Why is KIPP doing so badly now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For some reason, Matt has decided to use AI to analyze data and write these articles on education. I'm very skeptical that whatever AI tool he used even pulled the data correctly, much less accurately captured trends.

He doesn't have a detailed enough understanding of the DC landscape to be writing about it. For example, one huge factor with Chisholm is becoming a dual language school, but that's not mentioned.

As for KIPP, I think their low performance is being lost in the shuffle because the PCSB has bigger fires to put out, serious egg on its face after Eagle, and had a lot of turnover on the PCSB.

Is Chisholm actually seeing a demographic shift after the change to immersion? I’ve been curious about that but have no information.

Where does he mention Chisholm? And actually Chisholm became only dual language much more recently than 2019 -- I think most of the gentrification the later commentator correctly notes is the general gentrification of the neighborhood and DCPS Hill ESes and less dual-language specific, though I do think that will accelerate the trend by attracting UMC families and driving many Potomac Gardens families to Payne.

But also... I think everything he's saying about KIPP is correct. Even if he's using AI tools, I don't see any obvious issues/can't imagine the overall trend isn't correct.

Full immersion started being phased in SY23-24.

In the two years from SY22-23 to SY24-25, the white population went from 19% to 23%, the black population went from 62% to 55%, latino population from 14% to 16%, and the at risk population dropped from 42% to 28%. Boundary participation rate went from 49% to 50%.

Changes above are more stark for PK. White population went from 34% to 35%, black population went from 47% to 33%, and latino population from 14% to 22%.

Definitely some gentrification happening over time but I think also Potomac Gardens families opting out of immersion model given the slower, steadier rate of white population increase over time and the much more rapid black and at risk population decrease following the move to full immersion.

I think it is a reach to say that the changes in the upper grades have much of anything to do with dual language given that nothing in the upper grades changed. At most, we'd be talking about some limited knock on effect for siblings. I think drop in the Black population and rise in the Latino population in ECE is likely directly attributable to model change, but actually it had virtually no effect on the white population in ECE (a smaller change there than in the school overall, in fact, further suggesting that the change in white population is more gentrification of the neighborhood related).

A 14 percentage point drop in the at risk population over two years is not just garden variety gentrification. Especially not in a neighborhood with basically no new development and a giant housing project.

How big is Chisholm’s ECE relative to the rest of the school? Replacing all of the Potomac Gardens kids with not at risk kids in ECE over 2 years might drive a big chunk of that if ECE is 25% of the school.

In SY24-25, PK3, PK4, and K were all full language immersion, 38% of the school.

But we can get a direct picture of how upper grades changed looking at PARCC/CAPE data. In SY22-23 economically disadvantaged students were 52% of all test takers. That dropped to 41% in SY24-25.

I've never really understood why Chisholm had a dual language program, much less why they moved to full dual language. There are very few native speakers living in the boundary, and a lot of low-income families who do live in the boundary and appear to be opting out all together.

Because DCPS listened to the rich families who co-opted equity language to get a dual-language school in Ward 6 even though it was inequitable to poor families that live in-boundary. Some of those families legit wanted dual language and some accepted it because they wanted to reduce the at-risk population at their school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For some reason, Matt has decided to use AI to analyze data and write these articles on education. I'm very skeptical that whatever AI tool he used even pulled the data correctly, much less accurately captured trends.

He doesn't have a detailed enough understanding of the DC landscape to be writing about it. For example, one huge factor with Chisholm is becoming a dual language school, but that's not mentioned.

As for KIPP, I think their low performance is being lost in the shuffle because the PCSB has bigger fires to put out, serious egg on its face after Eagle, and had a lot of turnover on the PCSB.

Is Chisholm actually seeing a demographic shift after the change to immersion? I’ve been curious about that but have no information.

Where does he mention Chisholm? And actually Chisholm became only dual language much more recently than 2019 -- I think most of the gentrification the later commentator correctly notes is the general gentrification of the neighborhood and DCPS Hill ESes and less dual-language specific, though I do think that will accelerate the trend by attracting UMC families and driving many Potomac Gardens families to Payne.

But also... I think everything he's saying about KIPP is correct. Even if he's using AI tools, I don't see any obvious issues/can't imagine the overall trend isn't correct.

Full immersion started being phased in SY23-24.

In the two years from SY22-23 to SY24-25, the white population went from 19% to 23%, the black population went from 62% to 55%, latino population from 14% to 16%, and the at risk population dropped from 42% to 28%. Boundary participation rate went from 49% to 50%.

Changes above are more stark for PK. White population went from 34% to 35%, black population went from 47% to 33%, and latino population from 14% to 22%.

Definitely some gentrification happening over time but I think also Potomac Gardens families opting out of immersion model given the slower, steadier rate of white population increase over time and the much more rapid black and at risk population decrease following the move to full immersion.

I think it is a reach to say that the changes in the upper grades have much of anything to do with dual language given that nothing in the upper grades changed. At most, we'd be talking about some limited knock on effect for siblings. I think drop in the Black population and rise in the Latino population in ECE is likely directly attributable to model change, but actually it had virtually no effect on the white population in ECE (a smaller change there than in the school overall, in fact, further suggesting that the change in white population is more gentrification of the neighborhood related).

A 14 percentage point drop in the at risk population over two years is not just garden variety gentrification. Especially not in a neighborhood with basically no new development and a giant housing project.

How big is Chisholm’s ECE relative to the rest of the school? Replacing all of the Potomac Gardens kids with not at risk kids in ECE over 2 years might drive a big chunk of that if ECE is 25% of the school.

In SY24-25, PK3, PK4, and K were all full language immersion, 38% of the school.

But we can get a direct picture of how upper grades changed looking at PARCC/CAPE data. In SY22-23 economically disadvantaged students were 52% of all test takers. That dropped to 41% in SY24-25.

I've never really understood why Chisholm had a dual language program, much less why they moved to full dual language. There are very few native speakers living in the boundary, and a lot of low-income families who do live in the boundary and appear to be opting out all together.

Because DCPS listened to the rich families who co-opted equity language to get a dual-language school in Ward 6 even though it was inequitable to poor families that live in-boundary. Some of those families legit wanted dual language and some accepted it because they wanted to reduce the at-risk population at their school.

