Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They were posted here about 60 pages ago. And again: if you want them, go ask the Principal. She will tell you. Quit whining about it on this site when the solution is easily at your fingertips.

No, they weren't. Not in a meaningful way. The number of feeder school kids was posted. The problem with that number is there is no basis for comparison. In past years -- and at other schools -- the number that was released is just kids residing within the boundaries. That number has not been released. The question that people care about is whether the IB number is increasing. To answer that question, you need either this year's IB-only number, or previous years' feeder school numbers. Those numbers have not been released.

So call the Principal and ask. Stop whining about it already and do something to get the answer you are looking for.

Whats the problem? Lets people post (ask) whatever they want ("whatever" as far as it is not disrespectful, I mean)

The problem is that this person seems more interested in publicly complaining about the lack of information instead of calling the Principal to get the information they want. Her post was not designed to get an answer - it was designed to air a grievance at Hardy.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, what does FARMs mean?

Free and Reduced Meals I think

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now I figured out exactly why white northeast liberals are worse racists than white conservative southerners. White northeast liberals surgically segregate undesirable races out if their lives while southern conservatives integrate with the natural friction but at least they integrate .

Yup, that's why all those white northeastern liberal racists clamor to send their kids to Deal, a very integrated school. Look, Hardy has problems ,which is why Hardy's designated community (it's boundary area) largely avoid it. You can race bait all you want but Hardy can't improve significantly as long any criticism or concern is dismissed as motivated by racism

+1

Sorry, what does FARMs mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They were posted here about 60 pages ago. And again: if you want them, go ask the Principal. She will tell you. Quit whining about it on this site when the solution is easily at your fingertips.

No, they weren't. Not in a meaningful way. The number of feeder school kids was posted. The problem with that number is there is no basis for comparison. In past years -- and at other schools -- the number that was released is just kids residing within the boundaries. That number has not been released. The question that people care about is whether the IB number is increasing. To answer that question, you need either this year's IB-only number, or previous years' feeder school numbers. Those numbers have not been released.

So call the Principal and ask. Stop whining about it already and do something to get the answer you are looking for.

Whats the problem? Lets people post (ask) whatever they want ("whatever" as far as it is not disrespectful, I mean)

Anonymous wrote:But IB families have and will compare to private schools.

Yes and no. There are obvious advantages to nearby Ward 3 private schools, but for your run-of-the-mill family in Ward 3 operating on two government incomes, a breathtaking mortgage, and more than one kid, the cost of private school is a substantial obstacle. When comparing our options, we're going to discount the benefits of private school significantly by the burden the price tag would impose on our family. Public school comes at a negligible cost (a few hundred bucks in PTA contributions checks your box). The value of that money back in our pockets is nontrivial.

Comparing Hardy to Deal/Latin/BASIS is a different matter, assuming constant out of pocket costs. Hardy COULD be the shoe that fits us perfectly: Deal is too big, Latin too far, BASIS too much of a STEM/crunch school (our kids are too young yet to predict whether this will appeal to them). We are far from the only family holding our collective breath, waiting to see what happens.

Deal's 6th grade numbers 2014 (408 students), 2014: 83/79

Latin 2014 (92 students): 74/66

Basis 2014 (152 students): 74/75

Compare our projected 2015 numbers for Hardy (103 students in 6th grade 2014): 74/67 looks pretty competitive, and on an upward trend, at that!

But IB families have and will compare to private schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From 15:44: you and I agree that a key statistic is the performance of "non-economically disadvantaged" students, but the DC CAS does not provide data for that category. I think you need to go back and check to see what assumptions you are making in doing the math -- but no matter; one of the interesting points to be gathered is that it wouldn't take much to raise the overall proficiency % for the 6th grade class: if the number of economically disadvantaged 6thers is reduced from 61 to around 50, while the "true IB" numbers were increased by the same amount (around 11), the overall % of proficient/advanced would be raised significantly. Parents would be clamoring to get in, if the # of true IB was raised by only 11.

I took the total number of students and subtracted the number of economically disadvantaged to get the "non-economically disadvantaged" number. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

There were 103 total sixth graders, 61 classified as ED. So 42 weren't.

Overall 73 students were proficient or above in math and 63 were proficient or above in reading. Among the ED set there were 38 and 33 respectively. So that means among the non-ED there were 35 and 30. That works out to 83% (35 of 42) proficient in math and 71% (30 of 42) proficient in reading.

