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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism.

OP here: lest you think I'm ignoring you, I will not be responding to this statement. If that's your stance, there is likely little possibility for reasonable discussion. (I'm not denying racism; I'm just denying that this is all there is.)

different PP - actually that post is orthogonal to your analysis. Whether the advantages white children have are due to parental involvement (which would be similar for high SES black children) or to racism (which would not be) your analysis and results would still hold. There would be differences in the return to parental involvement (for both races) but that is not the question you address.

OP here. Yes, fellow economist, you are correct. I didn't want to appear to be engaging the prior poster on this point. There are not gains to be had. I appreciate you weighing in here: more critical analysis desperately wanted.

Ideally people will engage the points in the first post instead of devolving into screeds against uniforms or the unquantified value of fitting in.

To the other poster, I will self-identify all of my replies at the outset.

cut the jargon -- "orthogonal" = statistically independent

not quite. Statistically independent is about two data series, not two different logical arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Notwithstanding that I fully believe that my kid will do well anywhere, why on earth would I send my kid to the lower performing school, if I had a choice?

The implication of the above is that there are costs to attending such a school for a high SES student (or a white high SES student) that have nothing to do with the student't test scores. One is that there are academic negatives not covered by the tests. More likely is that there are social unpleasantnesses apart from academics. "My kid aced the scores, and eventually went to Dartmouth, where he regaled his classmates with tales of how he was beaten up every day at DCPS"

To the extent that those other costs are relatively minor (not like in the hypothetical quote above) the reason to send the kid to this school is that a family does not want to move, and does not want to spend the money on private school.

Is this OP? Again I appreciate your thoughtfulness, or whoever you are.

I agree but... the point is that it is very easy for many families to avoid such a school. You can rent your place out and live IB for Deal for a few years, then move back, you can sell and in most cases get something really nice in the burbs (IB Hardy real estate is pricey), and for a smaller number of families, private is affordable, especially if it's just for MS and maybe HS. Those years typically correspond with peak or near-peak earnings for parents. It's the early years when parents are most likely to struggle to pay. Bottom line, there are numerous people who have avoided Hardy without great hardship, and without being Rockefellers either.

As for the costs, public schools with great demographics create networks of former classmates who are later successful in their business and professional ventures. Sure, if you attend InnerCity Middle and High School, you probably will still be successful, but you will not have this long-standing network, deep friendships that go back to the playground before any of you had any money or any clue. To me, these social aspects are important. As an economist surely you've seen research on the value of such networks. Plus the benefit of the parent networks, not even considering the kids!

But even if you don't care about that, perhaps because you believe you and your kid can develop networks elsewhere, there is still a lot to academics beyond the test scores. Revisit your data. You see that "90 percent" DCCAS for a school does not mean that this is the average percentage score on the exam. It means this is the percentage of students who are proficient or advanced. But this (proficient) is a very, very low bar! Chosen because let's face it, DC is coming from a long way down. But for me, academics go way beyond these standardized tests. Even among schools boasting 90 plus, there can be big variations in the level of academic rigor and enrichment. And this in turn will mostly be a function of average levels of performance. It is all very well to focus on the "white" scores for your kids, but DCPS central office and the school admins will have a more divided focus, if your school is not uniformly high achieving.

BTW all of this applies equally to Wilson as it does to Hardy, there I agree with OP completely.

Bumping my own post. OP, I don't think you've addressed my first paragraph about the relatively low cost of avoiding Hardy, which was reinforced by the Hearst poster's arguments.

Nor have you addressed my third paragraph about the low bar of proficiency on the (now defunct) DCCAS.

Another poster addressed the social networks issue and made some valid points, but we cannot discount MS and HS social networks entirely. If we could, then why do exclusive private schools even exist in the first place?

You seem to assume that people are irrational in avoiding Hardy. Others, in other threads, assume racism. But the reality is that, for those who can afford it, avoiding Hardy is rational and the costs of doing so are not extreme. Otherwise, why else would so many well educated and successful people be making this choice? Can it really be that they are all ignorant of the testing demographics points you make, points that have been repeatedly and publicly explained over the past several years, even by DCPS? I don't think so.

The coordination or prisoners' dilemma, there we have some explanation at least. But there is another actor whose coordination is needed, namely DCPS and school admin. Suppose many IB parents decide to attend, only to have DCPS increase enrollment and thereby preserve OOB access and maintain the demographics as they are. Then the coordinated effort will have failed to achieve change. That is to say, trust in government or lack thereof is also an issue here.

I am always pleased to see the progress at Hardy, but I think what you are up against here is people with money, and an education system and real estate market that rewards money with excellent education options.

Point 1 - I assume that is because of HIGH SCHOOL networks, not middle school networks. The networking difference between Hardy/Wilson and Deal/Wilson is going to be trivial.

