When is the first year MV kids aren't "guaranteed" DCI access?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see... so MV P St (using just one campus for simplicity) has 19% at-risk, 20% ELLs, and 14.5% SWD. And using the OSSE PARCC scores for Approaching/Meeting/Exceeding, has 58% of kids scoring a 3/4/5 on PARCC for ELA, and 54.5% for Math.
https://osse.dc.gov/dcschoolreportcard/schoolsnapshot

So now to compare to other elementary schools. Powell has test scores almost as good as MV's despite 37% at-risk and 67% ELLs. Test scores at Bruce-Monroe are also similar to Mundo's-- PARCC scores in the 50s and 60s-- but 33% at-risk and 65 ELLs. Other DCPS schools with similar test scores include Barnard (46% at-risk and 46% ELLs), LaSalle-Backus (56% at-risk and 46% ELLs), Marie Reed (30% at-risk and 43% ELLs).

DCI feeders: LAMB's test scores are massively better-- in the 70s-- and the demographics are a little more favorable (8% at-risk and 17% ELL). Stokes Brookland similarly much better PARCC scores, 9% at-risk and 16% ELL). Similarly DCB has PARCC sccores in the 70s, yet 17% at-risk and 34% ELLs.

This is so much worse than I realized! Lordy...

My kids aren’t at MV, but I worked at one of the schools you mention. The test prep is unreal. It is not hard to do well on a test when you prep for it all year. It’s one of the reasons I left.

Not at Bruce Monroe. My child is terrible at standardized tests and when I asked about how he could prepare more, I got a speech about what’s important to focus on in school and how those skills will come in time (it was actual learning, not taking the test). Which I appreciate, but he really is terrible despite being an excellent student and bright kid.

And yes, a school like Bruce Monroe has a lot of very at-risk kids that aren’t prepared for testing or keeping up with grade level expectations, particularly if they’re not Spanish dominant. They differentiate very well, for all levels of learning (top and bottom of the class), but a school with a high risk percentage is just not going to be able to have the same overall scores as a school with a lower at-risk population.

I am the PP teacher. Is your child on or above grade level? How do you know what they do with students below grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the elephant in the DCI admissions policymaking room is that some of the feeder schools' academic performance is so poor, the school might be better off with outside kids.

I mean, no. Not if you understand how the feeder schools helped create DCI and why. It's not billed as or supposed to be achievement based entry, like Walls etc.

For the MV kids in 4th now, I think they should be in good shape because DCB has a small 4th grade class.

I know it's not achievement-based, but DCI is under pressure to deliver academic results in a way that elementary schools aren't. looking at some of the feeder schools' stats, I can see why taking their chances on lottery kids might seem appealing.

There is so much I find confusing about this post.

1. Would you want your kids in a high performing school if that didn't reflect growth but simply how the kids came in?
2. Why would the lottery kids be any higher performing? Have you looked at the city wide parcc scores and thought about where these lottery kids would be coming from? (I.e., not Deal bound kids)
3. All schools are judged by achievement results. State accountability systems identify elementary, middle, and high schools if failing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the elephant in the DCI admissions policymaking room is that some of the feeder schools' academic performance is so poor, the school might be better off with outside kids.

I mean, no. Not if you understand how the feeder schools helped create DCI and why. It's not billed as or supposed to be achievement based entry, like Walls etc.

For the MV kids in 4th now, I think they should be in good shape because DCB has a small 4th grade class.

I know it's not achievement-based, but DCI is under pressure to deliver academic results in a way that elementary schools aren't. looking at some of the feeder schools' stats, I can see why taking their chances on lottery kids might seem appealing.

There is so much I find confusing about this post.

1. Would you want your kids in a high performing school if that didn't reflect growth but simply how the kids came in?
2. Why would the lottery kids be any higher performing? Have you looked at the city wide parcc scores and thought about where these lottery kids would be coming from? (I.e., not Deal bound kids)
3. All schools are judged by achievement results. State accountability systems identify elementary, middle, and high schools if failing.

1. Yes, I totally would. Having high-performing peers is a good and important thing to me because it allows the school to offer advanced coursework. And when kids come in high-performing, they're not going to show that much growth because the highest you can get on the PARCC is a 5 no matter how much growth you've experienced since you got a 5 the year before. Understand how the stats work!

