2017 Charter School Quality Reports Are Out (Tier ratings)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF Bridges?
Congrats to ITS for climbing up to Tier 1.
LAMB's numbers are astounding.

Looks like Bridges was hurt by their ELA PARCC scores (including a lack of growth on them year over year) and reenrollment. Sad news.

Yes. Student progress is 35% of the scoring for PK-5 schools, and they got 0.2 points on that, completely destroyed their overall score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCB crushed it.

Yep. I dont have a kid there but it almost seems fishy to me.

It's not fishy -- it's the methodology (last year they got a 75, this year an 81).

Median growth percentile counts for a LOT in this measure. More than just 'proficiency.'

So a school where students are improving on PARCC year to year, even if they are not yet at 60-70% proficiency, will be rewarded in the ratings. The reports will show the relative weightings of the different factors.

http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/2016-10-11%20PMF%20Score%20Card%20SY15-16_DC%20Bilingual%20PCS_EC_PK3-8_2016.pdf

(Note - the formula does also control for students who are already proficient having less 'room' to improve - but I'm not sure how).

If you look at how the PCSB puts together this scoring criteria, you can tell they put a lot of care and thought into how to balance all the things that are quantifiable about a school, and not just looking at a single number. It's impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lee is Tier 2. I think this is their first time being tiered?
SSMA is as well. Went from 60% to 44%?

Lee still has no PARCC scores, so how is the Tier given?

And, SSMA. They had really low re-enrollment. I wonder how many points came off for that alone??

[Anonymous]

Can anyone fill me in on the instructional support metric? How's this measured? It is often low...and we're at LAMB where it's VERY low. That to me might signal lack of familiarity with Montessori?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lee is Tier 2. I think this is their first time being tiered?
SSMA is as well. Went from 60% to 44%?

This doesn't surprise me. Montessori is not for every kid, so there will always be a high attrition rate as well as kids struggling there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lee is Tier 2. I think this is their first time being tiered?
SSMA is as well. Went from 60% to 44%?

Lee still has no PARCC scores, so how is the Tier given?

And, SSMA. They had really low re-enrollment. I wonder how many points came off for that alone??

They lost over 17% just on attendance and re-enrollment. SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lee is Tier 2. I think this is their first time being tiered?
SSMA is as well. Went from 60% to 44%?

Lee still has no PARCC scores, so how is the Tier given?

And, SSMA. They had really low re-enrollment. I wonder how many points came off for that alone??

They lost over 17% just on attendance and re-enrollment. SMH

Now this to me isn't right. I mean, fine, lose 5%. But 17?? why is it weighted so high?

Problem: it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Parents see the rating decline, they don't re-enroll, rating goes further down the hill. I don't really think it's about the actual quality of the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone fill me in on the instructional support metric? How's this measured? It is often low...and we're at LAMB where it's VERY low. That to me might signal lack of familiarity with Montessori?

That's where Montessori classrooms tend to look "bad" because it is all about adult-student teaching interactions and discounts the environment-student (ie materials) and student-student interactions that are highly valued in Montessori.

[Anonymous]

I don't get something on the PMF reports. For most schools I looked at, the Approaching College and Career Ready percentage is higher than the College and Career Ready score, which makes sense. For some schools (Basis and LAMB, for example), the PARCC ELA shows 100.00% for College and Career Ready, yet a lower percentage for Approaching College and Career Ready and Above. How can that be? If 100% are College and Career Ready (4+), then wouldn't it follow that the Approaching College and Career Ready and Above (3+) percentage would be 100% then, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lee is Tier 2. I think this is their first time being tiered?
SSMA is as well. Went from 60% to 44%?

This doesn't surprise me. Montessori is not for every kid, so there will always be a high attrition rate as well as kids struggling there.

I don't think that's why. LAMB had almost 100% retention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lee is Tier 2. I think this is their first time being tiered?
SSMA is as well. Went from 60% to 44%?

Lee still has no PARCC scores, so how is the Tier given?

And, SSMA. They had really low re-enrollment. I wonder how many points came off for that alone??

They lost over 17% just on attendance and re-enrollment. SMH

Now this to me isn't right. I mean, fine, lose 5%. But 17?? why is it weighted so high?

Problem: it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Parents see the rating decline, they don't re-enroll, rating goes further down the hill. I don't really think it's about the actual quality of the school.

Shining Stars moved into their new building last year so they may account for some of the reenollment. (It's from Fall 15-Fall16 count day)

[Anonymous]

TRY scored higher than TR4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get something on the PMF reports. For most schools I looked at, the Approaching College and Career Ready percentage is higher than the College and Career Ready score, which makes sense. For some schools (Basis and LAMB, for example), the PARCC ELA shows 100.00% for College and Career Ready, yet a lower percentage for Approaching College and Career Ready and Above. How can that be? If 100% are College and Career Ready (4+), then wouldn't it follow that the Approaching College and Career Ready and Above (3+) percentage would be 100% then, too?

It's not that 100% scored that high. It's that they met the target 100% for how many kids would score a 4 on PARCC. But didn't meet their 3 target completely.

[Anonymous]

I don't get something on the PMF reports. For most schools I looked at, the Approaching College and Career Ready percentage is higher than the College and Career Ready score, which makes sense. For some schools (Basis and LAMB, for example), the PARCC ELA shows 100.00% for College and Career Ready, yet a lower percentage for Approaching College and Career Ready and Above. How can that be? If 100% are College and Career Ready (4+), then wouldn't it follow that the Approaching College and Career Ready and Above (3+) percentage would be 100% then, too?

It's not that 100% scored that high. It's that they met the target 100% for how many kids would score a 4 on PARCC. But didn't meet their 3 target completely.

Thanks! I knew there was an explanation for it, I just wasn't understanding what those numbers were representing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TRY scored higher than TR4?

Both really high but they are, right now, apples and oranges.

Metrics used for each campus are different because TRY only has PK3-2nd (e.g. no PARCC) whereas TR4 has Pk3-8th grade.