brookland to sws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts makes one concerned whether the school prepares its students or the future. What makes it so different from Brent and Ludlow Taylor on the hill or the other schools listed before that makes some wonder about whether it prepares kids for advanced math and other subjects? Aren't the teachers just as qualified and the kids just as motivated? Don't kids come from around the city, though it doesn't seem that diverse beyond special ed?

I don't know why you'd be "concerned" about that. Brent has fewer kids on free and reduced lunch and less than half the % of kids in special ed but its test scores are virtually identical to those of SWS. Ludlow Taylor has very different demographics and much lower test scores so I'm not sure why you'd compare those.

You do realize that most of the special ed kids (not all, just most) are in the two medically fragile classrooms in the basement? Those kids aren't taking any standardized tests. So that's why the scores are the same - you can't compare the special ed kids at brent to those at sws (unless you had some way of pulling out test scores of kids w/ IEPs for ASD or OHI as opposed to the kids w/ multiple disabilities, but you can't)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts makes one concerned whether the school prepares its students or the future. What makes it so different from Brent and Ludlow Taylor on the hill or the other schools listed before that makes some wonder about whether it prepares kids for advanced math and other subjects? Aren't the teachers just as qualified and the kids just as motivated? Don't kids come from around the city, though it doesn't seem that diverse beyond special ed?

I don't know why you'd be "concerned" about that. Brent has fewer kids on free and reduced lunch and less than half the % of kids in special ed but its test scores are virtually identical to those of SWS. Ludlow Taylor has very different demographics and much lower test scores so I'm not sure why you'd compare those.

You do realize that most of the special ed kids (not all, just most) are in the two medically fragile classrooms in the basement? Those kids aren't taking any standardized tests. So that's why the scores are the same - you can't compare the special ed kids at brent to those at sws (unless you had some way of pulling out test scores of kids w/ IEPs for ASD or OHI as opposed to the kids w/ multiple disabilities, but you can't)

^^that's not a correct statement and ignores the high functioning autism program. You don't realize the number of children with IEPs because it's a privacy issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts makes one concerned whether the school prepares its students or the future. What makes it so different from Brent and Ludlow Taylor on the hill or the other schools listed before that makes some wonder about whether it prepares kids for advanced math and other subjects? Aren't the teachers just as qualified and the kids just as motivated? Don't kids come from around the city, though it doesn't seem that diverse beyond special ed?

I don't know why you'd be "concerned" about that. Brent has fewer kids on free and reduced lunch and less than half the % of kids in special ed but its test scores are virtually identical to those of SWS. Ludlow Taylor has very different demographics and much lower test scores so I'm not sure why you'd compare those.

You do realize that most of the special ed kids (not all, just most) are in the two medically fragile classrooms in the basement? Those kids aren't taking any standardized tests. So that's why the scores are the same - you can't compare the special ed kids at brent to those at sws (unless you had some way of pulling out test scores of kids w/ IEPs for ASD or OHI as opposed to the kids w/ multiple disabilities, but you can't)

^^that's not a correct statement and ignores the high functioning autism program. You don't realize the number of children with IEPs because it's a privacy issue.

The number of students at each school with IEPs is reported publicly by OSSE at learndc.org

Most recent public data shows SWS has 289 total students, and 20% have IEPS (~57 kids).

Of that group of 57, 69% are Level 1 or Level 2 -- these kids would not be a medically fragile classroom -- the level correlates to the number of hours of specialized instruction they receive (1 being least, 4 being highest). 11.9% are Level 3 and 27% are Level 4.

For schools with more than 25 students with IEPs taking the PARCC, the scores are broken out. SWS doesn't have enough students with IEPs in 3rd or 4th to report out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts makes one concerned whether the school prepares its students or the future. What makes it so different from Brent and Ludlow Taylor on the hill or the other schools listed before that makes some wonder about whether it prepares kids for advanced math and other subjects? Aren't the teachers just as qualified and the kids just as motivated? Don't kids come from around the city, though it doesn't seem that diverse beyond special ed?

I don't know why you'd be "concerned" about that. Brent has fewer kids on free and reduced lunch and less than half the % of kids in special ed but its test scores are virtually identical to those of SWS. Ludlow Taylor has very different demographics and much lower test scores so I'm not sure why you'd compare those.