The question is why did it go from one set of classrooms dual language and one set of classrooms English-only. And I think it's because there tends to be demographic differences between the strands that are uncomfortable, and a built-in resource tension too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And then as for the gentrification article (https://dclocal.substack.com/p/which-dc-schools-are-actually-improving)

1) Chisholm elementary is NOT in Congress Heights! It's by Barracks Row. Sloppy mistake. Totally different demographics, totally different trends, and as has been mentioned, Chisholm became dual language and that can be a cause of demographic change in various ways.

2) Not distinguishing whole-school demographics from CAPE-testing-grades demographics-- this is important because they can be really, really different, and I think Yglesias actually does know this because he is (was?) a parent at a Title I. Gentrification won't significantly impact the scores if it's not affecting the tested grades.

3) Not using median growth percentile data at all. That metric is DESIGNED to help the system distinguish improvement from gentrification! This article is exactly what that metric is meant to inform! Because students move from school to school so frequently, it's really important to have a metric that tracks growth for each individual kid, regardless of what school they attended the prior school.

4) Saying "being honest about the full picture" at the end is really funny when someone's not reviewing a lot of the readily available data.

Adding:

The misidentified Chisholm location was the most egregious, but a lot of the schools have strange, if not exactly wrong, location identifiers.

By focusing only on race for demographic shifts, he falls into the common trap of thinking that Black is a meaningful shorthand for socioeconomic status in DC. White more or less is, but Black is not, and he misses a lot of demographic shifts that ARE happening by ignoring economically disadvantaged/at risk data in the analysis.

He highlights Chisholm and Eliot-Hine as "schools that improved substantially without major demographic shifts" though both have experienced obvious demographic shifts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think without the ability to expel, KIPP struggles, and the city has been a lot stricter on that in recent years. Again, something a real journalist would be aware of.

As an education reporter for an actual newspaper, I am loving comments like this.

No shade on Iglesias. I don’t know him personally but my sense is he’s probably trying to fill a coverage gap and from what I can tell he’s clear in explaining that he’s not a traditional journalist.

But commentary and analysis like his - while worthwhile its own reasons - isn’t the same as an article from a standards based news organization that incorporates the broader context, as PP rightly notes.

I’m glad at least some people can discern a difference, especially given what’s happening in my profession these days. Appreciate you, PP!

Sorry to hijack the thread with something off topic. Go back to KIPP!

Are you really a journalist? He's one of the most successful journalists in the country with stints at The Atlantic, Slate, and a founder of Vox. He sucks and is wrong all the time, but to act like you working for some backwater newspaper compares is hilarious.

It's more like, he didn't bring his journalist self to this particular article. It's clearly just slapped together from behind-the-laptop analysis with no real research and not much background understanding of the subject matter. Mistakes like not knowing that Chisholm is newly Dual Language are what happens when someone doesn't make an effort to learn background.

What really is wrong though? The data is easily confirmed on the OSSE website, the dc school report card site and EmpowerK12 public dashboards. Is the problem that the analysis is critical of KIPP or of charters? The performance is what it is and it’s bad.

The Washington Post used pretty words to pat KIPP on the back but they also showed the severe decline in a data graph. Seems like the problem isn’t the terrible data, it’s criticizing a charter. A charter that is continuing to suspend and expel at higher rates than the rest of the city and higher rates than it did before the pandemic. But maybe no one cares because the kids being under-served are the historically underserved?

Nobody is saying KIPP's data is actually good. It's just that this isn't a very satisfying article because it doesn't do any deep or interesting analysis of what's wrong. It's just some charts that say KIPP's scores are bad. It offers one possible explanation, leadership instability, which is a fine reason. But it doesn't take into account anything else that might be interesting, and there are so many possibilities. We've talked about discipline data. Other suggestions are: How have KIPP's demographics changed over time, and how have the neighborhoods around KIPP schools changed over time? Are there other policy changes within KIPP such as the decision to offer self-contained classrooms, affecting their scores? What's the middle school math programming-- can't really do a meaningful comparison without considering that. Are any other charter LEAs outliers and are they similar to KIPP, or are they of a different style? What percentage of KIPP's students are actually being reported in these CAPE numbers? Is enrollment going up or down? How are the financials? I'm not saying any one or another of these things is a reason for the performance, they're just suggestions for things I think would make for a good analysis, and they aren't very hard to look up online. Only exploring one potential reason isn't much of an article. The section on accountability doesn't even talk about how KIPP is up for its 25-year review very soon, on March 23. That would be a relevant piece of information, no? I realize that this is just a casual blog, but a major review event coming up in 6 weeks is the kind of thing that deserves mentioning!

Also, the name of the blog "Ten Miles Square" is probably a reference to the dimensions of DC proper. But it's also similar to a consulting firm Ten Square that's very pro-charter. So it can give a misleading impression that there's some sort of connection between them. It would be nice to include a mention that they aren't connected. But Yglesias probably doesn't realize that due to lack of familiarity, or maybe doesn't care. Either way, not a best journalism practice.

Can you post some examples of articles that do that level of analysis for DC schools?

https://www.empowerk12.org/dc-cape-dashboard
https://www.empowerk12.org/blog
https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/
https://www.dcboldschools.org/

The growth section of DC School Report Card is also very informative.

Another weird thing about his KIPP article is that it didn't acknowledge that many KIPP schools have no CAPE-testing grades at all, so it seems unhelpful to treat KIPP as if all the schools have bad CAPE scores. And the Accountability Score on the School Report Card for KIPP schools varies widely. It's interesting, it's worth thinking about.

None of that is journalism. I'm aware of the the data sets.

Well, there's probably more but I haven't seen it.... And DC Policy Center is journalism, it's just that their website is down.

No, they're a think tank. If your objection is that a blog post does not go into the depth that an education researcher would then I agree, but then the issue has nothing to do with journalistic standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think without the ability to expel, KIPP struggles, and the city has been a lot stricter on that in recent years. Again, something a real journalist would be aware of.

As an education reporter for an actual newspaper, I am loving comments like this.

No shade on Iglesias. I don’t know him personally but my sense is he’s probably trying to fill a coverage gap and from what I can tell he’s clear in explaining that he’s not a traditional journalist.

But commentary and analysis like his - while worthwhile its own reasons - isn’t the same as an article from a standards based news organization that incorporates the broader context, as PP rightly notes.

I’m glad at least some people can discern a difference, especially given what’s happening in my profession these days. Appreciate you, PP!

Sorry to hijack the thread with something off topic. Go back to KIPP!

