When will waitlist info come out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My theory: more families who like Latin and Basis are staying in places Shaw and Petworth for DCPS elementary, and then trying for Latin/Basis.

That’s a huge mistake as competition for seats increases at both schools every year and your chances significantly decreases each passing year. Odds are not in your favor.

Statistically better to move to the burbs for much better elementary and guaranteed pyramid thru high school because you will be shut out in middle. It’s a numbers game and that is the reality.

Very few people are shut out for a good middle school in DC. Try again with people who know less.

Good is relative isn’t it. My definition of good, not great, is that majority are at least on grade level or higher, so at least 51% getting 4’s and 5’s on PARCC math and ELA. This is not even high standards but very basic.

Guess if your child is performing below grade level, your definition of good may be different

I think in practice the opposite is true -- for people who ar confident that their kid will get 4s and 5s no matter what the "average" student is doing, more schools become acceptable.

I think the upper limit is more valuable than the average. If *no one* is getting 5s, that is alarming.

You obviously don’t know much because the families with kids getting 5”s at poorly performing schools are all supplementing like hell.

Or their kids are just super smart and PARCC isn't that hard.

This is hilarious. Is PP actually saying you can learn advance math by osmosis just because your kid is smart? That’s definitely not how it works with my kid who always score 95-98% in math. If the overwhelming majority of kids are below grade level and that is where the teacher is teaching, there is no way your kid is going to score a 5 without supplementing.

And why can’t the majority of kids get at least a 4 which is on grade level if PARCC is not hard?

Well, my kid score 5 at an otherwise low-scoring school and I don't supplement at home. The teacher makes some time for her. But I don't really have an explanation other than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My theory: more families who like Latin and Basis are staying in places Shaw and Petworth for DCPS elementary, and then trying for Latin/Basis.

That’s a huge mistake as competition for seats increases at both schools every year and your chances significantly decreases each passing year. Odds are not in your favor.

Statistically better to move to the burbs for much better elementary and guaranteed pyramid thru high school because you will be shut out in middle. It’s a numbers game and that is the reality.

Very few people are shut out for a good middle school in DC. Try again with people who know less.

Good is relative isn’t it. My definition of good, not great, is that majority are at least on grade level or higher, so at least 51% getting 4’s and 5’s on PARCC math and ELA. This is not even high standards but very basic.

Guess if your child is performing below grade level, your definition of good may be different

I think in practice the opposite is true -- for people who ar confident that their kid will get 4s and 5s no matter what the "average" student is doing, more schools become acceptable.

I think the upper limit is more valuable than the average. If *no one* is getting 5s, that is alarming.

You obviously don’t know much because the families with kids getting 5”s at poorly performing schools are all supplementing like hell.

Or their kids are just super smart and PARCC isn't that hard.

This is hilarious. Is PP actually saying you can learn advance math by osmosis just because your kid is smart? That’s definitely not how it works with my kid who always score 95-98% in math. If the overwhelming majority of kids are below grade level and that is where the teacher is teaching, there is no way your kid is going to score a 5 without supplementing.

And why can’t the majority of kids get at least a 4 which is on grade level if PARCC is not hard?

Well, my kid score 5 at an otherwise low-scoring school and I don't supplement at home. The teacher makes some time for her. But I don't really have an explanation other than that.

In elementary, differentiating to accommodate learners at several levels is possible, because so much of what kids learn is in a small group setting anyway. In MS/HS, this is no longer the case. But in elementary, standard approach is to group kids by level and then tailor small group lessons.

I have a kid who is above grade level in math and ELA, in a school with a lot of kids below grade level. We are always prepared to supplement and sometimes do, but she'd be challenged even if we didn't. One aspect of this I really appreciate is that often the enrichment for advanced learners is to deepen understanding, not just add skills. So my advanced reader has learned about grammar and etymology in 1st/2nd grade, not merely been handed more challenging texts (but also that). She's been offered opportunities to apply math concepts to science experiments or building small structures, not just given more advanced worksheets.

