Even when you compare CMI to other thru 8th schools, they are significantly behind. I think they are 20+ points lower than ITS, TR, KIPP etc. even when you compare their grade by grade performance, they are at the bottom in each grade.

Not saying CMI's scores are great (3rd grade ELA, oof), but this is just not true.

3rd Grade ELA

Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 65.3%
KIPP DC - Lead Academy PCS 51.9%
KIPP DC - Heights Academy PCS 49.5%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS 45.7%
Washington Yu Ying PCS 44.3%
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS 43.5%
KIPP DC - Promise Academy PCS 42.9%
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS 35.4%
Two Rivers PCS - 4th St 34.0%
Thomson Elementary School 32.3%
E.L. Haynes PCS - Elementary School 27.5%
Capital City PCS - Lower School 26.0%
KIPP DC - Spring Academy PCS 25.3%
DC Bilingual PCS 25.0%
Creative Minds International PCS 21.1%
Two Rivers PCS - Young 20.0%
KIPP DC - Quest Academy PCS 13.8%

3rd Grade Math

KIPP DC - Lead Academy PCS 75.5%
KIPP DC - Promise Academy PCS 74.7%
KIPP DC - Heights Academy PCS 73.8%
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 69.4%
KIPP DC - Spring Academy PCS 66.3%
Washington Yu Ying PCS 65.7%
Creative Minds International PCS 63.2%
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS 56.1%
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS 54.3%
KIPP DC - Quest Academy PCS 51.1%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS 43.5%
Two Rivers PCS - 4th St 39.1%
E.L. Haynes PCS - Elementary School 33.3%
Two Rivers PCS - Young 24.4%
DC Bilingual PCS 15.6%


4th Grade ELA

Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 70.8%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS 61.0%
KIPP DC - Promise Academy PCS 53.1%
Washington Yu Ying PCS 52.1%
E.L. Haynes PCS - Elementary School 51.0%
Creative Minds International PCS 47.2%
KIPP DC - Quest Academy PCS 46.7%
KIPP DC - Lead Academy PCS 46.1%
KIPP DC - Heights Academy PCS 44.2%
Two Rivers PCS - 4th St 44.0%
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS 37.0%
Capital City PCS - Lower School 36.5%
KIPP DC - Spring Academy PCS 34.7%
DC Bilingual PCS 23.8%

4th Grade Math

KIPP DC - Promise Academy PCS 72.4%
KIPP DC - Lead Academy PCS 62.9%
KIPP DC - Heights Academy PCS 60.6%
KIPP DC - Spring Academy PCS 55.8%
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 54.2%
KIPP DC - Quest Academy PCS 52.0%
E.L. Haynes PCS - Elementary School 51.0%
Creative Minds International PCS 47.2%
Washington Yu Ying PCS 42.3%
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS 39.1%
Two Rivers PCS - 4th St 36.0%
DC Bilingual PCS 33.3%
Capital City PCS - Lower School 30.8%

5th and 6th -- didn't look, but assuming CMI is lowest due to expansion in those grades last year

7th Grade ELA

Washington Latin PCS - Middle School 69.3%
District of Columbia International School 57.3%
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 47.4%
Creative Minds International PCS 46.7%
Two Rivers PCS - 4th St 46.0%
KIPP DC - WILL Academy PCS 41.0%
KIPP DC - Northeast Academy PCS 41.0%
KIPP DC - Valor Academy PCS 37.3%
KIPP DC - KEY Academy PCS 37.2%
E.L. Haynes PCS - Middle School 36.4%
KIPP DC - AIM Academy PCS 35.2%


7th Grade MATH

Washington Latin PCS - Middle School 56.8%
Two Rivers PCS - 4th St 44.0%
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 31.6%
Creative Minds International PCS 30.0%
KIPP DC - Northeast Academy PCS 25.6%
KIPP DC - Northeast Academy PCS 25.6%
KIPP DC - WILL Academy PCS 31.1%
KIPP DC - WILL Academy PCS 31.1%
E.L. Haynes PCS - Middle School 19.2%
KIPP DC - KEY Academy PCS 39.7%
KIPP DC - KEY Academy PCS 39.7%
KIPP DC - Valor Academy PCS 17.9%
KIPP DC - Valor Academy PCS 17.9%
KIPP DC - AIM Academy PCS 13.6%
KIPP DC - AIM Academy PCS 13.6%

cara12345 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is something up at Creative Minds? They made tons of offers in all grades (except 3rd)

Other than that they have some of the worst scores in the city, the issues with teacher attrition, lack of leadership, the fact that they are broke and can't pay bills, bullying issues, behavior issues? Besides that? No, they still attract white hippies

I think you mean yuppies. I’m all for equity, but I want more creativity for their mind. Or a green world.