Are you really a journalist? He's one of the most successful journalists in the country with stints at The Atlantic, Slate, and a founder of Vox. He sucks and is wrong all the time, but to act like you working for some backwater newspaper compares is hilarious.

It's more like, he didn't bring his journalist self to this particular article. It's clearly just slapped together from behind-the-laptop analysis with no real research and not much background understanding of the subject matter. Mistakes like not knowing that Chisholm is newly Dual Language are what happens when someone doesn't make an effort to learn background.

What really is wrong though? The data is easily confirmed on the OSSE website, the dc school report card site and EmpowerK12 public dashboards. Is the problem that the analysis is critical of KIPP or of charters? The performance is what it is and it’s bad.

The Washington Post used pretty words to pat KIPP on the back but they also showed the severe decline in a data graph. Seems like the problem isn’t the terrible data, it’s criticizing a charter. A charter that is continuing to suspend and expel at higher rates than the rest of the city and higher rates than it did before the pandemic. But maybe no one cares because the kids being under-served are the historically underserved?

Nobody is saying KIPP's data is actually good. It's just that this isn't a very satisfying article because it doesn't do any deep or interesting analysis of what's wrong. It's just some charts that say KIPP's scores are bad. It offers one possible explanation, leadership instability, which is a fine reason. But it doesn't take into account anything else that might be interesting, and there are so many possibilities. We've talked about discipline data. Other suggestions are: How have KIPP's demographics changed over time, and how have the neighborhoods around KIPP schools changed over time? Are there other policy changes within KIPP such as the decision to offer self-contained classrooms, affecting their scores? What's the middle school math programming-- can't really do a meaningful comparison without considering that. Are any other charter LEAs outliers and are they similar to KIPP, or are they of a different style? What percentage of KIPP's students are actually being reported in these CAPE numbers? Is enrollment going up or down? How are the financials? I'm not saying any one or another of these things is a reason for the performance, they're just suggestions for things I think would make for a good analysis, and they aren't very hard to look up online. Only exploring one potential reason isn't much of an article. The section on accountability doesn't even talk about how KIPP is up for its 25-year review very soon, on March 23. That would be a relevant piece of information, no? I realize that this is just a casual blog, but a major review event coming up in 6 weeks is the kind of thing that deserves mentioning!

Also, the name of the blog "Ten Miles Square" is probably a reference to the dimensions of DC proper. But it's also similar to a consulting firm Ten Square that's very pro-charter. So it can give a misleading impression that there's some sort of connection between them. It would be nice to include a mention that they aren't connected. But Yglesias probably doesn't realize that due to lack of familiarity, or maybe doesn't care. Either way, not a best journalism practice.

Can you post some examples of articles that do that level of analysis for DC schools?

https://www.empowerk12.org/dc-cape-dashboard
https://www.empowerk12.org/blog
https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/
https://www.dcboldschools.org/

The growth section of DC School Report Card is also very informative.

Another weird thing about his KIPP article is that it didn't acknowledge that many KIPP schools have no CAPE-testing grades at all, so it seems unhelpful to treat KIPP as if all the schools have bad CAPE scores. And the Accountability Score on the School Report Card for KIPP schools varies widely. It's interesting, it's worth thinking about.

None of that is journalism. I'm aware of the the data sets.

Well, there's probably more but I haven't seen it.... And DC Policy Center is journalism, it's just that their website is down.

No, they're a think tank. If your objection is that a blog post does not go into the depth that an education researcher would then I agree, but then the issue has nothing to do with journalistic standards.

Partly depth but also not making sloppy mistakes like wrong school locations, or talking about KIPP and accountability without noticing their review hearing is very soon. I know it's just a blog, but still, there should be some level of quality effort. I don't typically read Yglesias on school stuff because he doesn't do a good enough job that it's worth reading.

[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:I think without the ability to expel, KIPP struggles, and the city has been a lot stricter on that in recent years. Again, something a real journalist would be aware of.

As an education reporter for an actual newspaper, I am loving comments like this.

No shade on Iglesias. I don’t know him personally but my sense is he’s probably trying to fill a coverage gap and from what I can tell he’s clear in explaining that he’s not a traditional journalist.

But commentary and analysis like his - while worthwhile its own reasons - isn’t the same as an article from a standards based news organization that incorporates the broader context, as PP rightly notes.

I’m glad at least some people can discern a difference, especially given what’s happening in my profession these days. Appreciate you, PP!

Sorry to hijack the thread with something off topic. Go back to KIPP!

Are you really a journalist? He's one of the most successful journalists in the country with stints at The Atlantic, Slate, and a founder of Vox. He sucks and is wrong all the time, but to act like you working for some backwater newspaper compares is hilarious.

It's more like, he didn't bring his journalist self to this particular article. It's clearly just slapped together from behind-the-laptop analysis with no real research and not much background understanding of the subject matter. Mistakes like not knowing that Chisholm is newly Dual Language are what happens when someone doesn't make an effort to learn background.

What really is wrong though? The data is easily confirmed on the OSSE website, the dc school report card site and EmpowerK12 public dashboards. Is the problem that the analysis is critical of KIPP or of charters? The performance is what it is and it’s bad.

The Washington Post used pretty words to pat KIPP on the back but they also showed the severe decline in a data graph. Seems like the problem isn’t the terrible data, it’s criticizing a charter. A charter that is continuing to suspend and expel at higher rates than the rest of the city and higher rates than it did before the pandemic. But maybe no one cares because the kids being under-served are the historically underserved?

Nobody is saying KIPP's data is actually good. It's just that this isn't a very satisfying article because it doesn't do any deep or interesting analysis of what's wrong. It's just some charts that say KIPP's scores are bad. It offers one possible explanation, leadership instability, which is a fine reason. But it doesn't take into account anything else that might be interesting, and there are so many possibilities. We've talked about discipline data. Other suggestions are: How have KIPP's demographics changed over time, and how have the neighborhoods around KIPP schools changed over time? Are there other policy changes within KIPP such as the decision to offer self-contained classrooms, affecting their scores? What's the middle school math programming-- can't really do a meaningful comparison without considering that. Are any other charter LEAs outliers and are they similar to KIPP, or are they of a different style? What percentage of KIPP's students are actually being reported in these CAPE numbers? Is enrollment going up or down? How are the financials? I'm not saying any one or another of these things is a reason for the performance, they're just suggestions for things I think would make for a good analysis, and they aren't very hard to look up online. Only exploring one potential reason isn't much of an article. The section on accountability doesn't even talk about how KIPP is up for its 25-year review very soon, on March 23. That would be a relevant piece of information, no? I realize that this is just a casual blog, but a major review event coming up in 6 weeks is the kind of thing that deserves mentioning!

