Finally OSSE 2024 enrollment audit data is up!

[Anonymous]

Students in-boundary for Tyler/Chisholm who do not want a Spanish immersion program now have boundary privileges at Payne starting in K. That might partially explain the increase in the number of students at Payne.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Students in-boundary for Tyler/Chisholm who do not want a Spanish immersion program now have boundary privileges at Payne starting in K. That might partially explain the increase in the number of students at Payne.

Payne is also heavily gentrifying/getting more IB buy-in each year. Test data for all demographics newly available and looks excellent; will accelerate the trend just like it did at Ludlow-Taylor. I think it will be the next Hill school to follow the Brent/Maury/L-T progression. Check back in 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Students in-boundary for Tyler/Chisholm who do not want a Spanish immersion program now have boundary privileges at Payne starting in K. That might partially explain the increase in the number of students at Payne.

They are adding one grade per year to the full Spanish program at Tyler/Chisolm so thus far it is only early childhood and therefore no mandatory school-age kids have had to choose between Spanish or not Spanish. The bump if there is one will start this coming year. I think the enrollment increase at Payne is a combination of factors: families who are enrolled are not leaving, and the school continues to open seats on lottery which allows for OOB admission as well. (Ex last year there were 20 seats open in the kindergarten lottery, in addition to all rising PK4 students, and any in bounds kinder families who wanted to enroll.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to know about race by year, you can look at the PARCC data -- the total counts, not the scores. For some schools it will be redacted but you can usually piece something together.

I just spent some time working around the redacted PARCC numbers for our IB elementary. I was more interested in the economic disadvantage rate by grade than race by grade (it's also easier to fill in the data blanks with 2 categories vs 4+) and was pretty blown away. Jumps from 44% in 3rd to 64% in 4th to 78% in 5th. Wow.

Nearby neighborhood schools we're interested in lotterying into for upper elementary looked a lot better though still with sizeable jumps in 5th.

Do remember if it's a gentrifying school that each grade is likely also a bit more gentrified than the one before it.

So the current 3rd grade might go 44->60->70 or whatever... Whereas the current 5th may have gone 50-->68-->78... if that makes sense. That is, just make sure you remember it's not the same actual kids in each grade, so gentrification trends matter in addition to grade trends.

Thanks. Unfortunately a mix of better redaction in SY21-22 and no PARCC data SY19-20 or SY20-21 is limiting my ability to glean any additional insights.

I did go back to previous year's audits for school-wide at-risk numbers and found the school went from a consistent 30-31% at risk to 36% and then 46% over the course of two years. Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to know about race by year, you can look at the PARCC data -- the total counts, not the scores. For some schools it will be redacted but you can usually piece something together.

I just spent some time working around the redacted PARCC numbers for our IB elementary. I was more interested in the economic disadvantage rate by grade than race by grade (it's also easier to fill in the data blanks with 2 categories vs 4+) and was pretty blown away. Jumps from 44% in 3rd to 64% in 4th to 78% in 5th. Wow.

Nearby neighborhood schools we're interested in lotterying into for upper elementary looked a lot better though still with sizeable jumps in 5th.

Do remember if it's a gentrifying school that each grade is likely also a bit more gentrified than the one before it.

So the current 3rd grade might go 44->60->70 or whatever... Whereas the current 5th may have gone 50-->68-->78... if that makes sense. That is, just make sure you remember it's not the same actual kids in each grade, so gentrification trends matter in addition to grade trends.

Thanks. Unfortunately a mix of better redaction in SY21-22 and no PARCC data SY19-20 or SY20-21 is limiting my ability to glean any additional insights.

I did go back to previous year's audits for school-wide at-risk numbers and found the school went from a consistent 30-31% at risk to 36% and then 46% over the course of two years. Yikes.

Not sure which school this is even about, and I realize this is a bit off topic, but the 'yikes' response to an increase in at risk population made me cringe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to know about race by year, you can look at the PARCC data -- the total counts, not the scores. For some schools it will be redacted but you can usually piece something together.

I just spent some time working around the redacted PARCC numbers for our IB elementary. I was more interested in the economic disadvantage rate by grade than race by grade (it's also easier to fill in the data blanks with 2 categories vs 4+) and was pretty blown away. Jumps from 44% in 3rd to 64% in 4th to 78% in 5th. Wow.

