Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing this thread taught me is that many people posting have no idea how hard it is to be a teacher and most assume that all the teachers have low expectations. Then, those low expectations teachers are the SOLE reason why there are students not scoring a 4 or a 5.

To the original poster thinking about coming from Baltimore to DC, the grass is not always greener and even in "good" schools, you can have parents like many of the ones posting in this thread. Take that as you want!

I have no idea where you got that from. I have seen no replies that suggested any of this was on the teachers. Teachers are being set up to fail. In my last year in education I was written up for defending a teacher who didn't meet growth targets. I asked, "What the hell is the teacher supposed to do with a class of 75% 2 or more grade levels behind? She's got no assistant and can only teach one lesson at once?"

Are you the former admin who just posted? Pretty sure you said that DC has a culture of low expectations. How does that not include the teachers from what you said? Where is this culture of low expectations from based on what at least 10 posters have said (if not more)? Sorry, I am not going back to count.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing this thread taught me is that many people posting have no idea how hard it is to be a teacher and most assume that all the teachers have low expectations. Then, those low expectations teachers are the SOLE reason why there are students not scoring a 4 or a 5.

To the original poster thinking about coming from Baltimore to DC, the grass is not always greener and even in "good" schools, you can have parents like many of the ones posting in this thread. Take that as you want!

I have no idea where you got that from. I have seen no replies that suggested any of this was on the teachers. Teachers are being set up to fail. In my last year in education I was written up for defending a teacher who didn't meet growth targets. I asked, "What the hell is the teacher supposed to do with a class of 75% 2 or more grade levels behind? She's got no assistant and can only teach one lesson at once?"

Anonymous wrote:One thing this thread taught me is that many people posting have no idea how hard it is to be a teacher and most assume that all the teachers have low expectations. Then, those low expectations teachers are the SOLE reason why there are students not scoring a 4 or a 5.

To the original poster thinking about coming from Baltimore to DC, the grass is not always greener and even in "good" schools, you can have parents like many of the ones posting in this thread. Take that as you want!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM is so much fun! Whew. I am the poster who posted about her child earlier. Considering that my child took PARCC the same test the students at Deal take, I know how his scores match up. Also, my child is now in Algebra and will be judged the same. His RI test and current reading level, again same test the kids at Deal take. So I know how he matches up with my White friends kids at those schools. Notice that I said NOTHING about his actual grades. I never said that test scores are not important at all. I just said that great test scores don’t make good schools fully.

That may not have been your intent, but it was precisely what you did when you agreed with the post that said exactly that. In fact the summary of the poster with whom you agreed that you replied to was "and most parents with options don’t want their kids to be or to go to school with mostly kids who are multiple grade levels behind." I am the poster who said there's a huge difference between saying test scores don't mean everything and test scores don't mean anything. Seems like you actually agree with that position.

I stand by my position that a school with 5% (or some very small #) of kids at grade level cannot provide the same quality of education as those with the vast majority at grade level. I also stand by my position that low test scores have nothing to do with race.

Your position is like the test score version of “I don’t see color.”

Research has proven that SES correlates very strongly with test scores. In the DMV area, the low SES demographic is primarily black. Therefore, schools with lower test scores are majority black students

You are confused. Follow along here. Whether test scores are low at majority black schools or all white schools, it does not change the fact that schools with almost no kids at grade level will not provide the the same education as schools with all most most kids at grade level. What part of that is hard for you?

I realize that you are desperate to engage in some larger discussion about why low SES have low test scores, but that's not what the discussion was about. Take your shiny object non-sequiter somewhere else.

Please see 20:11 for my response. I can’t imagine there is any world where you think the way you talk to people encourages discussion

Nah, just have no f**** left to give. People like you who want to talk about anything but how things are. Pretending like schools with 5% kids at grade level are fine schools and provide the same quality of education of high performing schools. Desperate to excuse low performance and low standards that are punishing and failing another generation of kids.

Schools with almost no kids at grade level are lousy educational environments that need to be improved. As long as people like you can't agree on that DC schools cannot improve.

