New DC School Report Cards have been posted to OSSE’s website

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like only the Summative Score data is available in Excel right now.

Topping the list we have Walls at 88.7, Ross at 88.3, Banneker at 87.9, and Yu Ying and DCB at 86.2. The lowest is Center City Capitol Hill at 7.5 (ouch-- such an outlier I wonder if it's not a mistake).

Here's a selection of scores I found interesting.
Stokes East End 15.4
SSMA 17.9
Langley 20.1
Amidon-Bowen 20.9
Bethune 22.2
Jefferson 24.4
JO Wilson 24.8
Two Rivers Young 26.0
Van Ness 26.8
Eliot-Hine 27.1
MacFarland 29.6
Wells 35.4
Mundo P St 35.9
Center City Shaw 36.7 (and other Center City campuses higher)
CMI 38.7
Two Rivers Middle 40.7
Lee Brookland 41.2
Walker-Jones 41.2
Breakthrough 42
Stuart-Hobson 42
Mundo Calle Ocho 44.8
Bancroft 45
LAMB 45.7
CHML 45.7
SWS 47.1
Two Rivers 4th 48.2
Latin Cooper 49.9
ITS 50.4
DC Prep Edgewood 50.5
Seaton 51.3
Hardy 53.2
Takoma 53.5
Stokes Brookland 55.2
J-R 57
Payne 57
DCI 57.3
Oyster-Adams 58.5
John Lewis 60.7
Stanton and Smothers 61.8
Raymond 62.5
Marie Reed 62.9
BASIS 63.4
Burroughs 64
Brent 64.3
Ludlow 64.7
Watkins 64.8
Barnard 66.2
Thomas 68.3
Sojourner Truth 70.6
Latin Upper School 70.9
Bruce-Monroe 71.8
Langdon 72.1
Maury 72.1
Tyler 73.2
Powell 73.7
Garrison 76.9
Deal 77.1
Whittier 82.7
DC Prep Edgewood Middle 83.3
McKinley Tech 84.5

Can you provide the link for the excel file? I didn't see it on the OSSE site.

[Anonymous]

Here is the methodology for these DC school “report cards”:

https://osse.dc.gov/blog/everything-you-need-know-about-summative-school-scores

For example, for elementary and middle school, they weight PARCC “median growth percentile” as 25% of the score and PARCC “growth to proficiency” as 25% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 20% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. So, in other words, a school where a lot of kids get their scores up from 1, 2, or 3 on the PARCC is worth much more than where kids score 4-5 on PARCC from the beginning and maintain those high scores. The other 20% of the score includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

The high school scoring rubric is a bit different. Here PARCC “growth to proficiency” is only 12.5% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 15% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. Graduation rate is 20% of the score, DE/AP/IB participation is 7.5%, AP/IB performance is 5%, and college preparedness is 5%. The other 25% includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

As a result, you get some perhaps perverse results. Here is an example:

DC Prep Edgewood significantly outranks Deal with a 83.3% score compared to Deal’s paltry 77.1.

However, if you look at PARCC proficiency scores for Deal, 77.9% are grade level in ELA and 63.7% are grade level in math. Deal’s chronic absence rate is 15.7%

In contrast, at DC Prep Edgewood, only 37.9% are grade level at in ELA and only 31.7 % are grade level in math. The chronic absence rate at DC Prep Edgewood is 30.5%.

However, because DC Prep Edgewood showed more PARCC “growth” than Deal (that is, more kids raised their PARCC scores up from 1, 2, or 3.), the DC school report card ranks DC Prep Edgewood ahead of Deal.

In short, at least with elementary and middle school, the DC school “score cards” prioritize improvement of academic performance over actual academic results. In other words, a school where a lot of kids improve their below-grade-level work or move from below grade level to grade level is considered “better” than a school where kids consistently do grade-level and above-grade-level work.

By this logic, actual DC report cards should give As to kids that move from C-level work to B-level and Bs to kids that consistently do A-level work.

