Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCB crushed it.

Very proud of this school. The administration's hard work is truly showing.

Yeah, their hard work pushing out kids with behavior problems by writing BS IEPs. And yes, I speak from personal experience with one of my own students who can function perfectly fine in a general education setting and can complete grade level work independently.

Anonymous wrote:Wow. As a Bridges parent (and a pretty happy one based on what I've seen this year), I'm pretty disappointed/worried.

We passed on a school that I'm surprised to see ranked 1.

As another family who sent our child to Bridges and had a great experience, don’t discount your observations. Numbers only say so much. I feel confident that Bridges’ numbers will rise, especially if they start paying their staff better.

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone fill me in on the instructional support metric? How's this measured? It is often low...and we're at LAMB where it's VERY low. That to me might signal lack of familiarity with Montessori?

All the Montessori schools score pretty low on the instructional support metric, so it could be a feature of the child-driven model.

I don't know how it's collected. It may be in this long document. https://dcpcsb.egnyte.com/dl/3qDs6Pg1Fm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF Bridges?
Congrats to ITS for climbing up to Tier 1.
LAMB's numbers are astounding.

Looks like Bridges was hurt by their ELA PARCC scores (including a lack of growth on them year over year) and reenrollment. Sad news.

Last year was their first year in their new building, too. Could help explain the re-enrollment #?

Re-entitlements is worth 9 points. Growth is worth 35 and they got nearly 0. If you have zero growth, you have no room for error on any other metric as you’re already at 65% starting off (min required for tier 1).

If the re-enrollment numbers were even slightly better, though, they probably would have fallen within Tier 2. The cutoff is 35% and they were at 34.5%. The growth numbers are obviously a problem and left no room for error, but attrition played a role in the tier ranking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of your schools that are Tier 2 or 3 communicated with parents?

Haven't heard anything from Shining Stars...all the schools know their PMF score and tier before it is made public...

Lee hasn't said anything but IIRC they made a big deal about attendance/tardies at Back to School Night, so maybe that's from knowing the PMF score?

Anonymous wrote:how is the % economically disadvantaged greater than at-risk %? I thought at risk % was broader in definition and included economically disadvantaged. Is economically disadvantaged same as FARM rate?

FARM: qualifies for free and reduced meals. Some schools give these meals to all kids through the "community eligibility program" (CEP) and in some schools (those with lower poverty rates) kids have to document their household incomes and only the lower-income kids get free meals.

Economically disadvantaged: ESSA allows states to set their own definition. https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/Accountability%20System%20Meeting%2C%20July%2012%2C%202017.pdf says that DC has in the past defined it as kids who receive Free or Reduced Price Meals based on income eligibility, those who are "Direct Certified" based on TANF, SNAP, CFSA, or homeless status, or who attend a CEP school.

At-risk: homeless, in the District’s foster care system, qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or high school students that are one year older, or more, than the expected age for the grade in which the students are enrolled.

About 65% of DCPS and charter school kids attend a CEP school. Not all of them are at risk. Similarly, it would be possible for a kid to be in foster care or have been reshirted but still have a high household income. The three measures are quite different, though probably a lot of kids fall into all three categories.

BASIS emailed parents this morning. They applauded high school students for their strong scores and acknowledging that the middle school results were not as strong as in the past.

Said that they are implementing a plan to address specific weaknesses, and that more info for parents will be coming.

I did appreciate that they were proactive about the results and hope we get more information about corrective actions soon.

Anonymous wrote:Have any of your schools that are Tier 2 or 3 communicated with parents?

Haven't heard anything from Shining Stars...all the schools know their PMF score and tier before it is made public...

Have any of your schools that are Tier 2 or 3 communicated with parents?

Wow. As a Bridges parent (and a pretty happy one based on what I've seen this year), I'm pretty disappointed/worried.

We passed on a school that I'm surprised to see ranked 1.

Anonymous wrote:Harmony's not long for this town.

I think their 5-year review is in 18-19. Does anyone know how the closure process works?

Harmony's not long for this town.

