DC's School Report Cards are up. Any surprises?

[Anonymous]

I don’t know if YY Scores are bad but they’re not good. Seem worse than previous years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went through a handful of the DCPS elementary schools and looked specifically for science profiency. Some schools (like Ross and Janney) are at 70 percent, while others are closer to zero. So some schools are teaching science well and others don't really teach it at all.

I have a belief that the Science CAPE results are the best indicator of overall school quality.

I feel like I don’t know what the science CAPE is testing like I know what math and ELA are

I think because science education can really vary, the science CAPE shows you which schools have figured out how to do it and also go above and beyond the requirements. This is likely true for the rest of the curriculum, too.

The science test covers content from 3-5 grade. So if you weren’t in DCPS for one of those grades you may have missed the content being tested.

It’s four parts, each one is I think 45 minutes. If I remember correctly, in that 45 there are three scenarios/topics. A short reading passage maybe describing an experiment or phenomena. Then they have a few multiple choice questions and then a short response. It’s not really enough time and often kids don’t finish.

I suspect the kids who do well have enough background knowledge to do well. Plus consistent science content in school.

The DCI feeders vary a lot -- Yu Ying has 61 percent science profiency, LAMB is 43 percent, MV Cook is 18 percent. DCI is 13 percent.

I have kids at two different schools with good Science results and they do explicity teach plenty of science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went through a handful of the DCPS elementary schools and looked specifically for science profiency. Some schools (like Ross and Janney) are at 70 percent, while others are closer to zero. So some schools are teaching science well and others don't really teach it at all.

I have a belief that the Science CAPE results are the best indicator of overall school quality.

I feel like I don’t know what the science CAPE is testing like I know what math and ELA are

I think because science education can really vary, the science CAPE shows you which schools have figured out how to do it and also go above and beyond the requirements. This is likely true for the rest of the curriculum, too.

The science test covers content from 3-5 grade. So if you weren’t in DCPS for one of those grades you may have missed the content being tested.

It’s four parts, each one is I think 45 minutes. If I remember correctly, in that 45 there are three scenarios/topics. A short reading passage maybe describing an experiment or phenomena. Then they have a few multiple choice questions and then a short response. It’s not really enough time and often kids don’t finish.

I suspect the kids who do well have enough background knowledge to do well. Plus consistent science content in school.

The DCI feeders vary a lot -- Yu Ying has 61 percent science profiency, LAMB is 43 percent, MV Cook is 18 percent. DCI is 13 percent.

I have kids at two different schools with good Science results and they do explicity teach plenty of science.

Did you mean DCB (DC Bilingual) for that 13 percent figure? Or you meant DCI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went through a handful of the DCPS elementary schools and looked specifically for science profiency. Some schools (like Ross and Janney) are at 70 percent, while others are closer to zero. So some schools are teaching science well and others don't really teach it at all.

I have a belief that the Science CAPE results are the best indicator of overall school quality.

I feel like I don’t know what the science CAPE is testing like I know what math and ELA are

I think because science education can really vary, the science CAPE shows you which schools have figured out how to do it and also go above and beyond the requirements. This is likely true for the rest of the curriculum, too.

The science test covers content from 3-5 grade. So if you weren’t in DCPS for one of those grades you may have missed the content being tested.

It’s four parts, each one is I think 45 minutes. If I remember correctly, in that 45 there are three scenarios/topics. A short reading passage maybe describing an experiment or phenomena. Then they have a few multiple choice questions and then a short response. It’s not really enough time and often kids don’t finish.

I suspect the kids who do well have enough background knowledge to do well. Plus consistent science content in school.

The DCI feeders vary a lot -- Yu Ying has 61 percent science profiency, LAMB is 43 percent, MV Cook is 18 percent. DCI is 13 percent.

I have kids at two different schools with good Science results and they do explicity teach plenty of science.

Did you mean DCB (DC Bilingual) for that 13 percent figure? Or you meant DCI?

