2022-2023 PARCC Data Released

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the proficiency results for high school. It looks like Walls (a selective school that only accepts students with an A average GPA) has slightly pulled ahead of BASIS DC (a 100% lottery school).

Walls

ELA 94.66
Math 67.44

BASIS DC

ELA 92.06
Math 66.12

Banneker

ELA 88.62
Math 44.52

Latin

ELA 70.71
Math 30.47

DCI

ELA 41.87
Math 20.74

This is high school? Why is DCI so bad?

There's a lot more than meets the eye with high school math PARCC scores. Analyze with caution.

Kid at DCI?

Not at all, I don't even have a child of that age. But if you read backwards through this thread and others, you'll see a discussion of how the math PARCC works and what it reports and does not report. I'm not saying any one school is better in math than another-- I'd have to really look through the data, and it depends on the modeling assumptions you make. The sad truth is PARCC doesn't tell us very much about math after 9th grade.

Everyone takes the same test in DC.

Maybe you prefer to rely for your data on anonymous posters in DCUM? Or does that just depend on modeling assumptions?

Oh FFS. No, not everyone takes the same test. Some people take Algebra I. Some people take Algebra II. Some people take Geometry. Some people take the MSAA. And some people take no math standardized test at all. Kids take the test for the *class* they are taking, not the grade they are in. So to do a geniune comparison of two schools' math performance, you'd have to carefully control for those things. And even then, it wouldn't tell you anything at all about upper-level math courses.

Stop playing silly games.

Those are the average numbers. If you drill down to the specific tests you can the same general results.

So, yes, math instruction sucks at DCI and Latin.”

And most kids in high school there are below grade level in math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliot Hine is on the move. Correct me if I pulled numbers incorrectly, I was using an old PARCC presentation slide of their year by year performance from a prior year.

ELA:
2017-2018: 13%
2018-2019: 23%
2021-2022: 28%
2021-23: 34%

Math:
2017-2018: 4%
2018-2019: 13%
2021-2022: 10%
2021-23: 19%

Of note, the scores stratified by race show very wide differences. Among Black, still improvement.
ELA
2018: 9%
2023: 22%

Math
2018: 2%
2023: 7%

Those scores are terrible.

Yes. But they are moving upward.

To evaluate real school performance, scores need to be stratified by SES. Unfortunately, DC doesn't provide that in a helpful way. It's otherwise difficult to understand teaching effectiveness when the primary differences between school scores are explained by SES. Essentially, if you cut the data by ethnicity, you'll see that school scores don't differ as much as you think they do.

Race/Ethnicity White - ELA:
Hardy: 86%
Deal: 92%
Eliot Hine: >95%

Race/Ethnicity White - Math:
Hardy - DS, too small to report
Deal: 84%
Eliot-Hine: 86%

#s too small to do a similar report for different middle schools for other ethnicities.

The bolded illustrates why people can look at the same scores and see different things. Or look at scores and try and just dismiss them. Your post reads like it was written by a teacher. From that perspective this is about teaching effectiveness and growth. That is not how most parents view these scores. We look at them and ask ourselves whether our kids will be in classes with a bunch of kids who are WAY behind grade level. You can try and rationalize away that low scores are because of low SES or other reasons, but whether 80+% of my kids classmates are low SES or not doesn't make me feel any better about my kid being in classes with a bunch of remedial students.

Wow. You are a terrible human being. Remedial students still have plenty to offer. My kid went to a Title I school all the way through elementary school. She made great friends. Now in HS, she is still friends with them. School isn’t where everyone excels and that’s ok. There is more to being human than good PARCC scores. You are just a miserable person.

I love the mods around these parts. PP is fine calling people "terrible human beings" because they don't want their kids in classes with 80+% kids well below grade level, but a reply calling that person out for hypocrisy and meanness is impermissible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the proficiency results for high school. It looks like Walls (a selective school that only accepts students with an A average GPA) has slightly pulled ahead of BASIS DC (a 100% lottery school).

Walls

ELA 94.66
Math 67.44

BASIS DC

ELA 92.06
Math 66.12

Banneker

ELA 88.62
Math 44.52

Latin

ELA 70.71
Math 30.47

DCI

ELA 41.87
Math 20.74

This is high school? Why is DCI so bad?

There's a lot more than meets the eye with high school math PARCC scores. Analyze with caution.

When there's room on the margins maybe. But those scores just empirically stink.

Well, yes, they aren't very good. But for the higher-performing high schools, so many students have progressed beyond Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry, that it just isn't that helpful a data set. If School A were crushing School B in pre-calc or Calc A/B or whatever, wouldn't you want to include that in your analysis? But we just don't have that.

I don't pretend to understand the math/algebra/geometry PARCC data. And lord knows OSSE seems to have made it even harder to grasp WTF is all means with this year's data dump. But your explanation doesn't track. If that was the reason for low test scores then it should similarly impact all other schools. I mean, I assume you aren't suggesting that DCI's students are more advanced than BASIS, Walls and Banneker?

