PARCC Scores for Grades 3-8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:that is also just the charter data. Could be that high-achieving AA parents who stay in public school use the OOB DCPS more than the charters.

High-scoring kids who add racial diversity to a class might be able to get scholarships to private schools, but that's a topic for another DCUM forum.

Nope that's not the case. KIPP and DC Prep have the highest % of AA kids that scored advanced, followed by Stoddert and Eaton (but you're talking about about 2-6 students at those school).
Stoddert ES All Math 10.7% 28 students
KIPP DC LEAD Academy All Math 16.1% 87 students
KIPP DC Promise PCS All Math 11.5% 191 students
DC Prep PCS Edgewood Elementary All ELA 14.3% 63 students
Stoddert ES All ELA 10.7% 28 students
Eaton ES All ELA 10.4% 67 students

For some of the "popular schools" % of AA advanced student performance is concerning as well

Lafayette 5.1% AA advanced in math, 2.6% in English. 39 AA students tested (22.4 and 14.9 for white – 196 kids)
Stoddert 10.7% AA advanced math, 10.7% in English. 28 AA kids tested (21.5 and 16.7 for white – 79 kids)
Janney not enough AA kids (25)
Mann not enough AA kids (25)
Murch 4.9% AA advanced in math, 2.4% in English. 41 students tested (16.9 and 9.5 for white students - 160 kids)
Key 4.0% AA advanced in math, 4.0% in English. 25 students tested (18.4 and 12.8 for white students – 87 kids)
Eaton 0% AA advanced in math, 10.4% in English. 67 students tested (19.8 and 18.8 for white students – 96 kids)
Oyster 0% AA advanced in math, 3.8% in English. 26 students tested (20.5 and 27.3 for white students – 88 kids)
Brent 0% AA advanced in math, 5.7% in English. 35 students tested (20.0 and 23.6 for white students – 55 kids)
Hearst 1.3% AA advanced in math, 1.3% in English. 75 students tested (18.8 and 18.8 for white students – 32 kids)
Shepherd 4.5% AA advanced in math, 1.8% in English. 111 students tested (NA for white)

This nicely highlights what people--especially the AA moms who have 250k income and are middle class don't get: the problem is one of race and not income or class. Problems in society inhibit AA students' achievement and income/ class is only a small part of it.

Have you considered that many AA students attending these schools don't have AA moms who earn $250K?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else take notice of Ludlow Taylor's scores relative to last year's miraculous improvement on DCCASS? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm.........................

L-T scores are not bad at all on this new test either.
Math is in the 40% (same as Maury); they did not do well at all in ELA.

Did you also post the same general accusation on the LA to Capitol Hill-ES thread?

I don't think you are correct in your suspicions. I do think L-T needs to improve their scores in ELA, and then they will be at least as good as Maury, even with a lot more economically disadvantaged kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does this really breakdown, we need to know how many kids entered already scoring high and where did they end up. If you entered middle school as a high elementary school scoring child, then how does that reflect on the middle school - only that they didn't make your scores worse. If on the other hand you entered the school as a low student but left as a high-scorning student, then kudos to the school. The only way this matters is we follow the child, and for parent making a decision about where to send their child, not because the teachers are any better but the kids in general are at a higher-level!!! SIGH

Check mark for you. You have earned your DCPS union card for the day.

(Oh yeah, plus there's that other thing where the testing gets new and progressive material every year so you can see progression and whether the scores track in 7th, 8th, etc. But don't let data get in the way or your little narrative that testing cannot possibly tell us anything useful.)

So if a child enters school already high, you think the teacher should get credit for maintenance?

[Sigh] I find DCPS employees tiring. Let's start with a reminder that this isn't totally (or primarily) about evaluating teachers. But beyond that, the argument that you and your kind have made for years that because tests don't tell everything they are good for nothing has not only failed to carry the day, but damaged any credibility you might otherwise have. Is there an issue with a static measure? Sure. There needs to be some consideration on that point. But that doesn't invalidate the testing as a measure of where the kids in the school are against a measure. Plus, and let me type this all in caps so you don't miss my point again teach, I CARE ABOUT MY KID BEING IN AN ENVIRONMENT WITH HIGH PERFORMING KIDS THAN YOUR PETTY DCPS UNION CARD CRAP.

NP here. I think you nailed it.
Parents don't care about the school or the teachers one bit, they mostly want to know where the high performing kids go, so they can send their own kid there as well and hope for osmotic transfer of I.Q. These tests really help us out in that way.
I am only half-joking.

[Anonymous]

About how these tests are designed and scores are calculated... would a normal (statistically speaking) population "peak" in the 3's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else take notice of Ludlow Taylor's scores relative to last year's miraculous improvement on DCCASS? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm.........................

