Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students in lower grades are showing improvements. It makes sense that the students who are younger, who have had the most early exposure to the reforms, would show the most improvement. The recent PARCC exam results confirm this:

Slide 16:
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/OSSE%20PARCC%203-8%20ReleasePresentation_finalv14.pdf

If reforms began seven years ago, then a child who started PK3 at that time would only be in 4th grade now -- and when the reforms began, not many children were enrolled in PK3.

DCPS has been in decline for more than 30 years. It isn't going to magically become Virginia in 5 years. But, in my own view, the improvement over this period is positive. Enough to make me stick around.

This is magical thinking, see the later posters. We essentially just see fewer middle class kids in the later grades. It's likely that more will stay...and scores will improve.

What DC has is a generational poverty issue, not an education crisis.

Anonymous wrote:Students in lower grades are showing improvements. It makes sense that the students who are younger, who have had the most early exposure to the reforms, would show the most improvement. The recent PARCC exam results confirm this:

Slide 16:
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/OSSE%20PARCC%203-8%20ReleasePresentation_finalv14.pdf

If reforms began seven years ago, then a child who started PK3 at that time would only be in 4th grade now -- and when the reforms began, not many children were enrolled in PK3.

DCPS has been in decline for more than 30 years. It isn't going to magically become Virginia in 5 years. But, in my own view, the improvement over this period is positive. Enough to make me stick around.

Anonymous wrote:The problem is simply that families living in poverty don't have the means to spend time with their children and ensure that their children are putting a high priority on doing well in school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students in lower grades are showing improvements. It makes sense that the students who are younger, who have had the most early exposure to the reforms, would show the most improvement. The recent PARCC exam results confirm this:

Slide 16:
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/OSSE%20PARCC%203-8%20ReleasePresentation_finalv14.pdf

If reforms began seven years ago, then a child who started PK3 at that time would only be in 4th grade now -- and when the reforms began, not many children were enrolled in PK3.

DCPS has been in decline for more than 30 years. It isn't going to magically become Virginia in 5 years. But, in my own view, the improvement over this period is positive. Enough to make me stick around.

The information in this pdf doesn't at all say that. I didn't see a slide that showed that data broken down by race and by grade. Since there is such a huge disparity by race, the better scores at younger ages could just be that there are more white families in the younger grades than in the older grades. That's not an improvement in education.

PP here again, I found that information at the end. Indeed, from 3rd-8th grade, the percentage of black students earning 4+ didn't substantially change, except that the number was much higher for 8th graders taking algebra (which makes sense, given that only the strongest students will do that).

Nothing that supports that education is improving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students in lower grades are showing improvements. It makes sense that the students who are younger, who have had the most early exposure to the reforms, would show the most improvement. The recent PARCC exam results confirm this:

Slide 16:
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/OSSE%20PARCC%203-8%20ReleasePresentation_finalv14.pdf

If reforms began seven years ago, then a child who started PK3 at that time would only be in 4th grade now -- and when the reforms began, not many children were enrolled in PK3.

DCPS has been in decline for more than 30 years. It isn't going to magically become Virginia in 5 years. But, in my own view, the improvement over this period is positive. Enough to make me stick around.

The information in this pdf doesn't at all say that. I didn't see a slide that showed that data broken down by race and by grade. Since there is such a huge disparity by race, the better scores at younger ages could just be that there are more white families in the younger grades than in the older grades. That's not an improvement in education.

Anonymous wrote:Many charter schools serving lower income students and doing well also have extended day programs and Saturday programs. Yet, when DCPS suggested doing the same, all hell broke loose (whole thread about about how terrible a longer school day/year would be). You can't have it both ways people. You can't replicate the outcomes of charter schools AND at the same time ignore their strategies for obtaining those outcomes.

Anonymous wrote:Students in lower grades are showing improvements. It makes sense that the students who are younger, who have had the most early exposure to the reforms, would show the most improvement. The recent PARCC exam results confirm this:

Slide 16:
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/OSSE%20PARCC%203-8%20ReleasePresentation_finalv14.pdf

If reforms began seven years ago, then a child who started PK3 at that time would only be in 4th grade now -- and when the reforms began, not many children were enrolled in PK3.

DCPS has been in decline for more than 30 years. It isn't going to magically become Virginia in 5 years. But, in my own view, the improvement over this period is positive. Enough to make me stick around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. Poor charter students tend to have slightly more able and motivated parents, or grandparents, than poor DCPS students. Mostly they simply have access to a better school their families get them to easily. The difference isn't enormous.

The difference is statistically significant. You should revisit your own education, unless you're one of those "I
don't like numbers" types.

