New DC School Report Cards have been posted to OSSE’s website

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

As HS metrics should be different-- what the PP was trying to say is the argument that this scoring system favors high SES schools and masks terrible schools is not valid. Ok replace "Walls" with "Ross" another school with a low at-risk %

The ES and MS "growth" metric is 50% of scoring and the HS "growth" metric (which is at least growth to proficiency) is only 12.5%.

Sure, Walls and Ross score high on PARCC "growth" but they also score high on the PARCC in terms of 4s and 5s.

If you have a high-performing kid, you are not going to choose a school based on DCPS's totally skewed/subjective school "report card" methodology. If you do, you could easily end up at a school where the majority of kids are below grade level. Rather, you are going to look at whether the school has a lot of high-performing kids.

In short, if I have a kid who is getting 5s on the PARCC, I am not interested in a school where they are bringing a lot of kids up from 1 to 2 on the PARCC.

Not always 1s to 2s, many are moving kids from 3s to 4s. Again, a very negative view as a whole on schools with a high MGP.

This. I'm sorry but taking a low-scoring kid up to grade level doesn't happen overnight. They have to do more than a year's worth of progress for at least one year, usually two or three. It's a huge effort and requires really skillful teaching. I really don't understand why people complain that not enough kids are scoring 4s and 5s but don't think it's important to track score improvements. Strong MGP is how we get more 4s and 5s. It absolutely does matter. And if I had a child scoring a 1 or a 2 or a 3, I would care about this measure above all else.

I don’t disagree with you, but these different interests just go to show why an aggregated score doesn’t make a tom of sense.

Remember that DC is calling these "Report Cards." Not "High Testing Score Growth Schools."

Report cards don't grade you on how much you improved but on how well you did.

It's a report card on the school, not on the students. How much growth the school produces *is* how well the school is doing.

Some of the testing data I receive on my children does show their prior year scores btw.

No, it isn't. By your logic schools are failing kids who remain at the 98th percentile year after year. And schools that progress kids from 4 grade levels behind to 3 grade levels behind are the best.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about how we value growth vs excellence. Your statement tells us you just aren't serious about having public policy discussions. Or you are just ignorant of what the data means.

Wow, so rude. No, producing one year of growth is not failing. But producing two years of growth in one year's time is very impressive.

Sure but let’s be real. Very, very few teachers can do that and that is a fact.

Growth from being worst to bad is not better than being at good.

You also need to acknowledge why these kids are failing so bad to begin with and that fault rests squarely with DCPS. But hey let’s make these failing schools look good by the grading we set and instead of 4 grade levels behind, they are 2.

The fact of the matter is temporary growth or gains one year doesn’t guarantee growth another year. Look at the endpoint of the majority of DCPS middle and high schools. Majority are not just below grade level but way below grade level.

Of course it is partially DCPS' fault, but a lot of the kids are not exclusively the product of DCPS. This city has plenty of terrible underperforming charter schools. Lots of kids move here from other states and the PG County school system is also not very good. And then there is the home environment factor, and factors innate to the kids. Kids enter PK3 way behind where they should be.

[Anonymous]

Here is the bottom line people. I’ll make it easy for everyone,

If your kid is at level 1 or 2 and you are looking for a school to help them “grow”, feel free to look at these parameters.

If your kid is at level 4 or 5, forget it, look and see if the majority of kids are at 4 and 5.

[Anonymous]

Impressed by Garrison’s progress!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

Yes.

UMC parents have zero excuse for no being on top of things from the jump. The schools are shady, lack transparency, and generally unreliable. That isn’t new despite the faux social contract of “you just send the kids to school well-rested/fed and we’ll do the rest and alert you to any red flags in.” It’s not fair or right, but YOU are the only one capable to ensuring that your kids are where they need to be in terms of ELA and math, just to start.

That UMC types “discover” that their 3rd/4th grader hasn’t mastered grade-level math is beyond me…but I’ve come to expect it, sadly.

I’m sorry but people like you who make excuses and expect parents to do everything and be on top of everything just because they are UMC are the problem and why DCPS sucks.

So if you are not UMC, you get a pass card out of jail wherever your kid is and if they are below grade level. If you are UMC, it’s your fault because you did not supplement and know exactly what your kid is learning and provide extra support outside the classroom?

The reality is that when the majority of kids are below grade level, that is where the teaching occurs and the few who are above are left to computers, helping all the other students and their needs are not being met. The teacher is teaching where the 1 and 2 are to bring them up. The kid who is 3 and 4 are barely learning anything.

