US News Elementary Rankings - Ross #1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, if test scores are weighted so heavily, the obvious way to be #1 is to either be:

1. A kill-and-drill test factory, or
2. Whiter than a "Live, Laugh, Love" placard made of reclaimed wood.

As discussed above, I think the most interesting parts of the rankings are in the middle. Those schools are what many of us are deciding between, and where there are some surprises (like in the bilingual schools). Profit drive and opaque as USNWR may be, it's worth asking why and how a school like Dorothy Height or Barnard scored SO much higher than pretty much all of the popular charters. It may say more about the charters than the DCPS schools that rank above them, but it's worth thinking about instead of dismissing the entire thing as worthless because it doesn't fit your existing understanding of comparative quality and performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, if test scores are weighted so heavily, the obvious way to be #1 is to either be:

1. A kill-and-drill test factory, or
2. Whiter than a "Live, Laugh, Love" placard made of reclaimed wood.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if test scores are weighted so heavily, the obvious way to be #1 is to either be:

1. A kill-and-drill test factory, or
2. Whiter than a "Live, Laugh, Love" placard made of reclaimed wood.

As discussed above, I think the most interesting parts of the rankings are in the middle. Those schools are what many of us are deciding between, and where there are some surprises (like in the bilingual schools). Profit drive and opaque as USNWR may be, it's worth asking why and how a school like Dorothy Height or Barnard scored SO much higher than pretty much all of the popular charters. It may say more about the charters than the DCPS schools that rank above them, but it's worth thinking about instead of dismissing the entire thing as worthless because it doesn't fit your existing understanding of comparative quality and performance.

Because of race; they are much less white.... Therefore "expected" performance is lower and they outperformed. That in itself can be useful but be careful to compare to other similar demographics schools. Barnard is less white but I believe higher income. Height is an unusual standout and worth looking into more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if test scores are weighted so heavily, the obvious way to be #1 is to either be:

1. A kill-and-drill test factory, or
2. Whiter than a "Live, Laugh, Love" placard made of reclaimed wood.

As discussed above, I think the most interesting parts of the rankings are in the middle. Those schools are what many of us are deciding between, and where there are some surprises (like in the bilingual schools). Profit drive and opaque as USNWR may be, it's worth asking why and how a school like Dorothy Height or Barnard scored SO much higher than pretty much all of the popular charters. It may say more about the charters than the DCPS schools that rank above them, but it's worth thinking about instead of dismissing the entire thing as worthless because it doesn't fit your existing understanding of comparative quality and performance.

Because of race; they are much less white.... Therefore "expected" performance is lower and they outperformed. That in itself can be useful but be careful to compare to other similar demographics schools. Barnard is less white but I believe higher income. Height is an unusual standout and worth looking into more.

This is not why. They do better compared to similar demographic schools AND when "normalized" across demographic groups, like a PP was talking about. White kids in these schools do better than at the charters, and so do the black kids. The proficiency rates at charters are surprisingly low. Most parents just never compare the numbers broken down by demographic groups and assume the whiter, more popular schools must have equally good or better scores for their kid's demographic group. My "favorite" example is CMI. People love to talk about how low performing CMI is, but if I remember correctly (the website is down today), they do better with white kids than DCB, which neighborhood families flock to. And don't forget everyone that would still take CMI over Barnard, which scores higher than either for white, black, at-risk, and ELL kids.

[Anonymous]

Here is their explanation of the methodology: [url]https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings
[/url]

50% due to math/reading scores and 50% math/reading scores adjusted for underrepresented minorities (lumped together) + % of students receiving free lunch.

For DCPS at title 1 schools the % receiving free lunch gets inflated for schools where then number exceeds a threshold (e.g. 40% -> 100%). This may explain in part why DCPS title 1 schools did a bit better in rankings than otherwise would have been expected. Hard to say how much this "error" matters.

Overall it's a really interesting undertaking and definitely adds another perspective. I also don't think populations of underrepresented minorities have the same SES in DC in different neighborhoods. URM WOTP are probably a lot higher SES than URM EOTR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is their explanation of the methodology: [url]https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings
[/url]

50% due to math/reading scores and 50% math/reading scores adjusted for underrepresented minorities (lumped together) + % of students receiving free lunch.

For DCPS at title 1 schools the % receiving free lunch gets inflated for schools where then number exceeds a threshold (e.g. 40% -> 100%). This may explain in part why DCPS title 1 schools did a bit better in rankings than otherwise would have been expected. Hard to say how much this "error" matters.

Overall it's a really interesting undertaking and definitely adds another perspective. I also don't think populations of underrepresented minorities have the same SES in DC in different neighborhoods. URM WOTP are probably a lot higher SES than URM EOTR.