Also, the name of the blog "Ten Miles Square" is probably a reference to the dimensions of DC proper. But it's also similar to a consulting firm Ten Square that's very pro-charter. So it can give a misleading impression that there's some sort of connection between them. It would be nice to include a mention that they aren't connected. But Yglesias probably doesn't realize that due to lack of familiarity, or maybe doesn't care. Either way, not a best journalism practice.

Can you post some examples of articles that do that level of analysis for DC schools?

https://www.empowerk12.org/dc-cape-dashboard
https://www.empowerk12.org/blog
https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/
https://www.dcboldschools.org/

The growth section of DC School Report Card is also very informative.

Another weird thing about his KIPP article is that it didn't acknowledge that many KIPP schools have no CAPE-testing grades at all, so it seems unhelpful to treat KIPP as if all the schools have bad CAPE scores. And the Accountability Score on the School Report Card for KIPP schools varies widely. It's interesting, it's worth thinking about.

None of that is journalism. I'm aware of the the data sets.

Well, there's probably more but I haven't seen it.... And DC Policy Center is journalism, it's just that their website is down.

No, they're a think tank. If your objection is that a blog post does not go into the depth that an education researcher would then I agree, but then the issue has nothing to do with journalistic standards.

Partly depth but also not making sloppy mistakes like wrong school locations, or talking about KIPP and accountability without noticing their review hearing is very soon. I know it's just a blog, but still, there should be some level of quality effort. I don't typically read Yglesias on school stuff because he doesn't do a good enough job that it's worth reading.

Ok but you haven't linked to any examples of journalism that meets your bar for quality.

[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:I think without the ability to expel, KIPP struggles, and the city has been a lot stricter on that in recent years. Again, something a real journalist would be aware of.

As an education reporter for an actual newspaper, I am loving comments like this.

No shade on Iglesias. I don’t know him personally but my sense is he’s probably trying to fill a coverage gap and from what I can tell he’s clear in explaining that he’s not a traditional journalist.

But commentary and analysis like his - while worthwhile its own reasons - isn’t the same as an article from a standards based news organization that incorporates the broader context, as PP rightly notes.

I’m glad at least some people can discern a difference, especially given what’s happening in my profession these days. Appreciate you, PP!

Sorry to hijack the thread with something off topic. Go back to KIPP!

Are you really a journalist? He's one of the most successful journalists in the country with stints at The Atlantic, Slate, and a founder of Vox. He sucks and is wrong all the time, but to act like you working for some backwater newspaper compares is hilarious.

It's more like, he didn't bring his journalist self to this particular article. It's clearly just slapped together from behind-the-laptop analysis with no real research and not much background understanding of the subject matter. Mistakes like not knowing that Chisholm is newly Dual Language are what happens when someone doesn't make an effort to learn background.

What really is wrong though? The data is easily confirmed on the OSSE website, the dc school report card site and EmpowerK12 public dashboards. Is the problem that the analysis is critical of KIPP or of charters? The performance is what it is and it’s bad.

The Washington Post used pretty words to pat KIPP on the back but they also showed the severe decline in a data graph. Seems like the problem isn’t the terrible data, it’s criticizing a charter. A charter that is continuing to suspend and expel at higher rates than the rest of the city and higher rates than it did before the pandemic. But maybe no one cares because the kids being under-served are the historically underserved?

Nobody is saying KIPP's data is actually good. It's just that this isn't a very satisfying article because it doesn't do any deep or interesting analysis of what's wrong. It's just some charts that say KIPP's scores are bad. It offers one possible explanation, leadership instability, which is a fine reason. But it doesn't take into account anything else that might be interesting, and there are so many possibilities. We've talked about discipline data. Other suggestions are: How have KIPP's demographics changed over time, and how have the neighborhoods around KIPP schools changed over time? Are there other policy changes within KIPP such as the decision to offer self-contained classrooms, affecting their scores? What's the middle school math programming-- can't really do a meaningful comparison without considering that. Are any other charter LEAs outliers and are they similar to KIPP, or are they of a different style? What percentage of KIPP's students are actually being reported in these CAPE numbers? Is enrollment going up or down? How are the financials? I'm not saying any one or another of these things is a reason for the performance, they're just suggestions for things I think would make for a good analysis, and they aren't very hard to look up online. Only exploring one potential reason isn't much of an article. The section on accountability doesn't even talk about how KIPP is up for its 25-year review very soon, on March 23. That would be a relevant piece of information, no? I realize that this is just a casual blog, but a major review event coming up in 6 weeks is the kind of thing that deserves mentioning!

Also, the name of the blog "Ten Miles Square" is probably a reference to the dimensions of DC proper. But it's also similar to a consulting firm Ten Square that's very pro-charter. So it can give a misleading impression that there's some sort of connection between them. It would be nice to include a mention that they aren't connected. But Yglesias probably doesn't realize that due to lack of familiarity, or maybe doesn't care. Either way, not a best journalism practice.

Can you post some examples of articles that do that level of analysis for DC schools?

https://www.empowerk12.org/dc-cape-dashboard
https://www.empowerk12.org/blog
https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/
https://www.dcboldschools.org/

The growth section of DC School Report Card is also very informative.

Another weird thing about his KIPP article is that it didn't acknowledge that many KIPP schools have no CAPE-testing grades at all, so it seems unhelpful to treat KIPP as if all the schools have bad CAPE scores. And the Accountability Score on the School Report Card for KIPP schools varies widely. It's interesting, it's worth thinking about.

None of that is journalism. I'm aware of the the data sets.

Well, there's probably more but I haven't seen it.... And DC Policy Center is journalism, it's just that their website is down.

No, they're a think tank. If your objection is that a blog post does not go into the depth that an education researcher would then I agree, but then the issue has nothing to do with journalistic standards.

Partly depth but also not making sloppy mistakes like wrong school locations, or talking about KIPP and accountability without noticing their review hearing is very soon. I know it's just a blog, but still, there should be some level of quality effort. I don't typically read Yglesias on school stuff because he doesn't do a good enough job that it's worth reading.

Ok but you haven't linked to any examples of journalism that meets your bar for quality.

I think that DC Policy Center is exactly that, and I don't draw a bright line between journalism and think tanks. Empower's blog posts are also journalism and well-informed.