L-T scores are not bad at all on this new test either.
Math is in the 40% (same as Maury); they did not do well at all in ELA.

Did you also post the same general accusation on the LA to Capitol Hill-ES thread?

I don't think you are correct in your suspicions. I do think L-T needs to improve their scores in ELA, and then they will be at least as good as Maury, even with a lot more economically disadvantaged kids.

But ... but ... but ... we've been hearing that LT is the only reward school on the Hill and therefore superior to Brent and Maury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The racial achievement gap is astounding.

According to http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/dems2.pdf there were about 93 African American kids in charters in the district who scored a 5 on math and about 91 white kids, despite white kids only making up 6% of the student body at charters in those grades. In ELA, there were more white kids than black ones who scored a 5, even though whites are 5% of the enrollment (I don't know why whites were 5% for ELA and 6% for math). Is it just that well-off AA students go private and well-off white students use charters?

There just aren't that many well off AA students in the district. That would be my guess to start. Consider that 75% of the city's students are economically disadvantaged.

Maybe not well off but there are plenty of solid middle income/upper middle income black families in the city. Our school is 50% black but only 15% low income. I am AA at a charter but most of my black friends go private or WOTP. Some moved to Moco.

A recent thread related to this issue:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/484734.page

[Anonymous]

How does DCPS explain the 1.5% for ELA @ Amidon? Disgraceful and doesn't bode well for the pipedream of a Jefferson MS renaissance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:that is also just the charter data. Could be that high-achieving AA parents who stay in public school use the OOB DCPS more than the charters.

High-scoring kids who add racial diversity to a class might be able to get scholarships to private schools, but that's a topic for another DCUM forum.

Nope that's not the case. KIPP and DC Prep have the highest % of AA kids that scored advanced, followed by Stoddert and Eaton (but you're talking about about 2-6 students at those school).
Stoddert ES All Math 10.7% 28 students
KIPP DC LEAD Academy All Math 16.1% 87 students
KIPP DC Promise PCS All Math 11.5% 191 students
DC Prep PCS Edgewood Elementary All ELA 14.3% 63 students
Stoddert ES All ELA 10.7% 28 students
Eaton ES All ELA 10.4% 67 students

For some of the "popular schools" % of AA advanced student performance is concerning as well

Lafayette 5.1% AA advanced in math, 2.6% in English. 39 AA students tested (22.4 and 14.9 for white – 196 kids)
Stoddert 10.7% AA advanced math, 10.7% in English. 28 AA kids tested (21.5 and 16.7 for white – 79 kids)
Janney not enough AA kids (25)
Mann not enough AA kids (25)
Murch 4.9% AA advanced in math, 2.4% in English. 41 students tested (16.9 and 9.5 for white students - 160 kids)
Key 4.0% AA advanced in math, 4.0% in English. 25 students tested (18.4 and 12.8 for white students – 87 kids)
Eaton 0% AA advanced in math, 10.4% in English. 67 students tested (19.8 and 18.8 for white students – 96 kids)
Oyster 0% AA advanced in math, 3.8% in English. 26 students tested (20.5 and 27.3 for white students – 88 kids)
Brent 0% AA advanced in math, 5.7% in English. 35 students tested (20.0 and 23.6 for white students – 55 kids)
Hearst 1.3% AA advanced in math, 1.3% in English. 75 students tested (18.8 and 18.8 for white students – 32 kids)
Shepherd 4.5% AA advanced in math, 1.8% in English. 111 students tested (NA for white)

This nicely highlights what people--especially the AA moms who have 250k income and are middle class don't get: the problem is one of race and not income or class. Problems in society inhibit AA students' achievement and income/ class is only a small part of it.

Oh I get it, I just didn't realize the gap was as wide as it is.

[Anonymous]

These scores are pitiful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does this really breakdown, we need to know how many kids entered already scoring high and where did they end up. If you entered middle school as a high elementary school scoring child, then how does that reflect on the middle school - only that they didn't make your scores worse. If on the other hand you entered the school as a low student but left as a high-scorning student, then kudos to the school. The only way this matters is we follow the child, and for parent making a decision about where to send their child, not because the teachers are any better but the kids in general are at a higher-level!!! SIGH

Check mark for you. You have earned your DCPS union card for the day.

(Oh yeah, plus there's that other thing where the testing gets new and progressive material every year so you can see progression and whether the scores track in 7th, 8th, etc. But don't let data get in the way or your little narrative that testing cannot possibly tell us anything useful.)

So if a child enters school already high, you think the teacher should get credit for maintenance?