NP and real question, have you been INSIDE any of these schools? 5% kids at grade level but 60% of kids at a level 3 is not the same as 60% of kids at a level 1. Just saying!

Why do you excuse poor performance by even considering level 3? It’s not even at grade level.

Level 3 is just not acceptable, and I don’t care how many kids are there. Having a high performing kid, I’m looking at level 5.

PP above is the typical poster of low standards and expectations.

It is not excusing at all. But a 3 and 1 are not the same. Yes, none of those would be high performing and yes PLEASE keep your high performing level 5 kid away from anyone who may have scored a 1, 2 or 3. They are obviously unworthy of being around each other and everyone should give up on them just to give your level 5 high performing kid more time and energy.

Wells has 60% with 1s or 2s. You think that's not a problem or impediment to a high performing kid's growth and success? I don't think PP said their kid shouldn't be around lower performers. I think they suggested that setting below grade level as a goal doesn't help kids. As a parent it would piss me off if a teacher imputed to my kid (or the entire class) that a 3 is good enough. That's the concern. That's where lowered expectations come into play.

But what teacher said that? Who said that any school was saying that 3s are enough? There are posters who make assumptions that any teacher (or staff member) at any school is saying a 3 is enough and I have never seen that anywhere.

Then you've never been in one of these classrooms. If 60% of kids are at 1 or 2, (1) what level do you think is going to be taught and (2) what realistic goal do you think the teacher will have for the kids?

Are you are teacher?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM is so much fun! Whew. I am the poster who posted about her child earlier. Considering that my child took PARCC the same test the students at Deal take, I know how his scores match up. Also, my child is now in Algebra and will be judged the same. His RI test and current reading level, again same test the kids at Deal take. So I know how he matches up with my White friends kids at those schools. Notice that I said NOTHING about his actual grades. I never said that test scores are not important at all. I just said that great test scores don’t make good schools fully.

That may not have been your intent, but it was precisely what you did when you agreed with the post that said exactly that. In fact the summary of the poster with whom you agreed that you replied to was "and most parents with options don’t want their kids to be or to go to school with mostly kids who are multiple grade levels behind." I am the poster who said there's a huge difference between saying test scores don't mean everything and test scores don't mean anything. Seems like you actually agree with that position.

I stand by my position that a school with 5% (or some very small #) of kids at grade level cannot provide the same quality of education as those with the vast majority at grade level. I also stand by my position that low test scores have nothing to do with race.

Why don’t the PP above tell us what school her DC goes to? And what his scores are on PARCC?

Probably because the people on this board are so rude

Nope, she should because if she makes a statement that is factual, she should have no problem backing it up by answering the question above.

Lots of boosters on DCUM for low performing schools saying stuff but then when asked name your school, it’s radio silence.

Wow! I have no problem backing it up honestly AND there are rude posters on this board. Wells is the school He had a 4 on both.

10% of kids a grade level in math. Your kid surrounded by lower performing kids. Kind of exactly what the poster everyone called "rude" suggested.

+1. 4 is grade level and should be the minimum requirement, I would not tout that as good.

Also it’s obvious that the kids taking Algebra at your school are not being taught advance math if only 10% of kids are on grade level.

Lastly, depending on how many questions your kid got right, he would be in the bottom 1/2 at Deal and not anywhere near or close to the top.

NP, I couldn't find anywhere the parent said her kid was at the top. The parent actually said there was still work to be done. I can tell based on the scores from last year's PARCC, every student doesn't take Algebra so they are separated for that at least (if not more).

She said he is in the accelerated math cohort and taking Algebra. He got a 4 so is in the top 10% of kids in math at the school.

So yes, big difference being at the too when you are just grade level and bottom half at Deal.

It's two*, but yes, you're right. Very different.

Please keep all of your high performing level 5 kids away from the 456 kids at Deal who scored 1,2,3 on Math PARCC. As well as the 258 kids at Hardy who scored a 1,2,3 on Math PARCC last year.

