Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMI scored very high on emotional support in the classroom (over 90%). While it scored very low on K-2 math, it scored high on preschool math, preschool reading or K-2 reading. I was surprised that the math scores drop that much from preschool to K-2, considering that the younger program should be well-established by now.

However, I was not surprised that the upper grades do not do well at CMI. I visited the program and the school mission seems well integrated with a focus on the whole child, teamwork, and communication, but there seems to be no "meat" to the school in terms of math, science, academics, or even grammar. The upper grades suffer the most from this lack of academic rigor interwoven with the "feel good" mission of the school

I am a happy CMI parent and thrilled to be Tier 2. We are over-sold by a few Koolaid moms as "academically rigorous" when it's not true. Those of us who like the small, quiet, non-academic environment lose out as new families expect more "math, science, academics, or even grammar." I don't need the academics to improve. I would prefer CMI to focus on emotional support. We are not at CMI despite the academics, but instead, we are at CMI because they don't focus or do academics, and we are not the only family that feels that way. The increased in testing that I've seen over the years at CMI is upsetting since that's not why we went there in the first place.

How do you completely discard "academics"? It is a school, after all. While the testing-and-worksheet grind really worry me for my rising K student, I'm not willing to say that I don't care anything at all about learning math and English for his whole elementary career.

I think a lot of families are there that are of the "unschooling" mentality but don't want to put in the effort of homeschooling. CMI offers that free, student-led, somewhat disorganized (but safe) environment. Students are emotionally cared for, but academics are just not a concern.

I do think that the students who suffer the most are the upper grades, but I can definitely see why it's an ideal place for preschool-3rd. I have even heard preschool parents complain about the academics that they do there -- the families at CMI are looking for a bubble outside of today's rat races.

It's not for everyone, but the families at CMI seem to love it. I do wonder about the middle school and future high school, but if you have heard of the Fairhaven school, it is similar and it DOES (surprisingly) seem to work through high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with recommendation to look at the two page reports - especially second page. For example, DCI overall score is a bit higher than Basis, but 8th grade math college/career readiness at Basis (83.9%) much higher than DCI (31%).

What? That makes no sense. How can the overall school for DCI be higher with a math score of 31%? That's troubling.

The charts are pretty clear.

Kids at DCI improved more over time -- maybe the BASIS kids didn't show as much growth because they started out 'more proficient?'

And the promotion eligibility number for BASIS (80%) meant they got a 5/10 on that measure vs. a 10/10 for DCI.

Exactly, these ratings are meant to be more holistic than simply test scores. I think it's pretty well thought out and a great example for other folks who try to rank schools (looking at you, greatschools!).

Growth over time matters as much as raw passage rates, unless the raw passage rates are unconscionably low. And these ratings reflect that.

Happy BASIS parent here. I agree and don't think BASIS should be knocked down for a consistent high performance. However, I find it troubling that there is a low re-enrollment number compared to many of the other schools. Why is that?

Because of the no social promotion/have to pass all your comps policy. More students at BASIS than other schools end up repeating 6th, 7th or 8th grade because they failed one or more classes or final exams and didn't pass the re-take in August.
It

I agree with that policy and don't believe in the all A's (or all medals on the sports team) grades of today. BASIS does everything to to support its students so that they pass with extra opportunities and tutors. But maybe, there can be an alternative (remedial) path at BASIS where students repeat the classes they fail without repeating the grade. It'd be difficult to figure out a schedule but perhaps possible. My student finds BASIS "easy" (not bragging -- any intelligence is not from my side of the family), but I would pull out to avoid repeating the grade, too. Why not -- every student in that school is advanced compared to another school?

You can repeat a math class without repeating the grade. And there is some flexibility/room for individual cases per the student handbook. http://www.basisdc.org/parent-student-handbook.aspx But that's a whole other thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMI scored very high on emotional support in the classroom (over 90%). While it scored very low on K-2 math, it scored high on preschool math, preschool reading or K-2 reading. I was surprised that the math scores drop that much from preschool to K-2, considering that the younger program should be well-established by now.

However, I was not surprised that the upper grades do not do well at CMI. I visited the program and the school mission seems well integrated with a focus on the whole child, teamwork, and communication, but there seems to be no "meat" to the school in terms of math, science, academics, or even grammar. The upper grades suffer the most from this lack of academic rigor interwoven with the "feel good" mission of the school

I am a happy CMI parent and thrilled to be Tier 2. We are over-sold by a few Koolaid moms as "academically rigorous" when it's not true. Those of us who like the small, quiet, non-academic environment lose out as new families expect more "math, science, academics, or even grammar." I don't need the academics to improve. I would prefer CMI to focus on emotional support. We are not at CMI despite the academics, but instead, we are at CMI because they don't focus or do academics, and we are not the only family that feels that way. The increased in testing that I've seen over the years at CMI is upsetting since that's not why we went there in the first place.

