Anonymous wrote:

Citywide, hispanics outperformed blacks on math (28 vs 21) and ELA (32 vs 25), and for many of these kids, English is their second language. Ouch.

These numbers are absolutely atrocious.

I find this fact fascinating. My theory is that the predominance of AAVE (African American Vernacular English) as the dominant home language of much of DCPS AA population has a dramatic negative effect on ELA scores. While teachers may correct grammar in written work, but they are not doing it relentlessly in the classroom because to do so in DCPS would immediately get you labelled a racist. The Latino kids are learning English from television and from teachers, so while they may pick up their own grammatical bad habits from their AA peers, since many schools with large Latino populations also have large AA populations, they still aren't being double-exposed to bad grammar both at school AND at home.

And yes, there are lots and lots of SES factors such as poverty, no value placed on education etc. which factor in as well, but teachers will not hesitate to correct the grammar of a child who comes from a non-English speaking home, but many (perhaps most) will not do it with an AA child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Citywide, hispanics outperformed blacks on math (28 vs 21) and ELA (32 vs 25), and for many of these kids, English is their second language. Ouch.

These numbers are absolutely atrocious.

I find this fact fascinating. My theory is that the predominance of AAVE (African American Vernacular English) as the dominant home language of much of DCPS AA population has a dramatic negative effect on ELA scores. While teachers may correct grammar in written work, but they are not doing it relentlessly in the classroom because to do so in DCPS would immediately get you labelled a racist. The Latino kids are learning English from television and from teachers, so while they may pick up their own grammatical bad habits from their AA peers, since many schools with large Latino populations also have large AA populations, they still aren't being double-exposed to bad grammar both at school AND at home.

And yes, there are lots and lots of SES factors such as poverty, no value placed on education etc. which factor in as well, but teachers will not hesitate to correct the grammar of a child who comes from a non-English speaking home, but many (perhaps most) will not do it with an AA child.

Is this based in any sort of fact, or is it your complete fantasy?

Anonymous wrote:

Citywide, hispanics outperformed blacks on math (28 vs 21) and ELA (32 vs 25), and for many of these kids, English is their second language. Ouch.

These numbers are absolutely atrocious.

I find this fact fascinating. My theory is that the predominance of AAVE (African American Vernacular English) as the dominant home language of much of DCPS AA population has a dramatic negative effect on ELA scores. While teachers may correct grammar in written work, but they are not doing it relentlessly in the classroom because to do so in DCPS would immediately get you labelled a racist. The Latino kids are learning English from television and from teachers, so while they may pick up their own grammatical bad habits from their AA peers, since many schools with large Latino populations also have large AA populations, they still aren't being double-exposed to bad grammar both at school AND at home.

And yes, there are lots and lots of SES factors such as poverty, no value placed on education etc. which factor in as well, but teachers will not hesitate to correct the grammar of a child who comes from a non-English speaking home, but many (perhaps most) will not do it with an AA child.

Citywide, hispanics outperformed blacks on math (28 vs 21) and ELA (32 vs 25), and for many of these kids, English is their second language. Ouch.

These numbers are absolutely atrocious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No educated opinions on why Murch can't keep it together? The answer can't be that it has a couple self-contained classrooms -- it always has. This isn't a new factor that explains persistent, relatively poor performance

The at-risk percentage is much higher at Murch. The percentage of at-risk students is so small at most of its neighbor schools it isn't even tracked.

Murch 14%
Janney (not tracked)
Lafayette 3.3%
Mann (not tracked)
Hearst 6%
Key not tracked
Eaton 6%
Shepherd 13%
Oyster Adams 10%

There is a lot of overlap between the individuals who are counted as "at risk" and the individuals in the self-contained classrooms. Which, again, have been present all along in Murch for many years as its relative position has dropped compared to the schools listed above, plus a list of schools closer to downtown with even higher percentages of at-risk kids.

I just looked at the linked dashboard and don't see a dramatic drop over the years from the data they show. There seems to have been a problem with the 5th grade math this year which is odd since the same teacher has been there for a long time. In additional that cohort scored highly as 4th graders so something happened there. But over all there was a mild dip in scores which most of the schools listed above have had before too. Example Janney Math 2014-2015 and reading 2015-2016. I don't see a massive issue or 10 years of dropping scores which should alarm parents.

Anonymous wrote:

I don't see a massive issue or 10 years of dropping scores which should alarm parents.

That's not the issue; no one is suggesting that Murch's absolute scores are inexorably "dropping" year-to-year. They're still "eh," while the neighbors keep improving, pushing Murch way down in the rankings. Neighbors that look just like Murch, somewhat like Murch (Eaton), not really much like Murch (Hearst, Ross) and not at all like Murch (Ludlow-Taylor).