Point 2 - I see no evidence that DCPS actually intends that. They are putting money and effort into new EOTP middle schools. I really do not think they intend to indefinitely increase Hardy's enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism.

OP here: lest you think I'm ignoring you, I will not be responding to this statement. If that's your stance, there is likely little possibility for reasonable discussion. (I'm not denying racism; I'm just denying that this is all there is.)

different PP - actually that post is orthogonal to your analysis. Whether the advantages white children have are due to parental involvement (which would be similar for high SES black children) or to racism (which would not be) your analysis and results would still hold. There would be differences in the return to parental involvement (for both races) but that is not the question you address.

OP here. Yes, fellow economist, you are correct. I didn't want to appear to be engaging the prior poster on this point. There are not gains to be had. I appreciate you weighing in here: more critical analysis desperately wanted.

Ideally people will engage the points in the first post instead of devolving into screeds against uniforms or the unquantified value of fitting in.

To the other poster, I will self-identify all of my replies at the outset.

cut the jargon -- "orthogonal" = statistically independent

not quite. Statistically independent is about two data series, not two different logical arguments.

two different logical arguments each based on statistical analysis . For @%*& sake!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism.

OP here: lest you think I'm ignoring you, I will not be responding to this statement. If that's your stance, there is likely little possibility for reasonable discussion. (I'm not denying racism; I'm just denying that this is all there is.)

different PP - actually that post is orthogonal to your analysis. Whether the advantages white children have are due to parental involvement (which would be similar for high SES black children) or to racism (which would not be) your analysis and results would still hold. There would be differences in the return to parental involvement (for both races) but that is not the question you address.

OP here. Yes, fellow economist, you are correct. I didn't want to appear to be engaging the prior poster on this point. There are not gains to be had. I appreciate you weighing in here: more critical analysis desperately wanted.

Ideally people will engage the points in the first post instead of devolving into screeds against uniforms or the unquantified value of fitting in.

To the other poster, I will self-identify all of my replies at the outset.

cut the jargon -- "orthogonal" = statistically independent

not quite. Statistically independent is about two data series, not two different logical arguments.

two different logical arguments each based on statistical analysis . For @%*& sake!

and yes -- one a statistical argument OP presented, the other not backed with data but that does not negate the argument or its premise even if it's more challenging to quantify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism.

OP here: lest you think I'm ignoring you, I will not be responding to this statement. If that's your stance, there is likely little possibility for reasonable discussion. (I'm not denying racism; I'm just denying that this is all there is.)

different PP - actually that post is orthogonal to your analysis. Whether the advantages white children have are due to parental involvement (which would be similar for high SES black children) or to racism (which would not be) your analysis and results would still hold. There would be differences in the return to parental involvement (for both races) but that is not the question you address.

OP here. Yes, fellow economist, you are correct. I didn't want to appear to be engaging the prior poster on this point. There are not gains to be had. I appreciate you weighing in here: more critical analysis desperately wanted.

Ideally people will engage the points in the first post instead of devolving into screeds against uniforms or the unquantified value of fitting in.

To the other poster, I will self-identify all of my replies at the outset.

cut the jargon -- "orthogonal" = statistically independent

not quite. Statistically independent is about two data series, not two different logical arguments.

two different logical arguments each based on statistical analysis . For @%*& sake!

and yes -- one a statistical argument OP presented, the other not backed with data but that does not negate the argument or its premise even if it's more challenging to quantify.

Guys, this bickering over econometrics jargon is coming across as a bit immature/insecure. Many of us on this board have economics backgrounds, but the best economists are able to argue convincingly using layman's language. Try it. Save the rest for your next AER submission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - thank you so much for this analysis. I'm not IB to Hardy, but we are looking at it as an OOB family.

I am going to be so bold as to ask if you could please do a similar analysis for Stuart-Hobson. I am not an economist by training, and I've been struggling to let more rational, objective measures help guide our MS search.

This analysis about Hardy is just the type of thing that is needed for all families as we navigate DC's schools.

OP here.

I'm not ignoring other posters. I will address them (I hope) in due time. Some of these questions/requests deserve more consideration than a flippant reply.

To this poster, my guess from eyeballing the data is that a similar story is true at Stuart-Hobson. (I wanted to include SH when putting the data together but I could only get so much done in the two hours before work.) This is just a guess, but I'll pull them later today and provide a brief conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism.

OP here: lest you think I'm ignoring you, I will not be responding to this statement. If that's your stance, there is likely little possibility for reasonable discussion. (I'm not denying racism; I'm just denying that this is all there is.)

different PP - actually that post is orthogonal to your analysis. Whether the advantages white children have are due to parental involvement (which would be similar for high SES black children) or to racism (which would not be) your analysis and results would still hold. There would be differences in the return to parental involvement (for both races) but that is not the question you address.

