Stuart or Hines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the new DC Report Card is to be believed, definitely SH. SH did very well; EH did horribly. SH was 20% up in every achievement metric and way ahead on growth. 60% difference in overall score.

There's nothing to believe or not believe. The metrics are the metrics. The real questions are: do you understand what the metrics are measuring? And: is the metric something you care about for your own family?

The bulk of the DC Report Card score is based on the schoolwide growth-to-proficiency measure, which I personally don't think is very useful for individual families.

I mean EH did worse in literally everything they measured. Absolute score differential was the worst, but also growth. EH also had over 1/3rd of students who were chronically truant. Like there is nothing positive about the Report Card at all.

In an ideal world, I want a middle school where every student thrives. In DC, I just want one where my student has enough academic peers for the school to provide appropriate coursework and educational opportunities.

But that metric would favor SH even more…. In absolute performance, SH is miles ahead. Literally +20% in every achievement category. Lots of people on this thread claimed the schools were about the same, that appears to be manifestly untrue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the new DC Report Card is to be believed, definitely SH. SH did very well; EH did horribly. SH was 20% up in every achievement metric and way ahead on growth. 60% difference in overall score.

There's nothing to believe or not believe. The metrics are the metrics. The real questions are: do you understand what the metrics are measuring? And: is the metric something you care about for your own family?

The bulk of the DC Report Card score is based on the schoolwide growth-to-proficiency measure, which I personally don't think is very useful for individual families.

I mean EH did worse in literally everything they measured. Absolute score differential was the worst, but also growth. EH also had over 1/3rd of students who were chronically truant. Like there is nothing positive about the Report Card at all.

In an ideal world, I want a middle school where every student thrives. In DC, I just want one where my student has enough academic peers for the school to provide appropriate coursework and educational opportunities.

But that metric would favor SH even more…. In absolute performance, SH is miles ahead. Literally +20% in every achievement category. Lots of people on this thread claimed the schools were about the same, that appears to be manifestly untrue.

I would choose S-H over EH every time. I just think the use of schoolwide averages overstates the differences between the two.

Based on offerings, anecdotes, and more granular CAPE data, I think it's likely that the distribution of student test scores, attendance, etc. is such that the bottom quartile of E-H performs significantly worse than the bottom quartile of SH, but that the top quartile looks about the same for both schools.

To illustrate. Both schools have a fairly bad meets/exceeds rate in CAPE Math, though E-H is worse.
E-H: 21% (91 out of 424)
SH: 32% (139 out of 437)

But looking only at meets/exceeds for advanced (HS) math, it's clearer that both schools have similarly-sized cohorts of students succeeding in higher-level coursework.
E-H: 61% (28 out of 46)
SH: 70% (39 out of 56)

As a DCPS parent facing scarce MS options, the size and success of this student group matters more to me than the schoolwide averages do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the new DC Report Card is to be believed, definitely SH. SH did very well; EH did horribly. SH was 20% up in every achievement metric and way ahead on growth. 60% difference in overall score.

There's nothing to believe or not believe. The metrics are the metrics. The real questions are: do you understand what the metrics are measuring? And: is the metric something you care about for your own family?

The bulk of the DC Report Card score is based on the schoolwide growth-to-proficiency measure, which I personally don't think is very useful for individual families.

I mean EH did worse in literally everything they measured. Absolute score differential was the worst, but also growth. EH also had over 1/3rd of students who were chronically truant. Like there is nothing positive about the Report Card at all.

In an ideal world, I want a middle school where every student thrives. In DC, I just want one where my student has enough academic peers for the school to provide appropriate coursework and educational opportunities.

But that metric would favor SH even more…. In absolute performance, SH is miles ahead. Literally +20% in every achievement category. Lots of people on this thread claimed the schools were about the same, that appears to be manifestly untrue.

I would choose S-H over EH every time. I just think the use of schoolwide averages overstates the differences between the two.

Based on offerings, anecdotes, and more granular CAPE data, I think it's likely that the distribution of student test scores, attendance, etc. is such that the bottom quartile of E-H performs significantly worse than the bottom quartile of SH, but that the top quartile looks about the same for both schools.

