Anonymous wrote:Did Washington Latin show up? Those are the top 3 MS by DC CAS right there for the last 2 years.
OP here,
Can you point me towards Latin and Basis DCCAS scores? As disaggregated as possible.
I've never seen these data.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Did Washington Latin show up? Those are the top 3 MS by DC CAS right there for the last 2 years.
OP here,
Can you point me towards Latin and Basis DCCAS scores? As disaggregated as possible.
I've never seen these data.
PCSB does not provide disaggregate data unfortunately.
http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/34_BASIS_DC_PCS.pdf
Anonymous wrote:Did Washington Latin show up? Those are the top 3 MS by DC CAS right there for the last 2 years.
OP here,
Can you point me towards Latin and Basis DCCAS scores? As disaggregated as possible.
I've never seen these data.
Anonymous wrote:Not true that I was the one who could not resist. It was the PP of 04/06/2015 17:08 was intervened in this Hardy thread recommending "don't go to Hardy, come to Basis".
I just stated why we did not follow her advice.
Not that I needed that, but your post confirmed my view, Basis has a teaching and monitoring culture based on individual, rather than social, performance, and zero room for creativity development.
I have reason and knowledge to believe that factors beyond metrics measuring individual academic performance play a fundamental role in being accepted and succeed in top colleges and jobs.
Did Washington Latin show up? Those are the top 3 MS by DC CAS right there for the last 2 years.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just going to respond to this part:
anonymous wrote: Since this is important, I’ll belabor the point: in DC, “white” is a clean proxy for high income. This does not mean all high income people are white. But what it does mean is that if you’re high income, whether white or AA, the best predictor of your child’s scores is given by the “white” average since this average represents only high income students.
This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism. There are so many studies that say that AA kids from highly educated, affluent homes where parents own books, and read to them, and value their education, are not protected from racism. They are subjected to disproportionate discipline, and low expectations, which leads to achievement gaps that continue to exist even when income, parental education, time spent reading, and other factors are taken into account.
Similarly, there are plenty of white kids growing up in DC whose parents don't take them to the library, or have homes full of books, or give a shit about their education. But because of their skin color, teachers and others treat them as if they were growing up in households that do these things, and hold them to the same high expectations.
this is spot on!
OP -- your use of the adjective "white" to convey a virtue suggests to bias in your assessment. With the deep racial default lines in DC, your choice of words is truly unfortunate. I don't agree that everyone who meets your so-called virtuous category is the beneficiary of systematic racism, because doing so would suggest that academic achievement is a zero sum game, which it clearly is not. There's room for everyone to succeed but great challenges for many, not the least of which related to race and poverty. My child doesn't succeed because others are impoverished or because higher expectations based on skin color, but a socially just society would work to remove obstacles related to race and poverty so the expectations and outcomes are less disparate across demographics.
OP here.
No, no it doesn't. You clearly did not read the preamble of the initial post, or, if you did, you failed to understand what those words meant.
"White" is a category for which we have DCCAS data. While it literally refers to race, in DC we can use "white" to proxy for other, non-racial characteristics. That is exactly what I did.
+100. You explained it very clearly in the opening post. (Where I disagree is on the need to analyze Proficient outcomes to validate, or not, your main conclusions)
OP here.
You mean "advanced-only" outcomes, but I hear you. I have looked at the numbers but I don't believe much can be concluded from them. The sample sizes are just too small for reliable inference. The variability in performance is large year-to-year. (This is what happens with small samples. You need larger samples for things to settle down.)
For example, the percentage of 8th grade white students testing advanced in math at Hardy goes from 27% one year (11 students) to 60% the following year. This is not atypical. This suggests that any conclusions based on averages that haven't settled down are problematic without also considering the variance.
Since people seem to desire some analysis even if it isn't robust, I'll provide something as long as everyone acknowledges at the outset that it may be meaningless.
We care about kids improving over time. Since the data are a panel (many students each tested in three separate years), we can track scores over time for Deal and Hardy. Students' 6th grade scores likely represent their stock of testing-proficiency when they arrive at the school. So, let's see how these same students do in 8th grade. The same caveat about small sample sizes applies here, so I'll just say that I don't know the worth of this type of analysis.
So, what the following numbers calculate is the difference in %advanced for white students between 8th grade and these same students in 6th grade. For example, we look at the %advanced for 8th graders in 2014 and the %advanced for 6th graders in 2012. We can only do three cohorts at each school since some 8th grade data is unreported at Hardy (because the samples are too small (not enough white students)) and some 6th grade data are missing at Deal.
In reading, the schools are pretty similar. For three years in which Deal numbers can be calculated, there were 18%, 28% and 19% more advanced scorers in 8th grade than there were in 6th grade. (These are the same students, modulo joining or leaving the school.) For Hardy, the improvements were 15%, 21% and 15%.
For math, at Deal there were 1%, 1% and 12% more advanced scorers in 8th grade than in the same cohort at 6th. For Hardy, there were 7%, 7% and 10% more advanced scorers in 8th.
I don't know what, if anything, can be concluded from these numbers. But they paint a somewhat different picture than simply looking at the %advanced by themselves. (I'll post another point in a separate reply now.)
OP -- you're blind to optics. DCPS provides that data but you go a step further and draw dubious conclusions from it. Plenty of racially white kids in DC are not academically proficient. Many parents of all color have expectations that "proficient" is not much of a goal.
