Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hello 50 point achievement gap at its.
Isn't it always bad at ITS? I know it was last year.
Yes, it was last year too. Families have been vocally upset about it, administration also, and one of the principals transitioned to a new position this coming school year focused on access, culture, and equity. We'll see...
Sounds like an Onion article. I hope more is being done than move a manager to focus on flashy words. Hiring (a lot) more (well-trained!) professionals for pullouts? Expanding school hours/calendar? Free academic-minded school days out programming? *healthy* *nutritious* meals at school? Parent education on screentime? More social workers and actual programs that social workers can use to help at-risk students' families with? Alternatives to social promotion?
Sure, implicit bias trainingmight be necessary, but it won't be enough to raise PARCC scores.
And to add: the need for more than flashy words isn't specifically a dig to ITS but to all schools struggling to support their at-risk kids and to parents asking for cheap nonsense instead of costly inprovements and investments.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hello 50 point achievement gap at its.
Isn't it always bad at ITS? I know it was last year.
Yes, it was last year too. Families have been vocally upset about it, administration also, and one of the principals transitioned to a new position this coming school year focused on access, culture, and equity. We'll see...
Culture and access isn’t going to move the needle on academic proficiency. The school says it has expert faculty and trains teachers to go on and become master teachers. They aren’t master reachers if they can’t reach everyone.
The school is failing in its mission.
They really are trying, and the middle school changes looked good to me. But I am distressed by the lack of at-risk kids in elementary as well as by the achievement gap, which is large even in 3rd grade.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hello 50 point achievement gap at its.
Isn't it always bad at ITS? I know it was last year.
Yes, it was last year too. Families have been vocally upset about it, administration also, and one of the principals transitioned to a new position this coming school year focused on access, culture, and equity. We'll see...
Sounds like an Onion article. I hope more is being done than move a manager to focus on flashy words. Hiring (a lot) more (well-trained!) professionals for pullouts? Expanding school hours/calendar? Free academic-minded school days out programming? *healthy* *nutritious* meals at school? Parent education on screentime? More social workers and actual programs that social workers can use to help at-risk students' families with? Alternatives to social promotion?
Sure, implicit bias trainingmight be necessary, but it won't be enough to raise PARCC scores.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hello 50 point achievement gap at its.
Isn't it always bad at ITS? I know it was last year.
Yes, it was last year too. Families have been vocally upset about it, administration also, and one of the principals transitioned to a new position this coming school year focused on access, culture, and equity. We'll see...
Sounds like an Onion article. I hope more is being done than move a manager to focus on flashy words. Hiring (a lot) more (well-trained!) professionals for pullouts? Expanding school hours/calendar? Free academic-minded school days out programming? *healthy* *nutritious* meals at school? Parent education on screentime? More social workers and actual programs that social workers can use to help at-risk students' families with? Alternatives to social promotion?
Sure, implicit bias trainingmight be necessary, but it won't be enough to raise PARCC scores.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hello 50 point achievement gap at its.
Isn't it always bad at ITS? I know it was last year.
Yes, it was last year too. Families have been vocally upset about it, administration also, and one of the principals transitioned to a new position this coming school year focused on access, culture, and equity. We'll see...
Culture and access isn’t going to move the needle on academic proficiency. The school says it has expert faculty and trains teachers to go on and become master teachers. They aren’t master reachers if they can’t reach everyone.
The school is failing in its mission.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hello 50 point achievement gap at its.
Isn't it always bad at ITS? I know it was last year.
Yes, it was last year too. Families have been vocally upset about it, administration also, and one of the principals transitioned to a new position this coming school year focused on access, culture, and equity. We'll see...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hello 50 point achievement gap at its.
Isn't it always bad at ITS? I know it was last year.
Yes, it was last year too. Families have been vocally upset about it, administration also, and one of the principals transitioned to a new position this coming school year focused on access, culture, and equity. We'll see...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hello 50 point achievement gap at its.
Isn't it always bad at ITS? I know it was last year.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if this is a small sample size issue, but looking at the raw data, ITS and LAMB seem to have horrible success with at risk- students whereas YY and Sela seem to be killing it. Maybe the alphabet/language root decoding is helping math scores?
YY has vanishingly few at-risk kids, so I don't know that you can draw a lot of conclusions from it. And Sela's population is also pretty small.
I think ITS' at risk kids are more in the middle school.due to backfilling, and it is hard to catch kids up if they enter far behind.
The conclusion you can draw from YY's set up is that a little Mandarin works to scare away almost all the at-risk kids, the entire point of the artifice.
Go YY, for killing it!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I haven’t had a chance to read most of this thread, but it’s striking how much higher Basis’ scores are than Latin’s.
Will colleges look at DC applicants' PARCC scores?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am just absolutely gobsmacked by the number of HRCS that turned in flat, weak, or downright alarming PARCC scores. I know there are reasons other than test scores that people choose these schools, but it is eye-opening to see it laid out like this.
It’s kinda buried in the PowerPoint deck presented today, but one of the big stories on PARCC (again) should be the success of DCPS overall in relationship to the charters. https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/page_content/attachments/2019%20Statewide%20ELA%20and%20Math%20Public%20Results.pdf
For all students in ELA - DCPS 39.9%, DC charters 34.2%
For all students in Math - DCPS 32.4%, DC charters 28.7%
The trend holds for most grade levels and subgroups, with the gap between DCPS and charters widening as DCPS made more growth this year. Take it all with a big grain of salt given differences between the sectors that make direct comparison tricky and we need to put these tests in their appropriate place. But the conventional wisdom about HRCS isn’t always true.
At the grade level I noticed several majority low income neighborhood DCPS matching HRCS, KIPP, DC prep, etc. Don’t charters have more motivation to teach to the test given their accountability framework? Notice the lack of the typical chest thumping press release from the PCSB as in prior years. And they approved 5 new charters?
Anonymous wrote:I haven’t had a chance to read most of this thread, but it’s striking how much higher Basis’ scores are than Latin’s.
Anonymous wrote:I haven’t had a chance to read most of this thread, but it’s striking how much higher Basis’ scores are than Latin’s.