Nearby neighborhood schools we're interested in lotterying into for upper elementary looked a lot better though still with sizeable jumps in 5th.

Do remember if it's a gentrifying school that each grade is likely also a bit more gentrified than the one before it.

So the current 3rd grade might go 44->60->70 or whatever... Whereas the current 5th may have gone 50-->68-->78... if that makes sense. That is, just make sure you remember it's not the same actual kids in each grade, so gentrification trends matter in addition to grade trends.

Thanks. Unfortunately a mix of better redaction in SY21-22 and no PARCC data SY19-20 or SY20-21 is limiting my ability to glean any additional insights.

I did go back to previous year's audits for school-wide at-risk numbers and found the school went from a consistent 30-31% at risk to 36% and then 46% over the course of two years. Yikes.

Not sure which school this is even about, and I realize this is a bit off topic, but the 'yikes' response to an increase in at risk population made me cringe.

Cringe away. A school where the at-risk population increased by 50% over two years is not going to be equipped to handle such a rapid change in the type and intensity of student needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students in-boundary for Tyler/Chisholm who do not want a Spanish immersion program now have boundary privileges at Payne starting in K. That might partially explain the increase in the number of students at Payne.

Payne is also heavily gentrifying/getting more IB buy-in each year. Test data for all demographics newly available and looks excellent; will accelerate the trend just like it did at Ludlow-Taylor. I think it will be the next Hill school to follow the Brent/Maury/L-T progression. Check back in 5 years.

Uh, excellent? Compared to what?

47% of Payne is below grade level in English and 60% is below grade level in math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to know about race by year, you can look at the PARCC data -- the total counts, not the scores. For some schools it will be redacted but you can usually piece something together.

I just spent some time working around the redacted PARCC numbers for our IB elementary. I was more interested in the economic disadvantage rate by grade than race by grade (it's also easier to fill in the data blanks with 2 categories vs 4+) and was pretty blown away. Jumps from 44% in 3rd to 64% in 4th to 78% in 5th. Wow.

Nearby neighborhood schools we're interested in lotterying into for upper elementary looked a lot better though still with sizeable jumps in 5th.

Do remember if it's a gentrifying school that each grade is likely also a bit more gentrified than the one before it.

So the current 3rd grade might go 44->60->70 or whatever... Whereas the current 5th may have gone 50-->68-->78... if that makes sense. That is, just make sure you remember it's not the same actual kids in each grade, so gentrification trends matter in addition to grade trends.

Thanks. Unfortunately a mix of better redaction in SY21-22 and no PARCC data SY19-20 or SY20-21 is limiting my ability to glean any additional insights.

I did go back to previous year's audits for school-wide at-risk numbers and found the school went from a consistent 30-31% at risk to 36% and then 46% over the course of two years. Yikes.

Not sure which school this is even about, and I realize this is a bit off topic, but the 'yikes' response to an increase in at risk population made me cringe.

Who could possibly GAF that you cringe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to know about race by year, you can look at the PARCC data -- the total counts, not the scores. For some schools it will be redacted but you can usually piece something together.

I just spent some time working around the redacted PARCC numbers for our IB elementary. I was more interested in the economic disadvantage rate by grade than race by grade (it's also easier to fill in the data blanks with 2 categories vs 4+) and was pretty blown away. Jumps from 44% in 3rd to 64% in 4th to 78% in 5th. Wow.

Nearby neighborhood schools we're interested in lotterying into for upper elementary looked a lot better though still with sizeable jumps in 5th.

Do remember if it's a gentrifying school that each grade is likely also a bit more gentrified than the one before it.

So the current 3rd grade might go 44->60->70 or whatever... Whereas the current 5th may have gone 50-->68-->78... if that makes sense. That is, just make sure you remember it's not the same actual kids in each grade, so gentrification trends matter in addition to grade trends.

Thanks. Unfortunately a mix of better redaction in SY21-22 and no PARCC data SY19-20 or SY20-21 is limiting my ability to glean any additional insights.

I did go back to previous year's audits for school-wide at-risk numbers and found the school went from a consistent 30-31% at risk to 36% and then 46% over the course of two years. Yikes.