I also disagree with your assumption that it wouldn't take much to raise the overall test scores. Currently it's 71/63 for the sixth grade overall and 62/54 for ED kids. We don't know what it is for "true" IB kids, but let's say it's 90/90. What would we expect to happen if 11 ED kids were replaced by 11 IB kids, as in your hypothetical? In the 11 ED kids, we'd expect to lose 7 proficient in math and 6 proficient in reading. In the 11 IB kids we'd gain 10 proficient in each. That would be a net of 3 in math and 4 in reading. In a class of 103 kids each kid represents almost exactly one percentage point. So we'd go from 71/63 to 74/67. That might get the principal a nice bonus but Sidwell's got nothing to worry about.

Great math work! But completely disagree about your conclusion, based on the same numbers. With an uptick like that, it would be significant progress from the prior year(s). As a result, increased numbers of "true IB" would attend immediately, and then again the year after that, with growing inertia. Factor in the fact that the "true IB" kids would add advanced stats rather than merely proficient stats, and observers will see the overall academic quality of the peer group is rising, too. (and it may have already happened in the current year!)

And your point about Sidwell is a red herring, right? Hardy's comparators/competition are Deal, Latin, and Basis, probably in that order. Those comparative numbers are the only ones prospective parents should be interested in.

Anonymous wrote:

From 15:44: you and I agree that a key statistic is the performance of "non-economically disadvantaged" students, but the DC CAS does not provide data for that category. I think you need to go back and check to see what assumptions you are making in doing the math -- but no matter; one of the interesting points to be gathered is that it wouldn't take much to raise the overall proficiency % for the 6th grade class: if the number of economically disadvantaged 6thers is reduced from 61 to around 50, while the "true IB" numbers were increased by the same amount (around 11), the overall % of proficient/advanced would be raised significantly. Parents would be clamoring to get in, if the # of true IB was raised by only 11.

I took the total number of students and subtracted the number of economically disadvantaged to get the "non-economically disadvantaged" number. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

There were 103 total sixth graders, 61 classified as ED. So 42 weren't.

Overall 73 students were proficient or above in math and 63 were proficient or above in reading. Among the ED set there were 38 and 33 respectively. So that means among the non-ED there were 35 and 30. That works out to 83% (35 of 42) proficient in math and 71% (30 of 42) proficient in reading.

I also disagree with your assumption that it wouldn't take much to raise the overall test scores. Currently it's 71/63 for the sixth grade overall and 62/54 for ED kids. We don't know what it is for "true" IB kids, but let's say it's 90/90. What would we expect to happen if 11 ED kids were replaced by 11 IB kids, as in your hypothetical? In the 11 ED kids, we'd expect to lose 7 proficient in math and 6 proficient in reading. In the 11 IB kids we'd gain 10 proficient in each. That would be a net of 3 in math and 4 in reading. In a class of 103 kids each kid represents almost exactly one percentage point. So we'd go from 71/63 to 74/67. That might get the principal a nice bonus but Sidwell's got nothing to worry about.

Anonymous wrote:15:44 --

I don't think the numbers support your hypothesis.

Using the numbers you provided, I get 42 non-economically disadvantaged sixth graders. Of those, 35 were proficient above in math and 30 were proficient or above in reading. That works out to 83% proficient in math and 71% proficient in reading.

The Hardy feeders are schools where proficiency rates are in the nineties. I haven't looked recently, but Key and Stoddert were 1/2 system-wide a few years ago. Those parents aren't going to accept a 25-point drop in proficiency.

I don't understand your comment about "pulling up" test scores either. The score that matters in DC CAS is proficiency rate, and either your proficient or your not. It doesn't matter how high your raw score is, once you're proficient you're proficient.

From 15:44: you and I agree that a key statistic is the performance of "non-economically disadvantaged" students, but the DC CAS does not provide data for that category. I think you need to go back and check to see what assumptions you are making in doing the math -- but no matter; one of the interesting points to be gathered is that it wouldn't take much to raise the overall proficiency % for the 6th grade class: if the number of economically disadvantaged 6thers is reduced from 61 to around 50, while the "true IB" numbers were increased by the same amount (around 11), the overall % of proficient/advanced would be raised significantly. Parents would be clamoring to get in, if the # of true IB was raised by only 11.

Also: it's not fair to compare the achievement level of Key and Stoddert to middle school rates; there's a significant dropoff everywhere once Ward 3 students enter the middles.

15:44 --

I don't think the numbers support your hypothesis.

