Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Calling anyone with ambivalence about sending their kids to SH a racist is not the most persuasive argument for encouraging IB enrollment, but it's certainly the most predictable on DCUM.
+100. Who isn't at least a little racist around here?
The strident LT boosters don't seem to want to boost IB enrollment at SH as much as to screen for the like-minded. So glad we're at an ES that's already turned in the upper grades, so we don't have to walk on eggshells around name callers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Calling anyone with ambivalence about sending their kids to SH a racist is not the most persuasive argument for encouraging IB enrollment, but it's certainly the most predictable on DCUM.
+100. Who isn't at least a little racist around here?
The strident LT boosters don't seem to want to boost IB enrollment at SH as much as to screen for the like-minded. So glad we're at an ES that's already turned in the upper grades, so we don't have to walk on eggshells around name callers.
Please stop using such offensive, racist terms as 'turned'. If you truly do not mean to be to saying that you require that your child go to a school that has predominantly white, not disadvantaged children, then find different terminology. Otherwise, you need to come to terms with the fact that you are more than a little racist. Moreover, you do your school community no favors by presenting that you've chosen that school for such morally offensive reasons. Lastly, your comment supports that parents are not wise enough to see beyond demographics and make choices based on information as opposed to bias - you are a reason for less school choice.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Calling anyone with ambivalence about sending their kids to SH a racist is not the most persuasive argument for encouraging IB enrollment, but it's certainly the most predictable on DCUM.
+100. Who isn't at least a little racist around here?
The strident LT boosters don't seem to want to boost IB enrollment at SH as much as to screen for the like-minded. So glad we're at an ES that's already turned in the upper grades, so we don't have to walk on eggshells around name callers.
Please stop using such offensive, racist terms as 'turned'. If you truly do not mean to be to saying that you require that your child go to a school that has predominantly white, not disadvantaged children, then find different terminology. Otherwise, you need to come to terms with the fact that you are more than a little racist. Moreover, you do your school community no favors by presenting that you've chosen that school for such morally offensive reasons. Lastly, your comment supports that parents are not wise enough to see beyond demographics and make choices based on information as opposed to bias - you are a reason for less school choice.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
No one wants to be first, essentially. And SWS used to just be early ed, so there weren't 5th grade graduates before now.
The PARCC scores worry folks --
2017 % Proficient or Advanced
EH
ELA 5%
Math 9%
Those are likely skewed by the fact that 30% of the school population is SN (w/an IEP).
No - the students in the medically complex classrooms are not taking the PARC. And kids w/ autism aren't necessarily scoring low on the parc just because of their disability. You can't just use % of SN kids as an excuse for poor scores.
On learndc.org it shows that 0% of EH students with special needs were proficient or advanced on PARCC.
Fewer than 25 students at EH took the alternative assessment. I don't have time to do the math to figure out how many students may not have been tested at all, but that is rare. SN kids have to take PARCC or the MSAA.
Yes, I know it's rare. Are you familiar with the children in the medically complex classrooms at SWS? Maybe not. For some reason they shunt those kids to the basement. They are not taking the PARCC, I assure you.
There's a lot of BS to wade through in this thread, but this comment is particularly egregious and offensive. For starters, these are children with profoundly difficult medical conditions who are treated with compassion and love. The SWS community experienced a death of one student last year and it was a gut wrenching experience. To trivialize within the context of this tired CH MS thread is just wrong.
The PARCC is irrelevant -- the oldest students are in 2nd grade, but even if there were older students it's entirely besides the point. These are not students with IEPs or high functioning autism where an inclusion model is appropriate. Maximum capacity is 16 students and the numbers have varied between 12-16. The teacher and caregiver to student ratio is not comparable to an inclusive school model.
"Choose kindness"
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Calling anyone with ambivalence about sending their kids to SH a racist is not the most persuasive argument for encouraging IB enrollment, but it's certainly the most predictable on DCUM.
+100. Who isn't at least a little racist around here?
The strident LT boosters don't seem to want to boost IB enrollment at SH as much as to screen for the like-minded. So glad we're at an ES that's already turned in the upper grades, so we don't have to walk on eggshells around name callers.
Anonymous wrote:Calling anyone with ambivalence about sending their kids to SH a racist is not the most persuasive argument for encouraging IB enrollment, but it's certainly the most predictable on DCUM.
Anonymous wrote:If the SH feeders are doing so great why are the test scores at SH so abysmal?
Anonymous wrote:If the SH feeders are doing so great why are the test scores at SH so abysmal?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's not just LT that feeds into SH.
Well played...oh wait. There you go again with "feelings" instead of data. Quiz time!!!
The category is: PAARC scores for 4th and 5th graders (you know, the ones who are closest to MS). Between Brent, LT, Watkins and JO, of the following 4 categories, in how many does Brent have a higher percentage* of students scoring "proficient" (meaning 4 or 5) than all others?
