Last night’s open house at ITS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This entire 'social justice' line of conversation is ridiculous. Seriously. The school looks very diverse to me and every school in the city has its own strengths and weaknesses. Can we get back to talking academics?

Sure. White kids do ok on PARCC at ITS, but not as well as at other charter or DCPS schools with similar demographics.

Kids who are not white do a bit worse than they do at schools with similar demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire 'social justice' line of conversation is ridiculous. Seriously. The school looks very diverse to me and every school in the city has its own strengths and weaknesses. Can we get back to talking academics?

Sure. White kids do ok on PARCC at ITS, but not as well as at other charter or DCPS schools with similar demographics.

Kids who are not white do a bit worse than they do at schools with similar demographics.

Thats very helpful. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

As part of the regular 5-year review cycle, the PCSB does unannounced visits to schools and produces a "Qualitative Site Review" (QSR) based on what they observe in the classroom.

ITS' last review was in 2015. This is obviously a snapshot, but these are good reports to review for any school.

Here's a link to ITS' QSR. http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/Inspired%20Teaching%20QSR%20fall%202015%20-%20revised_Redacted.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire 'social justice' line of conversation is ridiculous. Seriously. The school looks very diverse to me and every school in the city has its own strengths and weaknesses. Can we get back to talking academics?

Sure. White kids do ok on PARCC at ITS, but not as well as at other charter or DCPS schools with similar demographics.

Kids who are not white do a bit worse than they do at schools with similar demographics.

Thats very helpful. Thank you.

Also, math seems to be weaker than ELA. http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2017-11-8%20PMF%20Score%20Card%20SY16-17_Inspired%20Teaching%20Demonstration%20PCS_2017.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This entire 'social justice' line of conversation is ridiculous. Seriously. The school looks very diverse to me and every school in the city has its own strengths and weaknesses. Can we get back to talking academics?

Agree. That poster seems more interested in scoring rhetorical points than in actually thinking through the issues. And the issue is quite clear - the disparate test score results. The question is can a school that doesn't have the very strict "drill and kill" orientation of a DC Prep or a KIPP bring up test scores for at risk kids? Or can a more intensive academic program be mixed with the fuzzier social emotional/expeditionary/montessori/immersion/whatever the flavor-of-the-day is for UMC charters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire 'social justice' line of conversation is ridiculous. Seriously. The school looks very diverse to me and every school in the city has its own strengths and weaknesses. Can we get back to talking academics?

Agree. That poster seems more interested in scoring rhetorical points than in actually thinking through the issues. And the issue is quite clear - the disparate test score results. The question is can a school that doesn't have the very strict "drill and kill" orientation of a DC Prep or a KIPP bring up test scores for at risk kids? Or can a more intensive academic program be mixed with the fuzzier social emotional/expeditionary/montessori/immersion/whatever the flavor-of-the-day is for UMC charters?

These are the schools (public, charter, ES through HS) where at-risk kids' proficiencies are improving the most. http://www.empowerk12.org/2017-dc-parcc-dashboard.html

The "HRCs" elementary schools are mostly missing from the list. YY's gaps are 23 in ELA; 27 in Math. CMI's gaps are 45/66. LAMB and DCB don't have enough white or black students in testing grades to report their scores publicly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire 'social justice' line of conversation is ridiculous. Seriously. The school looks very diverse to me and every school in the city has its own strengths and weaknesses. Can we get back to talking academics?

Sure. White kids do ok on PARCC at ITS, but not as well as at other charter or DCPS schools with similar demographics.

Kids who are not white do a bit worse than they do at schools with similar demographics.

That is fascinating. Does anyone know why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire 'social justice' line of conversation is ridiculous. Seriously. The school looks very diverse to me and every school in the city has its own strengths and weaknesses. Can we get back to talking academics?

Sure. White kids do ok on PARCC at ITS, but not as well as at other charter or DCPS schools with similar demographics.

