PARCC data is up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

PP just proves my point. Poster acknowledges weakness and strengths of both schools but PP picks and chooses certain phrases and twists it around to defend Shepard. Don’t think I need to say more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

PP just proves my point. Poster acknowledges weakness and strengths of both schools but PP picks and chooses certain phrases and twists it around to defend Shepard. Don’t think I need to say more.

+1. I would love to know why some of these Shepherd defenders think their neighbors (of all races) are choosing other schools. Hint: It's not racism.

I'm actually pretty angry about this boosterism. DCPS created many of these issues for Shepherd, and having a vocal group that insists that Shepherd doesn't need improvement lets DCPS off the hook for fixing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Creative Minds continues its downward spiral. Not at-risk scores a whopping 41/48 compared to their at-risk population of 14/16.

Their middle school results dragged down the numbers for the elementary. 3rd and 4th grade results are improved over last year, and math scores are really good - not a surprise as the 3rd and 4th grade math teachers last year were wonderful.

Less than half of the non at risk kids passed. Spin it how you wish but don’t blame middle school kids.

The 2019 scores are overall slightly better than last year's How is that "continuing its downward spiral"?

That can be explained by the increase in white students into testing grades (ie, 3 more passing kids).

Put it this way: Creative Minds, a school with 1/3 white kids, scored 34% in ELA. District wide is 37%. Their white students scored 61%, what’s the DC average, like 81%? Grade by grade, 17-26% scored a 1 on ELA. These are not kids that are 1-2 questions away from getting a 4.

I'm not looking for an "explanation" of the scores. What I would like to know is why someone thinks it's fine to post a, shall we say, blatantly untruthful statement that would mislead others into thinking that CMI's PAARC scores are tanking, when they clearly aren't?

How about “CMI continues to be well below every single measure compared to poorer DCPS schools.” Or “you’re CMI student is more likely to score a 1 than a 4 on PARCC.” What about “Even rich, White kids are 20+ points below their white peers across the city and not being well-served by CMI.” To be honest, saying they continue to spiral is better than the reality of how bad they’re doing. Should have let that slide o stead of quibbling over whether the scores stayed the same, went down a few points, or went up a few points.

Thanks for proving my point it's OK to lie about a school if you personally don't approve of it. Niceeee . . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

PP just proves my point. Poster acknowledges weakness and strengths of both schools but PP picks and chooses certain phrases and twists it around to defend Shepard. Don’t think I need to say more.

+1. I would love to know why some of these Shepherd defenders think their neighbors (of all races) are choosing other schools. Hint: It's not racism.

I'm actually pretty angry about this boosterism. DCPS created many of these issues for Shepherd, and having a vocal group that insists that Shepherd doesn't need improvement lets DCPS off the hook for fixing it.

The racism card and it’s attacks by Shepard boosters is what stands out to me on DCUM. Hint: that’s not the way to attract educated nonAA IB families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Large EOTP non-charter High Schools scraping the barrel bottom with math scores in the 0% - 3% range.

Ballou: 5% / 2%
Cardoza: 13% / 4%
Dunbar: 16% / 0%
Eastern: 25% / 0%

Why isn't this the #1 story in the city?

Wow.

And incredibly those are the schools with $100M+ flashy new buildings. What a waste, and what incredible levels of corruption and incompetence.

No one with any common sense believes that new buildings will raise test scores or draw more high income families. Ballou and Dunbar need two schools within- one for high achieving kids and one vocational. They should not be giving out standard diplomas.

Poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Phelps shows 20% proficient in ELA and 6% in math. That is not blowing off the exam.

Exactly. And it’s not just a poorly designed test. This reflects 10 years of DCPS passing kids onto the next grade when they aren’t prepared. If a kid is scoring poorly on PARCC in elem and middle achool, why would we expect them to do better in HS? This is not so secret DCPS secret. Kids who are already 2 grade levels behind keep getting promoted and don’t learn any fundamentals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

PP just proves my point. Poster acknowledges weakness and strengths of both schools but PP picks and chooses certain phrases and twists it around to defend Shepard. Don’t think I need to say more.

+1. I would love to know why some of these Shepherd defenders think their neighbors (of all races) are choosing other schools. Hint: It's not racism.

I'm actually pretty angry about this boosterism. DCPS created many of these issues for Shepherd, and having a vocal group that insists that Shepherd doesn't need improvement lets DCPS off the hook for fixing it.

The racism card and it’s attacks by Shepard boosters is what stands out to me on DCUM. Hint: that’s not the way to attract educated nonAA IB families.

It's not the way to attract UMC/UC AA families either . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

PP just proves my point. Poster acknowledges weakness and strengths of both schools but PP picks and chooses certain phrases and twists it around to defend Shepard. Don’t think I need to say more.

+1. I would love to know why some of these Shepherd defenders think their neighbors (of all races) are choosing other schools. Hint: It's not racism.

I'm actually pretty angry about this boosterism. DCPS created many of these issues for Shepherd, and having a vocal group that insists that Shepherd doesn't need improvement lets DCPS off the hook for fixing it.

The racism card and it’s attacks by Shepard boosters is what stands out to me on DCUM. Hint: that’s not the way to attract educated nonAA IB families.