Lastly, lots of UMC parents both work with demanding jobs with multiple kids have the same time constraints.

If you understand the “reality” of DC schools, how could you possibly expect the schools alone to get your child where you need and want them to be?

And yes, lower SES demos get a pass on judgement from me on this, but that’s a poor consultation prize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line people. I’ll make it easy for everyone,

If your kid is at level 1 or 2 and you are looking for a school to help them “grow”, feel free to look at these parameters.

If your kid is at level 4 or 5, forget it, look and see if the majority of kids are at 4 and 5.

Sound ‘bout right, but I’m still aggrieved that my high-performing school is being punished by these metrics!!

[Anonymous]

You can’t learn if you’re out ‘jacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

As HS metrics should be different-- what the PP was trying to say is the argument that this scoring system favors high SES schools and masks terrible schools is not valid. Ok replace "Walls" with "Ross" another school with a low at-risk %

The ES and MS "growth" metric is 50% of scoring and the HS "growth" metric (which is at least growth to proficiency) is only 12.5%.

Sure, Walls and Ross score high on PARCC "growth" but they also score high on the PARCC in terms of 4s and 5s.

If you have a high-performing kid, you are not going to choose a school based on DCPS's totally skewed/subjective school "report card" methodology. If you do, you could easily end up at a school where the majority of kids are below grade level. Rather, you are going to look at whether the school has a lot of high-performing kids.

In short, if I have a kid who is getting 5s on the PARCC, I am not interested in a school where they are bringing a lot of kids up from 1 to 2 on the PARCC.

Not always 1s to 2s, many are moving kids from 3s to 4s. Again, a very negative view as a whole on schools with a high MGP.

This. I'm sorry but taking a low-scoring kid up to grade level doesn't happen overnight. They have to do more than a year's worth of progress for at least one year, usually two or three. It's a huge effort and requires really skillful teaching. I really don't understand why people complain that not enough kids are scoring 4s and 5s but don't think it's important to track score improvements. Strong MGP is how we get more 4s and 5s. It absolutely does matter. And if I had a child scoring a 1 or a 2 or a 3, I would care about this measure above all else.

I don’t disagree with you, but these different interests just go to show why an aggregated score doesn’t make a tom of sense.

Remember that DC is calling these "Report Cards." Not "High Testing Score Growth Schools."

Report cards don't grade you on how much you improved but on how well you did.

It's a report card on the school, not on the students. How much growth the school produces *is* how well the school is doing.

Some of the testing data I receive on my children does show their prior year scores btw.

No, it isn't. By your logic schools are failing kids who remain at the 98th percentile year after year. And schools that progress kids from 4 grade levels behind to 3 grade levels behind are the best.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about how we value growth vs excellence. Your statement tells us you just aren't serious about having public policy discussions. Or you are just ignorant of what the data means.

Wow, so rude. No, producing one year of growth is not failing. But producing two years of growth in one year's time is very impressive.

Sure but let’s be real. Very, very few teachers can do that and that is a fact.

Growth from being worst to bad is not better than being at good.

You also need to acknowledge why these kids are failing so bad to begin with and that fault rests squarely with DCPS. But hey let’s make these failing schools look good by the grading we set and instead of 4 grade levels behind, they are 2.

The fact of the matter is temporary growth or gains one year doesn’t guarantee growth another year. Look at the endpoint of the majority of DCPS middle and high schools. Majority are not just below grade level but way below grade level.

Of course it is partially DCPS' fault, but a lot of the kids are not exclusively the product of DCPS. This city has plenty of terrible underperforming charter schools. Lots of kids move here from other states and the PG County school system is also not very good. And then there is the home environment factor, and factors innate to the kids. Kids enter PK3 way behind where they should be.

Oh, it’s def extra-school factors primarily at play. These kids are failed by society writ large and DCPS and MPD are left to pick up the pieces. Most of this stuff is baked into the cake before kindergarten. I don’t have any answers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can’t learn if you’re out ‘jacking.

Yes you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line people. I’ll make it easy for everyone,

If your kid is at level 1 or 2 and you are looking for a school to help them “grow”, feel free to look at these parameters.

If your kid is at level 4 or 5, forget it, look and see if the majority of kids are at 4 and 5.

And for those of us not inbound for schools with the majority of kids at 4-5 I think there is a difference between a school with 40-50% 3-5 and 10-20%. My inbound might not be amazing but there seems to be enough on grade level kids to mean that they will be ignored.