The high performing kids are in a different class than level 1, 2, or 3 kids at Deal. The overwhelming majority of kids at the school are at or above grade level anywhere from 65-80% plus. Plenty enough to have classes being taught at and above grade level.

Funny how you only use numbers to fit your agenda. Why don’t you tell us the number of kids at Deal getting 4’s and 5? It’s way more than your 456 kids you quoted getting below that.

Every school has low performing kids but hardly any DCPS non test in high school has any decent cohort of high performing kids. That is the problem in DCPS and it’s culture of low expectations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM is so much fun! Whew. I am the poster who posted about her child earlier. Considering that my child took PARCC the same test the students at Deal take, I know how his scores match up. Also, my child is now in Algebra and will be judged the same. His RI test and current reading level, again same test the kids at Deal take. So I know how he matches up with my White friends kids at those schools. Notice that I said NOTHING about his actual grades. I never said that test scores are not important at all. I just said that great test scores don’t make good schools fully.

That may not have been your intent, but it was precisely what you did when you agreed with the post that said exactly that. In fact the summary of the poster with whom you agreed that you replied to was "and most parents with options don’t want their kids to be or to go to school with mostly kids who are multiple grade levels behind." I am the poster who said there's a huge difference between saying test scores don't mean everything and test scores don't mean anything. Seems like you actually agree with that position.

I stand by my position that a school with 5% (or some very small #) of kids at grade level cannot provide the same quality of education as those with the vast majority at grade level. I also stand by my position that low test scores have nothing to do with race.

Your position is like the test score version of “I don’t see color.”

Research has proven that SES correlates very strongly with test scores. In the DMV area, the low SES demographic is primarily black. Therefore, schools with lower test scores are majority black students

You are confused. Follow along here. Whether test scores are low at majority black schools or all white schools, it does not change the fact that schools with almost no kids at grade level will not provide the the same education as schools with all most most kids at grade level. What part of that is hard for you?

I realize that you are desperate to engage in some larger discussion about why low SES have low test scores, but that's not what the discussion was about. Take your shiny object non-sequiter somewhere else.

Please see 20:11 for my response. I can’t imagine there is any world where you think the way you talk to people encourages discussion

Nah, just have no f**** left to give. People like you who want to talk about anything but how things are. Pretending like schools with 5% kids at grade level are fine schools and provide the same quality of education of high performing schools. Desperate to excuse low performance and low standards that are punishing and failing another generation of kids.

Schools with almost no kids at grade level are lousy educational environments that need to be improved. As long as people like you can't agree on that DC schools cannot improve.

NP and real question, have you been INSIDE any of these schools? 5% kids at grade level but 60% of kids at a level 3 is not the same as 60% of kids at a level 1. Just saying!

Why do you excuse poor performance by even considering level 3? It’s not even at grade level.

Level 3 is just not acceptable, and I don’t care how many kids are there. Having a high performing kid, I’m looking at level 5.

PP above is the typical poster of low standards and expectations.

It is not excusing at all. But a 3 and 1 are not the same. Yes, none of those would be high performing and yes PLEASE keep your high performing level 5 kid away from anyone who may have scored a 1, 2 or 3. They are obviously unworthy of being around each other and everyone should give up on them just to give your level 5 high performing kid more time and energy.

Wells has 60% with 1s or 2s. You think that's not a problem or impediment to a high performing kid's growth and success? I don't think PP said their kid shouldn't be around lower performers. I think they suggested that setting below grade level as a goal doesn't help kids. As a parent it would piss me off if a teacher imputed to my kid (or the entire class) that a 3 is good enough. That's the concern. That's where lowered expectations come into play.

But what teacher said that? Who said that any school was saying that 3s are enough? There are posters who make assumptions that any teacher (or staff member) at any school is saying a 3 is enough and I have never seen that anywhere.