BASIS DC PCS - High School 95.5% 1
Washington Latin PCS - Upper School 89.1% 1
Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS 87.7% 1
KIPP DC - Connect Academy PCS 87.4% 1
Cedar Tree Academy PCS 86.8% 1
Washington Yu Ying PCS 86.0% 1
Friendship PCS - Chamberlain Elementary School 84.1% 1
KIPP DC - Grow Academy PCS 84.0% 1
Friendship PCS - Woodridge Elementary School 83.7% 1
KIPP DC - Promise Academy PCS 83.7% 1
KIPP DC - Arts and Technology Academy PCS 82.0% 1
DC Bilingual PCS 81.0% 1
DC Prep PCS - Anacostia Elementary School 80.1% 1
Briya PCS 81.9% 1
Washington Latin PCS - Middle School 79.3% 1
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Elementary School 79.0% 1
KIPP DC - Discover Academy PCS 77.6% 1
District of Columbia International School 76.8% 4
E.L. Haynes PCS - Elementary School 76.8% 1
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Lincoln Park 75.8% 1
DC Prep PCS - Edgewood Elementary School 74.7% 1
Sela PCS 74.1% 1
DC Prep PCS - Benning Elementary School 73.9% 1
Center City PCS - Shaw 73.7% 1
Two Rivers PCS - Young 73.6% 1
DC Prep PCS - Edgewood Middle School 73.5% 1
KIPP DC - Heights Academy PCS 72.0% 1
Rocketship PCS - Rise Academy 71.3% NA
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS 71.0% 1
Center City PCS - Petworth 70.4% 1
Two Rivers PCS - 4th Street 70.4% 1
Early Childhood Academy PCS 69.9% 1
KIPP DC - Spring Academy PCS 69.5% 1
KIPP DC - Northeast Academy PCS 69.3% 1
Center City PCS - Brightwood 68.9% 1
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 68.9% 1
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Columbia Heights 68.6% 1
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS 68.0% 1
Thurgood Marshall Academy PCS 67.2% 1
KIPP DC - Quest Academy PCS 67.0% 1
Friendship PCS - Chamberlain Middle School 66.7% 1
KIPP DC - College Preparatory Academy PCS 66.5% 1
SEED PCS of Washington DC 66.1% 1
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Middle School 65.9% 1
KIPP DC - LEAP Academy PCS 65.7% 1
Capital City PCS - High School 65.3% 1
Capital City PCS - Lower School 65.3% 1
Eagle Academy PCS - Capitol Riverfront 65.3% 1
E.L. Haynes PCS - High School 62.7% 2
KIPP DC - AIM Academy PCS 62.1% 2
Lee Montessori PCS 61.8% 2
KIPP DC - KEY Academy PCS 61.5% 2
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Oklahoma Avenue 60.5% 2
Eagle Academy PCS - Congress Heights 60.4% 2
Hope Community PCS - Lamond 59.5% 2
Creative Minds International PCS 59.3% 2
DC Prep PCS - Benning Middle School 59.1% 2
BASIS DC PCS - Middle School 59.0% 2
Capital City PCS - Middle School 59.0% 2
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Southwest 58.8% 2
KIPP DC - Lead Academy PCS 58.3% 2
Friendship PCS - Online 58.1% 2
Center City PCS - Congress Heights 57.7% 2
Ingenuity Prep PCS 57.7% 2
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Southeast 56.1% 2
E.L. Haynes PCS - Middle School 54.8% 2
Friendship PCS - Technology Preparatory High School 54.5% 2
Friendship PCS - Woodridge Middle School 54.5% 2
DC Scholars PCS 54.1% 2
Friendship PCS - Collegiate Academy 53.6% 2
Center City PCS - Capitol Hill 52.9% 2
Hope Community PCS - Tolson 52.7% 2
Cesar Chavez PCS for Public Policy - Parkside High School 52.2% 2
Howard University Middle School of Mathematics and Science PCS 51.9% 2
Perry Street Preparatory PCS 51.8% 2
Meridian PCS 51.2% 2
Friendship PCS - Armstrong 50.1% 2
KIPP DC - WILL Academy PCS 50.1% 2
Paul PCS - International High School 50.1% 2
KIPP DC - Valor Academy PCS 49.8% 2
Richard Wright PCS for Journalism and Media Arts 47.3% 2
Washington Mathematics Science Technology PCHS 46.5% 2
Center City PCS - Trinidad 46.2% 2
Friendship PCS - Southeast Academy 45.9% 2
Paul PCS - Middle School 45.3% 2
Shining Stars Montessori Academy PCS 44.4% 2
Somerset Preparatory Academy PCS (High School) 44.0% 2
City Arts & Prep PCS 42.4% 2
Cesar Chavez PCS for Public Policy - Capitol Hill 41.5% 2
Washington Global PCS 41.5% 2
Friendship PCS - Technology Preparatory Middle School 41.0% 2
Cesar Chavez PCS for Public Policy - Chavez Prep 40.3% 2
Mary McLeod Bethune Day Academy PCS 39.6% 2
IDEA PCS 42.7% 2
Achievement Preparatory Academy PCS - Wahler Place Middle School 37.1% 2
Excel Academy PCS 37.0% 2
Somerset Preparatory Academy PCS (Middle School) 36.7% 2
Bridges PCS 34.5% 3
Ideal Academy PCS 33.8% 3
Roots PCS 33.7% 3
Cesar Chavez PCS for Public Policy - Parkside Middle School 33.0% 3
SEED PCS of Washington DC 32.4% 3
Achievement Preparatory Academy PCS - Wahler Place Elementary School 32.3% 3
Democracy Prep Congress Heights PCS 31.4% 3
Harmony DC PCS - School of Excellence 30.8% 3
National Collegiate Preparatory PCHS 27.9% 3
Briya PCS NA 1
Carlos Rosario International PCS NA 1
The Next Step/El Proximo Paso PCS NA 1
YouthBuild PCS NA 1
LAYC Career Academy PCS NA 2
Academy of Hope Adult PCS NA 2
Community College Preparatory Academy PCS NA 2
Maya Angelou PCS - Young Adult Learning Center NA 2
Breakthrough Montessori PCS NA NA
Washington Leadership Academy PCS NA NA

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF Bridges?
Congrats to ITS for climbing up to Tier 1.
LAMB's numbers are astounding.

Looks like Bridges was hurt by their ELA PARCC scores (including a lack of growth on them year over year) and reenrollment. Sad news.

Last year was their first year in their new building, too. Could help explain the re-enrollment #?

Re-entitlements is worth 9 points. Growth is worth 35 and they got nearly 0. If you have zero growth, you have no room for error on any other metric as you’re already at 65% starting off (min required for tier 1).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF Bridges?
Congrats to ITS for climbing up to Tier 1.
LAMB's numbers are astounding.

Looks like Bridges was hurt by their ELA PARCC scores (including a lack of growth on them year over year) and reenrollment. Sad news.

Last year was their first year in their new building, too. Could help explain the re-enrollment #?

Absolutely a move, if they had families that didn't follow them, hurts this metric.