Not sure which school this is even about, and I realize this is a bit off topic, but the 'yikes' response to an increase in at risk population made me cringe.

Cringe away. A school where the at-risk population increased by 50% over two years is not going to be equipped to handle such a rapid change in the type and intensity of student needs.

Hill schools have been handling the differences in demographics between upper and lower grades for a long time. And yes, you should watch your language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to know about race by year, you can look at the PARCC data -- the total counts, not the scores. For some schools it will be redacted but you can usually piece something together.

I just spent some time working around the redacted PARCC numbers for our IB elementary. I was more interested in the economic disadvantage rate by grade than race by grade (it's also easier to fill in the data blanks with 2 categories vs 4+) and was pretty blown away. Jumps from 44% in 3rd to 64% in 4th to 78% in 5th. Wow.

Nearby neighborhood schools we're interested in lotterying into for upper elementary looked a lot better though still with sizeable jumps in 5th.

Do remember if it's a gentrifying school that each grade is likely also a bit more gentrified than the one before it.

So the current 3rd grade might go 44->60->70 or whatever... Whereas the current 5th may have gone 50-->68-->78... if that makes sense. That is, just make sure you remember it's not the same actual kids in each grade, so gentrification trends matter in addition to grade trends.

Thanks. Unfortunately a mix of better redaction in SY21-22 and no PARCC data SY19-20 or SY20-21 is limiting my ability to glean any additional insights.

I did go back to previous year's audits for school-wide at-risk numbers and found the school went from a consistent 30-31% at risk to 36% and then 46% over the course of two years. Yikes.

Not sure which school this is even about, and I realize this is a bit off topic, but the 'yikes' response to an increase in at risk population made me cringe.

Cringe away. A school where the at-risk population increased by 50% over two years is not going to be equipped to handle such a rapid change in the type and intensity of student needs.

Hill schools have been handling the differences in demographics between upper and lower grades for a long time. And yes, you should watch your language.

In time, they might be able to adjust. But such a rapid shift likely means the school does not currently have the right resources in place.

There is a reason schools get more funding for at risk students. Pretending these students needs are not different or more intense serves no one. If you're uncomfortable with discussion about how demographic changes impact schools (literally what the enrollment audit data shows), this is probably not the right thread for you.

By the way, the only "Hill schools" with a higher at-risk percentage than the school in question are J.O. Wilson, Amidon-Bowen, Miner, and Browne EC. Probably not the schools you were thinking of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to know about race by year, you can look at the PARCC data -- the total counts, not the scores. For some schools it will be redacted but you can usually piece something together.

I just spent some time working around the redacted PARCC numbers for our IB elementary. I was more interested in the economic disadvantage rate by grade than race by grade (it's also easier to fill in the data blanks with 2 categories vs 4+) and was pretty blown away. Jumps from 44% in 3rd to 64% in 4th to 78% in 5th. Wow.

Nearby neighborhood schools we're interested in lotterying into for upper elementary looked a lot better though still with sizeable jumps in 5th.

Do remember if it's a gentrifying school that each grade is likely also a bit more gentrified than the one before it.

So the current 3rd grade might go 44->60->70 or whatever... Whereas the current 5th may have gone 50-->68-->78... if that makes sense. That is, just make sure you remember it's not the same actual kids in each grade, so gentrification trends matter in addition to grade trends.

Thanks. Unfortunately a mix of better redaction in SY21-22 and no PARCC data SY19-20 or SY20-21 is limiting my ability to glean any additional insights.

I did go back to previous year's audits for school-wide at-risk numbers and found the school went from a consistent 30-31% at risk to 36% and then 46% over the course of two years. Yikes.

Not sure which school this is even about, and I realize this is a bit off topic, but the 'yikes' response to an increase in at risk population made me cringe.

Cringe away. A school where the at-risk population increased by 50% over two years is not going to be equipped to handle such a rapid change in the type and intensity of student needs.

Hill schools have been handling the differences in demographics between upper and lower grades for a long time. And yes, you should watch your language.

In time, they might be able to adjust. But such a rapid shift likely means the school does not currently have the right resources in place.

There is a reason schools get more funding for at risk students. Pretending these students needs are not different or more intense serves no one. If you're uncomfortable with discussion about how demographic changes impact schools (literally what the enrollment audit data shows), this is probably not the right thread for you.

