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.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}