To illustrate. Both schools have a fairly bad meets/exceeds rate in CAPE Math, though E-H is worse.
E-H: 21% (91 out of 424)
SH: 32% (139 out of 437)

But looking only at meets/exceeds for advanced (HS) math, it's clearer that both schools have similarly-sized cohorts of students succeeding in higher-level coursework.
E-H: 61% (28 out of 46)
SH: 70% (39 out of 56)

As a DCPS parent facing scarce MS options, the size and success of this student group matters more to me than the schoolwide averages do.

But you picked the metric where they are closest and there’s… still a difference. SH has more kids & those kids are doing better.

ELA isn’t even close.

Like I guess just advanced EH kids are doing OK, but that’s not a super high bar. And, even then, the growth metrics are concerning…. Because kids around them are getting better more slowly than average; whereas SH’s are getting better faster than average. So the gap should actually be widening over time (if this is not an anomaly)…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the new DC Report Card is to be believed, definitely SH. SH did very well; EH did horribly. SH was 20% up in every achievement metric and way ahead on growth. 60% difference in overall score.

There's nothing to believe or not believe. The metrics are the metrics. The real questions are: do you understand what the metrics are measuring? And: is the metric something you care about for your own family?

The bulk of the DC Report Card score is based on the schoolwide growth-to-proficiency measure, which I personally don't think is very useful for individual families.

I mean EH did worse in literally everything they measured. Absolute score differential was the worst, but also growth. EH also had over 1/3rd of students who were chronically truant. Like there is nothing positive about the Report Card at all.

In an ideal world, I want a middle school where every student thrives. In DC, I just want one where my student has enough academic peers for the school to provide appropriate coursework and educational opportunities.

But that metric would favor SH even more…. In absolute performance, SH is miles ahead. Literally +20% in every achievement category. Lots of people on this thread claimed the schools were about the same, that appears to be manifestly untrue.

I would choose S-H over EH every time. I just think the use of schoolwide averages overstates the differences between the two.

Based on offerings, anecdotes, and more granular CAPE data, I think it's likely that the distribution of student test scores, attendance, etc. is such that the bottom quartile of E-H performs significantly worse than the bottom quartile of SH, but that the top quartile looks about the same for both schools.

To illustrate. Both schools have a fairly bad meets/exceeds rate in CAPE Math, though E-H is worse.
E-H: 21% (91 out of 424)
SH: 32% (139 out of 437)

But looking only at meets/exceeds for advanced (HS) math, it's clearer that both schools have similarly-sized cohorts of students succeeding in higher-level coursework.
E-H: 61% (28 out of 46)
SH: 70% (39 out of 56)

As a DCPS parent facing scarce MS options, the size and success of this student group matters more to me than the schoolwide averages do.

But you picked the metric where they are closest and there’s… still a difference. SH has more kids & those kids are doing better.

ELA isn’t even close.

Like I guess just advanced EH kids are doing OK, but that’s not a super high bar. And, even then, the growth metrics are concerning…. Because kids around them are getting better more slowly than average; whereas SH’s are getting better faster than average. So the gap should actually be widening over time (if this is not an anomaly)…

I have repeatedly acknowledged that SH performs better. I just think you're putting a LOT of stock in a subpar metric subject to a lot of hard-to-interpret noise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the new DC Report Card is to be believed, definitely SH. SH did very well; EH did horribly. SH was 20% up in every achievement metric and way ahead on growth. 60% difference in overall score.

There's nothing to believe or not believe. The metrics are the metrics. The real questions are: do you understand what the metrics are measuring? And: is the metric something you care about for your own family?

The bulk of the DC Report Card score is based on the schoolwide growth-to-proficiency measure, which I personally don't think is very useful for individual families.

I mean EH did worse in literally everything they measured. Absolute score differential was the worst, but also growth. EH also had over 1/3rd of students who were chronically truant. Like there is nothing positive about the Report Card at all.

In an ideal world, I want a middle school where every student thrives. In DC, I just want one where my student has enough academic peers for the school to provide appropriate coursework and educational opportunities.

But that metric would favor SH even more…. In absolute performance, SH is miles ahead. Literally +20% in every achievement category. Lots of people on this thread claimed the schools were about the same, that appears to be manifestly untrue.

I would choose S-H over EH every time. I just think the use of schoolwide averages overstates the differences between the two.

Based on offerings, anecdotes, and more granular CAPE data, I think it's likely that the distribution of student test scores, attendance, etc. is such that the bottom quartile of E-H performs significantly worse than the bottom quartile of SH, but that the top quartile looks about the same for both schools.