Well, it would depend on how many of the incoming students had already taken those classes in middle school, and that can vary by school, so I don't think it affects all schools the same way. But I'm not sure there's a good way to assess that.

The scores are low because a lot of the 9th and 10th graders aren't doing well in math. The lack of upper level data is not the reason for the low scores among 9th graders taking Algebra I. But it is the reason it's hard to accurately compare schools. I genuinely don't know if DCI's students are more advanced, and I don't think this data set can answer that question. Basic proficiency in the tested classes is what PARCC tells you. It doesn't test anything truly advanced, at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the proficiency results for high school. It looks like Walls (a selective school that only accepts students with an A average GPA) has slightly pulled ahead of BASIS DC (a 100% lottery school).

Walls

ELA 94.66
Math 67.44

BASIS DC

ELA 92.06
Math 66.12

Banneker

ELA 88.62
Math 44.52

Latin

ELA 70.71
Math 30.47

DCI

ELA 41.87
Math 20.74

This is high school? Why is DCI so bad?

There's a lot more than meets the eye with high school math PARCC scores. Analyze with caution.

Kid at DCI?

Not at all, I don't even have a child of that age. But if you read backwards through this thread and others, you'll see a discussion of how the math PARCC works and what it reports and does not report. I'm not saying any one school is better in math than another-- I'd have to really look through the data, and it depends on the modeling assumptions you make. The sad truth is PARCC doesn't tell us very much about math after 9th grade.

Everyone takes the same test in DC.

Maybe you prefer to rely for your data on anonymous posters in DCUM? Or does that just depend on modeling assumptions?

Oh FFS. No, not everyone takes the same test. Some people take Algebra I. Some people take Algebra II. Some people take Geometry. Some people take the MSAA. And some people take no math standardized test at all. Kids take the test for the *class* they are taking, not the grade they are in. So to do a geniune comparison of two schools' math performance, you'd have to carefully control for those things. And even then, it wouldn't tell you anything at all about upper-level math courses.

Stop playing silly games.

Those are the average numbers. If you drill down to the specific tests you can the same general results.

So, yes, math instruction sucks at DCI and Latin.”

And most kids in high school there are below grade level in math.

But if most kids aren't even taking any math PARCC at all, how can you know if they are below grade level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the proficiency results for high school. It looks like Walls (a selective school that only accepts students with an A average GPA) has slightly pulled ahead of BASIS DC (a 100% lottery school).

Walls

ELA 94.66
Math 67.44

BASIS DC

ELA 92.06
Math 66.12

Banneker

ELA 88.62
Math 44.52

Latin

ELA 70.71
Math 30.47

DCI

ELA 41.87
Math 20.74

This is high school? Why is DCI so bad?

There's a lot more than meets the eye with high school math PARCC scores. Analyze with caution.

When there's room on the margins maybe. But those scores just empirically stink.

Well, yes, they aren't very good. But for the higher-performing high schools, so many students have progressed beyond Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry, that it just isn't that helpful a data set. If School A were crushing School B in pre-calc or Calc A/B or whatever, wouldn't you want to include that in your analysis? But we just don't have that.

I don't pretend to understand the math/algebra/geometry PARCC data. And lord knows OSSE seems to have made it even harder to grasp WTF is all means with this year's data dump. But your explanation doesn't track. If that was the reason for low test scores then it should similarly impact all other schools. I mean, I assume you aren't suggesting that DCI's students are more advanced than BASIS, Walls and Banneker?

If we ignore numbers for 10th and higher (see earlier post), then DCI A1 looks about similar to J-R (19% - 16%). The number of 9th graders taking A2 or Geo PARCC is in the single digits for DCI. Latin is <10% for A1 and not indicated for Geo/A2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the math curriculum need to be changed beginning in elementary school? Is it time to move away from the Eureka method and give kids good textbooks to help them learn?

Most math professor back Saxon math.

The issue is Eureka was designed for students who are already performing on grade level for math, which is obviously not the case for most DC students.

[Anonymous]

Here you go:

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eliot Hine is on the move. Correct me if I pulled numbers incorrectly, I was using an old PARCC presentation slide of their year by year performance from a prior year.

ELA:
2017-2018: 13%
2018-2019: 23%
2021-2022: 28%
2021-23: 34%

Math:
2017-2018: 4%
2018-2019: 13%
2021-2022: 10%
2021-23: 19%

Of note, the scores stratified by race show very wide differences. Among Black, still improvement.
ELA
2018: 9%
2023: 22%

Math
2018: 2%
2023: 7%

nice!!! we were just at the new parents orientation tonight. they are really really together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliot Hine is on the move. Correct me if I pulled numbers incorrectly, I was using an old PARCC presentation slide of their year by year performance from a prior year.

ELA:
2017-2018: 13%
2018-2019: 23%
2021-2022: 28%
2021-23: 34%

Math:
2017-2018: 4%
2018-2019: 13%
2021-2022: 10%
2021-23: 19%

Of note, the scores stratified by race show very wide differences. Among Black, still improvement.
ELA
2018: 9%
2023: 22%

Math
2018: 2%
2023: 7%

Those scores are terrible.

