Sorry, the above is OP again. I'm home now and distracted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

A couple of quick conclusions about Stuart-Hobson:

1. White students perform just as well as SH as at Hardy. SH white scores are pretty comparable to Deal's. (The differences are likely statistically insignificant.)
2. Nonwhite students perform better at Hardy than at SH (and better still at Deal). (This makes sense.)
3. SH seems to be trending in the wrong direction *at least according to DCCAS scores. The data are noisy due to small sample sizes, but SH is comparable to Deal in 2008-2009. Since then Deal has improved while SH has languished. Hardy passed SH the following year and has pretty consistently outperformed SH since then.
4. Like Hardy, the percentage of the school that is white hasn't budged much over the sample period (and remained between 9-13%).
5. The race gap at SH is large: often 30-40 points difference. Recall, Deal was 15-20, Hardy was 20-30, Wilson was 30-40.

I am the PP who had asked if you'd post an analysis about SH. Thanks so much for doing this. As someone IB for SH, I wish the results had been a little more encouraging - item 1 certainly is, but items 2, 3 and 5 are discouraging.

Thanks again for taking the time to help so many of us that are trying to figure out MS for our kids.

Don't be too upset. First, there may be ready explanations for the "downward" trend. I haven't read any SH threads, so I wouldn't know any institutional detail. Second, Basis and Latin probably really hurt SH. Now that they're harder to get into, that should bode well for SH. (Continuing to lose Brent students to Hardy is more problematic.)

Bottom line, SH is unquestionably the third best DCPS MS. It's not far from Hardy and, like Hardy, could get much better in the future. I think an honest assessment is that SH is a few years behind Hardy. That's not a bad place to be.

OP here.

Have the numbers from other DCPS schools been released? If so, you have a legitimate gripe.

If not, your statement is disingenuous and smacks of an agenda.

Anonymous wrote:OP again. I must follow-up to this "if the IB families agree to send their children to Hardy, Hardy will quickly look like Deal."

Even if IB families don't coordinate well, there are indications that increasing numbers of IB students are already heading to Hardy. Each additional student makes future coordination all the easier. So, it's not like the families need everyone to sign off at once; piece-meal increases in IB and feeder enrollment will get the job done. It will just take a little longer.

That's the hope but perhaps not the reality. The Hardy enrollment numbers for this year have been delayed. And delayed.

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

A couple of quick conclusions about Stuart-Hobson:

1. White students perform just as well as SH as at Hardy. SH white scores are pretty comparable to Deal's. (The differences are likely statistically insignificant.)
2. Nonwhite students perform better at Hardy than at SH (and better still at Deal). (This makes sense.)
3. SH seems to be trending in the wrong direction *at least according to DCCAS scores. The data are noisy due to small sample sizes, but SH is comparable to Deal in 2008-2009. Since then Deal has improved while SH has languished. Hardy passed SH the following year and has pretty consistently outperformed SH since then.
4. Like Hardy, the percentage of the school that is white hasn't budged much over the sample period (and remained between 9-13%).
5. The race gap at SH is large: often 30-40 points difference. Recall, Deal was 15-20, Hardy was 20-30, Wilson was 30-40.

I am the PP who had asked if you'd post an analysis about SH. Thanks so much for doing this. As someone IB for SH, I wish the results had been a little more encouraging - item 1 certainly is, but items 2, 3 and 5 are discouraging.

Thanks again for taking the time to help so many of us that are trying to figure out MS for our kids.

Anonymous wrote:OP what data supports a claim that the school IB numbers are increasing?

OP here.

I don't have hard data, but I can hazard some educated guesses.

The IB percentage is 15% for the current year (up from 13%).
The percent White has increased: 13% White (up from 11%).
The percent Asian has increased: 10% Asian (up from 8%).
The percent African-American has fallen: 60% (down from 64%).
The percent Latino is about the same: 14% (it was 14% last year).
FARMS has decreased by 20%: it is now 45% (down from 55%).

It's a shame DCCAS isn't administered this year: between the increase in IB students (probably 10 more), OOB feeder students (probably 20 more), and 10% of the 6th grade class coming from Brent (according to someone in another thread), the scores would likely already show a bump (especially for grade 6).

OP here.