So what is your plan for upper elementary/middle/high/college? When do you want your child to be, you know, learning?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with recommendation to look at the two page reports - especially second page. For example, DCI overall score is a bit higher than Basis, but 8th grade math college/career readiness at Basis (83.9%) much higher than DCI (31%).

What? That makes no sense. How can the overall school for DCI be higher with a math score of 31%? That's troubling.

The charts are pretty clear.

Kids at DCI improved more over time -- maybe the BASIS kids didn't show as much growth because they started out 'more proficient?'

And the promotion eligibility number for BASIS (80%) meant they got a 5/10 on that measure vs. a 10/10 for DCI.

Exactly, these ratings are meant to be more holistic than simply test scores. I think it's pretty well thought out and a great example for other folks who try to rank schools (looking at you, greatschools!).

Growth over time matters as much as raw passage rates, unless the raw passage rates are unconscionably low. And these ratings reflect that.

Happy BASIS parent here. I agree and don't think BASIS should be knocked down for a consistent high performance. However, I find it troubling that there is a low re-enrollment number compared to many of the other schools. Why is that?

Because of the no social promotion/have to pass all your comps policy. More students at BASIS than other schools end up repeating 6th, 7th or 8th grade because they failed one or more classes or final exams and didn't pass the re-take in August.
It

I agree with that policy and don't believe in the all A's (or all medals on the sports team) grades of today. BASIS does everything to to support its students so that they pass with extra opportunities and tutors. But maybe, there can be an alternative (remedial) path at BASIS where students repeat the classes they fail without repeating the grade. It'd be difficult to figure out a schedule but perhaps possible. My student finds BASIS "easy" (not bragging -- any intelligence is not from my side of the family), but I would pull out to avoid repeating the grade, too. Why not -- every student in that school is advanced compared to another school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMI scored very high on emotional support in the classroom (over 90%). While it scored very low on K-2 math, it scored high on preschool math, preschool reading or K-2 reading. I was surprised that the math scores drop that much from preschool to K-2, considering that the younger program should be well-established by now.

However, I was not surprised that the upper grades do not do well at CMI. I visited the program and the school mission seems well integrated with a focus on the whole child, teamwork, and communication, but there seems to be no "meat" to the school in terms of math, science, academics, or even grammar. The upper grades suffer the most from this lack of academic rigor interwoven with the "feel good" mission of the school

I am a happy CMI parent and thrilled to be Tier 2. We are over-sold by a few Koolaid moms as "academically rigorous" when it's not true. Those of us who like the small, quiet, non-academic environment lose out as new families expect more "math, science, academics, or even grammar." I don't need the academics to improve. I would prefer CMI to focus on emotional support. We are not at CMI despite the academics, but instead, we are at CMI because they don't focus or do academics, and we are not the only family that feels that way. The increased in testing that I've seen over the years at CMI is upsetting since that's not why we went there in the first place.

How do you completely discard "academics"? It is a school, after all. While the testing-and-worksheet grind really worry me for my rising K student, I'm not willing to say that I don't care anything at all about learning math and English for his whole elementary career.

It's really interesting to me that there are two Tier 1 charters accessible to Capitol Hill (Chamberlain and Eagle Academy) that have basically no white students; whereas two of DCUM's "HRCS" are tier 2.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with recommendation to look at the two page reports - especially second page. For example, DCI overall score is a bit higher than Basis, but 8th grade math college/career readiness at Basis (83.9%) much higher than DCI (31%).

What? That makes no sense. How can the overall school for DCI be higher with a math score of 31%? That's troubling.

The charts are pretty clear.

Kids at DCI improved more over time -- maybe the BASIS kids didn't show as much growth because they started out 'more proficient?'

And the promotion eligibility number for BASIS (80%) meant they got a 5/10 on that measure vs. a 10/10 for DCI.

Exactly, these ratings are meant to be more holistic than simply test scores. I think it's pretty well thought out and a great example for other folks who try to rank schools (looking at you, greatschools!).

Growth over time matters as much as raw passage rates, unless the raw passage rates are unconscionably low. And these ratings reflect that.

I do think that there should be a way to discount the progress score if the raw passage rates are sufficiently high. Like, given the overall DC pass rates, if your school manages to get 80% of kids to pass a la BASIS, I don't think you should be penalized for the small/no improvement from when you got 80% of the kids to pass last time.

Anonymous wrote:CMI scored very high on emotional support in the classroom (over 90%). While it scored very low on K-2 math, it scored high on preschool math, preschool reading or K-2 reading. I was surprised that the math scores drop that much from preschool to K-2, considering that the younger program should be well-established by now.