Yes. But they are moving upward.

To evaluate real school performance, scores need to be stratified by SES. Unfortunately, DC doesn't provide that in a helpful way. It's otherwise difficult to understand teaching effectiveness when the primary differences between school scores are explained by SES. Essentially, if you cut the data by ethnicity, you'll see that school scores don't differ as much as you think they do.

Race/Ethnicity White - ELA:
Hardy: 86%
Deal: 92%
Eliot Hine: >95%

Race/Ethnicity White - Math:
Hardy - DS, too small to report
Deal: 84%
Eliot-Hine: 86%

#s too small to do a similar report for different middle schools for other ethnicities.

Eliot Hine employee posting this? Scores for African American students at Eliot Hine were terrible.

they still have a ways to go on math but they tripled ELA proficiency and kept improving scores even during covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliot Hine is on the move. Correct me if I pulled numbers incorrectly, I was using an old PARCC presentation slide of their year by year performance from a prior year.

ELA:
2017-2018: 13%
2018-2019: 23%
2021-2022: 28%
2021-23: 34%

Math:
2017-2018: 4%
2018-2019: 13%
2021-2022: 10%
2021-23: 19%

Of note, the scores stratified by race show very wide differences. Among Black, still improvement.
ELA
2018: 9%
2023: 22%

Math
2018: 2%
2023: 7%

Those scores are terrible.

Yes. But they are moving upward.

To evaluate real school performance, scores need to be stratified by SES. Unfortunately, DC doesn't provide that in a helpful way. It's otherwise difficult to understand teaching effectiveness when the primary differences between school scores are explained by SES. Essentially, if you cut the data by ethnicity, you'll see that school scores don't differ as much as you think they do.

Race/Ethnicity White - ELA:
Hardy: 86%
Deal: 92%
Eliot Hine: >95%

Race/Ethnicity White - Math:
Hardy - DS, too small to report
Deal: 84%
Eliot-Hine: 86%

#s too small to do a similar report for different middle schools for other ethnicities.

The bolded illustrates why people can look at the same scores and see different things. Or look at scores and try and just dismiss them. Your post reads like it was written by a teacher. From that perspective this is about teaching effectiveness and growth. That is not how most parents view these scores. We look at them and ask ourselves whether our kids will be in classes with a bunch of kids who are WAY behind grade level. You can try and rationalize away that low scores are because of low SES or other reasons, but whether 80+% of my kids classmates are low SES or not doesn't make me feel any better about my kid being in classes with a bunch of remedial students.

Wow. You are a terrible human being. Remedial students still have plenty to offer. My kid went to a Title I school all the way through elementary school. She made great friends. Now in HS, she is still friends with them. School isn’t where everyone excels and that’s ok. There is more to being human than good PARCC scores. You are just a miserable person.

??? Title 1 doesn't mean remedial?? My kid also went to a Title 1 school all the way through elementary and didn't have any remedial students in her class.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know where parcc data is posted looking specially for dci

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know where parcc data is posted looking specially for dci

You have to get the spreadsheet from the OSSE website and find DCI in it.

[Anonymous]

The empower k-12 link above is way more digestible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliot Hine is on the move. Correct me if I pulled numbers incorrectly, I was using an old PARCC presentation slide of their year by year performance from a prior year.

ELA:
2017-2018: 13%
2018-2019: 23%
2021-2022: 28%
2021-23: 34%

Math:
2017-2018: 4%
2018-2019: 13%
2021-2022: 10%
2021-23: 19%

Of note, the scores stratified by race show very wide differences. Among Black, still improvement.
ELA
2018: 9%
2023: 22%

Math
2018: 2%
2023: 7%

Those scores are terrible.

Yes. But they are moving upward.

To evaluate real school performance, scores need to be stratified by SES. Unfortunately, DC doesn't provide that in a helpful way. It's otherwise difficult to understand teaching effectiveness when the primary differences between school scores are explained by SES. Essentially, if you cut the data by ethnicity, you'll see that school scores don't differ as much as you think they do.

Race/Ethnicity White - ELA:
Hardy: 86%
Deal: 92%
Eliot Hine: >95%

Race/Ethnicity White - Math:
Hardy - DS, too small to report
Deal: 84%
Eliot-Hine: 86%

#s too small to do a similar report for different middle schools for other ethnicities.

Eliot Hine employee posting this? Scores for African American students at Eliot Hine were terrible.

they still have a ways to go on math but they tripled ELA proficiency and kept improving scores even during covid.

60% of kids got 1s and 2s on ELA. Get a grip.

[Anonymous]

As one of the analysts who worked on this data, I am pleased to see you all talking about it. It makes me feel those crazy nights aren't going to waste... FYI the performance levels will be released soon. I would say the exact date, but I would probably get in trouble-- but it will be very soon. I will share this thread with the team as they would be happy to see how people engage with the data we create.