Geez, this blog LOVES to rail on CMI and its parents. I don't get why everyone on here is on a crusade to bring down CMI. My child absolutely LOVES this school.. his teacher is amazing and the facility and outdoor space is amazing. Yes I acknowledge that the scores are low... the middle school is new and most kids entering their middle school were not there for the lower grades, plus we are getting graded through 7th where most schools only go to 5th. Yes there are big issues with faculty turn over and funding, but the parent association is fundraising hard, and I can tell the school is working hard to improve this situation. Will I stay there for 3rd grade +.. totally TBD, but I'm definitely glad to be there now!

You have a problem with teacher turnover because they are some of the lowest paid teachers in the city. That great outdoor space is space that your school can’t afford to pay for and continues to fall in the red each year. Nobody is “railing” on CMI parents, we do give you the side eye for raising funds for the school that can’t afford to pay their bills or their teachers. Even when you compare CMI to other thru 8th schools, they are significantly behind. I think they are 20+ points lower than ITS, TR, KIPP etc. even when you compare their grade by grade performance, they are at the bottom in each grade.

cara12345 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is something up at Creative Minds? They made tons of offers in all grades (except 3rd)

Other than that they have some of the worst scores in the city, the issues with teacher attrition, lack of leadership, the fact that they are broke and can't pay bills, bullying issues, behavior issues? Besides that? No, they still attract white hippies

I think you mean yuppies. I’m all for equity, but I want more creativity for their mind. Or a green world.

Geez, this blog LOVES to rail on CMI and its parents. I don't get why everyone on here is on a crusade to bring down CMI. My child absolutely LOVES this school.. his teacher is amazing and the facility and outdoor space is amazing. Yes I acknowledge that the scores are low... the middle school is new and most kids entering their middle school were not there for the lower grades, plus we are getting graded through 7th where most schools only go to 5th. Yes there are big issues with faculty turn over and funding, but the parent association is fundraising hard, and I can tell the school is working hard to improve this situation. Will I stay there for 3rd grade +.. totally TBD, but I'm definitely glad to be there now!

What grade is your kid in?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is something up at Creative Minds? They made tons of offers in all grades (except 3rd)

Other than that they have some of the worst scores in the city, the issues with teacher attrition, lack of leadership, the fact that they are broke and can't pay bills, bullying issues, behavior issues? Besides that? No, they still attract white hippies

I think you mean yuppies. I’m all for equity, but I want more creativity for their mind. Or a green world.

Geez, this blog LOVES to rail on CMI and its parents. I don't get why everyone on here is on a crusade to bring down CMI. My child absolutely LOVES this school.. his teacher is amazing and the facility and outdoor space is amazing. Yes I acknowledge that the scores are low... the middle school is new and most kids entering their middle school were not there for the lower grades, plus we are getting graded through 7th where most schools only go to 5th. Yes there are big issues with faculty turn over and funding, but the parent association is fundraising hard, and I can tell the school is working hard to improve this situation. Will I stay there for 3rd grade +.. totally TBD, but I'm definitely glad to be there now!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:54 here -- I think I see it:

https://osse.dc.gov/page/2017-18-parcc-results-and-resources

Go to the link above and you can see separate spreadsheets for ELA and Math PARCC data for every school. You can look by grade or overall. Overall, Noyes had 15.2% level 4/5 on ELA. CMI had 30.2%. If you look just at grade 3, Noyes was 26.1% and CMI was 21.1%.

CMI's scores vacillate a lot -- as low as 17.1% for ELA proficiency in 6th grade to 47.2% in 4th. Could be a variety of reasons for that. Math scores look better for CMI.

TLDR: you can drill down on the data from the link earlier in this post, but I think the posted I quoted above is cherry picking ELA on one specific year, which doesn't give you a fair picture of anything.

Well the PMF scores are now out. Let's look at the growth scores (supposed to be the best indicator right?).

