PARCC scores for at-risk kids at ITDS?

[Anonymous]

We matched at ITDS, and we're considering whether to move DC from our neighborhood school. I know that PARCC scores don't tell the full story of a school's quality, but I was concerned after looking at the PARCC scores for at-risk kids at ITDS.

Last year, 17% of at-risk kids at ITDS met or exceeded expectations in ELA, and 10% in math. By comparison, the average scores for at-risk kids in DC overall are 21% for ELA and 17% for math. Scores for White kids at ITDS are 88% for ELA and 78% for math.

Why are at-risk kids doing so poorly at ITDS? At our neighborhood school, at-risk kids are doing better than the DC average (and ITDS).

[Anonymous]

I will be the first to admit ITS does not have great performance here. But to do an apples to apples comparison, you would need to compare for each grade level and compare ITS' middle school grades to other schools for those grades.

One reason is that at ITS not everyone stays for middle school. Some kids live IB for a good middle or have sibling preference where an older child attends high school. So that makes empty seats, which brings in new kids who have not always been well served by their prior school.

This is definitely a topic of concern to the ITS administration and they have held various meetings and made some structural changes to the middle school as well.

[Anonymous]

So, a lot of states have done away with these types of tests. Because we know it doesn't show what a kids actually knows, thinking skills and so forth. It tells you mostly how well kids can test, what they memorize and spit back out, and has a bunch of social and economic bias. Unless kids are prepared specifically with tools to over come those limits and bias on the test.

I know our neighborhood dcps (with 15-30 percentage of all students testings at or above grade level the last couple years) does a LOT of test prep, lots of memory work and drills. They are a good little school unfortunately funding and dcps review process forces them to focus a lot of time on test prep.

Our experience it ITDS does much less drilling before tests. Another reason might be the majority of at risk kids in Middle have not actually been at ITDS for the majority of their education. So, you have kids coming from one learning experience to a very different experience.
Most of the charters that were on our list where only olgood-oaky on test score and test prep. But that was fine for us because we didn't want a school that focused on testing.

If you want a school that does well with test prep for at-risk learner then check out KIPP they have really high scores for all students which are majority at-risk students.

That being said our brown student has gotten a lot of special education support to achieve mostly grade level or above work at ITDS. Testing score are still horrible because my child just doesn't test well and has a hard time with computer testing. But if you were to sit down and work through grade level work he goes grade level in some areas.

I know the school has a lot of supports in place for a lot of different students needs and family support. They are working to address achievement gaps. I would recommend looking more at where those same "at-risk" lower test score kids are going to High School. Because a lot of them preform better in classes, have learned how to think and make use of resources many are going to competitive high schools!!


Anyhow, hope you find the right fit for your family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We matched at ITDS, and we're considering whether to move DC from our neighborhood school. I know that PARCC scores don't tell the full story of a school's quality, but I was concerned after looking at the PARCC scores for at-risk kids at ITDS.

Last year, 17% of at-risk kids at ITDS met or exceeded expectations in ELA, and 10% in math. By comparison, the average scores for at-risk kids in DC overall are 21% for ELA and 17% for math. Scores for White kids at ITDS are 88% for ELA and 78% for math.

Why are at-risk kids doing so poorly at ITDS? At our neighborhood school, at-risk kids are doing better than the DC average (and ITDS).

The school has not put a concerted effort into supporting this group.
As a school the % of at-risk is lower, and the performance is lower. Clearly this is not the target they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, a lot of states have done away with these types of tests. Because we know it doesn't show what a kids actually knows, thinking skills and so forth. It tells you mostly how well kids can test, what they memorize and spit back out, and has a bunch of social and economic bias. Unless kids are prepared specifically with tools to over come those limits and bias on the test.

This is a cop-out.

When our "non-brown" child was at ITDS, we did no preparations for the test, other than trying to ensure that DC got a good night sleep and some form of breakfast. And DC consistently got 5s in both categories. What we did do was read to DC daily in the early years and discuss complicated concepts and ideas, plus limit useless screen time.

The main reason we left in middle school is the stark delta between "white" and "brown" performance, together with the sense that the school emphasized building identify-group self-esteem over teaching hard skills and critical thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, a lot of states have done away with these types of tests. Because we know it doesn't show what a kids actually knows, thinking skills and so forth. It tells you mostly how well kids can test, what they memorize and spit back out, and has a bunch of social and economic bias. Unless kids are prepared specifically with tools to over come those limits and bias on the test.

This is a cop-out.

When our "non-brown" child was at ITDS, we did no preparations for the test, other than trying to ensure that DC got a good night sleep and some form of breakfast. And DC consistently got 5s in both categories. What we did do was read to DC daily in the early years and discuss complicated concepts and ideas, plus limit useless screen time.

