Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons for no admission after 9th grade may be because of the latin requirement. That is a part of their educational model. Students take 4 years of Latin before 9th grade. Are famlies/students going to invest the extra time and energy to catch up? No, they are going to make excuses, beg for a waiver, and water down the education and exposure just to have the name on the diploma. If you want generic, go to a generic DCPS school. Latin is specialized. If you choose it, embrace the program. Don't try to change it. Square pegs don't fit in round hole...they just warp them. People should find the best fit for their child and family.

Ridiculous. Take a summer of AP Latin somewhere and learn more Latin than most of Latin's 8th graders know. Or just waive the silly antiquated language requirement and let kids get on with their AP classes, without mercy for academic stragglers.

The best fit for their child and family, what a joke in a City with one reasonably popular by-right neighborhood HS (Wilson of course).

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons for no admission after 9th grade may be because of the latin requirement. That is a part of their educational model. Students take 4 years of Latin before 9th grade. Are famlies/students going to invest the extra time and energy to catch up? No, they are going to make excuses, beg for a waiver, and water down the education and exposure just to have the name on the diploma. If you want generic, go to a generic DCPS school. Latin is specialized. If you choose it, embrace the program. Don't try to change it. Square pegs don't fit in round hole...they just warp them. People should find the best fit for their child and family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There has been A LOT of discussion about Latin not serving at-risk kids, but what I am looking at seems to show that Latin is not able to educate brown kids who are NOT at risk. In other words, Latin is NOT working for black and brown kids who are middle class. WTF? This is what needs to be looked at. Why are the black kids at Latin who are MIDDLE CLASS and UMC not benefiting from this school that is supposedly so great? How could we even consider letting Latin try to educate at-risk kids when they are FAILING kids of color who have advantages and educated parents? DC makes no sense - and Latin’s record is making no sense.

This. What the heck is going on here and why are Latin parents okay with it?

Come on, AA students don't perform as well collectively as white students across socioeconomic strata. This outcome has been proven in study after study for over half a century. It's worth remembering that blacks are still fairly new to the middle class as a group (generally only in their second or third generation). They're still catching up to whites on various measures of academic achievement, prosperity and health.

This is true, but why is the gap narrower at other non- Title 1 schools in the city?

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

It's all B#### unless you are following the same child to show growth, if not then it's meaningless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There has been A LOT of discussion about Latin not serving at-risk kids, but what I am looking at seems to show that Latin is not able to educate brown kids who are NOT at risk. In other words, Latin is NOT working for black and brown kids who are middle class. WTF? This is what needs to be looked at. Why are the black kids at Latin who are MIDDLE CLASS and UMC not benefiting from this school that is supposedly so great? How could we even consider letting Latin try to educate at-risk kids when they are FAILING kids of color who have advantages and educated parents? DC makes no sense - and Latin’s record is making no sense.

This. What the heck is going on here and why are Latin parents okay with it?

Come on, AA students don't perform as well collectively as white students across socioeconomic strata. This outcome has been proven in study after study for over half a century. It's worth remembering that blacks are still fairly new to the middle class as a group (generally only in their second or third generation). They're still catching up to whites on various measures of academic achievement, prosperity and health.

Anonymous wrote:

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:There has been A LOT of discussion about Latin not serving at-risk kids, but what I am looking at seems to show that Latin is not able to educate brown kids who are NOT at risk. In other words, Latin is NOT working for black and brown kids who are middle class. WTF? This is what needs to be looked at. Why are the black kids at Latin who are MIDDLE CLASS and UMC not benefiting from this school that is supposedly so great? How could we even consider letting Latin try to educate at-risk kids when they are FAILING kids of color who have advantages and educated parents? DC makes no sense - and Latin’s record is making no sense.

This. What the heck is going on here and why are Latin parents okay with it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons for no admission after 9th grade may be because of the latin requirement. That is a part of their educational model. Students take 4 years of Latin before 9th grade. Are famlies/students going to invest the extra time and energy to catch up? No, they are going to make excuses, beg for a waiver, and water down the education and exposure just to have the name on the diploma. If you want generic, go to a generic DCPS school. Latin is specialized. If you choose it, embrace the program. Don't try to change it. Square pegs don't fit in round hole...they just warp them. People should find the best fit for their child and family.

How does that work for those admitted in middle school, though? This year Latin offered 6 8th grade seats in the initial lottery, even.

Latin can make excuses, but the bottom line that is not taking new kids is taking the easier road. Its performance should be judged accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:There has been A LOT of discussion about Latin not serving at-risk kids, but what I am looking at seems to show that Latin is not able to educate brown kids who are NOT at risk. In other words, Latin is NOT working for black and brown kids who are middle class. WTF? This is what needs to be looked at. Why are the black kids at Latin who are MIDDLE CLASS and UMC not benefiting from this school that is supposedly so great? How could we even consider letting Latin try to educate at-risk kids when they are FAILING kids of color who have advantages and educated parents? DC makes no sense - and Latin’s record is making no sense.

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons for no admission after 9th grade may be because of the latin requirement. That is a part of their educational model. Students take 4 years of Latin before 9th grade. Are famlies/students going to invest the extra time and energy to catch up? No, they are going to make excuses, beg for a waiver, and water down the education and exposure just to have the name on the diploma. If you want generic, go to a generic DCPS school. Latin is specialized. If you choose it, embrace the program. Don't try to change it. Square pegs don't fit in round hole...they just warp them. People should find the best fit for their child and family.