Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the issue with charter and DCPS "percentages" is how to approach the data from Wards 5, 7, and 8 where charters have grown massively and are very disproportionately at-risk.

The picture for charters used by parents who live in Wards 1, 4 and 6 is different. They are what produces a Latin, where there are lacrosse teams and the at-risk kids get the same growth metrics as if they went to Kramer, Anacostia, or Ballou.

Where do you get that at-risk kids have same growth metrics at LAtin and at Ballou, etc? The Washington post article says that Latin at risk kids do better than at-risk kids at DCPS schools. Are Ballou, Kramer, Anacostia doing better than other DCPS high schools? I'd be very interested to hear where you are getting that info and how those schools are doing better at growth metrics than general DCPS high schools at large and better than Latin specifically.

Or did the Washington Post article mis-state the facts and Latin at-risk kids really are doing worse than at-risk kids at DCPS by-right schools?

MP. Growth is not measured in HS, only in MS because PARCC is only given to 10th graders.

The report cards use HS PARCC proficiency, graduation rates (total, 4-year and 5-year), SAT scores (but the bar is just whether you are above or below DC average).

Growth is measured and reported for high schools. You can see it on the PMF/School Quality Report for Latin. I assume that the data is also available for DCPS high schools but it doesn't seem to be published anywhere online.

https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2018-10-29%20Washington%20Latin%20PCS%20%E2%80%93%20Upper%20School%20HS%20PMF.pdf

The old equity reports used to break down data by demographic. Unfortunately, on the PMF, you can only see the MGP for all test takers at Latin and not for at-risk kids.

But the growth metric the PCSB uses for high schools isn't consistent with the one they use for MS. OSSE is developing a way to capture growth that will apply to all high schools, but for now, there isn't one across charters and DCPS.

PMF for charter high schools (excerpt from link above).

A student growth percentile (SGP) is calculated for each student, which shows how that student performed in this year’s assessment compared with all students taking the PARCC who had similar performance in the previous years assessment. For example, if 20 students had a scale score of 700in last year’s PARCC test, a student who did better than 15 of those students in this year’s test would have an SGP of 75, since that student did better than 75% of the students with a similar score on last year’s assessment. Scores from all students taking the PARCC assessment are used to determine an academic peer group and to calculate SGPs. (2)All of the students’ SGP scores for a school are arrayed from high to low and the midpoint, or median, of these scores, becomes the school’s median growth percentile or MGP; the higher the score, the more students are improving compared with students attending public schools in the PARCC consortium of states. (3)DC PCSB calculates a two-year weighted average (by n-size) by averaging the school’s MGP values from two consecutive years. The two-year weighted average is used to mitigate fluctuations in scores year to year. If a school has only one year of MGP data (e.g. it is a new school offering grade 10 for the first time), only one year of MGP data is used.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the issue with charter and DCPS "percentages" is how to approach the data from Wards 5, 7, and 8 where charters have grown massively and are very disproportionately at-risk.

The picture for charters used by parents who live in Wards 1, 4 and 6 is different. They are what produces a Latin, where there are lacrosse teams and the at-risk kids get the same growth metrics as if they went to Kramer, Anacostia, or Ballou.

Where do you get that at-risk kids have same growth metrics at LAtin and at Ballou, etc? The Washington post article says that Latin at risk kids do better than at-risk kids at DCPS schools. Are Ballou, Kramer, Anacostia doing better than other DCPS high schools? I'd be very interested to hear where you are getting that info and how those schools are doing better at growth metrics than general DCPS high schools at large and better than Latin specifically.

Or did the Washington Post article mis-state the facts and Latin at-risk kids really are doing worse than at-risk kids at DCPS by-right schools?

MP. Growth is not measured in HS, only in MS because PARCC is only given to 10th graders.

The report cards use HS PARCC proficiency, graduation rates (total, 4-year and 5-year), SAT scores (but the bar is just whether you are above or below DC average).

