PARCC Comparison for MIDDLE SCHOOLS in MoCo and Upper Northwest

[Anonymous]

^if pp has a better objective criteria other than test scores to compare schools, we are all ears.

[Anonymous]

And thank you OP for taking the time to crunch the numbers. It is appreciated

[Anonymous]

Thanks OP, any chance that you could add the middle school of Oyster-Adams to your analysis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting conclusions but I would say your methodology is more than a little shaky. There are proven statistical methods to examine y as a function of a series of explanatory variables (x) while isolating some unknown variable, here presumably "instruction". If that's over your head or if you don't have a large enough dataset, I don't see why creating some convoluted measure is any better than simply comparing subgroups. How well does each school do teaching a particular subgroup, such as all affluent students, or all white students?

No offense, but I have a PhD in economics and taught econometrics at an R1 research university. You can shove your patronizing tone up your read-end.

There is no need to do anything fancier. The methodology is both sound and appropriate; it is exactly what one would and should do upon first-reflection. I have tried to avoid mucking the discussion up and talking over most readers' heads. In keeping the overview light, I may have lost you, dear reader.

Incidentally, comparing subgroups is exactly what is at the heart of the analysis. The subgroup results are then aggregated-up in a straightforward manner with the same weights used for each school. That's the summary measure that's reported.

I'm not the one you're quoting OP, but I find YOUR tone patronizing and entitled, as if no one has the right to question your analysis. Good for you for having a PhD in Economics, you're not the fucking professor here, and other people have a right to politely but forthrightly question your analysis. The first poster just posed a question. Do you think you're on Crossfire?

And by the way, if this is what you do while your "programs run," get a life, seriously.

[Anonymous]

I find OP's methodology/conclusions shaky as well.

[Anonymous]

Get off it. The poster stated "if that's over your head." Pulling rank to that response is entirely called-for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting conclusions but I would say your methodology is more than a little shaky. There are proven statistical methods to examine y as a function of a series of explanatory variables (x) while isolating some unknown variable, here presumably "instruction". If that's over your head or if you don't have a large enough dataset, I don't see why creating some convoluted measure is any better than simply comparing subgroups. How well does each school do teaching a particular subgroup, such as all affluent students, or all white students?

No offense, but I have a PhD in economics and taught econometrics at an R1 research university. You can shove your patronizing tone up your read-end.

There is no need to do anything fancier. The methodology is both sound and appropriate; it is exactly what one would and should do upon first-reflection. I have tried to avoid mucking the discussion up and talking over most readers' heads. In keeping the overview light, I may have lost you, dear reader.

Incidentally, comparing subgroups is exactly what is at the heart of the analysis. The subgroup results are then aggregated-up in a straightforward manner with the same weights used for each school. That's the summary measure that's reported.

I'm not the one you're quoting OP, but I find YOUR tone patronizing and entitled, as if no one has the right to question your analysis. Good for you for having a PhD in Economics, you're not the fucking professor here, and other people have a right to politely but forthrightly question your analysis. The first poster just posed a question. Do you think you're on Crossfire?

And by the way, if this is what you do while your "programs run," get a life, seriously.

+1!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting conclusions but I would say your methodology is more than a little shaky. There are proven statistical methods to examine y as a function of a series of explanatory variables (x) while isolating some unknown variable, here presumably "instruction". If that's over your head or if you don't have a large enough dataset, I don't see why creating some convoluted measure is any better than simply comparing subgroups. How well does each school do teaching a particular subgroup, such as all affluent students, or all white students?

No offense, but I have a PhD in economics and taught econometrics at an R1 research university. You can shove your patronizing tone up your read-end.

There is no need to do anything fancier. The methodology is both sound and appropriate; it is exactly what one would and should do upon first-reflection. I have tried to avoid mucking the discussion up and talking over most readers' heads. In keeping the overview light, I may have lost you, dear reader.

Incidentally, comparing subgroups is exactly what is at the heart of the analysis. The subgroup results are then aggregated-up in a straightforward manner with the same weights used for each school. That's the summary measure that's reported.

I'm not the one you're quoting OP, but I find YOUR tone patronizing and entitled, as if no one has the right to question your analysis. Good for you for having a PhD in Economics, you're not the fucking professor here, and other people have a right to politely but forthrightly question your analysis. The first poster just posed a question. Do you think you're on Crossfire?

And by the way, if this is what you do while your "programs run," get a life, seriously.

OP has a brain.

You don't.

[Anonymous]

OP Thanks for the analysis. Very clear, sound and useful.