[Anonymous]

So glad to see how well Garrison did! We decided to stay until 5th grade despite lack of feeder school. We don’t regret it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the methodology for these DC school “report cards”:

https://osse.dc.gov/blog/everything-you-need-know-about-summative-school-scores

For example, for elementary and middle school, they weight PARCC “median growth percentile” as 25% of the score and PARCC “growth to proficiency” as 25% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 20% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. So, in other words, a school where a lot of kids get their scores up from 1, 2, or 3 on the PARCC is worth much more than where kids score 4-5 on PARCC from the beginning and maintain those high scores. The other 20% of the score includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

The high school scoring rubric is a bit different. Here PARCC “growth to proficiency” is only 12.5% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 15% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. Graduation rate is 20% of the score, DE/AP/IB participation is 7.5%, AP/IB performance is 5%, and college preparedness is 5%. The other 25% includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

As a result, you get some perhaps perverse results. Here is an example:

DC Prep Edgewood significantly outranks Deal with a 83.3% score compared to Deal’s paltry 77.1.

However, if you look at PARCC proficiency scores for Deal, 77.9% are grade level in ELA and 63.7% are grade level in math. Deal’s chronic absence rate is 15.7%

In contrast, at DC Prep Edgewood, only 37.9% are grade level at in ELA and only 31.7 % are grade level in math. The chronic absence rate at DC Prep Edgewood is 30.5%.

However, because DC Prep Edgewood showed more PARCC “growth” than Deal (that is, more kids raised their PARCC scores up from 1, 2, or 3.), the DC school report card ranks DC Prep Edgewood ahead of Deal.

In short, at least with elementary and middle school, the DC school “score cards” prioritize improvement of academic performance over actual academic results. In other words, a school where a lot of kids improve their below-grade-level work or move from below grade level to grade level is considered “better” than a school where kids consistently do grade-level and above-grade-level work.

By this logic, actual DC report cards should give As to kids that move from C-level work to B-level and Bs to kids that consistently do A-level work.

The logic is not giving students who move from C to B an A. The logic is giving schools that do the harder job of getting students to grow move in their achievement higher scores. It takes less teacher skill and quality instruction to keep a 4th grader who was already at a 5 in 3rd grade to a 4 or 5 in 5th grade. It takes more skill and quality instruction to take a student who was a 2 in 4th grade to a 4 in 5th grade. The fact for example that only 55% of deal students meet their math growth goals suggest a number of students going from 5’s to 4’s or higher 4’s to lower 4’s.

As a parent you might still prefer to pick a school based on overall achievement but I think that if you are trying to determine school quality actually measuring if teachers get students to improve (grow over an expected year’s growth) deserves points.

As an experienced teacher I’ve seen over and over how mediocre teachers and admin can excel at a school where their is less need for them to differentiate or help disadvantaged students and completely fail in a more challenging school environment.

[Anonymous]

Whoo Langdon ES!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the methodology for these DC school “report cards”:

https://osse.dc.gov/blog/everything-you-need-know-about-summative-school-scores

For example, for elementary and middle school, they weight PARCC “median growth percentile” as 25% of the score and PARCC “growth to proficiency” as 25% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 20% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. So, in other words, a school where a lot of kids get their scores up from 1, 2, or 3 on the PARCC is worth much more than where kids score 4-5 on PARCC from the beginning and maintain those high scores. The other 20% of the score includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

The high school scoring rubric is a bit different. Here PARCC “growth to proficiency” is only 12.5% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 15% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. Graduation rate is 20% of the score, DE/AP/IB participation is 7.5%, AP/IB performance is 5%, and college preparedness is 5%. The other 25% includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

As a result, you get some perhaps perverse results. Here is an example:

DC Prep Edgewood significantly outranks Deal with a 83.3% score compared to Deal’s paltry 77.1.

However, if you look at PARCC proficiency scores for Deal, 77.9% are grade level in ELA and 63.7% are grade level in math. Deal’s chronic absence rate is 15.7%

In contrast, at DC Prep Edgewood, only 37.9% are grade level at in ELA and only 31.7 % are grade level in math. The chronic absence rate at DC Prep Edgewood is 30.5%.

However, because DC Prep Edgewood showed more PARCC “growth” than Deal (that is, more kids raised their PARCC scores up from 1, 2, or 3.), the DC school report card ranks DC Prep Edgewood ahead of Deal.