You do realize that most of the special ed kids (not all, just most) are in the two medically fragile classrooms in the basement? Those kids aren't taking any standardized tests. So that's why the scores are the same - you can't compare the special ed kids at brent to those at sws (unless you had some way of pulling out test scores of kids w/ IEPs for ASD or OHI as opposed to the kids w/ multiple disabilities, but you can't)

^^that's not a correct statement and ignores the high functioning autism program. You don't realize the number of children with IEPs because it's a privacy issue.

^^SPED rate is 18% of around 315 students. That's 56 SPED students and medically fragile is around a dozen.

[Anonymous]

We have a kid in upper elementary there and an early childhood kid and agree hat 3rd and 4th grade are really strong. These kids are not drilled. And if you're looking for a lot of homework, you should look elsewhere. But if you're looking for a place to help your kid discover a love for reading, beco,e curious about the world, and delve deep in math theory (rather than math drilling) you will be happy.

[Anonymous]

PP, can you explain what makes 3rd and 4th grade strong? Is it a big difference between 1st and 2nd in terms of teaching styles and academic rigor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, can you explain what makes 3rd and 4th grade strong? Is it a big difference between 1st and 2nd in terms of teaching styles and academic rigor?

I'm a pp, though not the immediate pp, and I just think the 3rd and 4th grade teachers are top notch, all four.

[Anonymous]

So is the experience beginning in pre-k and throughout great? What could the school do to improve? Do parents have to supplement the teaching at home? Do the kids come bright or does the school bring out the best in all children? Will the school be renovated soon? Does the school teach cursive writing and have computers in every class?

[Anonymous]

I think PP should go to an open house, take a tour, and talk to the principal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think PP should go to an open house, take a tour, and talk to the principal.

IMO, open houses stink for figuring out anything about older grades. Not just at sws, but any of the highly desired schools. Too many people freaking out about their 3 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts makes one concerned whether the school prepares its students or the future. What makes it so different from Brent and Ludlow Taylor on the hill or the other schools listed before that makes some wonder about whether it prepares kids for advanced math and other subjects? Aren't the teachers just as qualified and the kids just as motivated? Don't kids come from around the city, though it doesn't seem that diverse beyond special ed?

I don't know why you'd be "concerned" about that. Brent has fewer kids on free and reduced lunch and less than half the % of kids in special ed but its test scores are virtually identical to those of SWS. Ludlow Taylor has very different demographics and much lower test scores so I'm not sure why you'd compare those.

You do realize that most of the special ed kids (not all, just most) are in the two medically fragile classrooms in the basement? Those kids aren't taking any standardized tests. So that's why the scores are the same - you can't compare the special ed kids at brent to those at sws (unless you had some way of pulling out test scores of kids w/ IEPs for ASD or OHI as opposed to the kids w/ multiple disabilities, but you can't)

^^that's not a correct statement and ignores the high functioning autism program. You don't realize the number of children with IEPs because it's a privacy issue.

The number of students at each school with IEPs is reported publicly by OSSE at learndc.org

Most recent public data shows SWS has 289 total students, and 20% have IEPS (~57 kids).

Of that group of 57, 69% are Level 1 or Level 2 -- these kids would not be a medically fragile classroom -- the level correlates to the number of hours of specialized instruction they receive (1 being least, 4 being highest). 11.9% are Level 3 and 27% are Level 4.

For schools with more than 25 students with IEPs taking the PARCC, the scores are broken out. SWS doesn't have enough students with IEPs in 3rd or 4th to report out.

I have a kid with an IEP at another school and find your assertion that most kids with Level 1 or level 2 IEP would be in medically fragile classrooom to be a Seles. There is no way for you to know how students with IEPs are distributed. My kid is Level 1 or Level 2 and takes standardized tests with accommodations and does very well.

[Anonymous]

The above poster did not read very well, as the prior poster said kids who are Level 1 and 2 are NOT in the medically fragile classrooms. That poster's whole point, as I read it, was that the vast majority of SES' sizable SN population are fully mainstreamed.

Signed,
A mom of two mainstreamed kids with IEPs at SWS, who are thriving thanks to the wonderful supports the school provides

[Anonymous]

SES=SWS in the above...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That commute wouldn't bother me, OP, especially for SWS.

Only thing to consider - SWS has no middle school feed.