To illustrate. Both schools have a fairly bad meets/exceeds rate in CAPE Math, though E-H is worse.
E-H: 21% (91 out of 424)
SH: 32% (139 out of 437)

But looking only at meets/exceeds for advanced (HS) math, it's clearer that both schools have similarly-sized cohorts of students succeeding in higher-level coursework.
E-H: 61% (28 out of 46)
SH: 70% (39 out of 56)

As a DCPS parent facing scarce MS options, the size and success of this student group matters more to me than the schoolwide averages do.

But you picked the metric where they are closest and there’s… still a difference. SH has more kids & those kids are doing better.

ELA isn’t even close.

Like I guess just advanced EH kids are doing OK, but that’s not a super high bar. And, even then, the growth metrics are concerning…. Because kids around them are getting better more slowly than average; whereas SH’s are getting better faster than average. So the gap should actually be widening over time (if this is not an anomaly)…

I have repeatedly acknowledged that SH performs better. I just think you're putting a LOT of stock in a subpar metric subject to a lot of hard-to-interpret noise.

That's fair. Particularly now that I've looked at the L-T v Watkins comparison in the other thread. Seems like these metrics could actually be entirely misleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the new DC Report Card is to be believed, definitely SH. SH did very well; EH did horribly. SH was 20% up in every achievement metric and way ahead on growth. 60% difference in overall score.

There's nothing to believe or not believe. The metrics are the metrics. The real questions are: do you understand what the metrics are measuring? And: is the metric something you care about for your own family?

The bulk of the DC Report Card score is based on the schoolwide growth-to-proficiency measure, which I personally don't think is very useful for individual families.

I mean EH did worse in literally everything they measured. Absolute score differential was the worst, but also growth. EH also had over 1/3rd of students who were chronically truant. Like there is nothing positive about the Report Card at all.

In an ideal world, I want a middle school where every student thrives. In DC, I just want one where my student has enough academic peers for the school to provide appropriate coursework and educational opportunities.

But that metric would favor SH even more…. In absolute performance, SH is miles ahead. Literally +20% in every achievement category. Lots of people on this thread claimed the schools were about the same, that appears to be manifestly untrue.

I would choose S-H over EH every time. I just think the use of schoolwide averages overstates the differences between the two.

Based on offerings, anecdotes, and more granular CAPE data, I think it's likely that the distribution of student test scores, attendance, etc. is such that the bottom quartile of E-H performs significantly worse than the bottom quartile of SH, but that the top quartile looks about the same for both schools.

To illustrate. Both schools have a fairly bad meets/exceeds rate in CAPE Math, though E-H is worse.
E-H: 21% (91 out of 424)
SH: 32% (139 out of 437)

But looking only at meets/exceeds for advanced (HS) math, it's clearer that both schools have similarly-sized cohorts of students succeeding in higher-level coursework.
E-H: 61% (28 out of 46)
SH: 70% (39 out of 56)

As a DCPS parent facing scarce MS options, the size and success of this student group matters more to me than the schoolwide averages do.

Well this matches up with the fact EH has 17% more at risk students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the new DC Report Card is to be believed, definitely SH. SH did very well; EH did horribly. SH was 20% up in every achievement metric and way ahead on growth. 60% difference in overall score.

There's nothing to believe or not believe. The metrics are the metrics. The real questions are: do you understand what the metrics are measuring? And: is the metric something you care about for your own family?

The bulk of the DC Report Card score is based on the schoolwide growth-to-proficiency measure, which I personally don't think is very useful for individual families.

I mean EH did worse in literally everything they measured. Absolute score differential was the worst, but also growth. EH also had over 1/3rd of students who were chronically truant. Like there is nothing positive about the Report Card at all.

In an ideal world, I want a middle school where every student thrives. In DC, I just want one where my student has enough academic peers for the school to provide appropriate coursework and educational opportunities.

But that metric would favor SH even more…. In absolute performance, SH is miles ahead. Literally +20% in every achievement category. Lots of people on this thread claimed the schools were about the same, that appears to be manifestly untrue.

The schools are identical for white kid outcomes measured by test scores. Obviously that is not all that matters but as a proxy for the typical DCUM concerns, shows that academically they are the same. So the choice would be based on totally different factors like the location and extracurriculars and continuity with friends. We have benefited from EH’s small size, some really talented teachers and dedicated admins, and easier to access activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the new DC Report Card is to be believed, definitely SH. SH did very well; EH did horribly. SH was 20% up in every achievement metric and way ahead on growth. 60% difference in overall score.