Using the numbers you provided, I get 42 non-economically disadvantaged sixth graders. Of those, 35 were proficient above in math and 30 were proficient or above in reading. That works out to 83% proficient in math and 71% proficient in reading.

The Hardy feeders are schools where proficiency rates are in the nineties. I haven't looked recently, but Key and Stoddert were 1/2 system-wide a few years ago. Those parents aren't going to accept a 25-point drop in proficiency.

I don't understand your comment about "pulling up" test scores either. The score that matters in DC CAS is proficiency rate, and either your proficient or your not. It doesn't matter how high your raw score is, once you're proficient you're proficient.

It was nice you went to the trouble to type that out, but didn't you just say,

Hardy would have higher scores if there were more IB kids? I don't think that is disputed by anyone.

Anonymous wrote:"I understood your point, PP. I was taking it to its logical conclusion: Don't pass on Hardy because of its lousy DCCAS scores. Pass on Hardy because of its 55% FARMs rate and 13% IB rate. "


Suppose the IB rate for 2014-2015 comes in at 15%, and the FARMS rate is down to 51%? Would that (combined with academic improvements) convince you to try it?

While FARMs percentage matters to some degree, I think a key, related, concern for skeptical parents is still the overall achievement level of the NON-low income students. So to address that concern, let's take a look at the available numbers. If you look at the 2014 DC CAS results, you'll see 103 students in 6th grade, 61 of them (62%) classified as "economically disadvantaged." The overall test scores for those kids really were pretty good, considering their economic circumstances: 38 (62%) proficient or above in Math and 33 (54%) proficient or above in reading. Those scores are actually what you want in a diverse school from your low income population!

The scores of the NON-low income (e.g., middle class or above) students were not high enough to pull up the scores of the 62% economically disadvantaged students. Overall at Hardy 6th grade in 2014, 73 students (71%) were proficient or above in Math, and 63 students (61%) were proficient or above in reading. But realize that non-low-income students would have to put up incredible scores to create an average higher than that, considering the majority low income population at the school! Even though DC CAS does not provide data for the "non-economically-disadvantaged" student population, you see based on the low-income scores how hard it would be for the 42 non-low-income students to significantly pull up the scores of the 61 low-income students.

I'll agree that 62% economically advantaged is far too high for a high-achieving school - so, as you point out, prospective parents will desire the % of economically disadvantaged students to be lower (I'm using "economically disadvantaged" as a category rather than "FARMs," because that's what DC CAS uses) - and if that percentage of low income students goes down then the overall scores would certainly go up immediately. The key is to attract more students from non-economically disadvantaged families to attend. Attracting more IB students is the best way to control for that outcome, as the OOB students are a mixed bag of income levels. If that happens, then the scores could jump up rapidly to near-Deal-like levels.

My conclusion is that there needs to be a more balanced student population at the school (more "diverse," shall we say?) in order to create a higher level of overall achievement necessary to attract more kids from the local neighborhood. Lowering the number to around 50% economically disadvantaged and increasing neighborhood numbers to at least 25% "true IB" would be a great start, and I think would soon make it a very desirable destination for most parents. Based on last year's numbers, the school is not diverse enough (economically disadvantaged, non-economically disadvantaged, race) - yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I understood your point, PP. I was taking it to its logical conclusion: Don't pass on Hardy because of its lousy DCCAS scores. Pass on Hardy because of its 55% FARMs rate and 13% IB rate. "


Suppose the IB rate for 2014-2015 comes in at 15%, and the FARMS rate is down to 51%? Would that (combined with academic improvements) convince you to try it?

Some of you don't have a lot of confidence in your own children if you think that the fact of them going to school with a bunch of poor kids is going to somehow ruin their lives or wreck their academic careers. My kid went to Hardy, and it had the opposite effect - it made him a better student and better able to navigate the diversity of rich and poor and black and white the exist in DCPS and in the real world.

That's fine, but its a pretty low bar to say that a school won't ruin your kid's life or wreck her academic career. Shouldn't we demand better than that. IMO diversity is fine but as a priority for us, it takes a back seat to rigorous academics and rich course and extracurricular offerings.

our

A valid point. But if your only question is "how many IB go to Hardy" (which does seem like it is the only question for many DCUM-ers, you are asking the wrong question. Because of course you can have rigorous academics and rich course and extracurricular offerings (as Hardy does now) without having a high % of IB families, and even with a large number of poor or underperforming kids.

+1000