DC School Report Cards are up

[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.

Valid point, but for accuracy purposes, CMI is doing horribly on their own and compared to peers with white students.

ELA
CMI 55.6%
ITS 84.8%
TR 75.8%

They do slightly better in math but still 12 points lower than closest peers
CMI 72.2%
ITS 84.8%
TR 84.9%

[Anonymous]

For the average parent / user this is voodoo statistics. Either you believe the star ratings are a meaningful measure of school quality disappear into an abyss of questions.

[Anonymous]

For the average parent / user this is voodoo statistics. Either you believe the star ratings are a meaningful measure of school quality or disappear into an abyss of questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think you're still missing my point. It's about the weighting and how several schools with white children at a high percentage (35-35) who score quite low relative to the rest of the student groups in this system STILL are all in the four star category, having total numbers in the 60s etc.

Most parents city-wide will only look at that main number and the star. The city certainly is not drawing attention to the convoluted scoring, we are. Very few will pay attention to this. Yes, clearly I want to know how my child's demographic is doing relative to others, but I'm highly motivated to try and parse this data which almost nobody else is in the city, because it makes no sense.

Voodoo statistics indeed.

[Anonymous]

You're right. I don't understand your point.

Can you name the schools you're looking at please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you're still missing my point. It's about the weighting and how several schools with white children at a high percentage (35-35) who score quite low relative to the rest of the student groups in this system STILL are all in the four star category, having total numbers in the 60s etc.

Most parents city-wide will only look at that main number and the star. The city certainly is not drawing attention to the convoluted scoring, we are. Very few will pay attention to this. Yes, clearly I want to know how my child's demographic is doing relative to others, but I'm highly motivated to try and parse this data which almost nobody else is in the city, because it makes no sense.

Voodoo statistics indeed.

How do the schools you are looking at compare on the non-PARCC derived metrics like attendance (all and PK) and the CLASS metrics (classroom organization, emotional support, instructional support)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're right. I don't understand your point.

Can you name the schools you're looking at please?

LAMB
Mundo Verde
Yu Ying
CMI

I think there was one more like this too that I saw

[Anonymous]

At what school are white students doing the best, based on these scores? Not even white, just curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So what metrics would you use to account for the immersion component? Noting there, so I think it's fair to leave it as apples to apples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At what school are white students doing the best, based on these scores? Not even white, just curious.

Ha nobody is doing that chart

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're right. I don't understand your point.

Can you name the schools you're looking at please?

LAMB
Mundo Verde
Yu Ying
CMI

I think there was one more like this too that I saw

So I just went through each school's STAR framework by Alll Students and also by Group. Either way you look at the data, (looking at each subgroup means there is no weighting; that only comes into play in the All Students score) CMI is lagging behind the other 3 schools.

See below. I omitted Asian students which did not have enough enrollment everywhere to be scored.

Group -- CMI / MV/ LAMB / YY

All students -- 37.16/73.5/68.55/95.4

Spec Needs -- 51.19/56.7/80.6/82.98

At Risk -- 17.4/50.31/63.12/64.98

ELL -- 26.7/27.05/41.99/64.93

Black -- 21.39/57.71/53.79/86.33

Latino -- 21.39/47.18/63.5/65.23

White -- 22.06/49.18/43.72/41.80

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 doesn't quite seem apples-to-apples.

So what metrics would you use to account for the immersion component? Noting there, so I think it's fair to leave it as apples to apples.

I would simply compare the immersion schools to each other and not to monolingual schools, at least for elementary. By middle, the immersion component should not be as much of a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're right. I don't understand your point.

Can you name the schools you're looking at please?

LAMB
Mundo Verde
Yu Ying
CMI

I think there was one more like this too that I saw

So I just went through each school's STAR framework by Alll Students and also by Group. Either way you look at the data, (looking at each subgroup means there is no weighting; that only comes into play in the All Students score) CMI is lagging behind the other 3 schools.

See below. I omitted Asian students which did not have enough enrollment everywhere to be scored.

Group -- CMI / MV/ LAMB / YY

All students -- 37.16/73.5/68.55/95.4

Spec Needs -- 51.19/56.7/80.6/82.98

At Risk -- 17.4/50.31/63.12/64.98

ELL -- 26.7/27.05/41.99/64.93

Black -- 21.39/57.71/53.79/86.33

Latino -- 21.39/47.18/63.5/65.23

White -- 22.06/49.18/43.72/41.80

Thank you! So, what I understood was that All Students was NOT weighted, because if it is weighted, then what is the final star score - which is different from All Students and incorporates the weighting? And if All is weighted then, in what way?

As you can see the various scores below it do not in any way configure up to that All score, as far as I'm able to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're right. I don't understand your point.

Can you name the schools you're looking at please?

LAMB
Mundo Verde
Yu Ying
CMI

I think there was one more like this too that I saw

So I just went through each school's STAR framework by Alll Students and also by Group. Either way you look at the data, (looking at each subgroup means there is no weighting; that only comes into play in the All Students score) CMI is lagging behind the other 3 schools.

See below. I omitted Asian students which did not have enough enrollment everywhere to be scored.

Group -- CMI / MV/ LAMB / YY

All students -- 37.16/73.5/68.55/95.4

Spec Needs -- 51.19/56.7/80.6/82.98

At Risk -- 17.4/50.31/63.12/64.98

ELL -- 26.7/27.05/41.99/64.93

Black -- 21.39/57.71/53.79/86.33

Latino -- 21.39/47.18/63.5/65.23

White -- 22.06/49.18/43.72/41.80

Wow, check out the subgroup scores at YY. The black kids there are killing it. They have the strongest scores of the 4 schools across the other subgroups, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At what school are white students doing the best, based on these scores? Not even white, just curious.

ELA


MATH