CMI
Overall score: 55.4%
Growth in ELA: 45.3%
Growth in Math: 40.3%

COMPARE WITH SIMILAR SCHOOL
ITS
Overall score: 74.6%
Growth in ELA: 57.3%
Growth in Math: 52.1%

COMPARE WITH A SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Meridian
Overall score: 59.4%
Growth in ELA: 60.9%
Growth in Math: 57.9%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Center City Congress Heights
Overall score: 62.7%
Growth in ELA: 50.6%
Growth in Math: 55.5%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Hope - Lamond
Overall score: 62.8%
Growth in ELA: 54.6%
Growth in Math: 49.7%

While ITS and CMI are similar in most demographic categories, there is one important exception -- CMI has 28,7 special ed students vs 16,4 for ITS. Actually, CMI's percentage of special ed students is about twice the average of the other District Schools. That being the case, it's unlikely it could ever have scores to match WOTP schools, which you said you wanted to use as your comparison but wisely didn't, or even ITS which is otherwise its closest match. That's not to say that the scores couldn't and shouldn't be better than they are, but you clearly don't comprehend that many of the CMI parents, including some of the neighbors you enjoy laughing at, have no doubt selected this school especially because of it's focus on special ed, and keep their children there for that very reason. I doubt they appreciate your very peculiar sense of humor or your arrogance in assuming you know what's better for their kids than they do.

NP.

You can't assume that students with special needs are the ones bringing down CMI's scores, so to speak. In fact, the above numbers relate to student growth, not achievement. CMI, if it has a better approach to teaching students with disabilities than anyone else, should be able to keep pace when comparing growth scores (students moving from level 1 PARCC to 2 counts as much or more as moving from 4 to 5).

If CMI is really no better at educating students with disabilities than other schools, what is their raison d'etre? And if that is their 'focus', why haven't they applied for SN lottery preference like Bridges?

You might try looking at Bridges PARCC and PMF scores. Bridges has 34.8% special ed and is a Tier 3 school.

Excuse me. I was using last year's tier ranking. I see that Bridges edged up this year to Tier 2. Good for them!

Bridges also has 36% ELL and 66% FARM while CMI has 5% and 35%. CMI pays it's teachers an average of $51k.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:54 here -- I think I see it:

https://osse.dc.gov/page/2017-18-parcc-results-and-resources

Go to the link above and you can see separate spreadsheets for ELA and Math PARCC data for every school. You can look by grade or overall. Overall, Noyes had 15.2% level 4/5 on ELA. CMI had 30.2%. If you look just at grade 3, Noyes was 26.1% and CMI was 21.1%.

CMI's scores vacillate a lot -- as low as 17.1% for ELA proficiency in 6th grade to 47.2% in 4th. Could be a variety of reasons for that. Math scores look better for CMI.

TLDR: you can drill down on the data from the link earlier in this post, but I think the posted I quoted above is cherry picking ELA on one specific year, which doesn't give you a fair picture of anything.

Well the PMF scores are now out. Let's look at the growth scores (supposed to be the best indicator right?).

CMI
Overall score: 55.4%
Growth in ELA: 45.3%
Growth in Math: 40.3%

COMPARE WITH SIMILAR SCHOOL
ITS
Overall score: 74.6%
Growth in ELA: 57.3%
Growth in Math: 52.1%

COMPARE WITH A SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Meridian
Overall score: 59.4%
Growth in ELA: 60.9%
Growth in Math: 57.9%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Center City Congress Heights
Overall score: 62.7%
Growth in ELA: 50.6%
Growth in Math: 55.5%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Hope - Lamond
Overall score: 62.8%
Growth in ELA: 54.6%
Growth in Math: 49.7%

While ITS and CMI are similar in most demographic categories, there is one important exception -- CMI has 28,7 special ed students vs 16,4 for ITS. Actually, CMI's percentage of special ed students is about twice the average of the other District Schools. That being the case, it's unlikely it could ever have scores to match WOTP schools, which you said you wanted to use as your comparison but wisely didn't, or even ITS which is otherwise its closest match. That's not to say that the scores couldn't and shouldn't be better than they are, but you clearly don't comprehend that many of the CMI parents, including some of the neighbors you enjoy laughing at, have no doubt selected this school especially because of it's focus on special ed, and keep their children there for that very reason. I doubt they appreciate your very peculiar sense of humor or your arrogance in assuming you know what's better for their kids than they do.

NP.

You can't assume that students with special needs are the ones bringing down CMI's scores, so to speak. In fact, the above numbers relate to student growth, not achievement. CMI, if it has a better approach to teaching students with disabilities than anyone else, should be able to keep pace when comparing growth scores (students moving from level 1 PARCC to 2 counts as much or more as moving from 4 to 5).

If CMI is really no better at educating students with disabilities than other schools, what is their raison d'etre? And if that is their 'focus', why haven't they applied for SN lottery preference like Bridges?