The main reason we left in middle school is the stark delta between "white" and "brown" performance, together with the sense that the school emphasized building identify-group self-esteem over teaching hard skills and critical thinking.

How long ago did you leave, PP? I am a lower elementary parent and cautiously optimistic about middle school, but only cautiously. I would love to stay for logistical reasons and because I like the idea of a small middle school, but...

[Anonymous]

Any other peer like (demographic wise) charters that’s don’t have such a big gap? It seems to be the norm.

CMI: 14%/16%
Lamb: 18%/ and a whopping 0% for math
TR: 18%/12%
Stokes: 0% and 0%

DC Bilingual and MV slightly outcome city averages. ITS doesn’t seem to be unique with this issue. Are other schools just doing a lot of test prepping? For example, my kid is at Shepherd. Their at risk scores are 50/50%! I don’t see a whole lot of test prepping there. What are they doing better? Do they have better wrap around services? To be honest, I think this is one area that DCPS does better at. Watkins is 34/24, Eaton is 34/17.

[Anonymous]

I don't agree about memorizing stuff and spitting it out. Maybe being able to recall something the teacher said about the subject, but definitely not trying to memorize things.
In fact, DC can't even remember anything but he does well on Parccs. He is on screens 24/7 and showed me how he picked the answers to practice test I found.
He didn't even read the questions. He just figured out the test. My friend's kid is also on screens all the time and also does well on Parcc.
We are both low income but the kids do well on that test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, a lot of states have done away with these types of tests. Because we know it doesn't show what a kids actually knows, thinking skills and so forth. It tells you mostly how well kids can test, what they memorize and spit back out, and has a bunch of social and economic bias. Unless kids are prepared specifically with tools to over come those limits and bias on the test.

This is a cop-out.

When our "non-brown" child was at ITDS, we did no preparations for the test, other than trying to ensure that DC got a good night sleep and some form of breakfast. And DC consistently got 5s in both categories. What we did do was read to DC daily in the early years and discuss complicated concepts and ideas, plus limit useless screen time.

The main reason we left in middle school is the stark delta between "white" and "brown" performance, together with the sense that the school emphasized building identify-group self-esteem over teaching hard skills and critical thinking.

Yeah, cop-out. Okay. That is why some states have dropped testing and many colleges stopped considering SAT scores.

[Anonymous]

The scores are online with other charters and a lot of dcps middle schools. But there are a lot of dcps middle schools that do better too. Not sure of the why's and how's .

And there are a lot more families planning to stay through middle school than there were even 3-4 years ago. The competition for schools private and public has grown a lot which is part of the reason for people staying.

We like the school and feel it is educating our child well. But, if you want a school with top preforming score for low income students then it is not currently that school. It is and does a lot of really good things for all different types of students. Just depends on what you and your student need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The scores are online with other charters and a lot of dcps middle schools. But there are a lot of dcps middle schools that do better too. Not sure of the why's and how's .

And there are a lot more families planning to stay through middle school than there were even 3-4 years ago. The competition for schools private and public has grown a lot which is part of the reason for people staying.

We like the school and feel it is educating our child well. But, if you want a school with top preforming score for low income students then it is not currently that school. It is and does a lot of really good things for all different types of students. Just depends on what you and your student need.

Define “a lot”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The scores are online with other charters and a lot of dcps middle schools. But there are a lot of dcps middle schools that do better too. Not sure of the why's and how's .

And there are a lot more families planning to stay through middle school than there were even 3-4 years ago. The competition for schools private and public has grown a lot which is part of the reason for people staying.

We like the school and feel it is educating our child well. But, if you want a school with top preforming score for low income students then it is not currently that school. It is and does a lot of really good things for all different types of students. Just depends on what you and your student need.

Thanks to all who provided information. However, two posters have suggested that if I'm concerned about the at-risk disparity, I should look at schools where at-risk kids do well on standardized tests (like KIPP). I've been thinking about this differently--I think that looking at how at-risk students are doing might be a good way to gauge a school's overall quality. Kids from high income, high education families will do well everywhere, and ITDS has a significant proportion of these kinds of kids (and hence, higher test scores, overall). So I think that looking at at-risk kids across schools might be a good way to tell how well the school is educating its students--although, unfortunately, all we know about them is their PARCC scores, with all the caveats of interpreting standardized test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The scores are online with other charters and a lot of dcps middle schools. But there are a lot of dcps middle schools that do better too. Not sure of the why's and how's .

And there are a lot more families planning to stay through middle school than there were even 3-4 years ago. The competition for schools private and public has grown a lot which is part of the reason for people staying.