OP here. Yes, fellow economist, you are correct. I didn't want to appear to be engaging the prior poster on this point. There are not gains to be had. I appreciate you weighing in here: more critical analysis desperately wanted.

Ideally people will engage the points in the first post instead of devolving into screeds against uniforms or the unquantified value of fitting in.

To the other poster, I will self-identify all of my replies at the outset.

cut the jargon -- "orthogonal" = statistically independent

not quite. Statistically independent is about two data series, not two different logical arguments.

two different logical arguments each based on statistical analysis . For @%*& sake!

Yes, which means they are not "statistically independent". They are logically orthogonal, though based on data. or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Guys, this bickering over econometrics jargon is coming across as a bit immature/insecure. Many of us on this board have economics backgrounds, but the best economists are able to argue convincingly using layman's language. Try it. Save the rest for your next AER submission.

I am the PP who first said "orthogonal" and I was addressing OP, who says he is an economist. I was not trying to convince anyone else of anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Notwithstanding that I fully believe that my kid will do well anywhere, why on earth would I send my kid to the lower performing school, if I had a choice?

The implication of the above is that there are costs to attending such a school for a high SES student (or a white high SES student) that have nothing to do with the student't test scores. One is that there are academic negatives not covered by the tests. More likely is that there are social unpleasantnesses apart from academics. "My kid aced the scores, and eventually went to Dartmouth, where he regaled his classmates with tales of how he was beaten up every day at DCPS"

To the extent that those other costs are relatively minor (not like in the hypothetical quote above) the reason to send the kid to this school is that a family does not want to move, and does not want to spend the money on private school.

Is this OP? Again I appreciate your thoughtfulness, or whoever you are.

I agree but... the point is that it is very easy for many families to avoid such a school. You can rent your place out and live IB for Deal for a few years, then move back, you can sell and in most cases get something really nice in the burbs (IB Hardy real estate is pricey), and for a smaller number of families, private is affordable, especially if it's just for MS and maybe HS. Those years typically correspond with peak or near-peak earnings for parents. It's the early years when parents are most likely to struggle to pay. Bottom line, there are numerous people who have avoided Hardy without great hardship, and without being Rockefellers either.

As for the costs, public schools with great demographics create networks of former classmates who are later successful in their business and professional ventures. Sure, if you attend InnerCity Middle and High School, you probably will still be successful, but you will not have this long-standing network, deep friendships that go back to the playground before any of you had any money or any clue. To me, these social aspects are important. As an economist surely you've seen research on the value of such networks. Plus the benefit of the parent networks, not even considering the kids!

But even if you don't care about that, perhaps because you believe you and your kid can develop networks elsewhere, there is still a lot to academics beyond the test scores. Revisit your data. You see that "90 percent" DCCAS for a school does not mean that this is the average percentage score on the exam. It means this is the percentage of students who are proficient or advanced. But this (proficient) is a very, very low bar! Chosen because let's face it, DC is coming from a long way down. But for me, academics go way beyond these standardized tests. Even among schools boasting 90 plus, there can be big variations in the level of academic rigor and enrichment. And this in turn will mostly be a function of average levels of performance. It is all very well to focus on the "white" scores for your kids, but DCPS central office and the school admins will have a more divided focus, if your school is not uniformly high achieving.

BTW all of this applies equally to Wilson as it does to Hardy, there I agree with OP completely.

Bumping my own post. OP, I don't think you've addressed my first paragraph about the relatively low cost of avoiding Hardy, which was reinforced by the Hearst poster's arguments.

Nor have you addressed my third paragraph about the low bar of proficiency on the (now defunct) DCCAS.

Another poster addressed the social networks issue and made some valid points, but we cannot discount MS and HS social networks entirely. If we could, then why do exclusive private schools even exist in the first place?

You seem to assume that people are irrational in avoiding Hardy. Others, in other threads, assume racism. But the reality is that, for those who can afford it, avoiding Hardy is rational and the costs of doing so are not extreme. Otherwise, why else would so many well educated and successful people be making this choice? Can it really be that they are all ignorant of the testing demographics points you make, points that have been repeatedly and publicly explained over the past several years, even by DCPS? I don't think so.

The coordination or prisoners' dilemma, there we have some explanation at least. But there is another actor whose coordination is needed, namely DCPS and school admin. Suppose many IB parents decide to attend, only to have DCPS increase enrollment and thereby preserve OOB access and maintain the demographics as they are. Then the coordinated effort will have failed to achieve change. That is to say, trust in government or lack thereof is also an issue here.