2. Because the performance of kids at MV is really low. I find it very easy to believe that the population of people applying to DCI as non-feeder students are on average higher performing than MV graduates. I don't think we have the data to say for sure, but MV's stats are so bleak that it's possible.

3. DCI's parent population cares a lot about academic achievement and "not failing" is not going to be good enough for them. There is pressure on DCI to achieve a lot higher than those so-called "accountability systems" where the bar is so low it's basically on the floor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see... so MV P St (using just one campus for simplicity) has 19% at-risk, 20% ELLs, and 14.5% SWD. And using the OSSE PARCC scores for Approaching/Meeting/Exceeding, has 58% of kids scoring a 3/4/5 on PARCC for ELA, and 54.5% for Math.
https://osse.dc.gov/dcschoolreportcard/schoolsnapshot

So now to compare to other elementary schools. Powell has test scores almost as good as MV's despite 37% at-risk and 67% ELLs. Test scores at Bruce-Monroe are also similar to Mundo's-- PARCC scores in the 50s and 60s-- but 33% at-risk and 65 ELLs. Other DCPS schools with similar test scores include Barnard (46% at-risk and 46% ELLs), LaSalle-Backus (56% at-risk and 46% ELLs), Marie Reed (30% at-risk and 43% ELLs).

DCI feeders: LAMB's test scores are massively better-- in the 70s-- and the demographics are a little more favorable (8% at-risk and 17% ELL). Stokes Brookland similarly much better PARCC scores, 9% at-risk and 16% ELL). Similarly DCB has PARCC sccores in the 70s, yet 17% at-risk and 34% ELLs.

This is so much worse than I realized! Lordy...

My kids aren’t at MV, but I worked at one of the schools you mention. The test prep is unreal. It is not hard to do well on a test when you prep for it all year. It’s one of the reasons I left.

Not at Bruce Monroe. My child is terrible at standardized tests and when I asked about how he could prepare more, I got a speech about what’s important to focus on in school and how those skills will come in time (it was actual learning, not taking the test). Which I appreciate, but he really is terrible despite being an excellent student and bright kid.

And yes, a school like Bruce Monroe has a lot of very at-risk kids that aren’t prepared for testing or keeping up with grade level expectations, particularly if they’re not Spanish dominant. They differentiate very well, for all levels of learning (top and bottom of the class), but a school with a high risk percentage is just not going to be able to have the same overall scores as a school with a lower at-risk population.

I am the PP teacher. Is your child on or above grade level? How do you know what they do with students below grade level.

It seems like your mind is made up already, but yes, my DC is above for math and ELA, and on grade level for SLA. I know because I'm involved with the school and have know a lot of families in the school community for years. DC is in a testing grade and I see what resources they send out to the class as a whole, what the kids present during showcases and what work is displayed, etc. Like I said, I ASKED about more test prep and they said that wasn't their focus. Maybe it's an elaborate scheme to trick parents, or maybe not all schools operate like your previous school did. I hope you're happy at your current school, and I'm glad you were able to find a school that was a better fit for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see... so MV P St (using just one campus for simplicity) has 19% at-risk, 20% ELLs, and 14.5% SWD. And using the OSSE PARCC scores for Approaching/Meeting/Exceeding, has 58% of kids scoring a 3/4/5 on PARCC for ELA, and 54.5% for Math.
https://osse.dc.gov/dcschoolreportcard/schoolsnapshot

So now to compare to other elementary schools. Powell has test scores almost as good as MV's despite 37% at-risk and 67% ELLs. Test scores at Bruce-Monroe are also similar to Mundo's-- PARCC scores in the 50s and 60s-- but 33% at-risk and 65 ELLs. Other DCPS schools with similar test scores include Barnard (46% at-risk and 46% ELLs), LaSalle-Backus (56% at-risk and 46% ELLs), Marie Reed (30% at-risk and 43% ELLs).

DCI feeders: LAMB's test scores are massively better-- in the 70s-- and the demographics are a little more favorable (8% at-risk and 17% ELL). Stokes Brookland similarly much better PARCC scores, 9% at-risk and 16% ELL). Similarly DCB has PARCC sccores in the 70s, yet 17% at-risk and 34% ELLs.

This is so much worse than I realized! Lordy...