You might try looking at Bridges PARCC and PMF scores. Bridges has 34.8% special ed and is a Tier 3 school.

Excuse me. I was using last year's tier ranking. I see that Bridges edged up this year to Tier 2. Good for them!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:54 here -- I think I see it:

https://osse.dc.gov/page/2017-18-parcc-results-and-resources

Go to the link above and you can see separate spreadsheets for ELA and Math PARCC data for every school. You can look by grade or overall. Overall, Noyes had 15.2% level 4/5 on ELA. CMI had 30.2%. If you look just at grade 3, Noyes was 26.1% and CMI was 21.1%.

CMI's scores vacillate a lot -- as low as 17.1% for ELA proficiency in 6th grade to 47.2% in 4th. Could be a variety of reasons for that. Math scores look better for CMI.

TLDR: you can drill down on the data from the link earlier in this post, but I think the posted I quoted above is cherry picking ELA on one specific year, which doesn't give you a fair picture of anything.

Well the PMF scores are now out. Let's look at the growth scores (supposed to be the best indicator right?).

CMI
Overall score: 55.4%
Growth in ELA: 45.3%
Growth in Math: 40.3%

COMPARE WITH SIMILAR SCHOOL
ITS
Overall score: 74.6%
Growth in ELA: 57.3%
Growth in Math: 52.1%

COMPARE WITH A SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Meridian
Overall score: 59.4%
Growth in ELA: 60.9%
Growth in Math: 57.9%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Center City Congress Heights
Overall score: 62.7%
Growth in ELA: 50.6%
Growth in Math: 55.5%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Hope - Lamond
Overall score: 62.8%
Growth in ELA: 54.6%
Growth in Math: 49.7%

While ITS and CMI are similar in most demographic categories, there is one important exception -- CMI has 28,7 special ed students vs 16,4 for ITS. Actually, CMI's percentage of special ed students is about twice the average of the other District Schools. That being the case, it's unlikely it could ever have scores to match WOTP schools, which you said you wanted to use as your comparison but wisely didn't, or even ITS which is otherwise its closest match. That's not to say that the scores couldn't and shouldn't be better than they are, but you clearly don't comprehend that many of the CMI parents, including some of the neighbors you enjoy laughing at, have no doubt selected this school especially because of it's focus on special ed, and keep their children there for that very reason. I doubt they appreciate your very peculiar sense of humor or your arrogance in assuming you know what's better for their kids than they do.

NP.

You can't assume that students with special needs are the ones bringing down CMI's scores, so to speak. In fact, the above numbers relate to student growth, not achievement. CMI, if it has a better approach to teaching students with disabilities than anyone else, should be able to keep pace when comparing growth scores (students moving from level 1 PARCC to 2 counts as much or more as moving from 4 to 5).

If CMI is really no better at educating students with disabilities than other schools, what is their raison d'etre? And if that is their 'focus', why haven't they applied for SN lottery preference like Bridges?

You might try looking at Bridges PARCC and PMF scores. Bridges has 34.8% special ed and is a Tier 3 school.

*special needs not sexual.

*special needs not sexual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:54 here -- I think I see it:

https://osse.dc.gov/page/2017-18-parcc-results-and-resources

Go to the link above and you can see separate spreadsheets for ELA and Math PARCC data for every school. You can look by grade or overall. Overall, Noyes had 15.2% level 4/5 on ELA. CMI had 30.2%. If you look just at grade 3, Noyes was 26.1% and CMI was 21.1%.

CMI's scores vacillate a lot -- as low as 17.1% for ELA proficiency in 6th grade to 47.2% in 4th. Could be a variety of reasons for that. Math scores look better for CMI.

TLDR: you can drill down on the data from the link earlier in this post, but I think the posted I quoted above is cherry picking ELA on one specific year, which doesn't give you a fair picture of anything.

Well the PMF scores are now out. Let's look at the growth scores (supposed to be the best indicator right?).

