DC School Report Cards are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. LAMB, Yu Ying also showing very low numbers for white students. I am trying to understand this metric better. Disabled students showing very high numbers.

White schools at both schools are much lower than white students’ scores across the District. Once would assume that is related to bilingual learning but who knows. So the number reflected for white students as part of the group score is low because it’s relying on that comparison.

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

I'm all for making sure that underperforming demographics are doing well especially on PARCC growth, but, this seems like it's way out of whack.

Well, that's the metric that the star measures. If you want to know more about how the rich kids do on PARCC, you can still find that on PARCC. But the decision was made to base the stars on the performance of the at-risk kids, apparently.

Date for my WOTP school on bullying, violence, and school safety is fake usual nonsense; how do we know any of this date is correct? Where are they getting it from? We know for a fact that schools are discouraged from reporting incidents as it marks down the principals IMPACT scores!!!

DCPS central office takes data reported from the school and reports on this annually to OSSE, which provides it to the federal government. The report card data is pulling from those reports.

It may be inaccurate (garbage in/garbage out) but it isn't new. This is just the first time that it's been exposed in this way to the public together with academic achievement data.

Some of it could be easily fact checked with a baseline level of effort. For example our elementary school lists an IB program, AP classes and dual college enrollment.

Looks like it's a central office reponsibility / problem. From the technical guide:

The Report Card includes general information about the school. All of these data elements are reported to OSSE by LEAs. For 2018-19, for an LEA to resolve a discrepancy in these data elements, it must update the data in the source system (SLIMS or eSchoolPLUS). After the release of the Report Card, directory data elements will be updated monthly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm looking at KIPP and DC Prep as LEAs.

KIPP - Most of their elementaries are 4s, some are 3s. All MS + HS are 3s.

DC Prep - Half of the ES are 3s and half are 4s. The MS are 5.

That's inaccurate: All DC Prep Campuses are 4's

Except Anacostia, which isn't rated. Maybe the rollup is wrong. Because the LEA page for ES clearly says 50/50%.

4's overall for each campus. The PP seems to have posted the star ratings for the elementary and middle grade spans of each campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Deal feeders, at risk %

Janney 5, 0% 88.43, 70.10
Hearst 4, 8% 77.32, 60.95
Murch 4, 5% 79.85, 58.63
Lafayette 4, 3% 78.00, 69.25
Shepherd 4, 15% 71.61, 76.25
Bancroft 4, 31% 80.16, < 10 AA students

PP here. I was interested in how AA students perform at these schools. I've added the Star Framework score for all students, followed by score for black students, for each school.

Overall, it looks like Shepherd has the best score for AA students. However, they don't offer breakdowns for "at-risk" etc. within subgroups, and so it's unclear whether the higher score at Shepherd is attributable to something about instruction, demographic factors, or a combination.

I did this quickly, but hopefully no errors.

Oh, and forgot to add, it's curious why the score for AA students at Shepherd is actually higher than the score for all students--this is the only Deal feeder where that is true. I need to read a fuller description of how these scores were calculated.

Um why do you find that curious? Do you know anything about Shepherd and the families that live in that neighborhood, or do you just assume that all AAs underperform compared to whites?

PP here. I'm black, IB for Shepherd, and was actively involved while my kid attended for several years, so I'm familiar with the student body. The reason I said it's "curious" is because Shepherd is actually 57% OOB, 15% at-risk, and 2% homeless--so it's a very mixed, SES-diverse student body.

This data point would suggest to me that there's something about the instruction at Shepherd that's leading to higher ratings among the black students relative to any other Deal feeder, but I'm interested to hear other possible explanations too.

Ok sorry, you never know around here Don't you think it's a big part that AA students at Shepherd are from high SES families that value education?

I think that's part of it but not the whole answer, because Shepherd has a lot of kids from struggling families too, a much higher percentage than most other Deal feeders. And yet, Shepherd's AA scores were highest.

Another possibility, but I'm just thinking out loud: In some of the WOTP elementary schools, many of the OOB kids (many of whom are AA) come to the school in later grades (e.g. 4th or 5th). If a greater proportion of Shepherd's OOB population enters the school in early grades and benefits from the good things going on there for most/all of their elementary years, that might account for some of the difference. Would have to look at the lottery data to know if this is the case, though.

[Anonymous]

Downloadable data - sorry if someone else already posted and I didn't see it. https://osse.dc.gov/page/2018-19-dc-school-report-card-and-star-framework-data

[Anonymous]

Some subgroup STAR data from EmpowerK12 (educational data consultants; produced the BOLD performance reports earlier this year).