Then you've never been in one of these classrooms. If 60% of kids are at 1 or 2, (1) what level do you think is going to be taught and (2) what realistic goal do you think the teacher will have for the kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM is so much fun! Whew. I am the poster who posted about her child earlier. Considering that my child took PARCC the same test the students at Deal take, I know how his scores match up. Also, my child is now in Algebra and will be judged the same. His RI test and current reading level, again same test the kids at Deal take. So I know how he matches up with my White friends kids at those schools. Notice that I said NOTHING about his actual grades. I never said that test scores are not important at all. I just said that great test scores don’t make good schools fully.

That may not have been your intent, but it was precisely what you did when you agreed with the post that said exactly that. In fact the summary of the poster with whom you agreed that you replied to was "and most parents with options don’t want their kids to be or to go to school with mostly kids who are multiple grade levels behind." I am the poster who said there's a huge difference between saying test scores don't mean everything and test scores don't mean anything. Seems like you actually agree with that position.

I stand by my position that a school with 5% (or some very small #) of kids at grade level cannot provide the same quality of education as those with the vast majority at grade level. I also stand by my position that low test scores have nothing to do with race.

Your position is like the test score version of “I don’t see color.”

Research has proven that SES correlates very strongly with test scores. In the DMV area, the low SES demographic is primarily black. Therefore, schools with lower test scores are majority black students

You are confused. Follow along here. Whether test scores are low at majority black schools or all white schools, it does not change the fact that schools with almost no kids at grade level will not provide the the same education as schools with all most most kids at grade level. What part of that is hard for you?

I realize that you are desperate to engage in some larger discussion about why low SES have low test scores, but that's not what the discussion was about. Take your shiny object non-sequiter somewhere else.

Please see 20:11 for my response. I can’t imagine there is any world where you think the way you talk to people encourages discussion

Nah, just have no f**** left to give. People like you who want to talk about anything but how things are. Pretending like schools with 5% kids at grade level are fine schools and provide the same quality of education of high performing schools. Desperate to excuse low performance and low standards that are punishing and failing another generation of kids.

Schools with almost no kids at grade level are lousy educational environments that need to be improved. As long as people like you can't agree on that DC schools cannot improve.

NP and real question, have you been INSIDE any of these schools? 5% kids at grade level but 60% of kids at a level 3 is not the same as 60% of kids at a level 1. Just saying!

Why do you excuse poor performance by even considering level 3? It’s not even at grade level.

Level 3 is just not acceptable, and I don’t care how many kids are there. Having a high performing kid, I’m looking at level 5.

PP above is the typical poster of low standards and expectations.

It is not excusing at all. But a 3 and 1 are not the same. Yes, none of those would be high performing and yes PLEASE keep your high performing level 5 kid away from anyone who may have scored a 1, 2 or 3. They are obviously unworthy of being around each other and everyone should give up on them just to give your level 5 high performing kid more time and energy.

Wells has 60% with 1s or 2s. You think that's not a problem or impediment to a high performing kid's growth and success? I don't think PP said their kid shouldn't be around lower performers. I think they suggested that setting below grade level as a goal doesn't help kids. As a parent it would piss me off if a teacher imputed to my kid (or the entire class) that a 3 is good enough. That's the concern. That's where lowered expectations come into play.

But what teacher said that? Who said that any school was saying that 3s are enough? There are posters who make assumptions that any teacher (or staff member) at any school is saying a 3 is enough and I have never seen that anywhere.

Then you've never been in one of these classrooms. If 60% of kids are at 1 or 2, (1) what level do you think is going to be taught and (2) what realistic goal do you think the teacher will have for the kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM is so much fun! Whew. I am the poster who posted about her child earlier. Considering that my child took PARCC the same test the students at Deal take, I know how his scores match up. Also, my child is now in Algebra and will be judged the same. His RI test and current reading level, again same test the kids at Deal take. So I know how he matches up with my White friends kids at those schools. Notice that I said NOTHING about his actual grades. I never said that test scores are not important at all. I just said that great test scores don’t make good schools fully.