A couple of quick conclusions about Stuart-Hobson:

1. White students perform just as well as SH as at Hardy. SH white scores are pretty comparable to Deal's. (The differences are likely statistically insignificant.)
2. Nonwhite students perform better at Hardy than at SH (and better still at Deal). (This makes sense.)
3. SH seems to be trending in the wrong direction *at least according to DCCAS scores. The data are noisy due to small sample sizes, but SH is comparable to Deal in 2008-2009. Since then Deal has improved while SH has languished. Hardy passed SH the following year and has pretty consistently outperformed SH since then.
4. Like Hardy, the percentage of the school that is white hasn't budged much over the sample period (and remained between 9-13%).
5. The race gap at SH is large: often 30-40 points difference. Recall, Deal was 15-20, Hardy was 20-30, Wilson was 30-40.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why you see an unmistakeable change in two years.

Don't worry OP, I see your point.

Different poster here. I know this is just anecdotal but the fact that there are so many epic threads on Hardy is an indication that things are changing in my view. People feel there is something substantial to argue about it.

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why you see an unmistakeable change in two years.

Don't worry OP, I see your point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just one edit to my very last paragraph. I should have said, people with money, who are at least somewhat risk averse. Risk aversion is commonly assumed, and I think it's a valid assumption here. Why take a risk or accept compromise when private school or Bethesda are reasonably within reach, albeit not without some cost?

OP here. I know I need to reply. It will take me a while. Later afternoon or tonight at the earliest. I'm not ducking you.

No problem, no rush. I just forgot to add the risk aversion before and wanted to include that thought. I think I see a lot of risk aversion when I read the other, epic Hardy threads.

Love this description. So true!

Anonymous wrote:OP have you ever been inside Hardy?

OP here. No, I have not. I have only been inside one DCPS school (and the Wilson Aquatic Center).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this shows how stoopid economists are. They don't understand the important things in life, like school uniforms, they think it is all about test scores and academics.

Suppose my kid comes home wearing a uniform, and my neighbor sees it. They will think my kid goes to a ghetto school. I am supposed to start telling them about standard deviations and confounding variables?

OMG. I really hope you are a troll. Otherwise you sound like a really "complexed" individual that lives conditioned by what others might thing. A total wannabe.

Not PP but this was parody of what some Hardy critics have said in other threads. Too subtle for some, it seems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that the numbers of IB families who are seriously considering Hardy is on an upward trajectory, but it's not there quite yet. I'm praying for a "flip" this year because my child will enter Hardy in 2017-18.

OP here.

I don't think the flip will be reflected until the current 4th graders enroll in Hardy in 6th. This year's numbers likely look similar to last year -- probably an additional 10 IB kids and another additional 20 feeder but not IB kids. (If DCCAS is still administered -- is it? -- the numbers should show some improvement due to (my guess of) 30 more well-prepared students.) Given the class sizes, current 5th graders are unlikely to cause a large bulge in either IB or feeder numbers. But the year after that -- with Hyde, Mann, Stoddert (and Eaton) adding additional 5th grade classes for the coming year -- I would expect to see a significant change in IB numbers.

That said, I completely believe that Hardy is already a good school for IB children. But for those who are waiting until the IB percentage increases before believing the data, the current 4th graders are going to be the first year in which the difference is unmistakeable. That is, by school year 2016-2017, the then 6th grade class should look little like current classes.

The change in testing this year could help or throw a wrench into things. OP, DCCAS have been abandoned and this year DCPS adopted a new test--PARCC. It is my understanding that whenever a new standardized test is introduced we are supposed to expect lower scores. And PARCC ratchets up the tension a bit because all the testing is online, not paper and pencil, so we could expect even lower scores because of the change in how the test is administered and how prepared the students were for the logistics of the test, forget the content. Schools' budgets and teachers will not be held accountable for this year's testing results, however, if the drop in scores or significant or not uniform across the city, lots of people could read into that. So, for instance if Hardy's scores drop a lot more than Deal's drop, what will people take from that?

From what I have heard about PARCC, it is expected to differentiate more (read: more thoroughly expose weaknesses). This may hurt up and coming schools by widening performance gaps. For example, OP is basing arguments on percent proficient or advanced on DCCAS. A lot of parents look at this proficient or advanced number. Advanced is hard to achieve, but proficient not so hard, and can be coached. As I understand it, under PARCC and common core, it is more difficult to coach weaker students to the test, and therefore students whose comprehension is shallow or borderline will do poorly always, whereas under CAS they could maybe be coached over the finish line. Whereas students with advanced/deep comprehension will do just fine, as they did on CAS. So the difference between say Janney and an up and coming ES will be even larger. That's why some low income education advocates are against common core, because it requires deep understanding, so it makes it very hard to intervene with a student later in life who did not have advantages at younger ages when the foundations of literacy and numeracy are laid. Any education experts have a view on this?

OP what data supports a claim that the school IB numbers are increasing?

OP have you ever been inside Hardy?