Highest scoring schools for students with disabilities:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071110038461263874

Highest scoring schools for ELLs:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071110259098423296

At-risk students:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071109788937920512

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some subgroup STAR data from EmpowerK12 (educational data consultants; produced the BOLD performance reports earlier this year).

Highest scoring schools for students with disabilities:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071110038461263874

Highest scoring schools for ELLs:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071110259098423296

At-risk students:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071109788937920512

So if a school scores very high for students with disabilities but lower overall should I be even more concerned about the overall score given that students with disabilities are given extra weight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

Maybe you understand this, but just to clarify, it doesn’t mean the the white kids’ score are objectively very low. It just means that they are lower compared to other white kids across the district. The other population groups far exceed the scores for their relevant populations. And scores are just one factor in the mix.

I do wonder if the scores take into account bilingual programs. Learning and performance isn’t apples to apples with traditional schools.

60% if White Yu Ying students score 4+ on PARCC ELA, and 75% do so on math. For comparison, LAMB is 84/57.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some subgroup STAR data from EmpowerK12 (educational data consultants; produced the BOLD performance reports earlier this year).

Highest scoring schools for students with disabilities:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071110038461263874

Highest scoring schools for ELLs:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071110259098423296

At-risk students:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071109788937920512

So if a school scores very high for students with disabilities but lower overall should I be even more concerned about the overall score given that students with disabilities are given extra weight?

That's a question to ask OSSE - which will be having sessions to discuss the scorecards around the city in the coming weeks and your school leaders. The question is WHY the students overall are scoring the way they are, as well as the particular subgroup you are concerned with.

IMHO I think that the growth scores are the most important. Look at those by subgroup, see where your kid fits in. If your kid is white, and at your school the white kids are being outpaced by 60 or 70 points by all the other white kids in the city, I would be concerned. If they are holding their own (in themiddle or above) it should be ok. You should also look at your own kid's PARCC scores.

But remember, if you are in a very small school, it doesn't take more than a couple kids in any one subgroup having an off day, or blowing off PARCC for whatever reason (or strong students opting out) to totally skew the results.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone understand how these analyses treat immersion schools? Do they correct for that in some way? My DC's entire school day is conducted in a foreign language. I wonder how they would compare him to someone at an English-language school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone understand how these analyses treat immersion schools? Do they correct for that in some way? My DC's entire school day is conducted in a foreign language. I wonder how they would compare him to someone at an English-language school.

They treat immersion schools the same as other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some subgroup STAR data from EmpowerK12 (educational data consultants; produced the BOLD performance reports earlier this year).

Highest scoring schools for students with disabilities:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071110038461263874

Highest scoring schools for ELLs:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071110259098423296

At-risk students:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071109788937920512

So if a school scores very high for students with disabilities but lower overall should I be even more concerned about the overall score given that students with disabilities are given extra weight?

That's a question to ask OSSE - which will be having sessions to discuss the scorecards around the city in the coming weeks and your school leaders. The question is WHY the students overall are scoring the way they are, as well as the particular subgroup you are concerned with.

IMHO I think that the growth scores are the most important. Look at those by subgroup, see where your kid fits in. If your kid is white, and at your school the white kids are being outpaced by 60 or 70 points by all the other white kids in the city, I would be concerned. If they are holding their own (in themiddle or above) it should be ok. You should also look at your own kid's PARCC scores.

But remember, if you are in a very small school, it doesn't take more than a couple kids in any one subgroup having an off day, or blowing off PARCC for whatever reason (or strong students opting out) to totally skew the results.

Where is an easy place to find numbers of students in each subgroup that are taking the PARCC (ie, not in the overall school, just test takers)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone understand how these analyses treat immersion schools? Do they correct for that in some way? My DC's entire school day is conducted in a foreign language. I wonder how they would compare him to someone at an English-language school.

They treat immersion schools the same as other schools.

Interesting. Learning science and learning science in a second language doesnt quite seem apples-to-apples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some subgroup STAR data from EmpowerK12 (educational data consultants; produced the BOLD performance reports earlier this year).

Highest scoring schools for students with disabilities:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071110038461263874

Highest scoring schools for ELLs:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071110259098423296

At-risk students:

https://twitter.com/empowerk12/status/1071109788937920512

So if a school scores very high for students with disabilities but lower overall should I be even more concerned about the overall score given that students with disabilities are given extra weight?

That's a question to ask OSSE - which will be having sessions to discuss the scorecards around the city in the coming weeks and your school leaders. The question is WHY the students overall are scoring the way they are, as well as the particular subgroup you are concerned with.

