a WOTP thing. White kids at Shepherd scored a 94 on both sections, so as well as or better than WOTP schools.

Just adding--a few years ago at a meet and greet I recall meeting a white mom who seemed to turn her nose up at Shepherd, stating that CMI seemed to fit her educational philosophy more. I guess her kids may have actually done better had she sent them to Shepherd (her IB).

DP here and never had kids at CMI. Your statement isn't fair. CMI is very good with social emotional skills and more up-to-date child development philosophies, stronger SPED program, etc. Shepherd has very outdated practices, isn't AT ALL progressive, generally falls behind with social emotional skills of teachers, has a very poor SPED program, etc. You could argue that her white child might have scored higher on PARCC if she sent her kids to Shepherd, but that mom was right on target that CMI fit her educational philosophy more if she was looking for a more progressive model.

Kudos to Shepherd for teaching ELA and math to white kids, they deserve that (I won't get into the gap here). We shouldn't diminish this accomplishment, but there are reasons some IB families choose other public options over Shepherd aside from PARCC scores. There's no excuse for how the school operates given the high SES levels of the IB community. Let's see what this school year brings and if the new leadership team can improve some of these weaknesses. I hope they start by inviting all IB residents to discuss the issues and delve into the reasons that many IB parents choose other schools.

"Your statement isn't fair" ... proceeds to crap all over a high-performing school with broad sweeping statements.

[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:Also be aware of wide variation in special needs and ELL populations. Some schools operate specialized classrooms for autism, behavior support, etc. Some schools refuse to. Some schools push out the harder kids so their at-risk population is the easier group of at-risk kids. Some schools have the challenge of mid-year entries, others refuse to share in that work.

Yep - I don't think you could use that crosstab data to describe school-level results with any degree of accuracy due to small sample size, population variation between schools, etc. But I do think that there are a bunch of middle and upper middle class black kids (and parents) in DC who are looking at achievement gaps in their schools and citywide and wondering how schools are serving kids like theirs.

Totally agree. OSSE might give you the data if you asked.

I am really struck by the number of supposedlly HRCS that have an achievement gap despite having low at-risk and also a substantial population of non-at-risk AA kids, some who are not even low-income.

Yep, me too. But if close to half the black kids at a school in the testing grades are at-risk and <2% of the white kids are at-risk (which is kinda roughly how my back of the envelope calculations show it would play out), that is really significant.

Yes. And sometimes the non-at-risk AA kids are not performing very well. Why??? Schools should be prepared to answer.

At our school it's the white kids who are performing lower than the average. And most kids are white. So what does that say? The other races are doing better than expected.

I have no clue. Does grade level analysis reveal any patterns?

Hmm, grade 4 and 5, not enough white to assess (so maybe "most" was overstating). Grade 3 was about average. So those few in 4 and 5 tipped it lower than average (for whites). I guess that's not a super big deal but it was similar last year.

It's the same at some other HRCS. I think I figured out why - white data averages are skewed by WOTP DCPS who score very high. Anyone else may expect to score lower, somewhat... Could that be it? My only question there would be, does this mean WOTP schools are better. or just richer? What do we attribute this to?

Not necessarily a WOTP thing. White kids at Shepherd scored a 94 on both sections, so as well as or better than WOTP schools.

Just adding--a few years ago at a meet and greet I recall meeting a white mom who seemed to turn her nose up at Shepherd, stating that CMI seemed to fit her educational philosophy more. I guess her kids may have actually done better had she sent them to Shepherd (her IB).

DP here and never had kids at CMI. Your statement isn't fair. CMI is very good with social emotional skills and more up-to-date child development philosophies, stronger SPED program, etc. Shepherd has very outdated practices, isn't AT ALL progressive, generally falls behind with social emotional skills of teachers, has a very poor SPED program, etc. You could argue that her white child might have scored higher on PARCC if she sent her kids to Shepherd, but that mom was right on target that CMI fit her educational philosophy more if she was looking for a more progressive model.

Kudos to Shepherd for teaching ELA and math to white kids, they deserve that (I won't get into the gap here). We shouldn't diminish this accomplishment, but there are reasons some IB families choose other public options over Shepherd aside from PARCC scores. There's no excuse for how the school operates given the high SES levels of the IB community. Let's see what this school year brings and if the new leadership team can improve some of these weaknesses. I hope they start by inviting all IB residents to discuss the issues and delve into the reasons that many IB parents choose other schools.

"Your statement isn't fair" ... proceeds to crap all over a high-performing school with broad sweeping statements.

High performing *for white students*. FTFY

[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:Also be aware of wide variation in special needs and ELL populations. Some schools operate specialized classrooms for autism, behavior support, etc. Some schools refuse to. Some schools push out the harder kids so their at-risk population is the easier group of at-risk kids. Some schools have the challenge of mid-year entries, others refuse to share in that work.

Yep - I don't think you could use that crosstab data to describe school-level results with any degree of accuracy due to small sample size, population variation between schools, etc. But I do think that there are a bunch of middle and upper middle class black kids (and parents) in DC who are looking at achievement gaps in their schools and citywide and wondering how schools are serving kids like theirs.