By the way, the only "Hill schools" with a higher at-risk percentage than the school in question are J.O. Wilson, Amidon-Bowen, Miner, and Browne EC. Probably not the schools you were thinking of.

Right - the funding that follows the children provides the extra support you reference. So again, the 'yikes' reaction to an increase of students at-risk shows ore about the OP than those of us responding. Budgets are adjusted, and teachers will do what they are trained to do. The hand wringing and panic over this topic says a lot. Some schools (ex Payne) opted for the Equitable Access Preference, which I personally think is a good thing. Nothing good comes from having different schools with such different student populations. Hence the whole Maury/Miner DME conversation.

[Anonymous]

Everyone with the yikes reaction should run away to the burbs. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to know about race by year, you can look at the PARCC data -- the total counts, not the scores. For some schools it will be redacted but you can usually piece something together.

I just spent some time working around the redacted PARCC numbers for our IB elementary. I was more interested in the economic disadvantage rate by grade than race by grade (it's also easier to fill in the data blanks with 2 categories vs 4+) and was pretty blown away. Jumps from 44% in 3rd to 64% in 4th to 78% in 5th. Wow.

Nearby neighborhood schools we're interested in lotterying into for upper elementary looked a lot better though still with sizeable jumps in 5th.

Do remember if it's a gentrifying school that each grade is likely also a bit more gentrified than the one before it.

So the current 3rd grade might go 44->60->70 or whatever... Whereas the current 5th may have gone 50-->68-->78... if that makes sense. That is, just make sure you remember it's not the same actual kids in each grade, so gentrification trends matter in addition to grade trends.

Thanks. Unfortunately a mix of better redaction in SY21-22 and no PARCC data SY19-20 or SY20-21 is limiting my ability to glean any additional insights.

I did go back to previous year's audits for school-wide at-risk numbers and found the school went from a consistent 30-31% at risk to 36% and then 46% over the course of two years. Yikes.

Not sure which school this is even about, and I realize this is a bit off topic, but the 'yikes' response to an increase in at risk population made me cringe.

Cringe away. A school where the at-risk population increased by 50% over two years is not going to be equipped to handle such a rapid change in the type and intensity of student needs.

Hill schools have been handling the differences in demographics between upper and lower grades for a long time. And yes, you should watch your language.

In time, they might be able to adjust. But such a rapid shift likely means the school does not currently have the right resources in place.

There is a reason schools get more funding for at risk students. Pretending these students needs are not different or more intense serves no one. If you're uncomfortable with discussion about how demographic changes impact schools (literally what the enrollment audit data shows), this is probably not the right thread for you.

By the way, the only "Hill schools" with a higher at-risk percentage than the school in question are J.O. Wilson, Amidon-Bowen, Miner, and Browne EC. Probably not the schools you were thinking of.

Right - the funding that follows the children provides the extra support you reference. So again, the 'yikes' reaction to an increase of students at-risk shows ore about the OP than those of us responding. Budgets are adjusted, and teachers will do what they are trained to do. The hand wringing and panic over this topic says a lot. Some schools (ex Payne) opted for the Equitable Access Preference, which I personally think is a good thing. Nothing good comes from having different schools with such different student populations. Hence the whole Maury/Miner DME conversation.

I was with you there until the end. I think they should work on making Miner more hospitable to IB parents, not force it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students in-boundary for Tyler/Chisholm who do not want a Spanish immersion program now have boundary privileges at Payne starting in K. That might partially explain the increase in the number of students at Payne.

Payne is also heavily gentrifying/getting more IB buy-in each year. Test data for all demographics newly available and looks excellent; will accelerate the trend just like it did at Ludlow-Taylor. I think it will be the next Hill school to follow the Brent/Maury/L-T progression. Check back in 5 years.

Uh, excellent? Compared to what?

47% of Payne is below grade level in English and 60% is below grade level in math.

Test data for demographics. Is comparatively excellent. Look by subgroup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Students in-boundary for Tyler/Chisholm who do not want a Spanish immersion program now have boundary privileges at Payne starting in K. That might partially explain the increase in the number of students at Payne.

Does that include either Hopkins or Potomac Gardens?