IMHO I think that the growth scores are the most important. Look at those by subgroup, see where your kid fits in. If your kid is white, and at your school the white kids are being outpaced by 60 or 70 points by all the other white kids in the city, I would be concerned. If they are holding their own (in themiddle or above) it should be ok. You should also look at your own kid's PARCC scores.

But remember, if you are in a very small school, it doesn't take more than a couple kids in any one subgroup having an off day, or blowing off PARCC for whatever reason (or strong students opting out) to totally skew the results.

Where is an easy place to find numbers of students in each subgroup that are taking the PARCC (ie, not in the overall school, just test takers)?

These "detailed PARCC and MSAA" spreadsheet on this page has that data - not sure I'd call it easy. Where you see a blank in any subgroup that means there were fewer than 10 students. https://osse.dc.gov/page/2017-18-parcc-results-and-resources

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

Maybe you understand this, but just to clarify, it doesn’t mean the white kids’ score are objectively very low. It just means that they are lower compared to other white kids across the district. The other population groups far exceed the scores for their relevant populations. And scores are just one factor in the mix.

This is important!

Agreed this is important. Taking CMI, for example, to pick on just one school that's been mentioned--it doesn't mean that the white kids at the school are doing horribly. It just means that they aren't doing as well as expected, relative to their counterparts at other schools.

Sure. Since I have a white kid, though, this matters to me. I don't really want my kid at a school where the white kids are doing worse than average, do I? Just like any other subgroup may have the same feeling about a school which does not do well in their demographic.

But, I understood that already - I know white kids are still overall going to score fairly well. My point was that this star system is HEAVILY weighted toward the progress of disabled (for some reason more than any other group by far), and secondarily weighted by at risk etc.

FINE> BUT, parents will simply read it as "this is the average score of the school relative to every other school". So there is no strong emphasis. Maybe it should be called STAR Rankings for Underperforming Demographics in DCPS and Charter Schools. But it isn't.

The weighting also appears to have little to do with the population in the school of any one demographic - ie, if the school is largely white, shouldn't their underperformance (yes, relative to expectation) be quite a bit more apparent in the scoring?

I'd love to see Bowser take to the powerpoint and explain all this convoluted math to parents in DC in some kind of town halls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

Maybe you understand this, but just to clarify, it doesn’t mean the white kids’ score are objectively very low. It just means that they are lower compared to other white kids across the district. The other population groups far exceed the scores for their relevant populations. And scores are just one factor in the mix.

This is important!

Agreed this is important. Taking CMI, for example, to pick on just one school that's been mentioned--it doesn't mean that the white kids at the school are doing horribly. It just means that they aren't doing as well as expected, relative to their counterparts at other schools.

Sure. Since I have a white kid, though, this matters to me. I don't really want my kid at a school where the white kids are doing worse than average, do I? Just like any other subgroup may have the same feeling about a school which does not do well in their demographic.

But, I understood that already - I know white kids are still overall going to score fairly well. My point was that this star system is HEAVILY weighted toward the progress of disabled (for some reason more than any other group by far), and secondarily weighted by at risk etc.

FINE> BUT, parents will simply read it as "this is the average score of the school relative to every other school". So there is no strong emphasis. Maybe it should be called STAR Rankings for Underperforming Demographics in DCPS and Charter Schools. But it isn't.

The weighting also appears to have little to do with the population in the school of any one demographic - ie, if the school is largely white, shouldn't their underperformance (yes, relative to expectation) be quite a bit more apparent in the scoring?

I'd love to see Bowser take to the powerpoint and explain all this convoluted math to parents in DC in some kind of town halls.

Bowser didn't develop the report cards. It's on Hanseul Kang to explain it.

To your broader point, I have to disagree. The slight over-weighting with students with disabilities compared to at-risk and racial/ethnic groups was proposed at the feedback meetings OSSE held and adopted. It didn't come out of thin air or without good reason.
Among all groups in DC and nationally, students with disabilities are the most likely to fail to graduate or be employed. That is why they are weighed slightly more heavily in the student performance section.

Full disclosure - as the parent of a white, high school student with disabilities (who always got 4s on PARCC btw) I'm thrilled that. The city spends far too much money on special education not to put a spotlight on the data, and figure out what is, and isn't working.

And if white kids, without learning disabilities are not doing as well at your school as at others, you should absolutely talk to your principal about it, and consider whether you want to continue there. Would you rather not know how yoru kid is doing - regardless of how well SN students are or aren't doing?