My kids aren’t at MV, but I worked at one of the schools you mention. The test prep is unreal. It is not hard to do well on a test when you prep for it all year. It’s one of the reasons I left.

Not at Bruce Monroe. My child is terrible at standardized tests and when I asked about how he could prepare more, I got a speech about what’s important to focus on in school and how those skills will come in time (it was actual learning, not taking the test). Which I appreciate, but he really is terrible despite being an excellent student and bright kid.

And yes, a school like Bruce Monroe has a lot of very at-risk kids that aren’t prepared for testing or keeping up with grade level expectations, particularly if they’re not Spanish dominant. They differentiate very well, for all levels of learning (top and bottom of the class), but a school with a high risk percentage is just not going to be able to have the same overall scores as a school with a lower at-risk population.

I am the PP teacher. Is your child on or above grade level? How do you know what they do with students below grade level.

+1 I had a very different experience at BM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the elephant in the DCI admissions policymaking room is that some of the feeder schools' academic performance is so poor, the school might be better off with outside kids.

I mean, no. Not if you understand how the feeder schools helped create DCI and why. It's not billed as or supposed to be achievement based entry, like Walls etc.

For the MV kids in 4th now, I think they should be in good shape because DCB has a small 4th grade class.

I know it's not achievement-based, but DCI is under pressure to deliver academic results in a way that elementary schools aren't. looking at some of the feeder schools' stats, I can see why taking their chances on lottery kids might seem appealing.

There is so much I find confusing about this post.

1. Would you want your kids in a high performing school if that didn't reflect growth but simply how the kids came in?
2. Why would the lottery kids be any higher performing? Have you looked at the city wide parcc scores and thought about where these lottery kids would be coming from? (I.e., not Deal bound kids)
3. All schools are judged by achievement results. State accountability systems identify elementary, middle, and high schools if failing.

1. Yes, I totally would. Having high-performing peers is a good and important thing to me because it allows the school to offer advanced coursework. And when kids come in high-performing, they're not going to show that much growth because the highest you can get on the PARCC is a 5 no matter how much growth you've experienced since you got a 5 the year before. Understand how the stats work!

2. Because the performance of kids at MV is really low. I find it very easy to believe that the population of people applying to DCI as non-feeder students are on average higher performing than MV graduates. I don't think we have the data to say for sure, but MV's stats are so bleak that it's possible.

3. DCI's parent population cares a lot about academic achievement and "not failing" is not going to be good enough for them. There is pressure on DCI to achieve a lot higher than those so-called "accountability systems" where the bar is so low it's basically on the floor.

DCI’s parent population come from its feeder. Do they care or not about academics? You need to make up your mind.

Also, where are all these high performing peers? At WOTP schools? Have you seen PARCC scores for schools not WOTP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the elephant in the DCI admissions policymaking room is that some of the feeder schools' academic performance is so poor, the school might be better off with outside kids.

I mean, no. Not if you understand how the feeder schools helped create DCI and why. It's not billed as or supposed to be achievement based entry, like Walls etc.

For the MV kids in 4th now, I think they should be in good shape because DCB has a small 4th grade class.

I know it's not achievement-based, but DCI is under pressure to deliver academic results in a way that elementary schools aren't. looking at some of the feeder schools' stats, I can see why taking their chances on lottery kids might seem appealing.

There is so much I find confusing about this post.

1. Would you want your kids in a high performing school if that didn't reflect growth but simply how the kids came in?
2. Why would the lottery kids be any higher performing? Have you looked at the city wide parcc scores and thought about where these lottery kids would be coming from? (I.e., not Deal bound kids)
3. All schools are judged by achievement results. State accountability systems identify elementary, middle, and high schools if failing.

1. Yes, I totally would. Having high-performing peers is a good and important thing to me because it allows the school to offer advanced coursework. And when kids come in high-performing, they're not going to show that much growth because the highest you can get on the PARCC is a 5 no matter how much growth you've experienced since you got a 5 the year before. Understand how the stats work!

2. Because the performance of kids at MV is really low. I find it very easy to believe that the population of people applying to DCI as non-feeder students are on average higher performing than MV graduates. I don't think we have the data to say for sure, but MV's stats are so bleak that it's possible.