BMPV parent here. That’s helpful, thank you. It can’t be that heavily ranked because BMPV and Powell have pretty much identical demographics and Powell is 40 places lower on the ranking. The main quantifiable difference is test scores, so I’d assume that’s what accounts for the very different rankings (per this methodology).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if test scores are weighted so heavily, the obvious way to be #1 is to either be:

1. A kill-and-drill test factory, or
2. Whiter than a "Live, Laugh, Love" placard made of reclaimed wood.

As discussed above, I think the most interesting parts of the rankings are in the middle. Those schools are what many of us are deciding between, and where there are some surprises (like in the bilingual schools). Profit drive and opaque as USNWR may be, it's worth asking why and how a school like Dorothy Height or Barnard scored SO much higher than pretty much all of the popular charters. It may say more about the charters than the DCPS schools that rank above them, but it's worth thinking about instead of dismissing the entire thing as worthless because it doesn't fit your existing understanding of comparative quality and performance.

Because of race; they are much less white.... Therefore "expected" performance is lower and they outperformed. That in itself can be useful but be careful to compare to other similar demographics schools. Barnard is less white but I believe higher income. Height is an unusual standout and worth looking into more.

This is not why. They do better compared to similar demographic schools AND when "normalized" across demographic groups, like a PP was talking about. White kids in these schools do better than at the charters, and so do the black kids. The proficiency rates at charters are surprisingly low. Most parents just never compare the numbers broken down by demographic groups and assume the whiter, more popular schools must have equally good or better scores for their kid's demographic group. My "favorite" example is CMI. People love to talk about how low performing CMI is, but if I remember correctly (the website is down today), they do better with white kids than DCB, which neighborhood families flock to. And don't forget everyone that would still take CMI over Barnard, which scores higher than either for white, black, at-risk, and ELL kids.

CMI scores are pretty mediocre across the board.

CMI white students
ELA 60.9%
Math 71.7%

CMI black students
ELA 21.5%
Math 23.1%

ITS white students
ELA 88%
Math 78.3%

ITS black students
ELA 35.8%
Math 20.8%

MV white students
ELA 62.7%
Math 69.3%

MV black students
ELA 22%
Math 22%

DCB
White students N/A (not enough to report)
Black students
ELA 33.3%
Math 19.4%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if test scores are weighted so heavily, the obvious way to be #1 is to either be:

1. A kill-and-drill test factory, or
2. Whiter than a "Live, Laugh, Love" placard made of reclaimed wood.

As discussed above, I think the most interesting parts of the rankings are in the middle. Those schools are what many of us are deciding between, and where there are some surprises (like in the bilingual schools). Profit drive and opaque as USNWR may be, it's worth asking why and how a school like Dorothy Height or Barnard scored SO much higher than pretty much all of the popular charters. It may say more about the charters than the DCPS schools that rank above them, but it's worth thinking about instead of dismissing the entire thing as worthless because it doesn't fit your existing understanding of comparative quality and performance.

Because of race; they are much less white.... Therefore "expected" performance is lower and they outperformed. That in itself can be useful but be careful to compare to other similar demographics schools. Barnard is less white but I believe higher income. Height is an unusual standout and worth looking into more.

This is not why. They do better compared to similar demographic schools AND when "normalized" across demographic groups, like a PP was talking about. White kids in these schools do better than at the charters, and so do the black kids. The proficiency rates at charters are surprisingly low. Most parents just never compare the numbers broken down by demographic groups and assume the whiter, more popular schools must have equally good or better scores for their kid's demographic group. My "favorite" example is CMI. People love to talk about how low performing CMI is, but if I remember correctly (the website is down today), they do better with white kids than DCB, which neighborhood families flock to. And don't forget everyone that would still take CMI over Barnard, which scores higher than either for white, black, at-risk, and ELL kids.

CMI scores are pretty mediocre across the board.

CMI white students
ELA 60.9%
Math 71.7%

CMI black students
ELA 21.5%
Math 23.1%

ITS white students
ELA 88%
Math 78.3%

ITS black students
ELA 35.8%
Math 20.8%

MV white students
ELA 62.7%
Math 69.3%

MV black students
ELA 22%
Math 22%

DCB
White students N/A (not enough to report)
Black students
ELA 33.3%
Math 19.4%

But my point is that they’re on par with the other mediocre scores at the other schools people are choosing over CMI. And much lower than Barnard, which neighborhood parents won’t even consider. I’m not saying any of these scores are GOOD, I’m just pointing out the irony of all of the CMI bashing when they’re actually pretty comparable. And I have no connection to CMI, I just hear about it in my neighborhood often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if test scores are weighted so heavily, the obvious way to be #1 is to either be:

1. A kill-and-drill test factory, or
2. Whiter than a "Live, Laugh, Love" placard made of reclaimed wood.

As discussed above, I think the most interesting parts of the rankings are in the middle. Those schools are what many of us are deciding between, and where there are some surprises (like in the bilingual schools). Profit drive and opaque as USNWR may be, it's worth asking why and how a school like Dorothy Height or Barnard scored SO much higher than pretty much all of the popular charters. It may say more about the charters than the DCPS schools that rank above them, but it's worth thinking about instead of dismissing the entire thing as worthless because it doesn't fit your existing understanding of comparative quality and performance.

Because of race; they are much less white.... Therefore "expected" performance is lower and they outperformed. That in itself can be useful but be careful to compare to other similar demographics schools. Barnard is less white but I believe higher income. Height is an unusual standout and worth looking into more.