Totally agree. OSSE might give you the data if you asked.

I am really struck by the number of supposedlly HRCS that have an achievement gap despite having low at-risk and also a substantial population of non-at-risk AA kids, some who are not even low-income.

Yep, me too. But if close to half the black kids at a school in the testing grades are at-risk and <2% of the white kids are at-risk (which is kinda roughly how my back of the envelope calculations show it would play out), that is really significant.

Yes. And sometimes the non-at-risk AA kids are not performing very well. Why??? Schools should be prepared to answer.

At our school it's the white kids who are performing lower than the average. And most kids are white. So what does that say? The other races are doing better than expected.

I have no clue. Does grade level analysis reveal any patterns?

Hmm, grade 4 and 5, not enough white to assess (so maybe "most" was overstating). Grade 3 was about average. So those few in 4 and 5 tipped it lower than average (for whites). I guess that's not a super big deal but it was similar last year.

It's the same at some other HRCS. I think I figured out why - white data averages are skewed by WOTP DCPS who score very high. Anyone else may expect to score lower, somewhat... Could that be it? My only question there would be, does this mean WOTP schools are better. or just richer? What do we attribute this to?

Not necessarily a WOTP thing. White kids at Shepherd scored a 94 on both sections, so as well as or better than WOTP schools.

Just adding--a few years ago at a meet and greet I recall meeting a white mom who seemed to turn her nose up at Shepherd, stating that CMI seemed to fit her educational philosophy more. I guess her kids may have actually done better had she sent them to Shepherd (her IB).

DP here and never had kids at CMI. Your statement isn't fair. CMI is very good with social emotional skills and more up-to-date child development philosophies, stronger SPED program, etc. Shepherd has very outdated practices, isn't AT ALL progressive, generally falls behind with social emotional skills of teachers, has a very poor SPED program, etc. You could argue that her white child might have scored higher on PARCC if she sent her kids to Shepherd, but that mom was right on target that CMI fit her educational philosophy more if she was looking for a more progressive model.

Kudos to Shepherd for teaching ELA and math to white kids, they deserve that (I won't get into the gap here). We shouldn't diminish this accomplishment, but there are reasons some IB families choose other public options over Shepherd aside from PARCC scores. There's no excuse for how the school operates given the high SES levels of the IB community. Let's see what this school year brings and if the new leadership team can improve some of these weaknesses. I hope they start by inviting all IB residents to discuss the issues and delve into the reasons that many IB parents choose other schools.

"Your statement isn't fair" ... proceeds to crap all over a high-performing school with broad sweeping statements.

High performing *for white students*. FTFY

Incorrect. Aside from Key (which doesn't have enough at-risk kids to account for in the data), Shepherd's scores for black kids are on par with or better than the JKLM schools. Try to have an idea what you're talking about, please.

[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:Also be aware of wide variation in special needs and ELL populations. Some schools operate specialized classrooms for autism, behavior support, etc. Some schools refuse to. Some schools push out the harder kids so their at-risk population is the easier group of at-risk kids. Some schools have the challenge of mid-year entries, others refuse to share in that work.

Yep - I don't think you could use that crosstab data to describe school-level results with any degree of accuracy due to small sample size, population variation between schools, etc. But I do think that there are a bunch of middle and upper middle class black kids (and parents) in DC who are looking at achievement gaps in their schools and citywide and wondering how schools are serving kids like theirs.

Totally agree. OSSE might give you the data if you asked.

I am really struck by the number of supposedlly HRCS that have an achievement gap despite having low at-risk and also a substantial population of non-at-risk AA kids, some who are not even low-income.

Yep, me too. But if close to half the black kids at a school in the testing grades are at-risk and <2% of the white kids are at-risk (which is kinda roughly how my back of the envelope calculations show it would play out), that is really significant.

Yes. And sometimes the non-at-risk AA kids are not performing very well. Why??? Schools should be prepared to answer.

At our school it's the white kids who are performing lower than the average. And most kids are white. So what does that say? The other races are doing better than expected.

I have no clue. Does grade level analysis reveal any patterns?

Hmm, grade 4 and 5, not enough white to assess (so maybe "most" was overstating). Grade 3 was about average. So those few in 4 and 5 tipped it lower than average (for whites). I guess that's not a super big deal but it was similar last year.

It's the same at some other HRCS. I think I figured out why - white data averages are skewed by WOTP DCPS who score very high. Anyone else may expect to score lower, somewhat... Could that be it? My only question there would be, does this mean WOTP schools are better. or just richer? What do we attribute this to?

Not necessarily a WOTP thing. White kids at Shepherd scored a 94 on both sections, so as well as or better than WOTP schools.

Just adding--a few years ago at a meet and greet I recall meeting a white mom who seemed to turn her nose up at Shepherd, stating that CMI seemed to fit her educational philosophy more. I guess her kids may have actually done better had she sent them to Shepherd (her IB).

DP here and never had kids at CMI. Your statement isn't fair. CMI is very good with social emotional skills and more up-to-date child development philosophies, stronger SPED program, etc. Shepherd has very outdated practices, isn't AT ALL progressive, generally falls behind with social emotional skills of teachers, has a very poor SPED program, etc. You could argue that her white child might have scored higher on PARCC if she sent her kids to Shepherd, but that mom was right on target that CMI fit her educational philosophy more if she was looking for a more progressive model.