Valerie Jablow is more activist than journalist per se, and her stuff is hard to get through, but her analysis is very detailed and informed by a lot of background knowledge. I don't always agree with her but she knows a lot.

[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:I think without the ability to expel, KIPP struggles, and the city has been a lot stricter on that in recent years. Again, something a real journalist would be aware of.

As an education reporter for an actual newspaper, I am loving comments like this.

No shade on Iglesias. I don’t know him personally but my sense is he’s probably trying to fill a coverage gap and from what I can tell he’s clear in explaining that he’s not a traditional journalist.

But commentary and analysis like his - while worthwhile its own reasons - isn’t the same as an article from a standards based news organization that incorporates the broader context, as PP rightly notes.

I’m glad at least some people can discern a difference, especially given what’s happening in my profession these days. Appreciate you, PP!

Sorry to hijack the thread with something off topic. Go back to KIPP!

Are you really a journalist? He's one of the most successful journalists in the country with stints at The Atlantic, Slate, and a founder of Vox. He sucks and is wrong all the time, but to act like you working for some backwater newspaper compares is hilarious.

It's more like, he didn't bring his journalist self to this particular article. It's clearly just slapped together from behind-the-laptop analysis with no real research and not much background understanding of the subject matter. Mistakes like not knowing that Chisholm is newly Dual Language are what happens when someone doesn't make an effort to learn background.

What really is wrong though? The data is easily confirmed on the OSSE website, the dc school report card site and EmpowerK12 public dashboards. Is the problem that the analysis is critical of KIPP or of charters? The performance is what it is and it’s bad.

The Washington Post used pretty words to pat KIPP on the back but they also showed the severe decline in a data graph. Seems like the problem isn’t the terrible data, it’s criticizing a charter. A charter that is continuing to suspend and expel at higher rates than the rest of the city and higher rates than it did before the pandemic. But maybe no one cares because the kids being under-served are the historically underserved?

Nobody is saying KIPP's data is actually good. It's just that this isn't a very satisfying article because it doesn't do any deep or interesting analysis of what's wrong. It's just some charts that say KIPP's scores are bad. It offers one possible explanation, leadership instability, which is a fine reason. But it doesn't take into account anything else that might be interesting, and there are so many possibilities. We've talked about discipline data. Other suggestions are: How have KIPP's demographics changed over time, and how have the neighborhoods around KIPP schools changed over time? Are there other policy changes within KIPP such as the decision to offer self-contained classrooms, affecting their scores? What's the middle school math programming-- can't really do a meaningful comparison without considering that. Are any other charter LEAs outliers and are they similar to KIPP, or are they of a different style? What percentage of KIPP's students are actually being reported in these CAPE numbers? Is enrollment going up or down? How are the financials? I'm not saying any one or another of these things is a reason for the performance, they're just suggestions for things I think would make for a good analysis, and they aren't very hard to look up online. Only exploring one potential reason isn't much of an article. The section on accountability doesn't even talk about how KIPP is up for its 25-year review very soon, on March 23. That would be a relevant piece of information, no? I realize that this is just a casual blog, but a major review event coming up in 6 weeks is the kind of thing that deserves mentioning!

Also, the name of the blog "Ten Miles Square" is probably a reference to the dimensions of DC proper. But it's also similar to a consulting firm Ten Square that's very pro-charter. So it can give a misleading impression that there's some sort of connection between them. It would be nice to include a mention that they aren't connected. But Yglesias probably doesn't realize that due to lack of familiarity, or maybe doesn't care. Either way, not a best journalism practice.

Can you post some examples of articles that do that level of analysis for DC schools?

https://www.empowerk12.org/dc-cape-dashboard
https://www.empowerk12.org/blog
https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/
https://www.dcboldschools.org/

The growth section of DC School Report Card is also very informative.

Another weird thing about his KIPP article is that it didn't acknowledge that many KIPP schools have no CAPE-testing grades at all, so it seems unhelpful to treat KIPP as if all the schools have bad CAPE scores. And the Accountability Score on the School Report Card for KIPP schools varies widely. It's interesting, it's worth thinking about.

None of that is journalism. I'm aware of the the data sets.

Well, there's probably more but I haven't seen it.... And DC Policy Center is journalism, it's just that their website is down.

No, they're a think tank. If your objection is that a blog post does not go into the depth that an education researcher would then I agree, but then the issue has nothing to do with journalistic standards.

Partly depth but also not making sloppy mistakes like wrong school locations, or talking about KIPP and accountability without noticing their review hearing is very soon. I know it's just a blog, but still, there should be some level of quality effort. I don't typically read Yglesias on school stuff because he doesn't do a good enough job that it's worth reading.

Ok but you haven't linked to any examples of journalism that meets your bar for quality.

I think that DC Policy Center is exactly that, and I don't draw a bright line between journalism and think tanks. Empower's blog posts are also journalism and well-informed.

Valerie Jablow is more activist than journalist per se, and her stuff is hard to get through, but her analysis is very detailed and informed by a lot of background knowledge. I don't always agree with her but she knows a lot.

Empower is an education consulting firm that does business with the city. DC Policy Center is a think tank. Valerie Jablow is a parent advocate with a blog.

[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:I think without the ability to expel, KIPP struggles, and the city has been a lot stricter on that in recent years. Again, something a real journalist would be aware of.

As an education reporter for an actual newspaper, I am loving comments like this.

No shade on Iglesias. I don’t know him personally but my sense is he’s probably trying to fill a coverage gap and from what I can tell he’s clear in explaining that he’s not a traditional journalist.

But commentary and analysis like his - while worthwhile its own reasons - isn’t the same as an article from a standards based news organization that incorporates the broader context, as PP rightly notes.

I’m glad at least some people can discern a difference, especially given what’s happening in my profession these days. Appreciate you, PP!

Sorry to hijack the thread with something off topic. Go back to KIPP!

Are you really a journalist? He's one of the most successful journalists in the country with stints at The Atlantic, Slate, and a founder of Vox. He sucks and is wrong all the time, but to act like you working for some backwater newspaper compares is hilarious.

It's more like, he didn't bring his journalist self to this particular article. It's clearly just slapped together from behind-the-laptop analysis with no real research and not much background understanding of the subject matter. Mistakes like not knowing that Chisholm is newly Dual Language are what happens when someone doesn't make an effort to learn background.