I am always pleased to see the progress at Hardy, but I think what you are up against here is people with money, and an education system and real estate market that rewards money with excellent education options.

Just one edit to my very last paragraph. I should have said, people with money, who are at least somewhat risk averse. Risk aversion is commonly assumed, and I think it's a valid assumption here. Why take a risk or accept compromise when private school or Bethesda are reasonably within reach, albeit not without some cost?

[Anonymous]

OP here: it was a correct usage of orthogonal and I immediately understand what the PP was saying. For the others, think of orthogonal as "unrelated" or "neither here nor there." (I think the source in linear al, by the way. Not statistics. I think.) Enough on this point.

By the way, although I only "say" I'm an economist. I am, in fact, an economist. You don't have to believe and it should have no bearing on the merits of my comments. I just included it by way of explanation for why I'm playing with the numbers for a school with which I have no affiliation.

[Anonymous]

Just one edit to my very last paragraph. I should have said, people with money, who are at least somewhat risk averse. Risk aversion is commonly assumed, and I think it's a valid assumption here. Why take a risk or accept compromise when private school or Bethesda are reasonably within reach, albeit not without some cost?

OP here. I know I need to reply. It will take me a while. Later afternoon or tonight at the earliest. I'm not ducking you.

[Anonymous]

NP. I'm yet another social science researcher and I've quite enjoyed the discussion thus far. Okay, carry on!

[Anonymous]

My head hurts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - thank you so much for this analysis. I'm not IB to Hardy, but we are looking at it as an OOB family.

I am going to be so bold as to ask if you could please do a similar analysis for Stuart-Hobson. I am not an economist by training, and I've been struggling to let more rational, objective measures help guide our MS search.

This analysis about Hardy is just the type of thing that is needed for all families as we navigate DC's schools.

OP here.

I'm not ignoring other posters. I will address them (I hope) in due time. Some of these questions/requests deserve more consideration than a flippant reply.

To this poster, my guess from eyeballing the data is that a similar story is true at Stuart-Hobson. (I wanted to include SH when putting the data together but I could only get so much done in the two hours before work.) This is just a guess, but I'll pull them later today and provide a brief conclusion.

Ed researcher here, and although I haven't crunched those particular numbers, I'd expect OP's original finding holds in general system wide. Kids from MC white families generally do just fine wherever they are placed. The exception is that there's not good evidence for cases in which there are very few such students in a school -- it's hard to do the analysis because the sample sizes are small.

It's also true that kids from disadvantaged backgroundss do WORSE when they attend schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Economically diverse schools have a beneficial effect on kids from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. (Takeaway -- if you aren't wealthy, the best thing to do for your kids education is buy the cheapest house in the best neighborhood. Assuming test scores as a metric, of course -- this doesn't take into account the difficulties of e.g. being a minority in a majority white school.)

[Anonymous]

People seem to be talking about the alternative to Hardy only in terms of private school. Latin and Basis (and perhaps other charters) are important variables too. I'd love to see the percentage of how many families IB for Hardy entered the lottery for their rising 5th graders. I'm going to guess it's in the 80-90% range. There is no financial cost to play the lottery and if you accept a spot that you win there is no financial cost in terms of tuition, so why not see how your child does and potentially expand your options? And inevitably a number of those families who are IB for Hardy will take the Latin or Basis option when offered, thus decreasing the 5th grade numbers at the Hardy feeder elementary (keep in mind those IB families can decide at any time that they want to go to Hardy. By enrolling at Basis, they don't relinquish their right to Hardy or the elementary feeder). And once that Hardy feeder school realizes they have lost x number of 5th graders, it may go to the waitlist to add children to 5th grade (in order to make enrollment and budget targets). And those children from the waitlist come to the school with unknown education histories. Some of those kids who join a Hardy feeder at 5th grade will be prepared and test well. Some may not. But this is for sure...they will be going to Hardy, because getting access to Hardy was likely a big reason why that family was willing to jump to a new elementary school for just one grade. So, know this...IB families at feeder elementaries will be looking at the 5th grade classes and trying to determine if those are kids they want their kids to be with in 6th grade. So it's not just about getting 5th grade families to make a pact to go to Hardy, it's about stopping the exodus after 4th grade.

And if you're IB for Hardy, you're automatically IB for Wilson, so you can leave the DCPS system for 3-4 years to attend a charter middle and then come back by right (if they don't want to do high school at the charter). That is not an option for a family like mine...we attend a Hardy feeder school OOB and if we want our children to have Wilson as an option, we have to commit to Hardy because if we leave for Latin or Basis, we take ourselves out of the feeder path. So are committed to going to Hardy because we are encouraged by what is going on there (thanks for affirming this plan, OP, with the data analysis) and because we want Wilson to be an option for us.