Kids who are not white do a bit worse than they do at schools with similar demographics.

That is fascinating. Does anyone know why?

Shouldn't we be asking their expert teachers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire 'social justice' line of conversation is ridiculous. Seriously. The school looks very diverse to me and every school in the city has its own strengths and weaknesses. Can we get back to talking academics?

Agree. That poster seems more interested in scoring rhetorical points than in actually thinking through the issues. And the issue is quite clear - the disparate test score results. The question is can a school that doesn't have the very strict "drill and kill" orientation of a DC Prep or a KIPP bring up test scores for at risk kids? Or can a more intensive academic program be mixed with the fuzzier social emotional/expeditionary/montessori/immersion/whatever the flavor-of-the-day is for UMC charters?

These are the schools (public, charter, ES through HS) where at-risk kids' proficiencies are improving the most. http://www.empowerk12.org/2017-dc-parcc-dashboard.html

The "HRCs" elementary schools are mostly missing from the list. YY's gaps are 23 in ELA; 27 in Math. CMI's gaps are 45/66. LAMB and DCB don't have enough white or black students in testing grades to report their scores publicly.

DC Bilingual is doing well with at-risk and minority kids.
KIPP and DC Prep do very well with at-risk and black students.

They do not do child-led or expeditionary learning, but there is more social-emotional work happening than people give them credit for.

The school day, and school year is longer at both KIPP and DC Prep, but at KIPP it isn't as long as it used to be (Saturday school is gone).

[Anonymous]

What the PP is saying is that both white and non-white kids at ITS do worse on PARCC than do kids at schools with similar demographics.

In part it's because the school (really) doesn't teach to the test. Which is something that many (particularly high-SES) parents say that they want, but it also means that the kids don't spend a lot of time doing practice tests or keyboarding or learning the specific types of strategies to answer the questions that are most likely to be found on PARCC tests.

The school is doing more to build those skills during lessons - incorporating computers into lessons at earlier grades, teaching typing, using iReady for math instruction (because that gets kids accustomed to solving math problems on computers). As recently as a couple of years ago, the school hadn't exposed 3rd graders to typing, while the PARCC assessment for that grade was entirely computer-based and required some short answer essays.

ITS is still a young and growing school. As a parent, I see the school learning and adapting and trying to improve at serving all kids well - but part of being a demonstration school is experimenting, trying new things, and learning from mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the PP is saying is that both white and non-white kids at ITS do worse on PARCC than do kids at schools with similar demographics.

In part it's because the school (really) doesn't teach to the test. Which is something that many (particularly high-SES) parents say that they want, but it also means that the kids don't spend a lot of time doing practice tests or keyboarding or learning the specific types of strategies to answer the questions that are most likely to be found on PARCC tests.

The school is doing more to build those skills during lessons - incorporating computers into lessons at earlier grades, teaching typing, using iReady for math instruction (because that gets kids accustomed to solving math problems on computers). As recently as a couple of years ago, the school hadn't exposed 3rd graders to typing, while the PARCC assessment for that grade was entirely computer-based and required some short answer essays.

ITS is still a young and growing school. As a parent, I see the school learning and adapting and trying to improve at serving all kids well - but part of being a demonstration school is experimenting, trying new things, and learning from mistakes.

This sounds terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the PP is saying is that both white and non-white kids at ITS do worse on PARCC than do kids at schools with similar demographics.

In part it's because the school (really) doesn't teach to the test. Which is something that many (particularly high-SES) parents say that they want, but it also means that the kids don't spend a lot of time doing practice tests or keyboarding or learning the specific types of strategies to answer the questions that are most likely to be found on PARCC tests.

The school is doing more to build those skills during lessons - incorporating computers into lessons at earlier grades, teaching typing, using iReady for math instruction (because that gets kids accustomed to solving math problems on computers). As recently as a couple of years ago, the school hadn't exposed 3rd graders to typing, while the PARCC assessment for that grade was entirely computer-based and required some short answer essays.