What really is wrong though? The data is easily confirmed on the OSSE website, the dc school report card site and EmpowerK12 public dashboards. Is the problem that the analysis is critical of KIPP or of charters? The performance is what it is and it’s bad.

The Washington Post used pretty words to pat KIPP on the back but they also showed the severe decline in a data graph. Seems like the problem isn’t the terrible data, it’s criticizing a charter. A charter that is continuing to suspend and expel at higher rates than the rest of the city and higher rates than it did before the pandemic. But maybe no one cares because the kids being under-served are the historically underserved?

Nobody is saying KIPP's data is actually good. It's just that this isn't a very satisfying article because it doesn't do any deep or interesting analysis of what's wrong. It's just some charts that say KIPP's scores are bad. It offers one possible explanation, leadership instability, which is a fine reason. But it doesn't take into account anything else that might be interesting, and there are so many possibilities. We've talked about discipline data. Other suggestions are: How have KIPP's demographics changed over time, and how have the neighborhoods around KIPP schools changed over time? Are there other policy changes within KIPP such as the decision to offer self-contained classrooms, affecting their scores? What's the middle school math programming-- can't really do a meaningful comparison without considering that. Are any other charter LEAs outliers and are they similar to KIPP, or are they of a different style? What percentage of KIPP's students are actually being reported in these CAPE numbers? Is enrollment going up or down? How are the financials? I'm not saying any one or another of these things is a reason for the performance, they're just suggestions for things I think would make for a good analysis, and they aren't very hard to look up online. Only exploring one potential reason isn't much of an article. The section on accountability doesn't even talk about how KIPP is up for its 25-year review very soon, on March 23. That would be a relevant piece of information, no? I realize that this is just a casual blog, but a major review event coming up in 6 weeks is the kind of thing that deserves mentioning!

Also, the name of the blog "Ten Miles Square" is probably a reference to the dimensions of DC proper. But it's also similar to a consulting firm Ten Square that's very pro-charter. So it can give a misleading impression that there's some sort of connection between them. It would be nice to include a mention that they aren't connected. But Yglesias probably doesn't realize that due to lack of familiarity, or maybe doesn't care. Either way, not a best journalism practice.

Can you post some examples of articles that do that level of analysis for DC schools?

https://www.empowerk12.org/dc-cape-dashboard
https://www.empowerk12.org/blog
https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/
https://www.dcboldschools.org/

The growth section of DC School Report Card is also very informative.

Another weird thing about his KIPP article is that it didn't acknowledge that many KIPP schools have no CAPE-testing grades at all, so it seems unhelpful to treat KIPP as if all the schools have bad CAPE scores. And the Accountability Score on the School Report Card for KIPP schools varies widely. It's interesting, it's worth thinking about.

None of that is journalism. I'm aware of the the data sets.

Well, there's probably more but I haven't seen it.... And DC Policy Center is journalism, it's just that their website is down.

No, they're a think tank. If your objection is that a blog post does not go into the depth that an education researcher would then I agree, but then the issue has nothing to do with journalistic standards.

Partly depth but also not making sloppy mistakes like wrong school locations, or talking about KIPP and accountability without noticing their review hearing is very soon. I know it's just a blog, but still, there should be some level of quality effort. I don't typically read Yglesias on school stuff because he doesn't do a good enough job that it's worth reading.

Ok but you haven't linked to any examples of journalism that meets your bar for quality.

I think that DC Policy Center is exactly that, and I don't draw a bright line between journalism and think tanks. Empower's blog posts are also journalism and well-informed.

Valerie Jablow is more activist than journalist per se, and her stuff is hard to get through, but her analysis is very detailed and informed by a lot of background knowledge. I don't always agree with her but she knows a lot.

Empower is an education consulting firm that does business with the city. DC Policy Center is a think tank. Valerie Jablow is a parent advocate with a blog.

Right. There's definitely a journalism gap here, and has been for a long time. I tend to rely on primary sources. It will be very interesting to see KIPP's review hearing in March. I notice their QSRs are okay, so whatever the problem is, it isn't that.

[Anonymous]

Ha I know this is in the weeds but I wish somebody had the time to edit Valerie Jablow’s writing too. As much as I love what she does it feels like I need to parse too much to get through one of her posts.

Just headers and editing for length and repetition might fix most of it and she’d get more followers.

Her points are usually legitimate. A well-run charter sector would do DC credit, and instead we have a bunch of people serving themselves and their cronies regardless of student outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think without the ability to expel, KIPP struggles, and the city has been a lot stricter on that in recent years. Again, something a real journalist would be aware of.

As an education reporter for an actual newspaper, I am loving comments like this.

No shade on Iglesias. I don’t know him personally but my sense is he’s probably trying to fill a coverage gap and from what I can tell he’s clear in explaining that he’s not a traditional journalist.

But commentary and analysis like his - while worthwhile its own reasons - isn’t the same as an article from a standards based news organization that incorporates the broader context, as PP rightly notes.

I’m glad at least some people can discern a difference, especially given what’s happening in my profession these days. Appreciate you, PP!

Sorry to hijack the thread with something off topic. Go back to KIPP!

Are you really a journalist? He's one of the most successful journalists in the country with stints at The Atlantic, Slate, and a founder of Vox. He sucks and is wrong all the time, but to act like you working for some backwater newspaper compares is hilarious.

It's more like, he didn't bring his journalist self to this particular article. It's clearly just slapped together from behind-the-laptop analysis with no real research and not much background understanding of the subject matter. Mistakes like not knowing that Chisholm is newly Dual Language are what happens when someone doesn't make an effort to learn background.

What really is wrong though? The data is easily confirmed on the OSSE website, the dc school report card site and EmpowerK12 public dashboards. Is the problem that the analysis is critical of KIPP or of charters? The performance is what it is and it’s bad.

The Washington Post used pretty words to pat KIPP on the back but they also showed the severe decline in a data graph. Seems like the problem isn’t the terrible data, it’s criticizing a charter. A charter that is continuing to suspend and expel at higher rates than the rest of the city and higher rates than it did before the pandemic. But maybe no one cares because the kids being under-served are the historically underserved?