That may not have been your intent, but it was precisely what you did when you agreed with the post that said exactly that. In fact the summary of the poster with whom you agreed that you replied to was "and most parents with options don’t want their kids to be or to go to school with mostly kids who are multiple grade levels behind." I am the poster who said there's a huge difference between saying test scores don't mean everything and test scores don't mean anything. Seems like you actually agree with that position.

I stand by my position that a school with 5% (or some very small #) of kids at grade level cannot provide the same quality of education as those with the vast majority at grade level. I also stand by my position that low test scores have nothing to do with race.

Your position is like the test score version of “I don’t see color.”

Research has proven that SES correlates very strongly with test scores. In the DMV area, the low SES demographic is primarily black. Therefore, schools with lower test scores are majority black students

You are confused. Follow along here. Whether test scores are low at majority black schools or all white schools, it does not change the fact that schools with almost no kids at grade level will not provide the the same education as schools with all most most kids at grade level. What part of that is hard for you?

I realize that you are desperate to engage in some larger discussion about why low SES have low test scores, but that's not what the discussion was about. Take your shiny object non-sequiter somewhere else.

Please see 20:11 for my response. I can’t imagine there is any world where you think the way you talk to people encourages discussion

Nah, just have no f**** left to give. People like you who want to talk about anything but how things are. Pretending like schools with 5% kids at grade level are fine schools and provide the same quality of education of high performing schools. Desperate to excuse low performance and low standards that are punishing and failing another generation of kids.

Schools with almost no kids at grade level are lousy educational environments that need to be improved. As long as people like you can't agree on that DC schools cannot improve.

NP and real question, have you been INSIDE any of these schools? 5% kids at grade level but 60% of kids at a level 3 is not the same as 60% of kids at a level 1. Just saying!

Why do you excuse poor performance by even considering level 3? It’s not even at grade level.

Level 3 is just not acceptable, and I don’t care how many kids are there. Having a high performing kid, I’m looking at level 5.

PP above is the typical poster of low standards and expectations.

It is not excusing at all. But a 3 and 1 are not the same. Yes, none of those would be high performing and yes PLEASE keep your high performing level 5 kid away from anyone who may have scored a 1, 2 or 3. They are obviously unworthy of being around each other and everyone should give up on them just to give your level 5 high performing kid more time and energy.

Wells has 60% with 1s or 2s. You think that's not a problem or impediment to a high performing kid's growth and success? I don't think PP said their kid shouldn't be around lower performers. I think they suggested that setting below grade level as a goal doesn't help kids. As a parent it would piss me off if a teacher imputed to my kid (or the entire class) that a 3 is good enough. That's the concern. That's where lowered expectations come into play.

But what teacher said that? Who said that any school was saying that 3s are enough? There are posters who make assumptions that any teacher (or staff member) at any school is saying a 3 is enough and I have never seen that anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM is so much fun! Whew. I am the poster who posted about her child earlier. Considering that my child took PARCC the same test the students at Deal take, I know how his scores match up. Also, my child is now in Algebra and will be judged the same. His RI test and current reading level, again same test the kids at Deal take. So I know how he matches up with my White friends kids at those schools. Notice that I said NOTHING about his actual grades. I never said that test scores are not important at all. I just said that great test scores don’t make good schools fully.

That may not have been your intent, but it was precisely what you did when you agreed with the post that said exactly that. In fact the summary of the poster with whom you agreed that you replied to was "and most parents with options don’t want their kids to be or to go to school with mostly kids who are multiple grade levels behind." I am the poster who said there's a huge difference between saying test scores don't mean everything and test scores don't mean anything. Seems like you actually agree with that position.

I stand by my position that a school with 5% (or some very small #) of kids at grade level cannot provide the same quality of education as those with the vast majority at grade level. I also stand by my position that low test scores have nothing to do with race.

Why don’t the PP above tell us what school her DC goes to? And what his scores are on PARCC?

Probably because the people on this board are so rude

Nope, she should because if she makes a statement that is factual, she should have no problem backing it up by answering the question above.

Lots of boosters on DCUM for low performing schools saying stuff but then when asked name your school, it’s radio silence.