In short, at least with elementary and middle school, the DC school “score cards” prioritize improvement of academic performance over actual academic results. In other words, a school where a lot of kids improve their below-grade-level work or move from below grade level to grade level is considered “better” than a school where kids consistently do grade-level and above-grade-level work.

By this logic, actual DC report cards should give As to kids that move from C-level work to B-level and Bs to kids that consistently do A-level work.

Bingo.

+1 million

[Anonymous]

Did I miss the demise of the star ratings?

[Anonymous]

"As a parent you might still prefer to pick a school based on overall achievement but I think that if you are trying to determine school quality actually measuring if teachers get students to improve (grow over an expected year’s growth) deserves points.

As an experienced teacher I’ve seen over and over how mediocre teachers and admin can excel at a school where their is less need for them to differentiate or help disadvantaged students and completely fail in a more challenging school environment."

Thank you for this. It is very apparent on this thread that very few people have or appreciate this context. It says a lot more about a school and the teachers when they can demonstrate growth for all kids, not just the top. If everybody on here was actually concerned about kids who are grade levels behind, they should value this rating system as well.

[Anonymous]

Providing a score based on improvement is valuable but so is knowing that a school
has and maintains successful students. Peer group means a lot when it comes to learning and many families look for high achieving cohorts when deciding if a school is right for them. This current rating system makes families have to dig deeper to find out if a school is really the best fit. Perhaps multiple rankings instead of one overall ranking would have been better so families can find all of the information easily to make an informed decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the methodology for these DC school “report cards”:

https://osse.dc.gov/blog/everything-you-need-know-about-summative-school-scores

For example, for elementary and middle school, they weight PARCC “median growth percentile” as 25% of the score and PARCC “growth to proficiency” as 25% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 20% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. So, in other words, a school where a lot of kids get their scores up from 1, 2, or 3 on the PARCC is worth much more than where kids score 4-5 on PARCC from the beginning and maintain those high scores. The other 20% of the score includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

The high school scoring rubric is a bit different. Here PARCC “growth to proficiency” is only 12.5% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 15% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. Graduation rate is 20% of the score, DE/AP/IB participation is 7.5%, AP/IB performance is 5%, and college preparedness is 5%. The other 25% includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

As a result, you get some perhaps perverse results. Here is an example:

DC Prep Edgewood significantly outranks Deal with a 83.3% score compared to Deal’s paltry 77.1.

However, if you look at PARCC proficiency scores for Deal, 77.9% are grade level in ELA and 63.7% are grade level in math. Deal’s chronic absence rate is 15.7%

In contrast, at DC Prep Edgewood, only 37.9% are grade level at in ELA and only 31.7 % are grade level in math. The chronic absence rate at DC Prep Edgewood is 30.5%.

However, because DC Prep Edgewood showed more PARCC “growth” than Deal (that is, more kids raised their PARCC scores up from 1, 2, or 3.), the DC school report card ranks DC Prep Edgewood ahead of Deal.

In short, at least with elementary and middle school, the DC school “score cards” prioritize improvement of academic performance over actual academic results. In other words, a school where a lot of kids improve their below-grade-level work or move from below grade level to grade level is considered “better” than a school where kids consistently do grade-level and above-grade-level work.

By this logic, actual DC report cards should give As to kids that move from C-level work to B-level and Bs to kids that consistently do A-level work.

Bingo.

+1 million

Disagree, 68% of students approached, met or exceeded expectations in ELA and 63.4% in math.
Deal certainly is higher in the category of meeting expectations and above.However to me Deal falls short because they aren't able to raise kids scores as much as DC prep middle did. They receive kids on a higher level academically but fail to get them even higher.

Deal also failed to raise the scores of students with disabilities, ELL, and the ones who are economically disadvantaged.

You have to look at the big picture, cool Deal does well teaching bon bons with tutors, parental help, or who have just experienced less trauma, and have more resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Providing a score based on improvement is valuable but so is knowing that a school
has and maintains successful students. Peer group means a lot when it comes to learning and many families look for high achieving cohorts when deciding if a school is right for them. This current rating system makes families have to dig deeper to find out if a school is really the best fit. Perhaps multiple rankings instead of one overall ranking would have been better so families can find all of the information easily to make an informed decision.