[Anonymous]

Sorry PP- I mean will NOT be ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

As HS metrics should be different-- what the PP was trying to say is the argument that this scoring system favors high SES schools and masks terrible schools is not valid. Ok replace "Walls" with "Ross" another school with a low at-risk %

The ES and MS "growth" metric is 50% of scoring and the HS "growth" metric (which is at least growth to proficiency) is only 12.5%.

Sure, Walls and Ross score high on PARCC "growth" but they also score high on the PARCC in terms of 4s and 5s.

If you have a high-performing kid, you are not going to choose a school based on DCPS's totally skewed/subjective school "report card" methodology. If you do, you could easily end up at a school where the majority of kids are below grade level. Rather, you are going to look at whether the school has a lot of high-performing kids.

In short, if I have a kid who is getting 5s on the PARCC, I am not interested in a school where they are bringing a lot of kids up from 1 to 2 on the PARCC.

Not always 1s to 2s, many are moving kids from 3s to 4s. Again, a very negative view as a whole on schools with a high MGP.

This. I'm sorry but taking a low-scoring kid up to grade level doesn't happen overnight. They have to do more than a year's worth of progress for at least one year, usually two or three. It's a huge effort and requires really skillful teaching. I really don't understand why people complain that not enough kids are scoring 4s and 5s but don't think it's important to track score improvements. Strong MGP is how we get more 4s and 5s. It absolutely does matter. And if I had a child scoring a 1 or a 2 or a 3, I would care about this measure above all else.

I don’t disagree with you, but these different interests just go to show why an aggregated score doesn’t make a tom of sense.

Remember that DC is calling these "Report Cards." Not "High Testing Score Growth Schools."

Report cards don't grade you on how much you improved but on how well you did.

It's a report card on the school, not on the students. How much growth the school produces *is* how well the school is doing.

Some of the testing data I receive on my children does show their prior year scores btw.

No, it isn't. By your logic schools are failing kids who remain at the 98th percentile year after year. And schools that progress kids from 4 grade levels behind to 3 grade levels behind are the best.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about how we value growth vs excellence. Your statement tells us you just aren't serious about having public policy discussions. Or you are just ignorant of what the data means.

Wow, so rude. No, producing one year of growth is not failing. But producing two years of growth in one year's time is very impressive.

Sure but let’s be real. Very, very few teachers can do that and that is a fact.

Growth from being worst to bad is not better than being at good.

You also need to acknowledge why these kids are failing so bad to begin with and that fault rests squarely with DCPS. But hey let’s make these failing schools look good by the grading we set and instead of 4 grade levels behind, they are 2.

The fact of the matter is temporary growth or gains one year doesn’t guarantee growth another year. Look at the endpoint of the majority of DCPS middle and high schools. Majority are not just below grade level but way below grade level.

Of course it is partially DCPS' fault, but a lot of the kids are not exclusively the product of DCPS. This city has plenty of terrible underperforming charter schools. Lots of kids move here from other states and the PG County school system is also not very good. And then there is the home environment factor, and factors innate to the kids. Kids enter PK3 way behind where they should be.

Oh, it’s def extra-school factors primarily at play. These kids are failed by society writ large and DCPS and MPD are left to pick up the pieces. Most of this stuff is baked into the cake before kindergarten. I don’t have any answers.

No it’s not extra school factors primarily at play.

Both PP above don’t get that sure some factors are external especially the early years but much of the blame is on DCPS - social promotion, no consequences for truancy, no consequences for behaviors with BS restorative justice, lower expectations, no consequences for not doing homework, no extensive support system early for those that need it (tutoring, mentors, behav health, etc..), and lastly a top down system from a bloated central admin who has absolutely no clinical classroom experience.

What other school district in this country do you know where high 90% kids are not on grade level, basically the whole school. It’s just abysmal and shocking that the system continues as it does status quo. And the status quo continues because of PP’s above.

BTW most kids are exclusively the product of DCPS. There are no poor kids moving from other states into the city with the HCOL in the city happening for the past decade. Many of the low SES have actually been pushed out and gone to PG county. Fairfax and Montgomery county have experienced a high increase in lower SES families too while the city has gone the opposite way and attracting much higher income families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line people. I’ll make it easy for everyone,

If your kid is at level 1 or 2 and you are looking for a school to help them “grow”, feel free to look at these parameters.

If your kid is at level 4 or 5, forget it, look and see if the majority of kids are at 4 and 5.