Nobody is saying KIPP's data is actually good. It's just that this isn't a very satisfying article because it doesn't do any deep or interesting analysis of what's wrong. It's just some charts that say KIPP's scores are bad. It offers one possible explanation, leadership instability, which is a fine reason. But it doesn't take into account anything else that might be interesting, and there are so many possibilities. We've talked about discipline data. Other suggestions are: How have KIPP's demographics changed over time, and how have the neighborhoods around KIPP schools changed over time? Are there other policy changes within KIPP such as the decision to offer self-contained classrooms, affecting their scores? What's the middle school math programming-- can't really do a meaningful comparison without considering that. Are any other charter LEAs outliers and are they similar to KIPP, or are they of a different style? What percentage of KIPP's students are actually being reported in these CAPE numbers? Is enrollment going up or down? How are the financials? I'm not saying any one or another of these things is a reason for the performance, they're just suggestions for things I think would make for a good analysis, and they aren't very hard to look up online. Only exploring one potential reason isn't much of an article. The section on accountability doesn't even talk about how KIPP is up for its 25-year review very soon, on March 23. That would be a relevant piece of information, no? I realize that this is just a casual blog, but a major review event coming up in 6 weeks is the kind of thing that deserves mentioning!

Also, the name of the blog "Ten Miles Square" is probably a reference to the dimensions of DC proper. But it's also similar to a consulting firm Ten Square that's very pro-charter. So it can give a misleading impression that there's some sort of connection between them. It would be nice to include a mention that they aren't connected. But Yglesias probably doesn't realize that due to lack of familiarity, or maybe doesn't care. Either way, not a best journalism practice.

Can you post some examples of articles that do that level of analysis for DC schools?

https://www.empowerk12.org/dc-cape-dashboard
https://www.empowerk12.org/blog
https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/
https://www.dcboldschools.org/

The growth section of DC School Report Card is also very informative.

Another weird thing about his KIPP article is that it didn't acknowledge that many KIPP schools have no CAPE-testing grades at all, so it seems unhelpful to treat KIPP as if all the schools have bad CAPE scores. And the Accountability Score on the School Report Card for KIPP schools varies widely. It's interesting, it's worth thinking about.

Definitely worth thinking about. The article mentions that it only compares the ten KIPP campuses that had proficiency data before and after the pandemic. KIPP has like 15 or 20 campuses. OSSE provides an accountability scorecard for the entire organization -- that organization-wide report shows students aren't just low, they are not growing as expected or in line with the rest of the city, discipline rates remain high, and other measures are equally troubling. Look at DC Prep on the same OSSE report and they are better on every comparable measure. Is his reporting perfect? I don't know -- but does it capture that KIPP has collapsed? It does and the data backs up that conclusion.

I'd rather have an article that did more comparison -- what's DC Prep doing for example or deeper analysis on how similar populations are doing in DC or KIPP's response to this data. Or to your point about the range of accountability scores -- KIPP schools median OSSE score is 32, the city is 50. The scores vary as you stated but the range is low. Perhaps he'll go deeper or another journalist will pick up the story. The discipline angle is an interesting one as the data shows that KIPP is suspending at or above the levels it did pre-pandemic. So is it also worse academically and less safe?

I won't hold my breath for better journalism though. We've had no deep DC-specific journalism in a long time and this piece is better than most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha I know this is in the weeds but I wish somebody had the time to edit Valerie Jablow’s writing too. As much as I love what she does it feels like I need to parse too much to get through one of her posts.

Just headers and editing for length and repetition might fix most of it and she’d get more followers.

Her points are usually legitimate. A well-run charter sector would do DC credit, and instead we have a bunch of people serving themselves and their cronies regardless of student outcomes.

Seriously. The PCSB has egg on their face over Eagle, they ignored her for years and she was right on target. And she's the only person paying attention to the real estate aspect of things, which is super important. And how Eagle's nightmare renovation and utter disregard for compliance with construction law was itself a red flag for their mismanagement and grift. I'm not saying I agree with her about everything, but she's certainly well-researched and doesn't lack for background knowledge. For example her connection of Friendship wanting to take over Eagle and Friendship's desire to open a new high school is super interesting. It's part of this time: https://educationdc.net/2026/02/10/the-education-mysteries-tale-6-the-disappearing-charter-board-chair/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think without the ability to expel, KIPP struggles, and the city has been a lot stricter on that in recent years. Again, something a real journalist would be aware of.

As an education reporter for an actual newspaper, I am loving comments like this.

No shade on Iglesias. I don’t know him personally but my sense is he’s probably trying to fill a coverage gap and from what I can tell he’s clear in explaining that he’s not a traditional journalist.

But commentary and analysis like his - while worthwhile its own reasons - isn’t the same as an article from a standards based news organization that incorporates the broader context, as PP rightly notes.

I’m glad at least some people can discern a difference, especially given what’s happening in my profession these days. Appreciate you, PP!

Sorry to hijack the thread with something off topic. Go back to KIPP!

Are you really a journalist? He's one of the most successful journalists in the country with stints at The Atlantic, Slate, and a founder of Vox. He sucks and is wrong all the time, but to act like you working for some backwater newspaper compares is hilarious.

It's more like, he didn't bring his journalist self to this particular article. It's clearly just slapped together from behind-the-laptop analysis with no real research and not much background understanding of the subject matter. Mistakes like not knowing that Chisholm is newly Dual Language are what happens when someone doesn't make an effort to learn background.

What really is wrong though? The data is easily confirmed on the OSSE website, the dc school report card site and EmpowerK12 public dashboards. Is the problem that the analysis is critical of KIPP or of charters? The performance is what it is and it’s bad.

The Washington Post used pretty words to pat KIPP on the back but they also showed the severe decline in a data graph. Seems like the problem isn’t the terrible data, it’s criticizing a charter. A charter that is continuing to suspend and expel at higher rates than the rest of the city and higher rates than it did before the pandemic. But maybe no one cares because the kids being under-served are the historically underserved?

Nobody is saying KIPP's data is actually good. It's just that this isn't a very satisfying article because it doesn't do any deep or interesting analysis of what's wrong. It's just some charts that say KIPP's scores are bad. It offers one possible explanation, leadership instability, which is a fine reason. But it doesn't take into account anything else that might be interesting, and there are so many possibilities. We've talked about discipline data. Other suggestions are: How have KIPP's demographics changed over time, and how have the neighborhoods around KIPP schools changed over time? Are there other policy changes within KIPP such as the decision to offer self-contained classrooms, affecting their scores? What's the middle school math programming-- can't really do a meaningful comparison without considering that. Are any other charter LEAs outliers and are they similar to KIPP, or are they of a different style? What percentage of KIPP's students are actually being reported in these CAPE numbers? Is enrollment going up or down? How are the financials? I'm not saying any one or another of these things is a reason for the performance, they're just suggestions for things I think would make for a good analysis, and they aren't very hard to look up online. Only exploring one potential reason isn't much of an article. The section on accountability doesn't even talk about how KIPP is up for its 25-year review very soon, on March 23. That would be a relevant piece of information, no? I realize that this is just a casual blog, but a major review event coming up in 6 weeks is the kind of thing that deserves mentioning!

