immigrant/minority parents - does a school's student demographics affect your decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two comments:
About the Watkins / E.L. Haynes comparison - isn't it a different kind if parent that bothers to research and apply for a school than just send their child to a neighborhood school with mediocre test scores? I mean, charters schools are doing well because these parents have the time and energy to help their child succeed. Some parents don't have that luxury.

About the young AA men who "drop out" of culturally diverse high schools - I highly doubt that the schools are culturally diverse. Most high schools in DC are predominantly black. There is close to no diversity, culturally or economically.

My DC neighborhood is highly diverse culturally as well as economically. No neighborhood high school. Our teens attend charters or oobs.

That different kind of parent you are referring to are those who give a damn about their child's education and by extension their future. Preparing your child for an excellent and productive future is not a luxury, it's a necessity. Only interested in academic cultures where this is a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of your data is wrong. If you check the scores for Watkins, it is more like 62% scored proficient (or above) in reading and 56% scored proficient or above in Math. And if you closely to the data you can see the white/non hispanic cohort did the best. This is not far behind Haynes.

I did check the scores:

http://fightforchildren.org/page05.html#chooser

hard copy page 83, pdf copy page 85


Hmm, and then you click on the link and find that, in fact, it says 61% reading/56% math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of your data is wrong. If you check the scores for Watkins, it is more like 62% scored proficient (or above) in reading and 56% scored proficient or above in Math. And if you closely to the data you can see the white/non hispanic cohort did the best. This is not far behind Haynes.

I did check the scores:

http://fightforchildren.org/page05.html#chooser

hard copy page 83, pdf copy page 85


Hmm, and then you click on the link and find that, in fact, it says 61% reading/56% math.

Apparently they've updated the document, because now the .PDF copy has Watkins on page 86 instead of 85. It's still disturbing that they're behind Haynes given how much wealthier the school is.

the following numbers are the demographic data relevant to disadvantaged students:

Watkins:
21% low income
4% special ed
1% ELL

Haynes:
61% low income
11% special ed
20% ELL

And Haynes only has 5 years experience as a program. Imagine how much better they'll be with 10.

[Anonymous]

Apparently they've updated the document, because now the .PDF copy has Watkins on page 86 instead of 85. It's still disturbing that they're behind Haynes given how much wealthier the school is.

the following numbers are the demographic data relevant to disadvantaged students:

Watkins:
21% low income
4% special ed
1% ELL

Haynes:
61% low income
11% special ed
20% ELL

And Haynes only has 5 years experience as a program. Imagine how much better they'll be with 10.

[Anonymous]

I love how the PP circulates grossly inaccurate information on multiple threads and then when called on it, makes the same damned argument regardless of the fact that the evidence has changed dramatically.

Haynes had a big leap forward in test scores in the past year. It's a very small program (140 kids tested) with lots of churn in the faculty. It's a year-round data-driven school that throws tons of additional resources (its website says it offers 1000 additional hours of educational programming (afterschool/breaks) free of charge to Title I kids. A higher percentage of kids achieve mathematical proficiency as a result.

But if the question is whether a middle-class academically -oriented family should prefer Haynes to Watkins (which is where you started), it's not clear at all. Their kid is going to be proficient at math at either school (not a high bar). In a context where the whole focus is drill until more kids achieve proficiency, that kid might be bored out of his/her mind. Conversely, in a Montessori setting may have the option of working at a different pace and on different projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how the PP circulates grossly inaccurate information on multiple threads and then when called on it, makes the same damned argument regardless of the fact that the evidence has changed dramatically.

The evidence hasn't changed as dramatically as you think. Watkins is still being outscored by a Title I school.

[Anonymous]

So what? They're both ok schools; neither looks great (It's a sad commentary on DC public schools (charter and conventional) that you claim bragging rights when *only* a third of your students lack proficient in math in early elementary school). If these were the only two options available to you, it might well depend on the kid/family what the better choice would be.

As someone whose family was poor when I was in elementary school, it just doesn't blow me away that a self-selected group of poor kids whose parents care about education and whose school has been given a lot of resources can do as well (or slightly better) on standardized tests than an economically diverse group of kids at a neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

I guess that one can always find a richer school performed worse than a poorer one, and jump to a conclusion that fits him/her.