And for those of us not inbound for schools with the majority of kids at 4-5 I think there is a difference between a school with 40-50% 3-5 and 10-20%. My inbound might not be amazing but there seems to be enough on grade level kids to mean that they will be ignored.

That’s not how it works. So if you have 40-50% 3-5, that basically translates to maybe 20% at grade level at best because we know majority in that group are 3 and not 5. The remaining 50-60% kids are all way below grade level.

Instead of keeping those 20% kids together and track them for grade level teaching. Gasp! We can’t have that because of “equity”. What the school does is spread those 20% kids out among the 3 or 4 classes so you have a handful of kids in each class at best on grade level. Teaching won’t be on grade level like your assumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line people. I’ll make it easy for everyone,

If your kid is at level 1 or 2 and you are looking for a school to help them “grow”, feel free to look at these parameters.

If your kid is at level 4 or 5, forget it, look and see if the majority of kids are at 4 and 5.

And for those of us not inbound for schools with the majority of kids at 4-5 I think there is a difference between a school with 40-50% 3-5 and 10-20%. My inbound might not be amazing but there seems to be enough on grade level kids to mean that they will be ignored.

That’s not how it works. So if you have 40-50% 3-5, that basically translates to maybe 20% at grade level at best because we know majority in that group are 3 and not 5. The remaining 50-60% kids are all way below grade level.

Instead of keeping those 20% kids together and track them for grade level teaching. Gasp! We can’t have that because of “equity”. What the school does is spread those 20% kids out among the 3 or 4 classes so you have a handful of kids in each class at best on grade level. Teaching won’t be on grade level like your assumption.

To add what you really want is overwhelming majority in grade level like 70%. Then you can actually teach on grade level and easily differentiate better for the kids above grade level to challenge them.

The 30% below grade level you can spread a month the 3 or 4 classes and then do push in or pull out to help these struggling kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line people. I’ll make it easy for everyone,

If your kid is at level 1 or 2 and you are looking for a school to help them “grow”, feel free to look at these parameters.

If your kid is at level 4 or 5, forget it, look and see if the majority of kids are at 4 and 5.

And for those of us not inbound for schools with the majority of kids at 4-5 I think there is a difference between a school with 40-50% 3-5 and 10-20%. My inbound might not be amazing but there seems to be enough on grade level kids to mean that they will be ignored.

That’s not how it works. So if you have 40-50% 3-5, that basically translates to maybe 20% at grade level at best because we know majority in that group are 3 and not 5. The remaining 50-60% kids are all way below grade level.

Instead of keeping those 20% kids together and track them for grade level teaching. Gasp! We can’t have that because of “equity”. What the school does is spread those 20% kids out among the 3 or 4 classes so you have a handful of kids in each class at best on grade level. Teaching won’t be on grade level like your assumption.

To add what you really want is overwhelming majority in grade level like 70%. Then you can actually teach on grade level and easily differentiate better for the kids above grade level to challenge them.

The 30% below grade level you can spread a month the 3 or 4 classes and then do push in or pull out to help these struggling kids

Typo among

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line people. I’ll make it easy for everyone,

If your kid is at level 1 or 2 and you are looking for a school to help them “grow”, feel free to look at these parameters.

If your kid is at level 4 or 5, forget it, look and see if the majority of kids are at 4 and 5.

And for those of us not inbound for schools with the majority of kids at 4-5 I think there is a difference between a school with 40-50% 3-5 and 10-20%. My inbound might not be amazing but there seems to be enough on grade level kids to mean that they will be ignored.

That’s not how it works. So if you have 40-50% 3-5, that basically translates to maybe 20% at grade level at best because we know majority in that group are 3 and not 5. The remaining 50-60% kids are all way below grade level.

Instead of keeping those 20% kids together and track them for grade level teaching. Gasp! We can’t have that because of “equity”. What the school does is spread those 20% kids out among the 3 or 4 classes so you have a handful of kids in each class at best on grade level. Teaching won’t be on grade level like your assumption.

Love how you are confidently making things up for my inbound school. It is actually 56% 3-5 and 35% 4-5. Also students with 3’s are not hopelessly below grade-level and especially at the elementary level often include at least some students doing OK who test poorly. My school also includes about 40% students that are English language learners so this suggests most native English students at the school are actually on or approaching grade-level. The ELL students are getting significant push in and pull out help (95% of those made their growth targets!). I acknowledge that this is not the same as being a Janney but I just don’t get why you are so invested at telling others that such a school couldn’t possibly work.