Growth is measured and reported for high schools. You can see it on the PMF/School Quality Report for Latin. I assume that the data is also available for DCPS high schools but it doesn't seem to be published anywhere online.

https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2018-10-29%20Washington%20Latin%20PCS%20%E2%80%93%20Upper%20School%20HS%20PMF.pdf

The old equity reports used to break down data by demographic. Unfortunately, on the PMF, you can only see the MGP for all test takers at Latin and not for at-risk kids.

Sp when the article says that Latin does better for at-risk kids than DCPS schools in general, there isn't any actual support for that? Interesting!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the issue with charter and DCPS "percentages" is how to approach the data from Wards 5, 7, and 8 where charters have grown massively and are very disproportionately at-risk.

The picture for charters used by parents who live in Wards 1, 4 and 6 is different. They are what produces a Latin, where there are lacrosse teams and the at-risk kids get the same growth metrics as if they went to Kramer, Anacostia, or Ballou.

Where do you get that at-risk kids have same growth metrics at LAtin and at Ballou, etc? The Washington post article says that Latin at risk kids do better than at-risk kids at DCPS schools. Are Ballou, Kramer, Anacostia doing better than other DCPS high schools? I'd be very interested to hear where you are getting that info and how those schools are doing better at growth metrics than general DCPS high schools at large and better than Latin specifically.

Or did the Washington Post article mis-state the facts and Latin at-risk kids really are doing worse than at-risk kids at DCPS by-right schools?

MP. Growth is not measured in HS, only in MS because PARCC is only given to 10th graders.

The report cards use HS PARCC proficiency, graduation rates (total, 4-year and 5-year), SAT scores (but the bar is just whether you are above or below DC average).

Growth is measured and reported for high schools. You can see it on the PMF/School Quality Report for Latin. I assume that the data is also available for DCPS high schools but it doesn't seem to be published anywhere online.

https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2018-10-29%20Washington%20Latin%20PCS%20%E2%80%93%20Upper%20School%20HS%20PMF.pdf

The old equity reports used to break down data by demographic. Unfortunately, on the PMF, you can only see the MGP for all test takers at Latin and not for at-risk kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP you're responding to. The gap is as large as it is mainly because the curriculum is tough enough, and the academic demands high enough, to mostly attract UMC families in a city with a vast low-SES/minority-high SES/mostly white achievement gap. The problem is hardly unique to Latin - you see it in Upper NW by-right schools and at BASIS. If Latin watered down its curriculum and demands, the at-risk population would surely rise.

If City ed leaders want to see more at-risk students in charters with broad appeal to UMC families they need to stop blaming schools and start convincing the Mayor and city council members to pay up for the support at-risk kids need to cope with the academics at the highest-performing charters. It's rotten that charters don't get the same per student allocations DCPS does, and need to devote big chunks of the resources they do get to renovating buildings. Not supporting elementary school GT for the brightest low-SES kids like most other big US cities do doesn't help either.

DCPS isn't getting the support it needs either to better support at-risk students. I'm at a charter but I work directly across from a DCPS school. Based on what I've seen, the needs of our at-risk kids are extreme and there simply isn't sufficient funding. Charters and DCPS need to come together to advocate for more support for all at-risk kids - regardless of which type of public school they attend.

+1 unite to lobby for better support for at-risk kids in both sectors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP you're responding to. The gap is as large as it is mainly because the curriculum is tough enough, and the academic demands high enough, to mostly attract UMC families in a city with a vast low-SES/minority-high SES/mostly white achievement gap. The problem is hardly unique to Latin - you see it in Upper NW by-right schools and at BASIS. If Latin watered down its curriculum and demands, the at-risk population would surely rise.

If City ed leaders want to see more at-risk students in charters with broad appeal to UMC families they need to stop blaming schools and start convincing the Mayor and city council members to pay up for the support at-risk kids need to cope with the academics at the highest-performing charters. It's rotten that charters don't get the same per student allocations DCPS does, and need to devote big chunks of the resources they do get to renovating buildings. Not supporting elementary school GT for the brightest low-SES kids like most other big US cities do doesn't help either.

Don’t bring BASIS into this. Look at the black as well as at-risk subgroup performance and discipline data. Better than Latin on both by a significant amount. Neither have a high percentage of at-risk kids but BASIS doesn’t ‘water down’ its curriculum.