[Anonymous]

Neat Analysis, OP. If lunch breaks permit, I'd love to see some of the top DC charter middle schools added to the mix.

[Anonymous]

OP, your analysis is indeed shaky. The fact hat you made the large leap by assuming mixed race means black/white and black/white kids at Deal fall into bad crowds (black) at Deal kind of threw it for me. You then go on to defend your not using other DC schools because guy said there were a handful of schools that aren't horrible. That's not the same as saying Brent is as good as Janney etc. You didn't even reference Ross (probably the best school in DC) and you didn't reference Shepherd (and adjust for demographics as you did with other school). My guess is because it's too black for you.

[Anonymous]

OP, what program are you using? I'm limited to SPSS, since my datasets are typically pretty small. *hangs head in shame* Just curious, and curious about your weighting. Are you using SUDAAN or similar? Or maybe that's just the epi folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, your analysis is indeed shaky. The fact hat you made the large leap by assuming mixed race means black/white and black/white kids at Deal fall into bad crowds (black) at Deal kind of threw it for me. You then go on to defend your not using other DC schools because guy said there were a handful of schools that aren't horrible. That's not the same as saying Brent is as good as Janney etc. You didn't even reference Ross (probably the best school in DC) and you didn't reference Shepherd (and adjust for demographics as you did with other school). My guess is because it's too black for you.

OP here.

You caught me. I'm a not-so-closeted racist. I've been trying to advance my white supremacy agenda by omitting certain schools from my volunteer analysis. I would have succeeded had your powers of discernment not caught me. Bravo to you. The community is much better for your presence and owes you a debt of gratitude. (Just to test your skill, I've hidden a message within this paragraph. See if you can find it.)

With the exception of Hearst, which was an omission, I chose the schools closest to the supposed best MoCo schools. (And for the MoCo schools, I chose the ones with data closest to DC.) My goal was to help inform someone considering moving to one side of the border or the other. There is no point in including Churchilll feeders since the peso looking to move into WCHS feeder zone is unlikely to be considering also staying inside the DC border.

I would compare Shephard to the Silver Spring schools, not the western MoCo schools since, again, they are geographically proximate.

You are welcome to perform analysis on any schools you choose. We will wait with bated breath.

As for mixed-race, I simply compared them. Lacking any data or credible knowledge about the potentially different composition of mixed-race families, this or omission are the only reasonable choices.

[Anonymous]

I'm a fellow member of the cross. I used my secret decoder ring and found your message. That is, indeed, a sinister plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your analysis is indeed shaky. The fact hat you made the large leap by assuming mixed race means black/white and black/white kids at Deal fall into bad crowds (black) at Deal kind of threw it for me. You then go on to defend your not using other DC schools because guy said there were a handful of schools that aren't horrible. That's not the same as saying Brent is as good as Janney etc. You didn't even reference Ross (probably the best school in DC) and you didn't reference Shepherd (and adjust for demographics as you did with other school). My guess is because it's too black for you.

OP here.

You caught me. I'm a not-so-closeted racist. I've been trying to advance my white supremacy agenda by omitting certain schools from my volunteer analysis. I would have succeeded had your powers of discernment not caught me. Bravo to you. The community is much better for your presence and owes you a debt of gratitude. (Just to test your skill, I've hidden a message within this paragraph. See if you can find it.)

With the exception of Hearst, which was an omission, I chose the schools closest to the supposed best MoCo schools. (And for the MoCo schools, I chose the ones with data closest to DC.) My goal was to help inform someone considering moving to one side of the border or the other. There is no point in including Churchilll feeders since the peso looking to move into WCHS feeder zone is unlikely to be considering also staying inside the DC border.

I would compare Shephard to the Silver Spring schools, not the western MoCo schools since, again, they are geographically proximate.

You are welcome to perform analysis on any schools you choose. We will wait with bated breath.

As for mixed-race, I simply compared them. Lacking any data or credible knowledge about the potentially different composition of mixed-race families, this or omission are the only reasonable choices.

Problem is you didn't "simply compare" mixed race. You drew quite a huge inference.

I quote, "Finally, an odd note: multiple race (two or more) advanced math students perform better at the MoCo schools than at the DC schools. This may confirm the fears of parents of mixed-race children that their children fall into the “wrong” peer group when surrounded by a more diverse student body. It is certainly something worth monitoring going-forward."

Deal is more diverse (more black) and did worse in this category so you're assuming the mixed race kids at Deal hang around the wrong peer group (ie, all black kids) and therefore do poorly on tests. There is no way to get away from that statement.