However, I was not surprised that the upper grades do not do well at CMI. I visited the program and the school mission seems well integrated with a focus on the whole child, teamwork, and communication, but there seems to be no "meat" to the school in terms of math, science, academics, or even grammar. The upper grades suffer the most from this lack of academic rigor interwoven with the "feel good" mission of the school

I am a happy CMI parent and thrilled to be Tier 2. We are over-sold by a few Koolaid moms as "academically rigorous" when it's not true. Those of us who like the small, quiet, non-academic environment lose out as new families expect more "math, science, academics, or even grammar." I don't need the academics to improve. I would prefer CMI to focus on emotional support. We are not at CMI despite the academics, but instead, we are at CMI because they don't focus or do academics, and we are not the only family that feels that way. The increased in testing that I've seen over the years at CMI is upsetting since that's not why we went there in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with recommendation to look at the two page reports - especially second page. For example, DCI overall score is a bit higher than Basis, but 8th grade math college/career readiness at Basis (83.9%) much higher than DCI (31%).

What? That makes no sense. How can the overall school for DCI be higher with a math score of 31%? That's troubling.

The charts are pretty clear.

Kids at DCI improved more over time -- maybe the BASIS kids didn't show as much growth because they started out 'more proficient?'

And the promotion eligibility number for BASIS (80%) meant they got a 5/10 on that measure vs. a 10/10 for DCI.

Exactly, these ratings are meant to be more holistic than simply test scores. I think it's pretty well thought out and a great example for other folks who try to rank schools (looking at you, greatschools!).

Growth over time matters as much as raw passage rates, unless the raw passage rates are unconscionably low. And these ratings reflect that.

Happy BASIS parent here. I agree and don't think BASIS should be knocked down for a consistent high performance. However, I find it troubling that there is a low re-enrollment number compared to many of the other schools. Why is that?

Because of the no social promotion/have to pass all your comps policy. More students at BASIS than other schools end up repeating 6th, 7th or 8th grade because they failed one or more classes or final exams and didn't pass the re-take in August.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with recommendation to look at the two page reports - especially second page. For example, DCI overall score is a bit higher than Basis, but 8th grade math college/career readiness at Basis (83.9%) much higher than DCI (31%).

What? That makes no sense. How can the overall school for DCI be higher with a math score of 31%? That's troubling.

The charts are pretty clear.

Kids at DCI improved more over time -- maybe the BASIS kids didn't show as much growth because they started out 'more proficient?'

And the promotion eligibility number for BASIS (80%) meant they got a 5/10 on that measure vs. a 10/10 for DCI.

Exactly, these ratings are meant to be more holistic than simply test scores. I think it's pretty well thought out and a great example for other folks who try to rank schools (looking at you, greatschools!).

Growth over time matters as much as raw passage rates, unless the raw passage rates are unconscionably low. And these ratings reflect that.

Happy BASIS parent here. I agree and don't think BASIS should be knocked down for a consistent high performance. However, I find it troubling that there is a low re-enrollment number compared to many of the other schools. Why is that?

Anonymous wrote:Cedar Tree Academy-- is it new? It did very well!

Not new. It is the renamed early childhood division of the failed Howard Road Academy, which was shut down for poor performance. They were allowed to keep their charter for PK3, PK4 and K.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with recommendation to look at the two page reports - especially second page. For example, DCI overall score is a bit higher than Basis, but 8th grade math college/career readiness at Basis (83.9%) much higher than DCI (31%).

What? That makes no sense. How can the overall school for DCI be higher with a math score of 31%? That's troubling.

The charts are pretty clear.

Kids at DCI improved more over time -- maybe the BASIS kids didn't show as much growth because they started out 'more proficient?'

And the promotion eligibility number for BASIS (80%) meant they got a 5/10 on that measure vs. a 10/10 for DCI.

Exactly, these ratings are meant to be more holistic than simply test scores. I think it's pretty well thought out and a great example for other folks who try to rank schools (looking at you, greatschools!).

Growth over time matters as much as raw passage rates, unless the raw passage rates are unconscionably low. And these ratings reflect that.

Anonymous wrote:So proud of DCB!

+1

Also, so very proud of Sela! They worked hard with Board meetings, staff meetings, professional input followed to the letter, and extra time & energy to bring up those scores. That "academic improvement" you see in their results is not by luck, chance, or coincidence -- they worked very hard with individual attention to every student to make sure that the school improved while providing a language-immersion environment.

Every school could learn from their example to make sure academic rigor is not at the expense of the child, learning a second language, or having an emotionally supportive environment!

Congrats, Sela!

CMI scored very high on emotional support in the classroom (over 90%). While it scored very low on K-2 math, it scored high on preschool math, preschool reading or K-2 reading. I was surprised that the math scores drop that much from preschool to K-2, considering that the younger program should be well-established by now.

However, I was not surprised that the upper grades do not do well at CMI. I visited the program and the school mission seems well integrated with a focus on the whole child, teamwork, and communication, but there seems to be no "meat" to the school in terms of math, science, academics, or even grammar. The upper grades suffer the most from this lack of academic rigor interwoven with the "feel good" mission of the school

Schools that were performing terribly and improved substantially get a lot of points for that. So-so performers that only improved slightly (for whatever reason) don't get as many points in that section.