It helps to have at least 2-3 other kids in class, and you do need your advanced learner to have some ability to be independent, and no real behavioral issues, to get the most out of it. We know by MS we need a bigger cohort of advanced learners-- you aren't going to get a class that differentiates between math levels, especially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My theory: more families who like Latin and Basis are staying in places Shaw and Petworth for DCPS elementary, and then trying for Latin/Basis.

That’s a huge mistake as competition for seats increases at both schools every year and your chances significantly decreases each passing year. Odds are not in your favor.

Statistically better to move to the burbs for much better elementary and guaranteed pyramid thru high school because you will be shut out in middle. It’s a numbers game and that is the reality.

Very few people are shut out for a good middle school in DC. Try again with people who know less.

Good is relative isn’t it. My definition of good, not great, is that majority are at least on grade level or higher, so at least 51% getting 4’s and 5’s on PARCC math and ELA. This is not even high standards but very basic.

Guess if your child is performing below grade level, your definition of good may be different

I think in practice the opposite is true -- for people who ar confident that their kid will get 4s and 5s no matter what the "average" student is doing, more schools become acceptable.

I think the upper limit is more valuable than the average. If *no one* is getting 5s, that is alarming.

You obviously don’t know much because the families with kids getting 5”s at poorly performing schools are all supplementing like hell.

Or their kids are just super smart and PARCC isn't that hard.

This is hilarious. Is PP actually saying you can learn advance math by osmosis just because your kid is smart? That’s definitely not how it works with my kid who always score 95-98% in math. If the overwhelming majority of kids are below grade level and that is where the teacher is teaching, there is no way your kid is going to score a 5 without supplementing.

And why can’t the majority of kids get at least a 4 which is on grade level if PARCC is not hard?

Well, my kid score 5 at an otherwise low-scoring school and I don't supplement at home. The teacher makes some time for her. But I don't really have an explanation other than that.

In elementary, differentiating to accommodate learners at several levels is possible, because so much of what kids learn is in a small group setting anyway. In MS/HS, this is no longer the case. But in elementary, standard approach is to group kids by level and then tailor small group lessons.

I have a kid who is above grade level in math and ELA, in a school with a lot of kids below grade level. We are always prepared to supplement and sometimes do, but she'd be challenged even if we didn't. One aspect of this I really appreciate is that often the enrichment for advanced learners is to deepen understanding, not just add skills. So my advanced reader has learned about grammar and etymology in 1st/2nd grade, not merely been handed more challenging texts (but also that). She's been offered opportunities to apply math concepts to science experiments or building small structures, not just given more advanced worksheets.

It helps to have at least 2-3 other kids in class, and you do need your advanced learner to have some ability to be independent, and no real behavioral issues, to get the most out of it. We know by MS we need a bigger cohort of advanced learners-- you aren't going to get a class that differentiates between math levels, especially.

In summary, you are supplementing even with small groups

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My theory: more families who like Latin and Basis are staying in places Shaw and Petworth for DCPS elementary, and then trying for Latin/Basis.

That’s a huge mistake as competition for seats increases at both schools every year and your chances significantly decreases each passing year. Odds are not in your favor.

Statistically better to move to the burbs for much better elementary and guaranteed pyramid thru high school because you will be shut out in middle. It’s a numbers game and that is the reality.

Very few people are shut out for a good middle school in DC. Try again with people who know less.

Good is relative isn’t it. My definition of good, not great, is that majority are at least on grade level or higher, so at least 51% getting 4’s and 5’s on PARCC math and ELA. This is not even high standards but very basic.

Guess if your child is performing below grade level, your definition of good may be different

I think in practice the opposite is true -- for people who ar confident that their kid will get 4s and 5s no matter what the "average" student is doing, more schools become acceptable.

I think the upper limit is more valuable than the average. If *no one* is getting 5s, that is alarming.

You obviously don’t know much because the families with kids getting 5”s at poorly performing schools are all supplementing like hell.