[Sigh] I find DCPS employees tiring. Let's start with a reminder that this isn't totally (or primarily) about evaluating teachers. But beyond that, the argument that you and your kind have made for years that because tests don't tell everything they are good for nothing has not only failed to carry the day, but damaged any credibility you might otherwise have. Is there an issue with a static measure? Sure. There needs to be some consideration on that point. But that doesn't invalidate the testing as a measure of where the kids in the school are against a measure. Plus, and let me type this all in caps so you don't miss my point again teach, I CARE ABOUT MY KID BEING IN AN ENVIRONMENT WITH HIGH PERFORMING KIDS THAN YOUR PETTY DCPS UNION CARD CRAP.

So basically you only care about your own kid, we get it!!! "You and your kind" these are anonymous postings so the "you and your kind" tells much about were your head is, and it isn't pretty.

[Anonymous]

Interesting to me that, at the ES level, Mann had the highest percentage of test takers scoring 5s (a little over 20%) with Brent second (at almost 17%). I thought that Janney and Lafayette would take the prize, as on the DC-CAS.

Maybe the Mann and Brent kids received more typing/computer instruction? Really dumb to require 3rd graders to type an essay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting to me that, at the ES level, Mann had the highest percentage of test takers scoring 5s (a little over 20%) with Brent second (at almost 17%). I thought that Janney and Lafayette would take the prize, as on the DC-CAS.

Maybe the Mann and Brent kids received more typing/computer instruction? Really dumb to require 3rd graders to type an essay.

Maybe there's way too much variability to say with certainty which schools in a certain narrow band are better or worse in any definitive way? But hey, let's not let the realities of statistics stop us from drawing unsupportable conclusions. That is the title of this thread, no?

[Anonymous]

Folks seem to be worried that "less able" kids will impede their own child's learning, or hope that higher performing kids will improve it. That, in principle, seems to make sense. Other smart kids should challenge my own. Children who struggle with learning may demand more of the teacher's time and take away from my own children.

But the data for WOTP elementary schools don't seem to bear that out. As others have pointed out, the scores of white children across most WOTP schools are the same (statistically at least, though that is hard to gauge given this is the first time the test has been administered). Rather the differences seem entirely a result of a yawning achievement gap between white and black students and between economically advantaged and disadvantaged (to use the term provided by the test results). Perhaps that is because AA or economically disadvantaged students in these schools are not behavioral problems. Or perhaps as much as we think we are devoting more resources to help economically disadvantaged children, that in fact is a bit of a fantasy or woefully not enough (or for some, nothing much that schools can do), and the result leaves economically advantaged children (where WOTP white children largely fall) unaffected.

One last thought, it may still be the case that being around other high performing children has some benefit. These data are not definitive. But I might note that being around a diverse set of children -- economically, culturally, racially, etc.. -- may also have lifelong benefits equally or of even greater importance. Benefits that do not show up on a test, but that make for well-rounded and more understanding citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting to me that, at the ES level, Mann had the highest percentage of test takers scoring 5s (a little over 20%) with Brent second (at almost 17%). I thought that Janney and Lafayette would take the prize, as on the DC-CAS.

Maybe the Mann and Brent kids received more typing/computer instruction? Really dumb to require 3rd graders to type an essay.

No meaningful typing instruction at Brent. Students are able to get online time about once a month during "library special." I would venture to guess that most kids in the demographic served by the higher performing schools have no shortage of computer time at home and use it for homework and projects. We're not talking about touch typing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks seem to be worried that "less able" kids will impede their own child's learning, or hope that higher performing kids will improve it. That, in principle, seems to make sense. Other smart kids should challenge my own. Children who struggle with learning may demand more of the teacher's time and take away from my own children.

But the data for WOTP elementary schools don't seem to bear that out. As others have pointed out, the scores of white children across most WOTP schools are the same (statistically at least, though that is hard to gauge given this is the first time the test has been administered). Rather the differences seem entirely a result of a yawning achievement gap between white and black students and between economically advantaged and disadvantaged (to use the term provided by the test results). Perhaps that is because AA or economically disadvantaged students in these schools are not behavioral problems. Or perhaps as much as we think we are devoting more resources to help economically disadvantaged children, that in fact is a bit of a fantasy or woefully not enough (or for some, nothing much that schools can do), and the result leaves economically advantaged children (where WOTP white children largely fall) unaffected.

One last thought, it may still be the case that being around other high performing children has some benefit. These data are not definitive. But I might note that being around a diverse set of children -- economically, culturally, racially, etc.. -- may also have lifelong benefits equally or of even greater importance. Benefits that do not show up on a test, but that make for well-rounded and more understanding citizens.

Yes, this. But not just 'more money'. More money applied in smart and meaningful ways that address the underlying problems (e.g., wrap around services). For the cost of one military airplane, we could help a lot of families.