I’m a minority and I don’t really care about scores divided by subgroups. I care that the majority of kids are at least on grade level which is not a big ask. I care that there is a decent percentage of higher performing kids above grade level.

Educated blacks and minorities will all tell you the same above.

Anonymous wrote:9:58 referred to scores for WHITE kids at Brent and Watkins, pulled out by subgroup, vs. aggregate scores. Dive into the historical, granular, demographic data on test scores in the last decade and you will see that this PP isn't wrong.

I understand what they said. It's not actually true this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say bunk. UMC parents, particularly white parents, don't tend to care much about ES test scores. They mainly care about enrolling at the schools where the other UMC parents enroll.

For example, Brent's test scores have been among the lowest for white kids in the city for years, yet UMC parents continue to flock to Brent. The school's at-risk rate has plummeted in the decade my kids have been there from more than a 1/3 to around 5%. Meanwhile, Watkins continues to post among the highest test scores for white kids in the city, but isn't nearly as popular as Brent for UMC families.

This is actually not true... either re: Brent or re: Watkins this year FWIW. Their scores broken down by demographics were extremely comparable (and both very solid, but not super spectacular). I think L-T actually had the best ELA scores on the Hill (both by demographic and overall) & Maury the best math scores, IIRC.

That said, parents absolutely do look at scores, partially as a proxy for how many UMC kids are staying in the testing grades (overall scores), but also to see if being in the minority of UMC students at a school is negatively effecting those kids results (demographic results).

A caveat might be helpful here. Parents look at scores where they can't afford to buy or rent real estate in urban school districts (however small as on Cap Hill) that are overwhelmingly UMC and white. Parents of means who can't afford privates easily often look at a neighborhood school's demographics, then look no further.

9:58 referred to scores for WHITE kids at Brent and Watkins, pulled out by subgroup, vs. aggregate scores. Dive into the historical, granular, demographic data on test scores in the last decade and you will see that this PP isn't wrong.

Anonymous wrote:I say bunk. UMC parents, particularly white parents, don't tend to care much about ES test scores. They mainly care about enrolling at the schools where the other UMC parents enroll.

For example, Brent's test scores have been among the lowest for white kids in the city for years, yet UMC parents continue to flock to Brent. The school's at-risk rate has plummeted in the decade my kids have been there from more than a 1/3 to around 5%. Meanwhile, Watkins continues to post among the highest test scores for white kids in the city, but isn't nearly as popular as Brent for UMC families.

This is actually not true... either re: Brent or re: Watkins this year FWIW. Their scores broken down by demographics were extremely comparable (and both very solid, but not super spectacular). I think L-T actually had the best ELA scores on the Hill (both by demographic and overall) & Maury the best math scores, IIRC.

That said, parents absolutely do look at scores, partially as a proxy for how many UMC kids are staying in the testing grades (overall scores), but also to see if being in the minority of UMC students at a school is negatively effecting those kids results (demographic results).

Anonymous wrote:Are you suggesting that there is serious moral hazard to recognizing progress? My child is at one of the recognized schools. The principal could point to gains the school has achieved over the past five years and easily get a job in a suburban school district with much higher academic performance. Same thing for many of the teachers. I don’t know that recognizing their hard work absolves the central office of anything or that it sends a signal that they have reached peak performance.

It’s also grating that any time schools with a sizeable at-risk population are recognized, their work is immediately diminished because “they must be teaching to the test” or “but what about middle school.”

Exactly! What it takes to move students to grade level is so much more work than keeping students who don't have a fraction of the factors that make them "at-risk" at grade level. It's infuriating that people dismiss this progress AS IF they have a clue what it takes to make even these small gains.

No way is DCPS's work or DC's public school work in closing the achievement gap done just because of this progress. But it's ESSENTIAL to note this progress and build on it or we never get there. And the teachers, principals, school staff and involved parents who were crucial to these improvements should be recognized for sure, because I've worked in DCPS schools and it is not for the faint of heart or those who already have decided the kids will fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on how you define doing well. Soft bigotry of low expectations seems apt

Wasn’t that phrase a George Bush justification for cutting funds to public schools. Very cringy.