This is not why. They do better compared to similar demographic schools AND when "normalized" across demographic groups, like a PP was talking about. White kids in these schools do better than at the charters, and so do the black kids. The proficiency rates at charters are surprisingly low. Most parents just never compare the numbers broken down by demographic groups and assume the whiter, more popular schools must have equally good or better scores for their kid's demographic group. My "favorite" example is CMI. People love to talk about how low performing CMI is, but if I remember correctly (the website is down today), they do better with white kids than DCB, which neighborhood families flock to. And don't forget everyone that would still take CMI over Barnard, which scores higher than either for white, black, at-risk, and ELL kids.

CMI scores are pretty mediocre across the board.

CMI white students
ELA 60.9%
Math 71.7%

CMI black students
ELA 21.5%
Math 23.1%

ITS white students
ELA 88%
Math 78.3%

ITS black students
ELA 35.8%
Math 20.8%

MV white students
ELA 62.7%
Math 69.3%

MV black students
ELA 22%
Math 22%

DCB
White students N/A (not enough to report)
Black students
ELA 33.3%
Math 19.4%

But my point is that they’re on par with the other mediocre scores at the other schools people are choosing over CMI. And much lower than Barnard, which neighborhood parents won’t even consider. I’m not saying any of these scores are GOOD, I’m just pointing out the irony of all of the CMI bashing when they’re actually pretty comparable. And I have no connection to CMI, I just hear about it in my neighborhood often.

Agree, Barnard is much better if a school. CMI is about is definitely on the lower end than any other the other schools. They just have a few more mediocre richer white kids that make overall scores appear higher.

Barnard has a 73.8% on report card
CMI has a 56.5%

They aren’t even close to the same level. Stop trying to make CMI an thing. They are a failure of a school.

[Anonymous]

Also, many neighborhood families choose Barnard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, many neighborhood families choose Barnard.

For pre-K 3 or for third grade? Not saying they shouldn’t, but that’s not the reality I experience living in the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, many neighborhood families choose Barnard.

For pre-K 3 or for third grade? Not saying they shouldn’t, but that’s not the reality I experience living in the neighborhood.

Testing is 3rd and up and Barnard does very well in testing so id say all of the above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids’ NOVA elementary didn’t break the top 100 and has higher reading and math scores than Ross. Yikes.

Stop this nonsense. Non of us would live here if that was the case. I could get a house for the money in NOVA and here I live in a condo. I'm here for the schools or rather for the kids and families the schools have attracted.
I have had kids in two elementary schools in NW, and I'm in the classroom now in elementary school #3. These kids show up to school being able to test just as high or even higher than any private school kids or a kid from Nova (or top countries in Europe, I'd know).
They just took their first test and every kid passed and was excited to take it again since it was on the computer. They are so ready, willing and overall so darn smart. Though I don't care for that many tests, it was a nice change for the day and most kids loved it. These kids are easy to teach which shows up in test scores.
There was a study years ago that showed DC high SES kids outscoring all high SES kids in the country, and yes even the ones in SF and NY. This is not surprising at all considering that the government is here and the embassies. Not sure why somebody from Nova thinks their kids do better than the high SES kids in DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids’ NOVA elementary didn’t break the top 100 and has higher reading and math scores than Ross. Yikes.

Stop this nonsense. Non of us would live here if that was the case. I could get a house for the money in NOVA and here I live in a condo. I'm here for the schools or rather for the kids and families the schools have attracted.
I have had kids in two elementary schools in NW, and I'm in the classroom now in elementary school #3. These kids show up to school being able to test just as high or even higher than any private school kids or a kid from Nova (or top countries in Europe, I'd know).
They just took their first test and every kid passed and was excited to take it again since it was on the computer. They are so ready, willing and overall so darn smart. Though I don't care for that many tests, it was a nice change for the day and most kids loved it. These kids are easy to teach which shows up in test scores.
There was a study years ago that showed DC high SES kids outscoring all high SES kids in the country, and yes even the ones in SF and NY. This is not surprising at all considering that the government is here and the embassies. Not sure why somebody from Nova thinks their kids do better than the high SES kids in DCPS.

+1

But sadly, the study you’re referring to was comparing white kids not upper SES. Yes, white kids in DC perform the highest amongst white kids in the country. Likely because they are the richest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Some surprises for the Spanish Bilingual Schools, not that Oyster is number 1. but Bruce Monroe ranked so much higher than the HRCS bilinguals: -
17-Oyster
19-Bancroft
24-Marie Reed
35- Bruce Monroe
45-Lamb
56 DC Bilngual
65 Mundo Verde-
75-Powell

We’re a Bruce Monroe family and this doesn’t surprise me at all. Have friends with same aged kids at all of the above listed HRCS, so we can compare what the various schools are doing. Aside from Montessori at LAMB, which is fundamentally different, and really depends on what kind of student the individual kid is.

We are a BM family too, third grade. Agree with your assessment. The issue we see now is the widening achievement gap in the class, mainly based on SES I think. That would be an issue at any DC school that isn’t WoTP. Middle school though is why we have tried lottery every year though. Macfarland is not an option for us. I think in 10 years MacFarland might turn a corner though as more high SES parents stay longer at the feeder schools.