I understand that no one wants to trash talk their own school, I wouldn't either. But maybe someone with knowledge is feeling candid

I don't see a massive issue or 10 years of dropping scores which should alarm parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No educated opinions on why Murch can't keep it together? The answer can't be that it has a couple self-contained classrooms -- it always has. This isn't a new factor that explains persistent, relatively poor performance

The at-risk percentage is much higher at Murch. The percentage of at-risk students is so small at most of its neighbor schools it isn't even tracked.

Murch 14%
Janney (not tracked)
Lafayette 3.3%
Mann (not tracked)
Hearst 6%
Key not tracked
Eaton 6%
Shepherd 13%
Oyster Adams 10%

There is a lot of overlap between the individuals who are counted as "at risk" and the individuals in the self-contained classrooms. Which, again, have been present all along in Murch for many years as its relative position has dropped compared to the schools listed above, plus a list of schools closer to downtown with even higher percentages of at-risk kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No educated opinions on why Murch can't keep it together? The answer can't be that it has a couple self-contained classrooms -- it always has. This isn't a new factor that explains persistent, relatively poor performance

The at-risk percentage is much higher at Murch. The percentage of at-risk students is so small at most of its neighbor schools it isn't even tracked.

Murch 14%
Janney (not tracked)
Lafayette 3.3%
Mann (not tracked)
Hearst 6%
Key not tracked
Eaton 6%
Shepherd 13%
Oyster Adams 10%

There is a lot of overlap between the individuals who are counted as "at risk" and the individuals in the self-contained classrooms. Which, again, have been present all along in Murch for many years as its relative position has dropped compared to the schools listed above, plus a list of schools closer to downtown with even higher percentages of at-risk kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No educated opinions on why Murch can't keep it together? The answer can't be that it has a couple self-contained classrooms -- it always has. This isn't a new factor that explains persistent, relatively poor performance

The at-risk percentage is much higher at Murch. The percentage of at-risk students is so small at most of its neighbor schools it isn't even tracked.

Murch 14%
Janney (not tracked)
Lafayette 3.3%
Mann (not tracked)
Hearst 6%
Key not tracked
Eaton 6%
Shepherd 13%
Oyster Adams 10%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No educated opinions on why Murch can't keep it together? The answer can't be that it has a couple self-contained classrooms -- it always has. This isn't a new factor that explains persistent, relatively poor performance

Definitely need to keep your kids out of Murch. Terrible school, just terrible.

Deflection! So what's the answer to the question?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No educated opinions on why Murch can't keep it together? The answer can't be that it has a couple self-contained classrooms -- it always has. This isn't a new factor that explains persistent, relatively poor performance

Definitely need to keep your kids out of Murch. Terrible school, just terrible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So where is the achievement gap below 40 or 50%?

At Oyster-Adams, the black/white achievement gap in ELA is 12%; however it’s 32% in math.

There is essentially no black/white achievement gap at Ross: 4% in ELA and 0% in Math. DCPS needs to bottle and replicate whatever is going on at Ross!

I wonder—are the black kids at Ross high SES or something? Since we know a lot of this boils down to SES differences?

Probably, but aren’t most of the black kids at Janney, Key, Mann, Murch, etc...also high SES? Those schools all have much larger achievement gaps than Ross.

No. I have 3 kids at Janney. The black kid population is probably only 25% middle to high SES (and some of this 25% is black kids adopted by white neighborhood families). The rest (75%) of the black kids are out of boundary
and lower (to very low) SES. And because it's Janney the the gulf between high and low is HUGE. To buy in AU Park now you have to afford 1.2 million+. The families in the younger grades are all really wealthy--they're no longer even dual feds, they're law partners.
The economic gulf between them and the black kids coming from across the park is massive.

How do you know all the black kid’s SES? Sounds like a lot of prejudging. I have a lot of black friends OOB at Janney. My son’s best friend is black rising 5th. All of his black peers that come to his birthday party come from two HHI families with great jobs. Live in Shepherd Park, Crestwood, 16th St Heights.

There were 736 students at Janney last year. Putting aside race, only 22 students in the entire school were economically disadvantaged, and fewer than 10 students were at risk.

There were ~184 non-white students at Janney. Most of them are not poor.

There is racial bias in education -- because there is racial bias in our society. Period.

If you think "racial bias in education" is the reason for the ABYSMAL average PARCC scores of DC's black kids, you are an enabler and part of the problem.

NP. Racial bias in education does exist, whether or not you want to acknowledge it. It may not be the only reason for the achievement gap, but it's a significant issue in schools across the country. Your refusal to recognize that makes YOU part of the problem.

Until we start recognizing the very real problems poor black children face in this city and actually doing something about it, we are still going to see this kind of total failure in their education. Sure, racial bias exists, but these kids are failing because they’re hungry, they’re plopped in front of a TV all day long, their parents either can’t or don’t prioritize education and enrichment, they’re in unsafe environments etc.

-NP