There's nothing to believe or not believe. The metrics are the metrics. The real questions are: do you understand what the metrics are measuring? And: is the metric something you care about for your own family?

The bulk of the DC Report Card score is based on the schoolwide growth-to-proficiency measure, which I personally don't think is very useful for individual families.

I mean EH did worse in literally everything they measured. Absolute score differential was the worst, but also growth. EH also had over 1/3rd of students who were chronically truant. Like there is nothing positive about the Report Card at all.

In an ideal world, I want a middle school where every student thrives. In DC, I just want one where my student has enough academic peers for the school to provide appropriate coursework and educational opportunities.

But that metric would favor SH even more…. In absolute performance, SH is miles ahead. Literally +20% in every achievement category. Lots of people on this thread claimed the schools were about the same, that appears to be manifestly untrue.

I would choose S-H over EH every time. I just think the use of schoolwide averages overstates the differences between the two.

Based on offerings, anecdotes, and more granular CAPE data, I think it's likely that the distribution of student test scores, attendance, etc. is such that the bottom quartile of E-H performs significantly worse than the bottom quartile of SH, but that the top quartile looks about the same for both schools.

To illustrate. Both schools have a fairly bad meets/exceeds rate in CAPE Math, though E-H is worse.
E-H: 21% (91 out of 424)
SH: 32% (139 out of 437)

But looking only at meets/exceeds for advanced (HS) math, it's clearer that both schools have similarly-sized cohorts of students succeeding in higher-level coursework.
E-H: 61% (28 out of 46)
SH: 70% (39 out of 56)

As a DCPS parent facing scarce MS options, the size and success of this student group matters more to me than the schoolwide averages do.

Well this matches up with the fact EH has 17% more at risk students.

Exactly. Making the choice between EH and SH based on academics has no support. Visit both and see what you think. Personally I think keeping kids with their elementary friends is the more important thing, as well as being able to walk to school. Honestly it’s great to have both options on the Hill.

[Anonymous]

The median student at SH is academically stronger. But people on the eastern side of the Hill increasingly tend to stick with EH.

[Anonymous]

My commute takes me to and from Union Station daily and just seeing the chaos, screaming, cursing by the tweens walking by the school lets me know I could never send my children there. Can't speak for EH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My commute takes me to and from Union Station daily and just seeing the chaos, screaming, cursing by the tweens walking by the school lets me know I could never send my children there. Can't speak for EH.

Ever been in Tenleytown around 3:30pm? I don't think this is SH specific.

[Anonymous]

i think lots of parents of young elementary school students see middle schoolers and think some version of that until about when their own child and classmates start to age into that age group. now i just see kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i think lots of parents of young elementary school students see middle schoolers and think some version of that until about when their own child and classmates start to age into that age group. now i just see kids.

This exactly. I’ve learned to stop judging groups of kids that are older than mine. They seem so feral in comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think lots of parents of young elementary school students see middle schoolers and think some version of that until about when their own child and classmates start to age into that age group. now i just see kids.

This exactly. I’ve learned to stop judging groups of kids that are older than mine. They seem so feral in comparison.

+100
Tweens/teens are loud and annoying. Always have been, always will be. I think about this a lot as the city continues to limit places where teens can hang out without curfews or parents. I get why they made the rules - large groups of kids were behaving badly, but for the vast majority of kids who AREN'T behaving badly, if they don't live in large NW houses with big basements/backyards, that means they get together in groups in public more, and *gasp* most of the time we see them behaving the same way rambunctious teens have always behaved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think lots of parents of young elementary school students see middle schoolers and think some version of that until about when their own child and classmates start to age into that age group. now i just see kids.

This exactly. I’ve learned to stop judging groups of kids that are older than mine. They seem so feral in comparison.

+100
Tweens/teens are loud and annoying. Always have been, always will be. I think about this a lot as the city continues to limit places where teens can hang out without curfews or parents. I get why they made the rules - large groups of kids were behaving badly, but for the vast majority of kids who AREN'T behaving badly, if they don't live in large NW houses with big basements/backyards, that means they get together in groups in public more, and *gasp* most of the time we see them behaving the same way rambunctious teens have always behaved.

That's fair.

However the schools that I pass routinely are Banneker and BASIS and all the kids are just walking in small groups with their bags and peacefully talking.