Wow! I have no problem backing it up honestly AND there are rude posters on this board. Wells is the school He had a 4 on both.

10% of kids a grade level in math. Your kid surrounded by lower performing kids. Kind of exactly what the poster everyone called "rude" suggested.

+1. 4 is grade level and should be the minimum requirement, I would not tout that as good.

Also it’s obvious that the kids taking Algebra at your school are not being taught advance math if only 10% of kids are on grade level.

Lastly, depending on how many questions your kid got right, he would be in the bottom 1/2 at Deal and not anywhere near or close to the top.

NP, I couldn't find anywhere the parent said her kid was at the top. The parent actually said there was still work to be done. I can tell based on the scores from last year's PARCC, every student doesn't take Algebra so they are separated for that at least (if not more).

She said he is in the accelerated math cohort and taking Algebra. He got a 4 so is in the top 10% of kids in math at the school.

So yes, big difference being at the too when you are just grade level and bottom half at Deal.

It's two*, but yes, you're right. Very different.

Please keep all of your high performing level 5 kids away from the 456 kids at Deal who scored 1,2,3 on Math PARCC. As well as the 258 kids at Hardy who scored a 1,2,3 on Math PARCC last year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM is so much fun! Whew. I am the poster who posted about her child earlier. Considering that my child took PARCC the same test the students at Deal take, I know how his scores match up. Also, my child is now in Algebra and will be judged the same. His RI test and current reading level, again same test the kids at Deal take. So I know how he matches up with my White friends kids at those schools. Notice that I said NOTHING about his actual grades. I never said that test scores are not important at all. I just said that great test scores don’t make good schools fully.

That may not have been your intent, but it was precisely what you did when you agreed with the post that said exactly that. In fact the summary of the poster with whom you agreed that you replied to was "and most parents with options don’t want their kids to be or to go to school with mostly kids who are multiple grade levels behind." I am the poster who said there's a huge difference between saying test scores don't mean everything and test scores don't mean anything. Seems like you actually agree with that position.

I stand by my position that a school with 5% (or some very small #) of kids at grade level cannot provide the same quality of education as those with the vast majority at grade level. I also stand by my position that low test scores have nothing to do with race.

Your position is like the test score version of “I don’t see color.”

Research has proven that SES correlates very strongly with test scores. In the DMV area, the low SES demographic is primarily black. Therefore, schools with lower test scores are majority black students

You are confused. Follow along here. Whether test scores are low at majority black schools or all white schools, it does not change the fact that schools with almost no kids at grade level will not provide the the same education as schools with all most most kids at grade level. What part of that is hard for you?

I realize that you are desperate to engage in some larger discussion about why low SES have low test scores, but that's not what the discussion was about. Take your shiny object non-sequiter somewhere else.

Please see 20:11 for my response. I can’t imagine there is any world where you think the way you talk to people encourages discussion

Nah, just have no f**** left to give. People like you who want to talk about anything but how things are. Pretending like schools with 5% kids at grade level are fine schools and provide the same quality of education of high performing schools. Desperate to excuse low performance and low standards that are punishing and failing another generation of kids.

Schools with almost no kids at grade level are lousy educational environments that need to be improved. As long as people like you can't agree on that DC schools cannot improve.

NP and real question, have you been INSIDE any of these schools? 5% kids at grade level but 60% of kids at a level 3 is not the same as 60% of kids at a level 1. Just saying!

Why do you excuse poor performance by even considering level 3? It’s not even at grade level.

Level 3 is just not acceptable, and I don’t care how many kids are there. Having a high performing kid, I’m looking at level 5.

PP above is the typical poster of low standards and expectations.

It is not excusing at all. But a 3 and 1 are not the same. Yes, none of those would be high performing and yes PLEASE keep your high performing level 5 kid away from anyone who may have scored a 1, 2 or 3. They are obviously unworthy of being around each other and everyone should give up on them just to give your level 5 high performing kid more time and energy.

