Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is that tier 1 if they're not learning the language well and the test scores are pretty low for such a wealthy student body?

There are some well-off families at Yu Ying, but it's not a "wealthy student body" in the sense of the upper NW DCPS schools. Most of the YY families are priced out of the JKLM markets and live in relatively poorer parts of the city -- they're closer to "actual middle class" than to "DC middle class." While the school's FARM numbers may be in line with the JKLM schools, the "middle 50%" is not nearly as well off.

So, now we're supposed to accept the fact that a school's student body is upper middle class, but not "DCUM upper middle class" as a reason to adjust our expectations? Like living in Brookland in a home that's only worth 3/4 of a million, and being driven around in a Honda instead of a BMW is such hardship that it impacts kids' learning?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is that tier 1 if they're not learning the language well and the test scores are pretty low for such a wealthy student body?

Read the PMF reports.

Language proficiency isn't a criteria. And you don't get marked up or down for test scores based on the schools SES levels.

So tier 1 can basically mean that you've managed to attract high SES parents, but don't provide a better than average education?

The inputs are:

Proficiency in PARCC
Percentage if students who improve on PARCC year over year
Support / training for teachers
Student retention
Attendance

YY has relatively high PARCC scores for a public charter school in the city and the scores are better than most DCPS schools in the city.

YY has relatively low PARCC scores for a public school in DC with similar demographics.

Which schools are you putting in Yu Ying's "demographic basket"?

Not even the top tier but take Eaton as an example in the 70% range compared to Yu Ying in the 50% range and it has almost double the percentage of at-risk. Are you really OK with sending your kid to a school where they're only 50% likely to be proficient?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is that tier 1 if they're not learning the language well and the test scores are pretty low for such a wealthy student body?

Read the PMF reports.

Language proficiency isn't a criteria. And you don't get marked up or down for test scores based on the schools SES levels.

So tier 1 can basically mean that you've managed to attract high SES parents, but don't provide a better than average education?

The inputs are:

Proficiency in PARCC
Percentage if students who improve on PARCC year over year
Support / training for teachers
Student retention
Attendance

YY has relatively high PARCC scores for a public charter school in the city and the scores are better than most DCPS schools in the city.

YY has relatively low PARCC scores for a public school in DC with similar demographics.

Which schools are you putting in Yu Ying's "demographic basket"?

Anonymous wrote:I work at an international school in another country, and all kids here are required to take a daily class in the "host language", taught by a local-hire native speaker, plus most specials are taught by native speakers of the local language and they use the language in this time. And then most of the American kids also take lessons/are on teams in the community in which the coaches/teammates speak only the native language, and English isn't widely spoken in this city, so there is additional daily "real life" exposure to the native language.

Yet the ONLY American kids--even among those who are now in high school and have been here since elementary--who speak the native language fluently are the ones who have one parent who is a native speaker of that language.

Our admin is currently troubled by this because last year we added the AP class for the local language, and all the American kids bombed it even with all of the extra AP lessons they were having to supplement all of their other exposure/lessons.

So I doubt a school in America in which the kids only get the second language via some teachers during the school day are going to ever be fluent in that language.

This has absolutely been my opinion of language immersion schools. If the language is not spoken in the home, it will never be learned well and retained into adulthood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is that tier 1 if they're not learning the language well and the test scores are pretty low for such a wealthy student body?

Read the PMF reports.

Language proficiency isn't a criteria. And you don't get marked up or down for test scores based on the schools SES levels.

So tier 1 can basically mean that you've managed to attract high SES parents, but don't provide a better than average education?

The inputs are:

Proficiency in PARCC
Percentage if students who improve on PARCC year over year
Support / training for teachers
Student retention
Attendance

YY has relatively high PARCC scores for a public charter school in the city and the scores are better than most DCPS schools in the city.

YY has relatively low PARCC scores for a public school in DC with similar demographics.

There's this myth that kids learn languages easily and quickly. People think it's some magic thing, and kids will become fluent overnight.

In reality, learning a language is a slow difficult process for everyone. For kids who move to America not speaking English, it takes on average 7 years for them to become fluent. That's 7 years with full time classroom instruction, social immersion (e.g. kids using the language on the playground, on the soccer team, etc . . . ) and environmental immersion (e.g. using the language at the grocery store, hearing it on TV, etc . . . ).