DCI

[Anonymous]

I am surprised by how badly Eliot-Hine performed. There are a lot of threads on DCUM trying to convince me that EH is the equivalent of SH, which this data does not support in the least... SH gets 84%ile (more or less equivalent to Hardy) and EH gets 21st%ile.

EH was substantially behind SH in both scores (basically SH is +20% in every measure) and growth (SH above average for both; EH below for both).

EH also had 35%(!!!) of students chronically absent.

I genuinely do not mean this to bash EH and I am glad it is getting increased neighborhood buy-in, but this Report Card presents a totally different reality than DCUM. EH actually came out behind Jefferson, but those are much closer and seems to be more about how you weight student achievement vs growth.

[Anonymous]

I am also surprised by the sizeable difference between the two Latin campuses. Both do pretty well 97%ile (OG) & 71%ile (Cooper), but there's a pretty big spread between them and the OG campus comes out ahead on both achievement and growth. It also come out ahead in attendance and there is a HUGE differential in teacher retention where OG's number is awesome (90) and Cooper's is concerning (64).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am also surprised by the sizeable difference between the two Latin campuses. Both do pretty well 97%ile (OG) & 71%ile (Cooper), but there's a pretty big spread between them and the OG campus comes out ahead on both achievement and growth. It also come out ahead in attendance and there is a HUGE differential in teacher retention where OG's number is awesome (90) and Cooper's is concerning (64).

It really seems like almost no school manages expansion all that well; or at least, my default assumption is a second campus is likely to struggle a lot more.

[Anonymous]

DC Cape scores came out a while back. Does this have new data or does it just repackage what we've already seen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC Cape scores came out a while back. Does this have new data or does it just repackage what we've already seen?

The way it measures growth (which tracks the same kid across multiple years), you cannot do yourself with publicly available data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am also surprised by the sizeable difference between the two Latin campuses. Both do pretty well 97%ile (OG) & 71%ile (Cooper), but there's a pretty big spread between them and the OG campus comes out ahead on both achievement and growth. It also come out ahead in attendance and there is a HUGE differential in teacher retention where OG's number is awesome (90) and Cooper's is concerning (64).

It really seems like almost no school manages expansion all that well; or at least, my default assumption is a second campus is likely to struggle a lot more.

It seems like a better idea to expand in place if the facilities allow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went through a handful of the DCPS elementary schools and looked specifically for science profiency. Some schools (like Ross and Janney) are at 70 percent, while others are closer to zero. So some schools are teaching science well and others don't really teach it at all.

I have a belief that the Science CAPE results are the best indicator of overall school quality.

I feel like I don’t know what the science CAPE is testing like I know what math and ELA are

I think because science education can really vary, the science CAPE shows you which schools have figured out how to do it and also go above and beyond the requirements. This is likely true for the rest of the curriculum, too.

The science test covers content from 3-5 grade. So if you weren’t in DCPS for one of those grades you may have missed the content being tested.

It’s four parts, each one is I think 45 minutes. If I remember correctly, in that 45 there are three scenarios/topics. A short reading passage maybe describing an experiment or phenomena. Then they have a few multiple choice questions and then a short response. It’s not really enough time and often kids don’t finish.

I suspect the kids who do well have enough background knowledge to do well. Plus consistent science content in school.

If there is a lot of reading on the science test then the low science scores can also be a function of low reading levels/ELA scores at a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Banneker and School Without Walls are the top high schools. Lots of DCPS elementary schools at the top of the ratings. For the charters, Latin, Friendship and Center City have campuses in the top.

The official OSSE site is here https://schoolreportcard.dc.gov/home.
It may be easier to navigate the information on the EmpowerK12 site https://www.empowerk12.org/dc-accountability-scores-dashboard.

Looks like BASIS and Walls have the best numbers. However, Basis is 100% lottery and Walls selects its students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A quick year over year comparison of percentile ranks shows there has been a lot of change. These are percentage points.