Or their kids are just super smart and PARCC isn't that hard.

This is hilarious. Is PP actually saying you can learn advance math by osmosis just because your kid is smart? That’s definitely not how it works with my kid who always score 95-98% in math. If the overwhelming majority of kids are below grade level and that is where the teacher is teaching, there is no way your kid is going to score a 5 without supplementing.

And why can’t the majority of kids get at least a 4 which is on grade level if PARCC is not hard?

Well, my kid score 5 at an otherwise low-scoring school and I don't supplement at home. The teacher makes some time for her. But I don't really have an explanation other than that.

In elementary, differentiating to accommodate learners at several levels is possible, because so much of what kids learn is in a small group setting anyway. In MS/HS, this is no longer the case. But in elementary, standard approach is to group kids by level and then tailor small group lessons.

I have a kid who is above grade level in math and ELA, in a school with a lot of kids below grade level. We are always prepared to supplement and sometimes do, but she'd be challenged even if we didn't. One aspect of this I really appreciate is that often the enrichment for advanced learners is to deepen understanding, not just add skills. So my advanced reader has learned about grammar and etymology in 1st/2nd grade, not merely been handed more challenging texts (but also that). She's been offered opportunities to apply math concepts to science experiments or building small structures, not just given more advanced worksheets.

It helps to have at least 2-3 other kids in class, and you do need your advanced learner to have some ability to be independent, and no real behavioral issues, to get the most out of it. We know by MS we need a bigger cohort of advanced learners-- you aren't going to get a class that differentiates between math levels, especially.

In summary, you are supplementing even with small groups

We supplement because kid loves learning and think doing a Beast Academy workbook on a long flight is a treat, not because it's the only way to ensure she stays on grade level. But the supplementing isn't in lieu of school, it's ACTUAL supplementing where we are offering more programming outside of school because she has an interest in it and it plays to her strengths.

Do you think kids at highly rated publics or private schools never do Mathnasium or have tutors? Wrong. Parents pay for that stuff MORE at those schools because the culture encourages them to support their kids any way they can. The main difference is that a parent with a kid at a school with lots of kids at or above grade level may supplement to ensure that their kid can keep up, whereas if you are at a school with lots of kids below grade level, your concern is not whether your child can keep pace with all the below-grade-level kids.

But I have found the school does a good job of actually teaching to at and above grade level kids despite knowing there are a lot of kids in need of remedial work at the school. Though another thing I know after being at these schools is that kids like my own, who are at and above grade level and have supportive families, also wind up getting more than their share of resources, including teacher time, in part because they are the ones showing up to school everyday, actually doing assignments, etc. Many of the below grade level kids soak up a lot of administrative and SpEd resources but are not necessarily dominating classrooms. There are reasons they are so far behind, including chronic truancy and tardiness, undiagnosed special needs, and unstable home lives. They tend to spend a lot less time in classroom seats which means that a school with a lot of below grade level kids might still have classrooms where most kids are on or above grade level.

[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:My theory: more families who like Latin and Basis are staying in places Shaw and Petworth for DCPS elementary, and then trying for Latin/Basis.

That’s a huge mistake as competition for seats increases at both schools every year and your chances significantly decreases each passing year. Odds are not in your favor.

Statistically better to move to the burbs for much better elementary and guaranteed pyramid thru high school because you will be shut out in middle. It’s a numbers game and that is the reality.

Very few people are shut out for a good middle school in DC. Try again with people who know less.

Good is relative isn’t it. My definition of good, not great, is that majority are at least on grade level or higher, so at least 51% getting 4’s and 5’s on PARCC math and ELA. This is not even high standards but very basic.

Guess if your child is performing below grade level, your definition of good may be different

I think in practice the opposite is true -- for people who ar confident that their kid will get 4s and 5s no matter what the "average" student is doing, more schools become acceptable.

I think the upper limit is more valuable than the average. If *no one* is getting 5s, that is alarming.