And yet, we're surprised that it takes even longer for kids in immersion programs to do the same thing, when they're getting a small fraction of what those kids are getting.

If Yu Ying is getting 5th graders to the equivalent of the end of 2nd year of college, then keep in mind that that's the same point as the end of 4 year in High School (or ready to start AP study), or the end of 8 years at the pace we teach in middle school. That's a huge head start. If they can go on and get the equivalent of another year of college during middle school, then they're entering high school at a much much higher level than the kids who either start a language in high school, or have a few classes a week in elementary school..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is that tier 1 if they're not learning the language well and the test scores are pretty low for such a wealthy student body?

Read the PMF reports.

Language proficiency isn't a criteria. And you don't get marked up or down for test scores based on the schools SES levels.

So tier 1 can basically mean that you've managed to attract high SES parents, but don't provide a better than average education?

The inputs are:

Proficiency in PARCC
Percentage if students who improve on PARCC year over year
Support / training for teachers
Student retention
Attendance

YY has relatively high PARCC scores for a public charter school in the city and the scores are better than most DCPS schools in the city.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is that tier 1 if they're not learning the language well and the test scores are pretty low for such a wealthy student body?

There are some well-off families at Yu Ying, but it's not a "wealthy student body" in the sense of the upper NW DCPS schools. Most of the YY families are priced out of the JKLM markets and live in relatively poorer parts of the city -- they're closer to "actual middle class" than to "DC middle class." While the school's FARM numbers may be in line with the JKLM schools, the "middle 50%" is not nearly as well off.

"actual middle class" test well also so that's not really saying much

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is that tier 1 if they're not learning the language well and the test scores are pretty low for such a wealthy student body?

Read the PMF reports.

Language proficiency isn't a criteria. And you don't get marked up or down for test scores based on the schools SES levels.

So tier 1 can basically mean that you've managed to attract high SES parents, but don't provide a better than average education?

Anonymous wrote:How is that tier 1 if they're not learning the language well and the test scores are pretty low for such a wealthy student body?

There are some well-off families at Yu Ying, but it's not a "wealthy student body" in the sense of the upper NW DCPS schools. Most of the YY families are priced out of the JKLM markets and live in relatively poorer parts of the city -- they're closer to "actual middle class" than to "DC middle class." While the school's FARM numbers may be in line with the JKLM schools, the "middle 50%" is not nearly as well off.

I work at an international school in another country, and all kids here are required to take a daily class in the "host language", taught by a local-hire native speaker, plus most specials are taught by native speakers of the local language and they use the language in this time. And then most of the American kids also take lessons/are on teams in the community in which the coaches/teammates speak only the native language, and English isn't widely spoken in this city, so there is additional daily "real life" exposure to the native language.

Yet the ONLY American kids--even among those who are now in high school and have been here since elementary--who speak the native language fluently are the ones who have one parent who is a native speaker of that language.

Our admin is currently troubled by this because last year we added the AP class for the local language, and all the American kids bombed it even with all of the extra AP lessons they were having to supplement all of their other exposure/lessons.

So I doubt a school in America in which the kids only get the second language via some teachers during the school day are going to ever be fluent in that language.

Anonymous wrote:How is that tier 1 if they're not learning the language well and the test scores are pretty low for such a wealthy student body?

Read the PMF reports.

Language proficiency isn't a criteria. And you don't get marked up or down for test scores based on the schools SES levels.

How is that tier 1 if they're not learning the language well and the test scores are pretty low for such a wealthy student body?

In this year's 5th grade (so mostly kids who had one year of full immersion in PK4 but did not have the PK3 now offered), I'd say 5-10% speak well and another 10-15% speak reasonably well. Definitely no more than a quarter of the class falls into those two categories -- and many, but certainly not all, of those kids have a Mandarin-speaking parent. I'd say another quarter of the class is unable to converse beyond the level you describe. The "middle 50%" can get the gist of what is being said a fair amount of the time, and usually can respond appropriately if awkwardly (like someone who is currently at the end of their second year of studying a language in college; maybe the beginning of their third year).

What's your experience? My limited experience has been that the one student I met could kind of use "trick phrases" almost like you would use walking into a restaurant, getting on the train, or insulting fellow elementary students, and little else - - to me that's really underwhelming, but I don't want to draw final conclusions based on that.

If it's one way or the other in your experience - why do you think it is?