NP here who also has a PhD in the social sciences. It is perfectly possible for population mean differences to be statistically significant, but quite small. That suggests that the differences aren't policy relevant. No one can look at the data here and conclude that the answer to the achievement gap is to put kids in charters. Nationwide, the preponderance of the research suggests that charters are on average no better than the neighborhood schools they replace. Certainly, some individual charter schools do quite well, but there are enough Options and Excel.Academies to prove that it isn't sufficient just to be a charter.

In general, the Ed Reform movement is plagued by a lack of rigorous research backing up any of the proposed reforms. Charters, TFA, etc. Gget little support from the data. The business people running the New Centuries and the Eli Broads don't know how to evaluate research. I went to college with one of the board members of Flamboyan, basically a guy who was a successful manufacturer. He came to our reunion and imlplied that their program was responsible for increases in test scores at the schools in which they worked, despite admitting that "other changes " were also taking place in the schools. They don't really understand the idea of controls.

Some policies that do work include universal pre school, targeted feedback for teachers, and evidenced based curricula. A good summary of the research, targeted at a lay audience, is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Opportunity-Inequality-Challenge-Education/dp/1612506348

You do realize that the bolded statement is only boastful when sitting around with a bunch of poli sci professors, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. Poor charter students tend to have slightly more able and motivated parents, or grandparents, than poor DCPS students. Mostly they simply have access to a better school their families get them to easily. The difference isn't enormous.

The difference is statistically significant. You should revisit your own education, unless you're one of those "I
don't like numbers" types.

NP here who also has a PhD in the social sciences. It is perfectly possible for population mean differences to be statistically significant, but quite small. That suggests that the differences aren't policy relevant. No one can look at the data here and conclude that the answer to the achievement gap is to put kids in charters. Nationwide, the preponderance of the research suggests that charters are on average no better than the neighborhood schools they replace. Certainly, some individual charter schools do quite well, but there are enough Options and Excel.Academies to prove that it isn't sufficient just to be a charter.

In general, the Ed Reform movement is plagued by a lack of rigorous research backing up any of the proposed reforms. Charters, TFA, etc. Gget little support from the data. The business people running the New Centuries and the Eli Broads don't know how to evaluate research. I went to college with one of the board members of Flamboyan, basically a guy who was a successful manufacturer. He came to our reunion and imlplied that their program was responsible for increases in test scores at the schools in which they worked, despite admitting that "other changes " were also taking place in the schools. They don't really understand the idea of controls.

Some policies that do work include universal pre school, targeted feedback for teachers, and evidenced based curricula. A good summary of the research, targeted at a lay audience, is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Opportunity-Inequality-Challenge-Education/dp/1612506348

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. Poor charter students tend to have slightly more able and motivated parents, or grandparents, than poor DCPS students. Mostly they simply have access to a better school their families get them to easily. The difference isn't enormous.

The difference is statistically significant. You should revisit your own education, unless you're one of those "I
don't like numbers" types.

NP here who also has a PhD in the social sciences. It is perfectly possible for population mean differences to be statistically significant, but quite small. That suggests that the differences aren't policy relevant. No one can look at the data here and conclude that the answer to the achievement gap is to put kids in charters. Nationwide, the preponderance of the research suggests that charters are on average no better than the neighborhood schools they replace. Certainly, some individual charter schools do quite well, but there are enough Options and Excel.Academies to prove that it isn't sufficient just to be a charter.

In general, the Ed Reform movement is plagued by a lack of rigorous research backing up any of the proposed reforms. Charters, TFA, etc. Gget little support from the data. The business people running the New Centuries and the Eli Broads don't know how to evaluate research. I went to college with one of the board members of Flamboyan, basically a guy who was a successful manufacturer. He came to our reunion and imlplied that their program was responsible for increases in test scores at the schools in which they worked, despite admitting that "other changes " were also taking place in the schools. They don't really understand the idea of controls.

Some policies that do work include universal pre school, targeted feedback for teachers, and evidenced based curricula. A good summary of the research, targeted at a lay audience, is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Opportunity-Inequality-Challenge-Education/dp/1612506348

In general, as in nationwide, that is true. It is not true in the District of Columbia, where there is substantial evidence that charters outperform district-based schools, particularly with respect to students of color and/or students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Not there. isn't. talk is cheap. I wouldn't be surprised if you're in the charter biz out spreading unsubstantiated info. Hopefully people on DCUM won't easily fall for it.

The test results came in. For the nth year in a row, charters served poor children of color better than DCPS.

No, I'm not "in the biz" (is that really how you write?). Are you, in fact, a literate adult?