If someone has time to dig into them, there's good data in these fact sheets, although they are from 2015-16 and 2016-17.

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dm...20Fact%20%20Sheet_10.06.17.pdf
https://dme.dc.gov/node/1198445

Also, at risk of academic failure is a designation DC has only begun using in the last 2 years, so any comparison going further back isn't valid. Before that it was economically disadvantaged; before that FARMS, which only captures income.

At-risk is a narrower definition and fewer students meet this criterion (very poor, homeless, in foster care or at least one year behind the expected grade for your age) that meet the economically disadvantaged criterion.

What was the impetus for shifting from the FARMs designation to the narrower "at risk" category?

If someone has time to dig into them, there's good data in these fact sheets, although they are from 2015-16 and 2016-17.

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/SY16-17_Citywide%20School%20Fact%20%20Sheet_10.06.17.pdf
https://dme.dc.gov/node/1198445

Also, at risk of academic failure is a designation DC has only begun using in the last 2 years, so any comparison going further back isn't valid. Before that it was economically disadvantaged; before that FARMS, which only captures income.

At-risk is a narrower definition and fewer students meet this criterion (very poor, homeless, in foster care or at least one year behind the expected grade for your age) that meet the economically disadvantaged criterion.

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure there are more higher income kids in the city now, especially in middle and high school. I suspect that there are more higher income kids not fleeing to the suburbs or going private or parochial.

You may be right. Higher income kids are a greater share of the kids in public schools (DCPS and charter) than they were a few years ago. Enrollment has been steadily increasing. Up 7000 kids versus five years ago. The percent of kids who are at-risk has been steadily declining. From 50% to 43%.

I am not sure there are more higher income kids in the city now, especially in middle and high school. I suspect that there are more higher income kids not fleeing to the suburbs or going private or parochial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry - dont really know how to interpret the above or what point you're making. Not being snide - just dont understand what any of this data with such small samples proves.

When Latin was majority black and also has a bigger percentage of poor kids, it’s poor and black students were testing as proficient or advanced at almost twice the rate as they are now.

So it isn’t the classical curriculum. What has changed?

I have no idea but very interesting to examine the Equity Reports from that period. The KIPP College HS campus and KIPP Will MS were performing similarly or better than Latin back then (if looking at both achievement and growth). If you look at these schools now on the PMF -- KIPP Will is struggling compared to its earlier performance but Latin still looks great. The PMF is an important indicator of quality. If a school performs well on the main measure of charter performance (the PMF) AND has significant demand, shouldn't it be able to expand? I get that schools should work to improve for all kids but it seems like there are more higher income kids in the city now and that's where the demand for Latin is and that's with whom they perform best.

Actually, that isn't quite the case. The biggest growth in students has been in Wards 7 and 8, and the median income in those wards, in particular, is lower than it was a decade ago (perhaps more middle -and lower-middle-class out-migration to Prince George's and Eastern MoCo). I think it's fair to say that the gap between district residents has grown wider, which brings with it the challenges we debate every day on this board (my source for this is the annual national KidsCount report -- publishes state/DC demographic data and well-being indicators for children) released by the Annie E Casey foundation).

While AA students have been a decreasing percentage in publics (DCPS and charters) most of the growth has been in Latino kids. Among DCPS only, the white percentage has increased as well.

The Board did vote to let Latin replicate. IT just was not unanimous, and their equity issues were aired publicly, and they have to agree to redouble their efforts to serve all kids. That seems like an ok outcome to me.

Are you referencing the annual KidsCount report through 2016? Do you have more recent data? OSSE and the PCSB reported declines in Ward 8.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry - dont really know how to interpret the above or what point you're making. Not being snide - just dont understand what any of this data with such small samples proves.

When Latin was majority black and also has a bigger percentage of poor kids, it’s poor and black students were testing as proficient or advanced at almost twice the rate as they are now.

So it isn’t the classical curriculum. What has changed?

I have no idea but very interesting to examine the Equity Reports from that period. The KIPP College HS campus and KIPP Will MS were performing similarly or better than Latin back then (if looking at both achievement and growth). If you look at these schools now on the PMF -- KIPP Will is struggling compared to its earlier performance but Latin still looks great. The PMF is an important indicator of quality. If a school performs well on the main measure of charter performance (the PMF) AND has significant demand, shouldn't it be able to expand? I get that schools should work to improve for all kids but it seems like there are more higher income kids in the city now and that's where the demand for Latin is and that's with whom they perform best.

Actually, that isn't quite the case. The biggest growth in students has been in Wards 7 and 8, and the median income in those wards, in particular, is lower than it was a decade ago (perhaps more middle -and lower-middle-class out-migration to Prince George's and Eastern MoCo). I think it's fair to say that the gap between district residents has grown wider, which brings with it the challenges we debate every day on this board (my source for this is the annual national KidsCount report -- publishes state/DC demographic data and well-being indicators for children) released by the Annie E Casey foundation).