Do bring BASIS into this. BASIS does a wonderful job frightening most at-risk families from applying, or staying if they do enroll. Was appalled by treatment of at-risk kids whose families couldn't afford tutors etc. while at BASIS.

If DC supported GT in elementary school, many of the at-risk kids coming into BASIS would have been a lot better prepared, and more likely to thrive. BASIS leaders understand this, helping explain why the franchise has considered opening a K-5 feeder school for years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the issue with charter and DCPS "percentages" is how to approach the data from Wards 5, 7, and 8 where charters have grown massively and are very disproportionately at-risk.

The picture for charters used by parents who live in Wards 1, 4 and 6 is different. They are what produces a Latin, where there are lacrosse teams and the at-risk kids get the same growth metrics as if they went to Kramer, Anacostia, or Ballou.

Where do you get that at-risk kids have same growth metrics at LAtin and at Ballou, etc? The Washington post article says that Latin at risk kids do better than at-risk kids at DCPS schools. Are Ballou, Kramer, Anacostia doing better than other DCPS high schools? I'd be very interested to hear where you are getting that info and how those schools are doing better at growth metrics than general DCPS high schools at large and better than Latin specifically.

Or did the Washington Post article mis-state the facts and Latin at-risk kids really are doing worse than at-risk kids at DCPS by-right schools?

MP. Growth is not measured in HS, only in MS because PARCC is only given to 10th graders.

The report cards use HS PARCC proficiency, graduation rates (total, 4-year and 5-year), SAT scores (but the bar is just whether you are above or below DC average).

Anonymous wrote:Not PP you're responding to. The gap is as large as it is mainly because the curriculum is tough enough, and the academic demands high enough, to mostly attract UMC families in a city with a vast low-SES/minority-high SES/mostly white achievement gap. The problem is hardly unique to Latin - you see it in Upper NW by-right schools and at BASIS. If Latin watered down its curriculum and demands, the at-risk population would surely rise.

If City ed leaders want to see more at-risk students in charters with broad appeal to UMC families they need to stop blaming schools and start convincing the Mayor and city council members to pay up for the support at-risk kids need to cope with the academics at the highest-performing charters. It's rotten that charters don't get the same per student allocations DCPS does, and need to devote big chunks of the resources they do get to renovating buildings. Not supporting elementary school GT for the brightest low-SES kids like most other big US cities do doesn't help either.

DCPS isn't getting the support it needs either to better support at-risk students. I'm at a charter but I work directly across from a DCPS school. Based on what I've seen, the needs of our at-risk kids are extreme and there simply isn't sufficient funding. Charters and DCPS need to come together to advocate for more support for all at-risk kids - regardless of which type of public school they attend.

Anonymous wrote:the issue with charter and DCPS "percentages" is how to approach the data from Wards 5, 7, and 8 where charters have grown massively and are very disproportionately at-risk.

The picture for charters used by parents who live in Wards 1, 4 and 6 is different. They are what produces a Latin, where there are lacrosse teams and the at-risk kids get the same growth metrics as if they went to Kramer, Anacostia, or Ballou.

Where do you get that at-risk kids have same growth metrics at LAtin and at Ballou, etc? The Washington post article says that Latin at risk kids do better than at-risk kids at DCPS schools. Are Ballou, Kramer, Anacostia doing better than other DCPS high schools? I'd be very interested to hear where you are getting that info and how those schools are doing better at growth metrics than general DCPS high schools at large and better than Latin specifically.

Or did the Washington Post article mis-state the facts and Latin at-risk kids really are doing worse than at-risk kids at DCPS by-right schools?

Anonymous wrote:I'm 10:03.

I apologize. 42% of students in charters are at-risk in 2018. 70% are economically disadvantaged.

https://www.dcpcsb.org/data/evaluating-student-enrollment/student-enrollment

But some charters have hardly any, and at some (Latin) the few at risk kids are not doing well. I would think with a mostly very easy student body, nice enough building, parent fundraising, getting most kids in middle school AND taking the easy road by not letting anyone in after 9th, Latin could do a little better than its current unimpressive stats.