CMI
Overall score: 55.4%
Growth in ELA: 45.3%
Growth in Math: 40.3%

COMPARE WITH SIMILAR SCHOOL
ITS
Overall score: 74.6%
Growth in ELA: 57.3%
Growth in Math: 52.1%

COMPARE WITH A SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Meridian
Overall score: 59.4%
Growth in ELA: 60.9%
Growth in Math: 57.9%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Center City Congress Heights
Overall score: 62.7%
Growth in ELA: 50.6%
Growth in Math: 55.5%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Hope - Lamond
Overall score: 62.8%
Growth in ELA: 54.6%
Growth in Math: 49.7%

While ITS and CMI are similar in most demographic categories, there is one important exception -- CMI has 28,7 special ed students vs 16,4 for ITS. Actually, CMI's percentage of special ed students is about twice the average of the other District Schools. That being the case, it's unlikely it could ever have scores to match WOTP schools, which you said you wanted to use as your comparison but wisely didn't, or even ITS which is otherwise its closest match. That's not to say that the scores couldn't and shouldn't be better than they are, but you clearly don't comprehend that many of the CMI parents, including some of the neighbors you enjoy laughing at, have no doubt selected this school especially because of it's focus on special ed, and keep their children there for that very reason. I doubt they appreciate your very peculiar sense of humor or your arrogance in assuming you know what's better for their kids than they do.

NP.

You can't assume that students with special needs are the ones bringing down CMI's scores, so to speak. In fact, the above numbers relate to student growth, not achievement. CMI, if it has a better approach to teaching students with disabilities than anyone else, should be able to keep pace when comparing growth scores (students moving from level 1 PARCC to 2 counts as much or more as moving from 4 to 5).

If CMI is really no better at educating students with disabilities than other schools, what is their raison d'etre? And if that is their 'focus', why haven't they applied for SN lottery preference like Bridges?

This. Plus how exactly does having a handle more student defined as sexual needs impact growth? That population is already static and accounts for their low test scores (maybe slightly), how does it explain lack of growth for the rest of the community?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:54 here -- I think I see it:

https://osse.dc.gov/page/2017-18-parcc-results-and-resources

Go to the link above and you can see separate spreadsheets for ELA and Math PARCC data for every school. You can look by grade or overall. Overall, Noyes had 15.2% level 4/5 on ELA. CMI had 30.2%. If you look just at grade 3, Noyes was 26.1% and CMI was 21.1%.

CMI's scores vacillate a lot -- as low as 17.1% for ELA proficiency in 6th grade to 47.2% in 4th. Could be a variety of reasons for that. Math scores look better for CMI.

TLDR: you can drill down on the data from the link earlier in this post, but I think the posted I quoted above is cherry picking ELA on one specific year, which doesn't give you a fair picture of anything.

Well the PMF scores are now out. Let's look at the growth scores (supposed to be the best indicator right?).

CMI
Overall score: 55.4%
Growth in ELA: 45.3%
Growth in Math: 40.3%

COMPARE WITH SIMILAR SCHOOL
ITS
Overall score: 74.6%
Growth in ELA: 57.3%
Growth in Math: 52.1%

COMPARE WITH A SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Meridian
Overall score: 59.4%
Growth in ELA: 60.9%
Growth in Math: 57.9%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Center City Congress Heights
Overall score: 62.7%
Growth in ELA: 50.6%
Growth in Math: 55.5%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Hope - Lamond
Overall score: 62.8%
Growth in ELA: 54.6%
Growth in Math: 49.7%

While ITS and CMI are similar in most demographic categories, there is one important exception -- CMI has 28,7 special ed students vs 16,4 for ITS. Actually, CMI's percentage of special ed students is about twice the average of the other District Schools. That being the case, it's unlikely it could ever have scores to match WOTP schools, which you said you wanted to use as your comparison but wisely didn't, or even ITS which is otherwise its closest match. That's not to say that the scores couldn't and shouldn't be better than they are, but you clearly don't comprehend that many of the CMI parents, including some of the neighbors you enjoy laughing at, have no doubt selected this school especially because of it's focus on special ed, and keep their children there for that very reason. I doubt they appreciate your very peculiar sense of humor or your arrogance in assuming you know what's better for their kids than they do.

NP.

You can't assume that students with special needs are the ones bringing down CMI's scores, so to speak. In fact, the above numbers relate to student growth, not achievement. CMI, if it has a better approach to teaching students with disabilities than anyone else, should be able to keep pace when comparing growth scores (students moving from level 1 PARCC to 2 counts as much or more as moving from 4 to 5).

If CMI is really no better at educating students with disabilities than other schools, what is their raison d'etre? And if that is their 'focus', why haven't they applied for SN lottery preference like Bridges?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:54 here -- I think I see it:

https://osse.dc.gov/page/2017-18-parcc-results-and-resources

Go to the link above and you can see separate spreadsheets for ELA and Math PARCC data for every school. You can look by grade or overall. Overall, Noyes had 15.2% level 4/5 on ELA. CMI had 30.2%. If you look just at grade 3, Noyes was 26.1% and CMI was 21.1%.