Wells has 60% with 1s or 2s. You think that's not a problem or impediment to a high performing kid's growth and success? I don't think PP said their kid shouldn't be around lower performers. I think they suggested that setting below grade level as a goal doesn't help kids. As a parent it would piss me off if a teacher imputed to my kid (or the entire class) that a 3 is good enough. That's the concern. That's where lowered expectations come into play.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM is so much fun! Whew. I am the poster who posted about her child earlier. Considering that my child took PARCC the same test the students at Deal take, I know how his scores match up. Also, my child is now in Algebra and will be judged the same. His RI test and current reading level, again same test the kids at Deal take. So I know how he matches up with my White friends kids at those schools. Notice that I said NOTHING about his actual grades. I never said that test scores are not important at all. I just said that great test scores don’t make good schools fully.

That may not have been your intent, but it was precisely what you did when you agreed with the post that said exactly that. In fact the summary of the poster with whom you agreed that you replied to was "and most parents with options don’t want their kids to be or to go to school with mostly kids who are multiple grade levels behind." I am the poster who said there's a huge difference between saying test scores don't mean everything and test scores don't mean anything. Seems like you actually agree with that position.

I stand by my position that a school with 5% (or some very small #) of kids at grade level cannot provide the same quality of education as those with the vast majority at grade level. I also stand by my position that low test scores have nothing to do with race.

Your position is like the test score version of “I don’t see color.”

Research has proven that SES correlates very strongly with test scores. In the DMV area, the low SES demographic is primarily black. Therefore, schools with lower test scores are majority black students

You are confused. Follow along here. Whether test scores are low at majority black schools or all white schools, it does not change the fact that schools with almost no kids at grade level will not provide the the same education as schools with all most most kids at grade level. What part of that is hard for you?

I realize that you are desperate to engage in some larger discussion about why low SES have low test scores, but that's not what the discussion was about. Take your shiny object non-sequiter somewhere else.

Please see 20:11 for my response. I can’t imagine there is any world where you think the way you talk to people encourages discussion

Nah, just have no f**** left to give. People like you who want to talk about anything but how things are. Pretending like schools with 5% kids at grade level are fine schools and provide the same quality of education of high performing schools. Desperate to excuse low performance and low standards that are punishing and failing another generation of kids.

Schools with almost no kids at grade level are lousy educational environments that need to be improved. As long as people like you can't agree on that DC schools cannot improve.

NP and real question, have you been INSIDE any of these schools? 5% kids at grade level but 60% of kids at a level 3 is not the same as 60% of kids at a level 1. Just saying!

Why do you excuse poor performance by even considering level 3? It’s not even at grade level.

Level 3 is just not acceptable, and I don’t care how many kids are there. Having a high performing kid, I’m looking at level 5.

PP above is the typical poster of low standards and expectations.

It is not excusing at all. But a 3 and 1 are not the same. Yes, none of those would be high performing and yes PLEASE keep your high performing level 5 kid away from anyone who may have scored a 1, 2 or 3. They are obviously unworthy of being around each other and everyone should give up on them just to give your level 5 high performing kid more time and energy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM is so much fun! Whew. I am the poster who posted about her child earlier. Considering that my child took PARCC the same test the students at Deal take, I know how his scores match up. Also, my child is now in Algebra and will be judged the same. His RI test and current reading level, again same test the kids at Deal take. So I know how he matches up with my White friends kids at those schools. Notice that I said NOTHING about his actual grades. I never said that test scores are not important at all. I just said that great test scores don’t make good schools fully.

That may not have been your intent, but it was precisely what you did when you agreed with the post that said exactly that. In fact the summary of the poster with whom you agreed that you replied to was "and most parents with options don’t want their kids to be or to go to school with mostly kids who are multiple grade levels behind." I am the poster who said there's a huge difference between saying test scores don't mean everything and test scores don't mean anything. Seems like you actually agree with that position.

I stand by my position that a school with 5% (or some very small #) of kids at grade level cannot provide the same quality of education as those with the vast majority at grade level. I also stand by my position that low test scores have nothing to do with race.