Cringy and not even accurate. How is recognizing students/schools who performed better than their peers and above the city average during a pandemic low expectations?

Because you're taking low preforming schools, comparing them to each other and then celebrating the slightly less bad. Those same results in the suburbs would have people calling for principals' jobs.

You're clueless, or worse, rooting for these schools and their kids to fail, if you don't understand the importance of looking at who is doing better and finding out WHY and HOW. Therein lie very important clues to what we need to do more of, less of, and what other lessons there are to learn.

Do we actually learn what we need to and consistently act on improvements? Not even close to as much as we need to, but it's still the starting place to document who does better and why.

Anonymous wrote:It depends on how you define doing well. Soft bigotry of low expectations seems apt

At least you're blatant in your prejudices. I guess standardized testing and other across the board standards don't count for you, conveniently, when they show progress in at-risk schools. Hope you're not a teacher, I'd feel sorry for the kids you are committed to not seeing as successful.

Agree with above poster - UMC white parents just want to be at schools where there are others who are like them. This is more important to them than test scores, hence continued support for schools with a higher percentage of white students - both public charter and public - that actually do not have great test scores. Liberal UMC white people in DC like to talk the talk of “diversity” and anti-racism but definitely do not live their lives this way.

I say bunk. UMC parents, particularly white parents, don't tend to care much about ES test scores. They mainly care about enrolling at the schools where the other UMC parents enroll.

For example, Brent's test scores have been among the lowest for white kids in the city for years, yet UMC parents continue to flock to Brent. The school's at-risk rate has plummeted in the decade my kids have been there from more than a 1/3 to around 5%. Meanwhile, Watkins continues to post among the highest test scores for white kids in the city, but isn't nearly as popular as Brent for UMC families.

Anonymous wrote:None of the 14 school is integrated by race or class. Ech. These programs are obviously a big improvement over bad schools segregated by race and class, but this is still an apartheid approach to education. I feel like I benefitted from attending highly socioeconomically and racially diverse public schools as a poor kid of color as much as I did from the education and enrichment provided. When I got to a top college, I struggled a bit socially and academically, but not nearly as much as I would have done without having attended diverse schools.

So, first, this list is ONLY schools which are at least 30% at risk, so of course -- given DC's demographics -- most of them aren't super diverse realistically speaking. But also, while I'm not familiar with many of the schools on the list, Payne is actually fairly diverse with relatively high levels of IB buy-in. When schools start out-performing their demographics on tests in areas that have UMC families, parents start opting in to the school, which leads to more diversity (e.g., Ludlow-Taylor, Marie Reed, now Payne). Publicizing a list like this is actually very good for increasing diversity.

Test-in full-time GT programs from a young age in NYC are what saved me. At least some of the brightest and hard-working low SES students of color could attend diverse schools with GT programs in the District. DC won't touch ES or MS GT, a disaster for the highest-achieving poor students in this particular city.

Anonymous wrote:None of the 14 school is integrated by race or class. Ech. These programs are obviously a big improvement over bad schools segregated by race and class, but this is still an apartheid approach to education. I feel like I benefitted from attending highly socioeconomically and racially diverse public schools as a poor kid of color as much as I did from the education and enrichment provided. When I got to a top college, I struggled a bit socially and academically, but not nearly as much as I would have done without having attended diverse schools.

I hear you but the schools are responding to the population they have -- they didn't create the population. I started my education in a very racially segregated poor school that was much better than my next school in a more diverse "better" neighborhood. We all have stories but what's the solution?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on how you define doing well. Soft bigotry of low expectations seems apt

Why not applaud and encourage? By your standards, affirmative action is a similar example of soft bigotry of low expectations.

We gotta “by your logic” !!!!

Always good for a laugh

Paywall. What’s the list?