3. DCI's parent population cares a lot about academic achievement and "not failing" is not going to be good enough for them. There is pressure on DCI to achieve a lot higher than those so-called "accountability systems" where the bar is so low it's basically on the floor.

DCI’s parent population come from its feeder. Do they care or not about academics? You need to make up your mind.

Also, where are all these high performing peers? At WOTP schools? Have you seen PARCC scores for schools not WOTP?

They do care about academics. But middle school and high school parents care about academics in a different *way* than preschool and elementary school parents do. They care a lot more about test scores and performance, and they want to see advanced classes offered with the correct content taught. They're not content to rely on in-room differentiation the way preschool and lower elementary parents often are. MV, with its terrible test metrics, tends to have parents who don't care that much-- anyone who cared has left already. But LAMB and YY parents are a different story.

High-performing students can come from any school, even schools with low scores overall. Of course I have seen PARCC scores for all of the schools. Some examples of EOTP schools with decent test scores are Inspired Teaching, Shepherd, Bancroft, Ludlow-Taylor, John Lewis, Powell, Seaton, and Takoma. Also, the middle schools Stuart-Hobson, Wells, BASIS, Hardy, CHEC, SWW@FS, and Deal all sent students to DCI recently (though not for 6th).

https://edscape.dc.gov/page/student-enrollment-pathways

[Anonymous]

There are so many other dcps schools better than Mv

[Anonymous]

This thread has gotten pretty nutty. MV is not perfect, but does have excellent teachers, committed parents, and kids that are learning. I have a kid that went thru MV PK3-5 and is now doing very well at DCI, tested into advanced math and Spanish, and overall seems to be very well prepared for the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gotten pretty nutty. MV is not perfect, but does have excellent teachers, committed parents, and kids that are learning. I have a kid that went thru MV PK3-5 and is now doing very well at DCI, tested into advanced math and Spanish, and overall seems to be very well prepared for the school.

It's gotten worse since you were there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gotten pretty nutty. MV is not perfect, but does have excellent teachers, committed parents, and kids that are learning. I have a kid that went thru MV PK3-5 and is now doing very well at DCI, tested into advanced math and Spanish, and overall seems to be very well prepared for the school.

It's gotten worse since you were there.

I’m still there. I have another kid at MV and my DCI child is in 6th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gotten pretty nutty. MV is not perfect, but does have excellent teachers, committed parents, and kids that are learning. I have a kid that went thru MV PK3-5 and is now doing very well at DCI, tested into advanced math and Spanish, and overall seems to be very well prepared for the school.

It's gotten worse since you were there.

I’m still there. I have another kid at MV and my DCI child is in 6th.

Fill us in on why the Padres fell apart for a year, and why some parents were picketing in the streets. Also, why the bad PARCC scores?

[Anonymous]

Not enough support/staffing for a couple of grades. Unfortunately these grades had impacts over a couple of years, and were home during the pandemic during K and 1st, and had a lot of catch up on critical learning like reading and math fundamentals.

Administration did let these kids down, in terms of new hires were not a great fit, the training/support was not enough for teachers to meet learning and behavioral needs of kids, and after teachers left the plan B put into place was bad, along with the communication with parents.

At the same time, things were not the same in other grades, and many kids did have good teachers and succeeded.

[Anonymous]

It would be insincere to paint the complaints of last year's protesting parents as a pandemic-related fluke. Their complaints were eerily similar to those of parents who fought against the school's expansion several years earlier.

The common thread from the school's inception until now? an administration with hubris, poor communications skills, and disregard for its own parent community. What kind of people call the cops on families in their own community who are peacefully protesting? How does a problem get so bad that parents feel compelled to publicly protest?

That's what's nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gotten pretty nutty. MV is not perfect, but does have excellent teachers, committed parents, and kids that are learning. I have a kid that went thru MV PK3-5 and is now doing very well at DCI, tested into advanced math and Spanish, and overall seems to be very well prepared for the school.

+1. I have a kid at 8th St in the upper grades. Great teachers, agree great parent community, and kid is definitely learning.

My kid has always done real well in math (>90% MAP) and last testing knocked it out of the park for ELA and Spanish. Huge, huge improvement and now also >90% and we do no supplementing in either and don’t speak any Spanish. His improvement was from what he was learning in school.

Like any school, there were some bumps the first year back after Covid but overall it’s been a really good experience for us.