However, if you were an actual parent with a child at this school or any other you'd also know that the DCCAS is a highly flawed measurement tool and that many parents do not evaluate a school or its students based on standardized test scores. There are many other ways to evaluate schools -- consider that most children enter elementary school well before testing grades and that some other factors must account for why parents opt for a school where no such evaluation is performed on younger students.
OP here:
I'll take that as a compliment. I don't care about optics. I'm not trying to sell an agenda here.
As for your statement, I have the data: more than 9 out of 10 white students in DCPS are proficient or advanced in both math and reading. Greater than 90%. In both subjects. For the most recent year, it was 92% in reading and 92% in math. Your "plenty" is actually 165 or so out of almost 2100 white students in DCPS. Try again.
Anonymous wrote:OP here.
Quick reply as I'm heading out the door.
To the previous poster: in a word, no. You're misunderstanding the stag hunt. Coordination is needed for Hardy, not for the privates.
But anyway, we're not talking about the 1% here. The highest income neighborhood (with sufficient people) is probably Spring Valley (or WH or Foxhall). The median household income here is about 300k. When talking about the "top 1%," realize the numbers you're actually saying. The top 3% starts at 310k and the top 2% starts at 330k (if I recall correctly).
There's plenty of income and wealth feeding into Hardy. This makes private school attainable for many families, but it remains the case that private school tuition (let alone for multiple kids) is not affordable for even more families.
The previous poster (with the long post) makes several misstatements and, frankly, I doubt whether he/she has actually read this thread. I will not offer a detailed retort.
As someone else pointed out, the wealthiest families are in-bounds for Mann, not Key. Honestly, this isn't really even close and people from these areas would surely know it.
I don't think the recession was that large of a deal in these neighborhoods, so I'm hesitant to ascribe much meaning to it. Incomes remained fairly stable, housing prices didn't decline, and retirement accounts cratered. I imagine -- and this is purely conjecture -- that people sending their kids to private finance this from income, not savings. Anyone with a sufficiently long horizon before retirement (say, greater than 7 years) could be very confident their retirement accounts would recover.
I think a bigger issue is the international institutions. The IMF still pays 75% of private school tuitions (up to a generous cap). But they're the main outlier. World Bankers starting after 1998 (or 1996, I forget) no longer get this education benefit. The last of these people probably have kids near Hardy-age right now. That means that there is about to be a much larger pool of potential public school kids looking at middle school. (The IADB pays up to 12k a year, so I don't view this as enough for the top privates.)
Anyway, I'll try to check in periodically when killing time.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Basis, Enjoy the few Mann and key students you have while you can. In two years you'll have none.
why? Will Washington Latin have any? Or is it because Hardy's star is on the rise............Which I believe and support.
I have nothing against Hardy. We have STEM kids. For us Basis was an absolute no brainer and our kids are happy and staying through high school.
Washington Latin does Algebra I in 7th and 8th grades. Anyone who is up for that with a kid who is good at math is mad IMO. That is about deceleration, not acceleration. Hardy and Deal don't do that, and neither does NCS. Dear Martha Cutts, take a memo.
I don't see Basis and Hardy as in competition because those who want their kids at Wilson would rather stick with a cohort that is bound for Wilson anyway, whilst Basis kids are bound for Walls, Wilson, private, McKinley Tech, Banneker, and even some stay at Basis..........
I just don't like the Basis bashing going on here by Hardy parents. It started out with the math competition and has escalated from there and is absolutely ridiculous. Why can't we all just get along..........
Basis parents, just stay in your Basis thread , and don't come annoy here with long misplaced rants which end with "don't go to Hardy, come to Basis".
Otherwise this is what you'll get.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just going to respond to this part:
anonymous wrote: Since this is important, I’ll belabor the point: in DC, “white” is a clean proxy for high income. This does not mean all high income people are white. But what it does mean is that if you’re high income, whether white or AA, the best predictor of your child’s scores is given by the “white” average since this average represents only high income students.
This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism. [b]There are so many studies that say that AA kids from highly educated, affluent homes where parents own books, and read to them, and value their education, are not protected from racism. They are subjected to disproportionate discipline, and low expectations, which leads to achievement gaps that continue to exist even when income, parental education, time spent reading, and other factors are taken into account.
Similarly, there are plenty of white kids growing up in DC whose parents don't take them to the library, or have homes full of books, or give a shit about their education. But because of their skin color, teachers and others treat them as if they were growing up in households that do these things, and hold them to the same high expectations.
[/b]
this is spot on!
In DC they are perhaps more frequently taunted, bullied and intimidated by other black kids who deride their academic interests, study and work efforts as "acting white."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Basis, Enjoy the few Mann and key students you have while you can. In two years you'll have none.
why? Will Washington Latin have any? Or is it because Hardy's star is on the rise............Which I believe and support.
I have nothing against Hardy. We have STEM kids. For us Basis was an absolute no brainer and our kids are happy and staying through high school.
Washington Latin does Algebra I in 7th and 8th grades. Anyone who is up for that with a kid who is good at math is mad IMO. That is about deceleration, not acceleration. Hardy and Deal don't do that, and neither does NCS. Dear Martha Cutts, take a memo.
I don't see Basis and Hardy as in competition because those who want their kids at Wilson would rather stick with a cohort that is bound for Wilson anyway, whilst Basis kids are bound for Walls, Wilson, private, McKinley Tech, Banneker, and even some stay at Basis..........
I just don't like the Basis bashing going on here by Hardy parents. It started out with the math competition and has escalated from there and is absolutely ridiculous. Why can't we all just get along..........