Operating a by right system is much harder. The schools have to plan as best they can for uncertain numbers and midyear arrivals. It is not something most charters are willing to do. Back when Dunbar was being operated by a contractor it was no better. The charter sector has no special sauce other than pushing out the hard kids and refusing to do a lot of the hardest work.

How frequently do Latin students take tests or written assignments to track acquisition of core content? And what is done for students who are off-track?

I think can do the above without being 'drill and kill.' From what I've read, WLA is doing this pretty well.

Anonymous wrote:the issue with charter and DCPS "percentages" is how to approach the data from Wards 5, 7, and 8 where charters have grown massively and are very disproportionately at-risk.

The picture for charters used by parents who live in Wards 1, 4 and 6 is different. They are what produces a Latin, where there are lacrosse teams and the at-risk kids get the same growth metrics as if they went to Kramer, Anacostia, or Ballou.

Very true. The charters w/lacrosse etc also serve a far smaller number of students than do the others.

the issue with charter and DCPS "percentages" is how to approach the data from Wards 5, 7, and 8 where charters have grown massively and are very disproportionately at-risk.

The picture for charters used by parents who live in Wards 1, 4 and 6 is different. They are what produces a Latin, where there are lacrosse teams and the at-risk kids get the same growth metrics as if they went to Kramer, Anacostia, or Ballou.

I'm 10:03.

I apologize. 42% of students in charters are at-risk in 2018. 70% are economically disadvantaged.

https://www.dcpcsb.org/data/evaluating-student-enrollment/student-enrollment

Anonymous wrote:Worst I think is The Mayor’s attitude about Latin-she takes it as great regardless of how it does for at risk kids and you know she’d find a place like that appealing rather than touting the public schools in her own ward. She just doesn’t seem to get what the overall ecosystem needs.

Could you imagine if the charter system was the system of right for at risk kids? It gives you a different perspective. Makes you see the kinds of enclaves charters can become and how that has negative effects overall.

More at-risk kids are now in charters than DCPS.

When the mayor was the Ward 4 council member, she pushed for Latin to get its current building. She subsequently got significant blowback that a high-performing school was moving into the neighborhood but would be largely inaccessible to the kids nearby. I think that experience stuck with her, as evidenced by her and Jenny Niles exploring a neighborhood preference for charters (which in Latin's case probably would capture some at-risk students). That, in turn, was roundly criticized by the charter advocates and was dropped.

Over time, like all mayors, interest in charters as waned and interest in DCPS increases (was the case with Fenty and Gray, and now Bowser).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. It will be close to the Hill and the Waterfront and likely Metro, new Latin will probably be flooded with high SES students. Without an at-risk preference, I predict it will be like Lee and Stokes; in a poor neighborhood but a low percentage of at-risk students.

However before it turned into a middle class enclave, Latin did well with disadvantaged students (pre-permanent building). Still not sure what has changed? Different staff? Disadvantaged kids just being left behind or the kind of supports that used to exist fading away as the school became wealthier?

I just don't understand why a school that is doing poorly with low-income kids would even want to go EOTR. If their attitude is "too bad, so sad, not our fault, can't be helped" then what is the point of doing it? Any building should go to a school that wants to make an effort.

They felt a "moral responsibility," according to their expansion application. The Latin Board lamented the dwindling level of economic diversity in its strategic plan (see its website). But I agree that until the application forced the issue, there wasn't a lot of action on this front. Most of the things they are now being required to do, such as staff training for anyone who interacts with kids, are pretty common sense for a school that serves a diverse population.

I think the Board hired the current HOS to help address this problem but I'm not sure he's up to the task. The thing is, before coming to Latin he was head of the elementary at Hyde PCS (now Perry Street Prep) for 5 years. Elementary school =/= MS and HS. He's also worked in several private schools. Also a whole different kettle of fish.

Especially with not letting anyone in after 9th. Oh, it hurts their precious culture. Oh, it's just too hard and they don't want to do it. By-right schools have a culture to cultivate as well. Taking new arrivals is part of a school system's job and Latin is shirking its fair share of the hard work.