What stands out to me is that you're on every Shepherd thread misspelling Shepherd in every post, yet convinced that schools should be working to attract you. Shepherd isn't taking OOB kids. It doesn't need to boost its attendance.

[Anonymous]

^^ Agreed. It's also unclear what Shepherd detractors find so problematic about the school if they've not yet had a child attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP just proves my point. Poster acknowledges weakness and strengths of both schools but PP picks and chooses certain phrases and twists it around to defend Shepard. Don’t think I need to say more.

+1. I would love to know why some of these Shepherd defenders think their neighbors (of all races) are choosing other schools. Hint: It's not racism.

I'm actually pretty angry about this boosterism. DCPS created many of these issues for Shepherd, and having a vocal group that insists that Shepherd doesn't need improvement lets DCPS off the hook for fixing it.

The racism card and it’s attacks by Shepard boosters is what stands out to me on DCUM. Hint: that’s not the way to attract educated nonAA IB families.

What stands out to me is that you're on every Shepherd thread misspelling Shepherd in every post, yet convinced that schools should be working to attract you. Shepherd isn't taking OOB kids. It doesn't need to boost its attendance.

Mm

Shepherd is FULL of OOB children - and there’s nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP just proves my point. Poster acknowledges weakness and strengths of both schools but PP picks and chooses certain phrases and twists it around to defend Shepard. Don’t think I need to say more.

+1. I would love to know why some of these Shepherd defenders think their neighbors (of all races) are choosing other schools. Hint: It's not racism.

I'm actually pretty angry about this boosterism. DCPS created many of these issues for Shepherd, and having a vocal group that insists that Shepherd doesn't need improvement lets DCPS off the hook for fixing it.

The racism card and it’s attacks by Shepard boosters is what stands out to me on DCUM. Hint: that’s not the way to attract educated nonAA IB families.

What stands out to me is that you're on every Shepherd thread misspelling Shepherd in every post, yet convinced that schools should be working to attract you. Shepherd isn't taking OOB kids. It doesn't need to boost its attendance.

Mm

Shepherd is FULL of OOB children - and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Agree nothing wrong with OOB at Shepherd; some great OOB families there. I think PP's point is that the school is almost fully subscribed with IB families in the lower grades, and there's a growing IB waitlist for PK3/4--so no indication that Shepherd is struggling to attract families, whether IB or OOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Creative Minds continues its downward spiral. Not at-risk scores a whopping 41/48 compared to their at-risk population of 14/16.

Their middle school results dragged down the numbers for the elementary. 3rd and 4th grade results are improved over last year, and math scores are really good - not a surprise as the 3rd and 4th grade math teachers last year were wonderful.

Less than half of the non at risk kids passed. Spin it how you wish but don’t blame middle school kids.

The 2019 scores are overall slightly better than last year's How is that "continuing its downward spiral"?

That can be explained by the increase in white students into testing grades (ie, 3 more passing kids).

Put it this way: Creative Minds, a school with 1/3 white kids, scored 34% in ELA. District wide is 37%. Their white students scored 61%, what’s the DC average, like 81%? Grade by grade, 17-26% scored a 1 on ELA. These are not kids that are 1-2 questions away from getting a 4.

I'm not looking for an "explanation" of the scores. What I would like to know is why someone thinks it's fine to post a, shall we say, blatantly untruthful statement that would mislead others into thinking that CMI's PAARC scores are tanking, when they clearly aren't?

How about “CMI continues to be well below every single measure compared to poorer DCPS schools.” Or “you’re CMI student is more likely to score a 1 than a 4 on PARCC.” What about “Even rich, White kids are 20+ points below their white peers across the city and not being well-served by CMI.” To be honest, saying they continue to spiral is better than the reality of how bad they’re doing. Should have let that slide o stead of quibbling over whether the scores stayed the same, went down a few points, or went up a few points.

Thanks for proving my point it's OK to lie about a school if you personally don't approve of it. Niceeee . . . .

Where’s the lie? Stop looking at the scores in aggregate and start looking at the actual data.

[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.

How do you know great CMI is at social if you’ve never been there? I think you ought to talk to my friend who’s kid has suffered major injuries at CMI of how great their social emotional program is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP just proves my point. Poster acknowledges weakness and strengths of both schools but PP picks and chooses certain phrases and twists it around to defend Shepard. Don’t think I need to say more.

+1. I would love to know why some of these Shepherd defenders think their neighbors (of all races) are choosing other schools. Hint: It's not racism.

I'm actually pretty angry about this boosterism. DCPS created many of these issues for Shepherd, and having a vocal group that insists that Shepherd doesn't need improvement lets DCPS off the hook for fixing it.

The racism card and it’s attacks by Shepard boosters is what stands out to me on DCUM. Hint: that’s not the way to attract educated nonAA IB families.

What stands out to me is that you're on every Shepherd thread misspelling Shepherd in every post, yet convinced that schools should be working to attract you. Shepherd isn't taking OOB kids. It doesn't need to boost its attendance.

Nope, not interested in the school as OOB and not white. I call it like it is. Looks like I’m not the only one that notices either from another reply to this thread.

[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.

How do you know great CMI is at social if you’ve never been there? I think you ought to talk to my friend who’s kid has suffered major injuries at CMI of how great their social emotional program is.

Former. CMI parent. Agree. Lots of talk and fluff. No action.