SWS also has some of the challenges that CMI is having in their upper grades (I don't know as much about ITS). Touchy feely child centered is great until your kid starts missing academic metrics for middle school preparedness.

True that MS feed is an issue at SWS like pretty much everywhere else in Ward 6.

What performance metrics exactly did SWS miss?

Every school has room for improvement and SWS has yet to test at 5th grade where many DCPS/DCPCS schools see a drain. I wouldn't discount the impact of affluence at SWS or inequality anywhere else but the scores are objectively good. In context the scores also speak volumes for the achievement levels at DC PREP and KIPP with less affluent communities.

Math proficiency
Creative Minds International PCS 26.6
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 32.6
Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS 47.8
School Within School at Goding 63.3


ELA proficiency
Creative Minds International PCS 32.6
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 35.6
Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS 56.7
School Within School at Goding 65.8


top 5 PCS Math proficiency
KIPP DC PCS Promise Academy 74.1%
DC Preparatory Academy PCS Edgewood Elementary 69.1%
KIPP DC Lead Academy PCS 64.2%
KIPP DC Heights Academy PCS 64.0%
DC Preparatory Academy PCS Edgewood Middle 59.2%
Washington Yu Ying PCS 58.8%

top 5 PCA ELA proficiency
DC Preparatory Academy PCS Edgewood Middle 58.2%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS 56.7%
DC Preparatory Academy PCS Edgewood Elementary 55.9%
Washington Yu Ying PCS 50.7%
KIPP DC PCS Promise Academy 47.1%

top 10 DCPS ELA proficiency
Mann ES 81.4%
Stoddert ES 71.7%
Key ES 71.6%
Eaton ES 71.0%
Ross ES 70.6%
Janney ES 69.4%
Lafayette ES 67.2%
Murch ES 66.3%
School Within School at Goding 65.8%
Hyde Addison ES 61.0%

top 10 DCPS Math proficiency
Lafayette ES 82.6%
Janney ES 77.0%
Mann ES 76.8%
Stoddert ES 75.9%
Ross ES 74.5%
Hyde Addison ES 72.7%
Key ES 72.3%
Eaton ES 70.8%
Murch ES 70.3%
School Within School at Goding 63.3%

Are those numbers for 3rd grade or overall school numbers? Since SWS does not have a 5th grade, overall numbers would misrepresent the overall picture. This should be for 3rd grade only.

no -- it's for 3rd and 4th grade. It doesn't misrepresent anything and the absence of 5th was clearly noted. 16-7 5th grade is half the size of 15-16 and will only comprise %20 of 16-17 overall test takers

No, I mean -- do the other school's states you cited include 5th grade? If they do, you're making an apples to oranges comparison.

+1. ITS for example may appear to be all white and rich, the scores you quote are 3rd-7th graders. Of which are probably 50+% farm and 90% minority.

fair enough on education campus number includes MS grades but the numbers are lower in those grades than 3-5 and CMI tested though 6th has too few students to break down reporting (45 total test takers in 3-6). Doesn't change top PARCC performers -- KIPP ES and DC PREP are campus models but break after 4th/3rd and Yu Ying thru 5th. All of the DCPS ES listed are through 5th -- 5th has smaller class sizes in many places making it less statistically significant.

But if it makes you feel better here's apples to apples on LAMB and IT

3rd ELA
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 38%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual LAMB PCS 43.9%
School Within School at Goding 71.8%

4th ELA
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 23.1%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual LAMB PCS 68%
School Within School at Goding 60%

3rd Math
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 44%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual LAMB PCS 39%
School Within School at Goding 61.5%

4th Math
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 34.6%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual LAMB PCS 52%
School Within School at Goding 65%

That seems about right. Looks like the 3rd graders at LAMB and ITS did about the same. From what I know of both schools, they are pretty similar in demographics at that age. However, 4th graders at ITS is when you really see the stark change in the school's demographics. Not making excuses. But ITS 4th graders (today's 5th grade) is entirely minority and has disproportionate low income. There are maybe 16 kids in that class, maybe 10 that are not new to ITS. It's hard to really compare apples to apples at this point. Do you know the approx. demographics at SWS at that grade?

You do realize that LAMB is only like 25% white, right? And they have the second highest percentage of English language learners of the charter schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That commute wouldn't bother me, OP, especially for SWS.

Only thing to consider - SWS has no middle school feed.