CMI's scores vacillate a lot -- as low as 17.1% for ELA proficiency in 6th grade to 47.2% in 4th. Could be a variety of reasons for that. Math scores look better for CMI.

TLDR: you can drill down on the data from the link earlier in this post, but I think the posted I quoted above is cherry picking ELA on one specific year, which doesn't give you a fair picture of anything.

Well the PMF scores are now out. Let's look at the growth scores (supposed to be the best indicator right?).

CMI
Overall score: 55.4%
Growth in ELA: 45.3%
Growth in Math: 40.3%

COMPARE WITH SIMILAR SCHOOL
ITS
Overall score: 74.6%
Growth in ELA: 57.3%
Growth in Math: 52.1%

COMPARE WITH A SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Meridian
Overall score: 59.4%
Growth in ELA: 60.9%
Growth in Math: 57.9%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Center City Congress Heights
Overall score: 62.7%
Growth in ELA: 50.6%
Growth in Math: 55.5%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Hope - Lamond
Overall score: 62.8%
Growth in ELA: 54.6%
Growth in Math: 49.7%

While ITS and CMI are similar in most demographic categories, there is one important exception -- CMI has 28,7 special ed students vs 16,4 for ITS. Actually, CMI's percentage of special ed students is about twice the average of the other District Schools. That being the case, it's unlikely it could ever have scores to match WOTP schools, which you said you wanted to use as your comparison but wisely didn't, or even ITS which is otherwise its closest match. That's not to say that the scores couldn't and shouldn't be better than they are, but you clearly don't comprehend that many of the CMI parents, including some of the neighbors you enjoy laughing at, have no doubt selected this school especially because of it's focus on special ed, and keep their children there for that very reason. I doubt they appreciate your very peculiar sense of humor or your arrogance in assuming you know what's better for their kids than they do.

Anonymous wrote:11:54 here -- I think I see it:

https://osse.dc.gov/page/2017-18-parcc-results-and-resources

Go to the link above and you can see separate spreadsheets for ELA and Math PARCC data for every school. You can look by grade or overall. Overall, Noyes had 15.2% level 4/5 on ELA. CMI had 30.2%. If you look just at grade 3, Noyes was 26.1% and CMI was 21.1%.

CMI's scores vacillate a lot -- as low as 17.1% for ELA proficiency in 6th grade to 47.2% in 4th. Could be a variety of reasons for that. Math scores look better for CMI.

TLDR: you can drill down on the data from the link earlier in this post, but I think the posted I quoted above is cherry picking ELA on one specific year, which doesn't give you a fair picture of anything.

Well the PMF scores are now out. Let's look at the growth scores (supposed to be the best indicator right?).

CMI
Overall score: 55.4%
Growth in ELA: 45.3%
Growth in Math: 40.3%

COMPARE WITH SIMILAR SCHOOL
ITS
Overall score: 74.6%
Growth in ELA: 57.3%
Growth in Math: 52.1%

COMPARE WITH A SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Meridian
Overall score: 59.4%
Growth in ELA: 60.9%
Growth in Math: 57.9%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Center City Congress Heights
Overall score: 62.7%
Growth in ELA: 50.6%
Growth in Math: 55.5%

COMPARE WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL DCUM DOESN'T LOOK AT
Hope - Lamond
Overall score: 62.8%
Growth in ELA: 54.6%
Growth in Math: 49.7%

Ug. There were NO waitlist offers for prek 3 or 4 for Van Ness?! There weren't even any seats for prek 4 this year. It's my in bound and it didn't happen this year. Next years not looking good either apparently

Anonymous wrote:11:54 here -- I think I see it:

https://osse.dc.gov/page/2017-18-parcc-results-and-resources

Go to the link above and you can see separate spreadsheets for ELA and Math PARCC data for every school. You can look by grade or overall. Overall, Noyes had 15.2% level 4/5 on ELA. CMI had 30.2%. If you look just at grade 3, Noyes was 26.1% and CMI was 21.1%.

CMI's scores vacillate a lot -- as low as 17.1% for ELA proficiency in 6th grade to 47.2% in 4th. Could be a variety of reasons for that. Math scores look better for CMI.

TLDR: you can drill down on the data from the link earlier in this post, but I think the posted I quoted above is cherry picking ELA on one specific year, which doesn't give you a fair picture of anything.

Sorry, I should have posted: I think the poster I quoted above is cherry picking ELA on one specific grade, which doesn't give you a fair picture of overall test scores.