4th grade ELA
4th grade math
5th grade ELA
5th grade math
If you guessed "zero", you win!
* Know why I phrased it like that? Because on the math 4th grade Watkins scored the same as Brent. And in 5th grade math Watinks in closer to Brent than Brent is to LT. So, yeah, SH is fed by not just LT. It also has Watkins and its educational outcomes feeding in as well. But you are not wrong that Brent is whiter, so there's that...
Why are you so angry at Brent? I feel like more parents I know understand that Brent has it own set of challenges and are working to fix them. I also know a set of Brent parents working hard to support our middle school feeder. I understand something happened in 2010 and then I guess again around the boundary review but I find it ironic that you attack people for not reading the data but then assume nothing has change at Brent. In the last 3 years, the Brent 5th grade has tripled in size. Do people still leave after 4th grade? Sure but we are proud of the changes we have going on as well.
Congrats on the progress you have made but attacking other communties is not helpful for anyone.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's not just LT that feeds into SH.
Well played...oh wait. There you go again with "feelings" instead of data. Quiz time!!!
The category is: PAARC scores for 4th and 5th graders (you know, the ones who are closest to MS). Between Brent, LT, Watkins and JO, of the following 4 categories, in how many does Brent have a higher percentage* of students scoring "proficient" (meaning 4 or 5) than all others?
4th grade ELA
4th grade math
5th grade ELA
5th grade math
If you guessed "zero", you win!
* Know why I phrased it like that? Because on the math 4th grade Watkins scored the same as Brent. And in 5th grade math Watinks in closer to Brent than Brent is to LT. So, yeah, SH is fed by not just LT. It also has Watkins and its educational outcomes feeding in as well. But you are not wrong that Brent is whiter, so there's that...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
No one wants to be first, essentially. And SWS used to just be early ed, so there weren't 5th grade graduates before now.
The PARCC scores worry folks --
2017 % Proficient or Advanced
EH
ELA 5%
Math 9%
Those are likely skewed by the fact that 30% of the school population is SN (w/an IEP).
No - the students in the medically complex classrooms are not taking the PARC. And kids w/ autism aren't necessarily scoring low on the parc just because of their disability. You can't just use % of SN kids as an excuse for poor scores.
On learndc.org it shows that 0% of EH students with special needs were proficient or advanced on PARCC.
Fewer than 25 students at EH took the alternative assessment. I don't have time to do the math to figure out how many students may not have been tested at all, but that is rare. SN kids have to take PARCC or the MSAA.
Yes, I know it's rare. Are you familiar with the children in the medically complex classrooms at SWS? Maybe not. For some reason they shunt those kids to the basement. They are not taking the PARCC, I assure you.
There's a lot of BS to wade through in this thread, but this comment is particularly egregious and offensive. For starters, these are children with profoundly difficult medical conditions who are treated with compassion and love. The SWS community experienced a death of one student last year and it was a gut wrenching experience. To trivialize within the context of this tired CH MS thread is just wrong.
The PARCC is irrelevant -- the oldest students are in 2nd grade, but even if there were older students it's entirely besides the point. These are not students with IEPs or high functioning autism where an inclusion model is appropriate. Maximum capacity is 16 students and the numbers have varied between 12-16. The teacher and caregiver to student ratio is not comparable to an inclusive school model.
"Choose kindness"
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP here - I'm curious - if Brent, Maury, and SWS don't feed into SH which school(s) do they feed into? And if by chance they all feed into the same school, then why the concern about them having to feed into SH in order to make it better. Surely, if they all fed into the same MS then that MS would improve quite quickly given all the high SES families at those three schools?
Here are the DCPS feeder patterns https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/SY17-18%20School%20Feeder%20Patterns.pdf
Maury and SWS feed to Eliot Hine
Brent feeds to Jefferson
Got it! Thanks that's helpful. Is Eliot Hine not an option folks are willing to consider? Particular if a large cohort of families transitions together?
No one wants to be first, essentially. And SWS used to just be early ed, so there weren't 5th grade graduates before now.
The PARCC scores worry folks --
2017 % Proficient or Advanced
EH
ELA 5%
Math 9%
Those are likely skewed by the fact that 30% of the school population is SN (w/an IEP).
No - the students in the medically complex classrooms are not taking the PARC. And kids w/ autism aren't necessarily scoring low on the parc just because of their disability. You can't just use % of SN kids as an excuse for poor scores.
On learndc.org it shows that 0% of EH students with special needs were proficient or advanced on PARCC.
Fewer than 25 students at EH took the alternative assessment. I don't have time to do the math to figure out how many students may not have been tested at all, but that is rare. SN kids have to take PARCC or the MSAA.
Yes, I know it's rare. Are you familiar with the children in the medically complex classrooms at SWS? Maybe not. For some reason they shunt those kids to the basement. They are not taking the PARCC, I assure you.
Anonymous wrote:It's not just LT that feeds into SH.