We like the school and feel it is educating our child well. But, if you want a school with top preforming score for low income students then it is not currently that school. It is and does a lot of really good things for all different types of students. Just depends on what you and your student need.

Thanks to all who provided information. However, two posters have suggested that if I'm concerned about the at-risk disparity, I should look at schools where at-risk kids do well on standardized tests (like KIPP). I've been thinking about this differently--I think that looking at how at-risk students are doing might be a good way to gauge a school's overall quality. Kids from high income, high education families will do well everywhere, and ITDS has a significant proportion of these kinds of kids (and hence, higher test scores, overall). So I think that looking at at-risk kids across schools might be a good way to tell how well the school is educating its students--although, unfortunately, all we know about them is their PARCC scores, with all the caveats of interpreting standardized test scores.

I don't disagree, but many schools have too few at-risk kids for meaningful statistics. Also, the at-risk category in DC is so widely defined that there is a lot of variation within it. What many schools do is try to select only the higher-performing and better-behaved at-risk kids. It just isn't the same as what neighborhood schools have to deal with, taking everyone in their boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The scores are online with other charters and a lot of dcps middle schools. But there are a lot of dcps middle schools that do better too. Not sure of the why's and how's .

And there are a lot more families planning to stay through middle school than there were even 3-4 years ago. The competition for schools private and public has grown a lot which is part of the reason for people staying.

We like the school and feel it is educating our child well. But, if you want a school with top preforming score for low income students then it is not currently that school. It is and does a lot of really good things for all different types of students. Just depends on what you and your student need.

Thanks to all who provided information. However, two posters have suggested that if I'm concerned about the at-risk disparity, I should look at schools where at-risk kids do well on standardized tests (like KIPP). I've been thinking about this differently--I think that looking at how at-risk students are doing might be a good way to gauge a school's overall quality. Kids from high income, high education families will do well everywhere, and ITDS has a significant proportion of these kinds of kids (and hence, higher test scores, overall). So I think that looking at at-risk kids across schools might be a good way to tell how well the school is educating its students--although, unfortunately, all we know about them is their PARCC scores, with all the caveats of interpreting standardized test scores.

I don't disagree, but many schools have too few at-risk kids for meaningful statistics. Also, the at-risk category in DC is so widely defined that there is a lot of variation within it. What many schools do is try to select only the higher-performing and better-behaved at-risk kids. It just isn't the same as what neighborhood schools have to deal with, taking everyone in their boundary.

How do they select them, at least at the elementary level? Or do you mean select them for PARCC testing? (I don't think the latter is true, because the participation rates of at-risk kids are reported for each school and are about 95% for every school I looked at.) And if it's the charter schools that are "selecting", shouldn't these higher-performing at-risk kids be doing better on PARCC than the neighborhood schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The scores are online with other charters and a lot of dcps middle schools. But there are a lot of dcps middle schools that do better too. Not sure of the why's and how's .

And there are a lot more families planning to stay through middle school than there were even 3-4 years ago. The competition for schools private and public has grown a lot which is part of the reason for people staying.

We like the school and feel it is educating our child well. But, if you want a school with top preforming score for low income students then it is not currently that school. It is and does a lot of really good things for all different types of students. Just depends on what you and your student need.

Thanks to all who provided information. However, two posters have suggested that if I'm concerned about the at-risk disparity, I should look at schools where at-risk kids do well on standardized tests (like KIPP). I've been thinking about this differently--I think that looking at how at-risk students are doing might be a good way to gauge a school's overall quality. Kids from high income, high education families will do well everywhere, and ITDS has a significant proportion of these kinds of kids (and hence, higher test scores, overall). So I think that looking at at-risk kids across schools might be a good way to tell how well the school is educating its students--although, unfortunately, all we know about them is their PARCC scores, with all the caveats of interpreting standardized test scores.

I don't disagree, but many schools have too few at-risk kids for meaningful statistics. Also, the at-risk category in DC is so widely defined that there is a lot of variation within it. What many schools do is try to select only the higher-performing and better-behaved at-risk kids. It just isn't the same as what neighborhood schools have to deal with, taking everyone in their boundary.

How do they select them, at least at the elementary level? Or do you mean select them for PARCC testing? (I don't think the latter is true, because the participation rates of at-risk kids are reported for each school and are about 95% for every school I looked at.) And if it's the charter schools that are "selecting", shouldn't these higher-performing at-risk kids be doing better on PARCC than the neighborhood schools?

They select them by selective recruiting, and by making life difficult for kids and parents they wish would leave. Suspensions, threatening to make the kid repeat a grade (very little basis for that as a successful educational strategy), a zillion meetings that make life difficult for parents, "We just can't meet his needs" euphemisms, etc. I think both charter and neighborhood schools engage in this.