Also, the name of the blog "Ten Miles Square" is probably a reference to the dimensions of DC proper. But it's also similar to a consulting firm Ten Square that's very pro-charter. So it can give a misleading impression that there's some sort of connection between them. It would be nice to include a mention that they aren't connected. But Yglesias probably doesn't realize that due to lack of familiarity, or maybe doesn't care. Either way, not a best journalism practice.

Can you post some examples of articles that do that level of analysis for DC schools?

https://www.empowerk12.org/dc-cape-dashboard
https://www.empowerk12.org/blog
https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/
https://www.dcboldschools.org/

The growth section of DC School Report Card is also very informative.

Another weird thing about his KIPP article is that it didn't acknowledge that many KIPP schools have no CAPE-testing grades at all, so it seems unhelpful to treat KIPP as if all the schools have bad CAPE scores. And the Accountability Score on the School Report Card for KIPP schools varies widely. It's interesting, it's worth thinking about.

Definitely worth thinking about. The article mentions that it only compares the ten KIPP campuses that had proficiency data before and after the pandemic. KIPP has like 15 or 20 campuses. OSSE provides an accountability scorecard for the entire organization -- that organization-wide report shows students aren't just low, they are not growing as expected or in line with the rest of the city, discipline rates remain high, and other measures are equally troubling. Look at DC Prep on the same OSSE report and they are better on every comparable measure. Is his reporting perfect? I don't know -- but does it capture that KIPP has collapsed? It does and the data backs up that conclusion.

I'd rather have an article that did more comparison -- what's DC Prep doing for example or deeper analysis on how similar populations are doing in DC or KIPP's response to this data. Or to your point about the range of accountability scores -- KIPP schools median OSSE score is 32, the city is 50. The scores vary as you stated but the range is low. Perhaps he'll go deeper or another journalist will pick up the story. The discipline angle is an interesting one as the data shows that KIPP is suspending at or above the levels it did pre-pandemic. So is it also worse academically and less safe?

I won't hold my breath for better journalism though. We've had no deep DC-specific journalism in a long time and this piece is better than most.

Which means that it's excluding the newer KIPP schools if they didn't have proficiency data for pre-pandemic years. Are the newer KIPP schools doing better than the older KIPP schools? Another very interesting question!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then as for the gentrification article (https://dclocal.substack.com/p/which-dc-schools-are-actually-improving)

1) Chisholm elementary is NOT in Congress Heights! It's by Barracks Row. Sloppy mistake. Totally different demographics, totally different trends, and as has been mentioned, Chisholm became dual language and that can be a cause of demographic change in various ways.

2) Not distinguishing whole-school demographics from CAPE-testing-grades demographics-- this is important because they can be really, really different, and I think Yglesias actually does know this because he is (was?) a parent at a Title I. Gentrification won't significantly impact the scores if it's not affecting the tested grades.

3) Not using median growth percentile data at all. That metric is DESIGNED to help the system distinguish improvement from gentrification! This article is exactly what that metric is meant to inform! Because students move from school to school so frequently, it's really important to have a metric that tracks growth for each individual kid, regardless of what school they attended the prior school.

4) Saying "being honest about the full picture" at the end is really funny when someone's not reviewing a lot of the readily available data.

Adding:

The misidentified Chisholm location was the most egregious, but a lot of the schools have strange, if not exactly wrong, location identifiers.

By focusing only on race for demographic shifts, he falls into the common trap of thinking that Black is a meaningful shorthand for socioeconomic status in DC. White more or less is, but Black is not, and he misses a lot of demographic shifts that ARE happening by ignoring economically disadvantaged/at risk data in the analysis.

He highlights Chisholm and Eliot-Hine as "schools that improved substantially without major demographic shifts" though both have experienced obvious demographic shifts.

This is the best fact-check I've seen on this thread, and so important. Yglesias is obviously using "demographic shifts" to exclusively mean "racial demographics" but in a plurality Black city (and a majority Black school district) looking at SES is equally if not more important. Because he writes about things that interest him, hence the pivot to education since having school-aged kids, Yglesias misses obvious facts that someone more embedded in the community or the subject matter would pick up on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then as for the gentrification article (https://dclocal.substack.com/p/which-dc-schools-are-actually-improving)

1) Chisholm elementary is NOT in Congress Heights! It's by Barracks Row. Sloppy mistake. Totally different demographics, totally different trends, and as has been mentioned, Chisholm became dual language and that can be a cause of demographic change in various ways.

2) Not distinguishing whole-school demographics from CAPE-testing-grades demographics-- this is important because they can be really, really different, and I think Yglesias actually does know this because he is (was?) a parent at a Title I. Gentrification won't significantly impact the scores if it's not affecting the tested grades.

3) Not using median growth percentile data at all. That metric is DESIGNED to help the system distinguish improvement from gentrification! This article is exactly what that metric is meant to inform! Because students move from school to school so frequently, it's really important to have a metric that tracks growth for each individual kid, regardless of what school they attended the prior school.

4) Saying "being honest about the full picture" at the end is really funny when someone's not reviewing a lot of the readily available data.

Adding:

The misidentified Chisholm location was the most egregious, but a lot of the schools have strange, if not exactly wrong, location identifiers.

By focusing only on race for demographic shifts, he falls into the common trap of thinking that Black is a meaningful shorthand for socioeconomic status in DC. White more or less is, but Black is not, and he misses a lot of demographic shifts that ARE happening by ignoring economically disadvantaged/at risk data in the analysis.

He highlights Chisholm and Eliot-Hine as "schools that improved substantially without major demographic shifts" though both have experienced obvious demographic shifts.

This is the best fact-check I've seen on this thread, and so important. Yglesias is obviously using "demographic shifts" to exclusively mean "racial demographics" but in a plurality Black city (and a majority Black school district) looking at SES is equally if not more important. Because he writes about things that interest him, hence the pivot to education since having school-aged kids, Yglesias misses obvious facts that someone more embedded in the community or the subject matter would pick up on.

So far there have been zero examples of journalists given that meet this bar. Your imaginary unicorn coverage does not exist.