Kudos to Shepherd for teaching ELA and math to white kids, they deserve that (I won't get into the gap here). We shouldn't diminish this accomplishment, but there are reasons some IB families choose other public options over Shepherd aside from PARCC scores. There's no excuse for how the school operates given the high SES levels of the IB community. Let's see what this school year brings and if the new leadership team can improve some of these weaknesses. I hope they start by inviting all IB residents to discuss the issues and delve into the reasons that many IB parents choose other schools.

"Your statement isn't fair" ... proceeds to crap all over a high-performing school with broad sweeping statements.

Above post is logical and honest and I’m sure some people appreciate it.

We don’t have a child at Shepard but oh come on. It’s obvious from previous posts and many others on DCUM that whenever anyone posts a concern or non stellar post about Shepard, you get attacked, called racist and not want to be around at risk kids, etc.

I don’t know what it is but some Shepard posters are very defensive, have an inferiority concept with WOTP schools, uses the race card, are desperate for their IB families to buy into the school or something.

[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:Also be aware of wide variation in special needs and ELL populations. Some schools operate specialized classrooms for autism, behavior support, etc. Some schools refuse to. Some schools push out the harder kids so their at-risk population is the easier group of at-risk kids. Some schools have the challenge of mid-year entries, others refuse to share in that work.

Yep - I don't think you could use that crosstab data to describe school-level results with any degree of accuracy due to small sample size, population variation between schools, etc. But I do think that there are a bunch of middle and upper middle class black kids (and parents) in DC who are looking at achievement gaps in their schools and citywide and wondering how schools are serving kids like theirs.

Totally agree. OSSE might give you the data if you asked.

I am really struck by the number of supposedlly HRCS that have an achievement gap despite having low at-risk and also a substantial population of non-at-risk AA kids, some who are not even low-income.

Yep, me too. But if close to half the black kids at a school in the testing grades are at-risk and <2% of the white kids are at-risk (which is kinda roughly how my back of the envelope calculations show it would play out), that is really significant.

Yes. And sometimes the non-at-risk AA kids are not performing very well. Why??? Schools should be prepared to answer.

At our school it's the white kids who are performing lower than the average. And most kids are white. So what does that say? The other races are doing better than expected.

I have no clue. Does grade level analysis reveal any patterns?

Hmm, grade 4 and 5, not enough white to assess (so maybe "most" was overstating). Grade 3 was about average. So those few in 4 and 5 tipped it lower than average (for whites). I guess that's not a super big deal but it was similar last year.

It's the same at some other HRCS. I think I figured out why - white data averages are skewed by WOTP DCPS who score very high. Anyone else may expect to score lower, somewhat... Could that be it? My only question there would be, does this mean WOTP schools are better. or just richer? What do we attribute this to?

Not necessarily a WOTP thing. White kids at Shepherd scored a 94 on both sections, so as well as or better than WOTP schools.

Just adding--a few years ago at a meet and greet I recall meeting a white mom who seemed to turn her nose up at Shepherd, stating that CMI seemed to fit her educational philosophy more. I guess her kids may have actually done better had she sent them to Shepherd (her IB).

DP here and never had kids at CMI. Your statement isn't fair. CMI is very good with social emotional skills and more up-to-date child development philosophies, stronger SPED program, etc. Shepherd has very outdated practices, isn't AT ALL progressive, generally falls behind with social emotional skills of teachers, has a very poor SPED program, etc. You could argue that her white child might have scored higher on PARCC if she sent her kids to Shepherd, but that mom was right on target that CMI fit her educational philosophy more if she was looking for a more progressive model.

Kudos to Shepherd for teaching ELA and math to white kids, they deserve that (I won't get into the gap here). We shouldn't diminish this accomplishment, but there are reasons some IB families choose other public options over Shepherd aside from PARCC scores. There's no excuse for how the school operates given the high SES levels of the IB community. Let's see what this school year brings and if the new leadership team can improve some of these weaknesses. I hope they start by inviting all IB residents to discuss the issues and delve into the reasons that many IB parents choose other schools.

"Your statement isn't fair" ... proceeds to crap all over a high-performing school with broad sweeping statements.

Above post is logical and honest and I’m sure some people appreciate it.

We don’t have a child at Shepard but oh come on. It’s obvious from previous posts and many others on DCUM that whenever anyone posts a concern or non stellar post about Shepard, you get attacked, called racist and not want to be around at risk kids, etc.

I don’t know what it is but some Shepard posters are very defensive, have an inferiority concept with WOTP schools, uses the race card, are desperate for their IB families to buy into the school or something.

No kidding.

I don't care if people want to go to other schools, I prefer it. I just thought it was funny that the PP responded to someone saying someting (logical, and appreciated by others, I'm sure) about CMI not having as good of scores by calling it "unfair" and then proceeding to rant about how terrible Shepherd is, up to and including the teachers having low social emotional skills. Seems perfectly fair and not at all biased or histrionic.