SWS also has some of the challenges that CMI is having in their upper grades (I don't know as much about ITS). Touchy feely child centered is great until your kid starts missing academic metrics for middle school preparedness.

True that MS feed is an issue at SWS like pretty much everywhere else in Ward 6.

What performance metrics exactly did SWS miss?

Every school has room for improvement and SWS has yet to test at 5th grade where many DCPS/DCPCS schools see a drain. I wouldn't discount the impact of affluence at SWS or inequality anywhere else but the scores are objectively good. In context the scores also speak volumes for the achievement levels at DC PREP and KIPP with less affluent communities.

Math proficiency
Creative Minds International PCS 26.6
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 32.6
Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS 47.8
School Within School at Goding 63.3


ELA proficiency
Creative Minds International PCS 32.6
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 35.6
Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS 56.7
School Within School at Goding 65.8


top 5 PCS Math proficiency
KIPP DC PCS Promise Academy 74.1%
DC Preparatory Academy PCS Edgewood Elementary 69.1%
KIPP DC Lead Academy PCS 64.2%
KIPP DC Heights Academy PCS 64.0%
DC Preparatory Academy PCS Edgewood Middle 59.2%
Washington Yu Ying PCS 58.8%

top 5 PCA ELA proficiency
DC Preparatory Academy PCS Edgewood Middle 58.2%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS 56.7%
DC Preparatory Academy PCS Edgewood Elementary 55.9%
Washington Yu Ying PCS 50.7%
KIPP DC PCS Promise Academy 47.1%

top 10 DCPS ELA proficiency
Mann ES 81.4%
Stoddert ES 71.7%
Key ES 71.6%
Eaton ES 71.0%
Ross ES 70.6%
Janney ES 69.4%
Lafayette ES 67.2%
Murch ES 66.3%
School Within School at Goding 65.8%
Hyde Addison ES 61.0%

top 10 DCPS Math proficiency
Lafayette ES 82.6%
Janney ES 77.0%
Mann ES 76.8%
Stoddert ES 75.9%
Ross ES 74.5%
Hyde Addison ES 72.7%
Key ES 72.3%
Eaton ES 70.8%
Murch ES 70.3%
School Within School at Goding 63.3%

Are those numbers for 3rd grade or overall school numbers? Since SWS does not have a 5th grade, overall numbers would misrepresent the overall picture. This should be for 3rd grade only.

no -- it's for 3rd and 4th grade. It doesn't misrepresent anything and the absence of 5th was clearly noted. 16-7 5th grade is half the size of 15-16 and will only comprise %20 of 16-17 overall test takers

No, I mean -- do the other school's states you cited include 5th grade? If they do, you're making an apples to oranges comparison.

+1. ITS for example may appear to be all white and rich, the scores you quote are 3rd-7th graders. Of which are probably 50+% farm and 90% minority.

fair enough on education campus number includes MS grades but the numbers are lower in those grades than 3-5 and CMI tested though 6th has too few students to break down reporting (45 total test takers in 3-6). Doesn't change top PARCC performers -- KIPP ES and DC PREP are campus models but break after 4th/3rd and Yu Ying thru 5th. All of the DCPS ES listed are through 5th -- 5th has smaller class sizes in many places making it less statistically significant.

But if it makes you feel better here's apples to apples on LAMB and IT

3rd ELA
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 38%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual LAMB PCS 43.9%
School Within School at Goding 71.8%

4th ELA
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 23.1%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual LAMB PCS 68%
School Within School at Goding 60%

3rd Math
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 44%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual LAMB PCS 39%
School Within School at Goding 61.5%

4th Math
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 34.6%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual LAMB PCS 52%
School Within School at Goding 65%

That seems about right. Looks like the 3rd graders at LAMB and ITS did about the same. From what I know of both schools, they are pretty similar in demographics at that age. However, 4th graders at ITS is when you really see the stark change in the school's demographics. Not making excuses. But ITS 4th graders (today's 5th grade) is entirely minority and has disproportionate low income. There are maybe 16 kids in that class, maybe 10 that are not new to ITS. It's hard to really compare apples to apples at this point. Do you know the approx. demographics at SWS at that grade?

You do realize that LAMB is only like 25% white, right? And they have the second highest percentage of English language learners of the charter schools?

Testing grades at ITS are less than 10% white.