You obviously don’t know much because the families with kids getting 5”s at poorly performing schools are all supplementing like hell.

Or their kids are just super smart and PARCC isn't that hard.

This is hilarious. Is PP actually saying you can learn advance math by osmosis just because your kid is smart? That’s definitely not how it works with my kid who always score 95-98% in math. If the overwhelming majority of kids are below grade level and that is where the teacher is teaching, there is no way your kid is going to score a 5 without supplementing.

And why can’t the majority of kids get at least a 4 which is on grade level if PARCC is not hard?

Well, my kid score 5 at an otherwise low-scoring school and I don't supplement at home. The teacher makes some time for her. But I don't really have an explanation other than that.

In elementary, differentiating to accommodate learners at several levels is possible, because so much of what kids learn is in a small group setting anyway. In MS/HS, this is no longer the case. But in elementary, standard approach is to group kids by level and then tailor small group lessons.

I have a kid who is above grade level in math and ELA, in a school with a lot of kids below grade level. We are always prepared to supplement and sometimes do, but she'd be challenged even if we didn't. One aspect of this I really appreciate is that often the enrichment for advanced learners is to deepen understanding, not just add skills. So my advanced reader has learned about grammar and etymology in 1st/2nd grade, not merely been handed more challenging texts (but also that). She's been offered opportunities to apply math concepts to science experiments or building small structures, not just given more advanced worksheets.

It helps to have at least 2-3 other kids in class, and you do need your advanced learner to have some ability to be independent, and no real behavioral issues, to get the most out of it. We know by MS we need a bigger cohort of advanced learners-- you aren't going to get a class that differentiates between math levels, especially.

In summary, you are supplementing even with small groups

We supplement because kid loves learning and think doing a Beast Academy workbook on a long flight is a treat, not because it's the only way to ensure she stays on grade level. But the supplementing isn't in lieu of school, it's ACTUAL supplementing where we are offering more programming outside of school because she has an interest in it and it plays to her strengths.

Do you think kids at highly rated publics or private schools never do Mathnasium or have tutors? Wrong. Parents pay for that stuff MORE at those schools because the culture encourages them to support their kids any way they can. The main difference is that a parent with a kid at a school with lots of kids at or above grade level may supplement to ensure that their kid can keep up, whereas if you are at a school with lots of kids below grade level, your concern is not whether your child can keep pace with all the below-grade-level kids.

But I have found the school does a good job of actually teaching to at and above grade level kids despite knowing there are a lot of kids in need of remedial work at the school. Though another thing I know after being at these schools is that kids like my own, who are at and above grade level and have supportive families, also wind up getting more than their share of resources, including teacher time, in part because they are the ones showing up to school everyday, actually doing assignments, etc. Many of the below grade level kids soak up a lot of administrative and SpEd resources but are not necessarily dominating classrooms. There are reasons they are so far behind, including chronic truancy and tardiness, undiagnosed special needs, and unstable home lives. They tend to spend a lot less time in classroom seats which means that a school with a lot of below grade level kids might still have classrooms where most kids are on or above grade level.

You are absolutely supplementing. Why are you making excuses or trying to rationalize it when you are supplementing. Your kid is doing math workbooks and beast academy no less. And depending on which workbook you are doing, your kid could be working ahead. If your kid is really in 3rd-5th grade and getting 5 on PARCC (above grade level) at a low performing school, which is what this discussion is about, it’s from the workbooks. The teacher is not teaching your kid above grade level math.

You are also deluding yourself that majority of families at higher performing schools are supplementing. They are not. They have a large enough cohort of kids to teach on grade level and above grade level. The few kids who are below grade level might get pulled out for extra support. I have friends in good school pyramids in VA so I know. Now families with kids below grade level will use mathnasium or tutors to help their kids. You also have tiger parents who will supplement no matter what but they are not the majority. Also sure, it’s not hard for your kid to be the big fish in the ocean but put her in a higher performing school, and she will be in somewhere in the 50-70% and not the top. How do I know because I know families who moved WOTP from EOTP.