Achievement Prep +35.
Burroughs +33.
Burrville +20.
Chavez down 30.
Cleveland down 57.
CMI up 14.
DCB down 43.
DC Prep had a rough year.
Haynes elementary down 32.
Stokes EE down 24.
Excel down 20.
Friendship mixed.
Garfield up 51, wow.
Woodson up 38.
Hearst up 29.
Howard up 35.
JOW down 37.
Kelly Miller down 30.
Ketcham up 29.
Kimball up 42.
King down 40.
KIPP had a rough year
Langdon up 22.
Boone down 29.
Lee Brookland up 23.
MacFarland up 21.
Marie Reed down 34.
Bethune down a lot.
Meridian down a lot.
Mundo up a bit
Murch down 34!
Noyes up 31
Oyster up 30-34.
Paul Middle down 29
Payne down 21
Randle Highlands down 40
Rocketship improved but still quite bad
Seaton up 22
Sela up 41
Shepherd down 27
SSMA up 42 so out of the danger zone
Chisholm up 30
Social Justice up 71!
Stanton up 39
Statesman up a lot
Stuart-Hobson up 23
Truth up 18-26
Thomas up 57
TMA up 22
Truesdell down 23
Tr4 up 25, TRY El up 16, TR Middle down 12
Van Ness down 22
Wash Global down 18
WLA up 17
Yy down 14
Watkins up 45
Whittier down 37

How did Garrison do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went through a handful of the DCPS elementary schools and looked specifically for science profiency. Some schools (like Ross and Janney) are at 70 percent, while others are closer to zero. So some schools are teaching science well and others don't really teach it at all.

I have a belief that the Science CAPE results are the best indicator of overall school quality.

I feel like I don’t know what the science CAPE is testing like I know what math and ELA are

I think because science education can really vary, the science CAPE shows you which schools have figured out how to do it and also go above and beyond the requirements. This is likely true for the rest of the curriculum, too.

The science test covers content from 3-5 grade. So if you weren’t in DCPS for one of those grades you may have missed the content being tested.

It’s four parts, each one is I think 45 minutes. If I remember correctly, in that 45 there are three scenarios/topics. A short reading passage maybe describing an experiment or phenomena. Then they have a few multiple choice questions and then a short response. It’s not really enough time and often kids don’t finish.

I suspect the kids who do well have enough background knowledge to do well. Plus consistent science content in school.

If there is a lot of reading on the science test then the low science scores can also be a function of low reading levels/ELA scores at a school.

If a school is low performing esp with ELA, they won’t be teaching any science. The whole focus and time is going to be on reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A quick year over year comparison of percentile ranks shows there has been a lot of change. These are percentage points.

Achievement Prep +35.
Burroughs +33.
Burrville +20.
Chavez down 30.
Cleveland down 57.
CMI up 14.
DCB down 43.
DC Prep had a rough year.
Haynes elementary down 32.
Stokes EE down 24.
Excel down 20.
Friendship mixed.
Garfield up 51, wow.
Woodson up 38.
Hearst up 29.
Howard up 35.
JOW down 37.
Kelly Miller down 30.
Ketcham up 29.
Kimball up 42.
King down 40.
KIPP had a rough year
Langdon up 22.
Boone down 29.
Lee Brookland up 23.
MacFarland up 21.
Marie Reed down 34.
Bethune down a lot.
Meridian down a lot.
Mundo up a bit
Murch down 34!
Noyes up 31
Oyster up 30-34.
Paul Middle down 29
Payne down 21
Randle Highlands down 40
Rocketship improved but still quite bad
Seaton up 22
Sela up 41
Shepherd down 27
SSMA up 42 so out of the danger zone
Chisholm up 30
Social Justice up 71!
Stanton up 39
Statesman up a lot
Stuart-Hobson up 23
Truth up 18-26
Thomas up 57
TMA up 22
Truesdell down 23
Tr4 up 25, TRY El up 16, TR Middle down 12
Van Ness down 22
Wash Global down 18
WLA up 17
Yy down 14
Watkins up 45
Whittier down 37

How did Garrison do?

I ran these numbers on my work computer and I didn't bring it home so I dunno. But their current percentile is 98, super job Garrison!