While AA students have been a decreasing percentage in publics (DCPS and charters) most of the growth has been in Latino kids. Among DCPS only, the white percentage has increased as well.

The Board did vote to let Latin replicate. IT just was not unanimous, and their equity issues were aired publicly, and they have to agree to redouble their efforts to serve all kids. That seems like an ok outcome to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry - dont really know how to interpret the above or what point you're making. Not being snide - just dont understand what any of this data with such small samples proves.

When Latin was majority black and also has a bigger percentage of poor kids, it’s poor and black students were testing as proficient or advanced at almost twice the rate as they are now.

So it isn’t the classical curriculum. What has changed?

I have no idea but very interesting to examine the Equity Reports from that period. The KIPP College HS campus and KIPP Will MS were performing similarly or better than Latin back then (if looking at both achievement and growth). If you look at these schools now on the PMF -- KIPP Will is struggling compared to its earlier performance but Latin still looks great. The PMF is an important indicator of quality. If a school performs well on the main measure of charter performance (the PMF) AND has significant demand, shouldn't it be able to expand? I get that schools should work to improve for all kids but it seems like there are more higher income kids in the city now and that's where the demand for Latin is and that's with whom they perform best.

In 2017-18 the MS was 40% Black, so 147 of 369.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry - dont really know how to interpret the above or what point you're making. Not being snide - just dont understand what any of this data with such small samples proves.

When Latin was majority black and also has a bigger percentage of poor kids, it’s poor and black students were testing as proficient or advanced at almost twice the rate as they are now.

So it isn’t the classical curriculum. What has changed?

Maybe who the black kids were, maybe being in a larger group. I'm thinking this is why Latin wanted to get back to majority minority. Honestly tho, is the current AA middle school pop even large enough to sample in a meaningful way? At some pt you are talking about individuals not groups.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry - dont really know how to interpret the above or what point you're making. Not being snide - just dont understand what any of this data with such small samples proves.

When Latin was majority black and also has a bigger percentage of poor kids, it’s poor and black students were testing as proficient or advanced at almost twice the rate as they are now.

So it isn’t the classical curriculum. What has changed?

I'm sorry - dont really know how to interpret the above or what point you're making. Not being snide - just dont understand what any of this data with such small samples proves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What everyone seems to be saying is that Alston’s success is superficial, it only reflects the natural outcomes of the students it accepts, which generally include children of high achievers achieving, children of the less-degrees struggling. When they change the equation, they get to expand.

Right?

Right. But Latin 6-7 years ago was very different demographically. I don’t recall how it did on DC CAS etc. Does anyone know?

If you look at the photos of the graduating classes of the past years they're almost totally minority

So I dug up the 2013 Equity Report for Latin - which has the data from 2012-13. That was one year after Latin was fully built out, with grades 5-12 and one year before they moved into their permanent space. You can't really do an apples to apples comparison -- the annual test was DC-CAS and there was no at-risk designation, percentage qualifying for FARMS was how that was captured. It does, however, show how the school has changed. The discipline data then compared to now jumped out at me. https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/2013_Equity_Report_PCSB_External_Washington%20Latin%20PCS%20%E2%80%93%20Upper%20School.pdf


Middle School

Enrollment - Asian 4%/AA 46%/white 39%/Latino 9%/FARMS 19%

Math Proficient and Advanced - Asian <25/AA 64%/white 94%/Latino 68%/FARMS 53%

Reading Proficient and Advanced - Asian <25/AA 69%/white 93%/Latino 68%/FARMS 56%

Percentage Suspended 1 or more days - Asian 0%/AA 15%/White 3%/Latino 6%/FARMS 22%

High School

Enrollment - Asian 3%/AA 68%/white 13%/Latino 14%/FARMS 39%

Math Prof and Adv - Asian <25/AA 58%/white <25/Latino <25/FARMS 60%

Reading Prof and Adv - Asian <25/AA 43%/white <25/Latino <25/FARMS 72%

Percentage Suspended 1 or more days - AA 11%/Latino 13%/FARMS 9%

Anonymous wrote:What everyone seems to be saying is that Alston’s success is superficial, it only reflects the natural outcomes of the students it accepts, which generally include children of high achievers achieving, children of the less-degrees struggling. When they change the equation, they get to expand.

Right?

Right they're saying they need to close the American achievement gap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What everyone seems to be saying is that Alston’s success is superficial, it only reflects the natural outcomes of the students it accepts, which generally include children of high achievers achieving, children of the less-degrees struggling. When they change the equation, they get to expand.

Right?

Right. But Latin 6-7 years ago was very different demographically. I don’t recall how it did on DC CAS etc. Does anyone know?

If you look at the photos of the graduating classes of the past years they're almost totally minority

Just looked up Latin’s high school equity report from when it was a majority minority school (eg not enough white students to break out test results for them).

The percentage of black students scoring proficient or advanced in ELA and Math was in the 70s.

The MS which was pretty equally split between white and black students had a ~30% DCCAS achievement gap.