Lastly, why don’t you name your school where all these below grade level kids are not showing up and there are a lot of on and above grade level kids only. I’ll wait…

[Anonymous]

You first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You first.

No surprises here. Trying to deflect. PP is the one making claims and statements and when asked to ID the school, no response but deflection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, DCI feeder data. Overall this indicates that there is a little bit of room for non-feeder kids, but not very much, and if don't have some kind of preference it's tremendously unlikely.

Yu Ying: 70 allocated slots at DCI (basing these on the presentation I saw at a DCI open house). 48 YY kids matched with DCI (15 were siblings). Nobody waitlisted. For the non-YY Chinese track, 8 seats offered and matched, 5 siblings and 3 no preference.

Stokes French: 20 seats at DCI. At Brookland, 10 matches and 8 kids waitlisted. 6 matches were siblings. At East End, 10 matches and 2 waitlisted, none were siblings. For non-feeder French, 2 seats offered and matched, both siblings.

Stokes Spanish: 20 seats at DCI. At Brookland, 16 matches and 2 waitlisted. 6 were siblings. At East End, 4 matches and 0 waitlisted, none siblings. I'm curious why the French was 10/10 and the Spanish split 16/4, I guess they pre-set it based on what they expect the demand to be?

MV: 70 slots at DCI. 56 DCI seats offered at 54 matched. 8 were siblings. So that indicates 2 kids could have matched with DCI, but didn't.

LAMB: 50 slots at DCI. 34 seats offered, 33 matches (14 siblings).

DCB: 50 slots at DCI. 50 matches (24 were siblings) and 8 waitlisted.

For non-feeder Spanish, 3 seats offered and matched, all siblings.
It will be interesting to cross this data with the OSSE enrollment audit data to see the size of the 5th grade classes.

It's also interesting how the special DCI preferences "Sibling Attending - DCI Member" and "Sibling Offered - DCI Member" seem to not be utilized at all.

Interesting. Really wondering whether it’s worth putting up with another year of lamb’s bullshit to keep our feeder spot at DCI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, DCI feeder data. Overall this indicates that there is a little bit of room for non-feeder kids, but not very much, and if don't have some kind of preference it's tremendously unlikely.

Yu Ying: 70 allocated slots at DCI (basing these on the presentation I saw at a DCI open house). 48 YY kids matched with DCI (15 were siblings). Nobody waitlisted. For the non-YY Chinese track, 8 seats offered and matched, 5 siblings and 3 no preference.

Stokes French: 20 seats at DCI. At Brookland, 10 matches and 8 kids waitlisted. 6 matches were siblings. At East End, 10 matches and 2 waitlisted, none were siblings. For non-feeder French, 2 seats offered and matched, both siblings.

Stokes Spanish: 20 seats at DCI. At Brookland, 16 matches and 2 waitlisted. 6 were siblings. At East End, 4 matches and 0 waitlisted, none siblings. I'm curious why the French was 10/10 and the Spanish split 16/4, I guess they pre-set it based on what they expect the demand to be?

MV: 70 slots at DCI. 56 DCI seats offered at 54 matched. 8 were siblings. So that indicates 2 kids could have matched with DCI, but didn't.

LAMB: 50 slots at DCI. 34 seats offered, 33 matches (14 siblings).

DCB: 50 slots at DCI. 50 matches (24 were siblings) and 8 waitlisted.

For non-feeder Spanish, 3 seats offered and matched, all siblings.
It will be interesting to cross this data with the OSSE enrollment audit data to see the size of the 5th grade classes.

It's also interesting how the special DCI preferences "Sibling Attending - DCI Member" and "Sibling Offered - DCI Member" seem to not be utilized at all.

Interesting. Really wondering whether it’s worth putting up with another year of lamb’s bullshit to keep our feeder spot at DCI.

I think the no duh answer is that this depends on your options.