ITS is still a young and growing school. As a parent, I see the school learning and adapting and trying to improve at serving all kids well - but part of being a demonstration school is experimenting, trying new things, and learning from mistakes.

This sounds terrible.

It really isn't.

-Parent of middle and high school kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the PP is saying is that both white and non-white kids at ITS do worse on PARCC than do kids at schools with similar demographics.

In part it's because the school (really) doesn't teach to the test. Which is something that many (particularly high-SES) parents say that they want, but it also means that the kids don't spend a lot of time doing practice tests or keyboarding or learning the specific types of strategies to answer the questions that are most likely to be found on PARCC tests.

The school is doing more to build those skills during lessons - incorporating computers into lessons at earlier grades, teaching typing, using iReady for math instruction (because that gets kids accustomed to solving math problems on computers). As recently as a couple of years ago, the school hadn't exposed 3rd graders to typing, while the PARCC assessment for that grade was entirely computer-based and required some short answer essays.

ITS is still a young and growing school. As a parent, I see the school learning and adapting and trying to improve at serving all kids well - but part of being a demonstration school is experimenting, trying new things, and learning from mistakes.

This sounds terrible.

spare me. if you want an artisinal, tech-free education, you can start Ye Olde Hornbook PCS. A little practice on tech is not going to hurt your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire 'social justice' line of conversation is ridiculous. Seriously. The school looks very diverse to me and every school in the city has its own strengths and weaknesses. Can we get back to talking academics?

Agree. That poster seems more interested in scoring rhetorical points than in actually thinking through the issues. And the issue is quite clear - the disparate test score results. The question is can a school that doesn't have the very strict "drill and kill" orientation of a DC Prep or a KIPP bring up test scores for at risk kids? Or can a more intensive academic program be mixed with the fuzzier social emotional/expeditionary/montessori/immersion/whatever the flavor-of-the-day is for UMC charters?

These are the schools (public, charter, ES through HS) where at-risk kids' proficiencies are improving the most. http://www.empowerk12.org/2017-dc-parcc-dashboard.html

The "HRCs" elementary schools are mostly missing from the list. YY's gaps are 23 in ELA; 27 in Math. CMI's gaps are 45/66. LAMB and DCB don't have enough white or black students in testing grades to report their scores publicly.

DC Bilingual is doing well with at-risk and minority kids.
KIPP and DC Prep do very well with at-risk and black students.

They do not do child-led or expeditionary learning, but there is more social-emotional work happening than people give them credit for.

The school day, and school year is longer at both KIPP and DC Prep, but at KIPP it isn't as long as it used to be (Saturday school is gone).

Chamberlain PCS is one of the schools cited above as making huge gains with at-risk kids. Which is great, yet their social-emotional approach is likely very incompatible with a school like ITS. Our babysitter use to take them to the playground near there and she said she'd always see lots of kids lined up at the fence who had had recess taken away, every day. It would be nice if there could be some cross-fertilization between the two approaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the PP is saying is that both white and non-white kids at ITS do worse on PARCC than do kids at schools with similar demographics.

In part it's because the school (really) doesn't teach to the test. Which is something that many (particularly high-SES) parents say that they want, but it also means that the kids don't spend a lot of time doing practice tests or keyboarding or learning the specific types of strategies to answer the questions that are most likely to be found on PARCC tests.

The school is doing more to build those skills during lessons - incorporating computers into lessons at earlier grades, teaching typing, using iReady for math instruction (because that gets kids accustomed to solving math problems on computers). As recently as a couple of years ago, the school hadn't exposed 3rd graders to typing, while the PARCC assessment for that grade was entirely computer-based and required some short answer essays.

ITS is still a young and growing school. As a parent, I see the school learning and adapting and trying to improve at serving all kids well - but part of being a demonstration school is experimenting, trying new things, and learning from mistakes.

This sounds terrible.

Tell that to the people on this thread who are complaining about PARCC scores. You can't have it both ways.