This is an interesting point to me. Wouldn’t you just look at parcc scores then to determine if kids are high achieving? That’s actually pretty easy to find. Am I missing another metric of a high achieving cohort?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Providing a score based on improvement is valuable but so is knowing that a school
has and maintains successful students. Peer group means a lot when it comes to learning and many families look for high achieving cohorts when deciding if a school is right for them. This current rating system makes families have to dig deeper to find out if a school is really the best fit. Perhaps multiple rankings instead of one overall ranking would have been better so families can find all of the information easily to make an informed decision.

This is an interesting point to me. Wouldn’t you just look at parcc scores then to determine if kids are high achieving? That’s actually pretty easy to find. Am I missing another metric of a high achieving cohort?

PARCC is only ELA and math. If you want achievements in any other subject (aside from science), other metrics are needed.

Also, some schools have strong early elementary performance but their PARCC scores aren't great due to attrition and backfilling. There are early elementary metrics like MAP and iReady that aren't part of this rating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the methodology for these DC school “report cards”:

https://osse.dc.gov/blog/everything-you-need-know-about-summative-school-scores

For example, for elementary and middle school, they weight PARCC “median growth percentile” as 25% of the score and PARCC “growth to proficiency” as 25% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 20% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. So, in other words, a school where a lot of kids get their scores up from 1, 2, or 3 on the PARCC is worth much more than where kids score 4-5 on PARCC from the beginning and maintain those high scores. The other 20% of the score includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

The high school scoring rubric is a bit different. Here PARCC “growth to proficiency” is only 12.5% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 15% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. Graduation rate is 20% of the score, DE/AP/IB participation is 7.5%, AP/IB performance is 5%, and college preparedness is 5%. The other 25% includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

As a result, you get some perhaps perverse results. Here is an example:

DC Prep Edgewood significantly outranks Deal with a 83.3% score compared to Deal’s paltry 77.1.

However, if you look at PARCC proficiency scores for Deal, 77.9% are grade level in ELA and 63.7% are grade level in math. Deal’s chronic absence rate is 15.7%

In contrast, at DC Prep Edgewood, only 37.9% are grade level at in ELA and only 31.7 % are grade level in math. The chronic absence rate at DC Prep Edgewood is 30.5%.

However, because DC Prep Edgewood showed more PARCC “growth” than Deal (that is, more kids raised their PARCC scores up from 1, 2, or 3.), the DC school report card ranks DC Prep Edgewood ahead of Deal.

In short, at least with elementary and middle school, the DC school “score cards” prioritize improvement of academic performance over actual academic results. In other words, a school where a lot of kids improve their below-grade-level work or move from below grade level to grade level is considered “better” than a school where kids consistently do grade-level and above-grade-level work.

By this logic, actual DC report cards should give As to kids that move from C-level work to B-level and Bs to kids that consistently do A-level work.

Bingo.

+1 million

Disagree, 68% of students approached, met or exceeded expectations in ELA and 63.4% in math.
Deal certainly is higher in the category of meeting expectations and above.However to me Deal falls short because they aren't able to raise kids scores as much as DC prep middle did. They receive kids on a higher level academically but fail to get them even higher.

Deal also failed to raise the scores of students with disabilities, ELL, and the ones who are economically disadvantaged.

You have to look at the big picture, cool Deal does well teaching bon bons with tutors, parental help, or who have just experienced less trauma, and have more resources.

At Deal a lot of kids come in scoring high on the PARCC and can't go any higher. And kids get counted as 5s whether it's a 5 in 8th grade math, Algebra I, or Geometry, even though those are very different levels of performance. It's kind of unhelpful in that way.

[Anonymous]

Why are they using “approached, met or exceeded expectations” as the PARCC benchmark to report?

Race to the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are they using “approached, met or exceeded expectations” as the PARCC benchmark to report?

Race to the bottom.

They are reporting both 3-4-5 and 4-5. Because a school with a lot of 3s is different from a school with hardly any 3s. It's just one more of their many performance metrics.