Why don’t the PP above tell us what school her DC goes to? And what his scores are on PARCC?

Probably because the people on this board are so rude

Nope, she should because if she makes a statement that is factual, she should have no problem backing it up by answering the question above.

Lots of boosters on DCUM for low performing schools saying stuff but then when asked name your school, it’s radio silence.

Wow! I have no problem backing it up honestly AND there are rude posters on this board. Wells is the school He had a 4 on both.

10% of kids a grade level in math. Your kid surrounded by lower performing kids. Kind of exactly what the poster everyone called "rude" suggested.

+1. 4 is grade level and should be the minimum requirement, I would not tout that as good.

Also it’s obvious that the kids taking Algebra at your school are not being taught advance math if only 10% of kids are on grade level.

Lastly, depending on how many questions your kid got right, he would be in the bottom 1/2 at Deal and not anywhere near or close to the top.

NP, I couldn't find anywhere the parent said her kid was at the top. The parent actually said there was still work to be done. I can tell based on the scores from last year's PARCC, every student doesn't take Algebra so they are separated for that at least (if not more).

She said he is in the accelerated math cohort and taking Algebra. He got a 4 so is in the top 10% of kids in math at the school.

So yes, big difference being at the too when you are just grade level and bottom half at Deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM is so much fun! Whew. I am the poster who posted about her child earlier. Considering that my child took PARCC the same test the students at Deal take, I know how his scores match up. Also, my child is now in Algebra and will be judged the same. His RI test and current reading level, again same test the kids at Deal take. So I know how he matches up with my White friends kids at those schools. Notice that I said NOTHING about his actual grades. I never said that test scores are not important at all. I just said that great test scores don’t make good schools fully.

That may not have been your intent, but it was precisely what you did when you agreed with the post that said exactly that. In fact the summary of the poster with whom you agreed that you replied to was "and most parents with options don’t want their kids to be or to go to school with mostly kids who are multiple grade levels behind." I am the poster who said there's a huge difference between saying test scores don't mean everything and test scores don't mean anything. Seems like you actually agree with that position.

I stand by my position that a school with 5% (or some very small #) of kids at grade level cannot provide the same quality of education as those with the vast majority at grade level. I also stand by my position that low test scores have nothing to do with race.

Your position is like the test score version of “I don’t see color.”

Research has proven that SES correlates very strongly with test scores. In the DMV area, the low SES demographic is primarily black. Therefore, schools with lower test scores are majority black students

You are confused. Follow along here. Whether test scores are low at majority black schools or all white schools, it does not change the fact that schools with almost no kids at grade level will not provide the the same education as schools with all most most kids at grade level. What part of that is hard for you?

I realize that you are desperate to engage in some larger discussion about why low SES have low test scores, but that's not what the discussion was about. Take your shiny object non-sequiter somewhere else.

Please see 20:11 for my response. I can’t imagine there is any world where you think the way you talk to people encourages discussion

Nah, just have no f**** left to give. People like you who want to talk about anything but how things are. Pretending like schools with 5% kids at grade level are fine schools and provide the same quality of education of high performing schools. Desperate to excuse low performance and low standards that are punishing and failing another generation of kids.

Schools with almost no kids at grade level are lousy educational environments that need to be improved. As long as people like you can't agree on that DC schools cannot improve.

NP and real question, have you been INSIDE any of these schools? 5% kids at grade level but 60% of kids at a level 3 is not the same as 60% of kids at a level 1. Just saying!

Why do you excuse poor performance by even considering level 3? It’s not even at grade level.

Level 3 is just not acceptable, and I don’t care how many kids are there. Having a high performing kid, I’m looking at level 5.

PP above is the typical poster of low standards and expectations.

It is not excusing at all. But a 3 and 1 are not the same. Yes, none of those would be high performing and yes PLEASE keep your high performing level 5 kid away from anyone who may have scored a 1, 2 or 3. They are obviously unworthy of being around each other and everyone should give up on them just to give your level 5 high performing kid more time and energy.