New ESSA Star Framework for DC Public and Charter Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a swami but, i think the Dcps in the richest neighborhoods come out on top followed by a mixture of DCPS in gentrifying neighborhoods mixed with HRCS. DCPS in the poorest neighborhoods and less regarded charter schools occupy the bottom.

It’s not rocket science. This thing is mostly just going to track wealth.

Also SWW and Banneker.

On the charter side some of the KIPPs, DC Preps, BASIS, Latin, LAMB, YY, ITS, etc will do well (same as the PARCC scores).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a swami but, i think the Dcps in the richest neighborhoods come out on top followed by a mixture of DCPS in gentrifying neighborhoods mixed with HRCS. DCPS in the poorest neighborhoods and less regarded charter schools occupy the bottom.

It’s not rocket science. This thing is mostly just going to track wealth.

Plus the selective admission DCPS schools. And high performing charters with wealthier/less at-risk students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a swami but, i think the Dcps in the richest neighborhoods come out on top followed by a mixture of DCPS in gentrifying neighborhoods mixed with HRCS. DCPS in the poorest neighborhoods and less regarded charter schools occupy the bottom.

It’s not rocket science. This thing is mostly just going to track wealth.

it might help neighborhood schools. If stokes is a 4 and Burroughs is a 3, you'll feel better about Burroughs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a swami but, i think the Dcps in the richest neighborhoods come out on top followed by a mixture of DCPS in gentrifying neighborhoods mixed with HRCS. DCPS in the poorest neighborhoods and less regarded charter schools occupy the bottom.

It’s not rocket science. This thing is mostly just going to track wealth.

Also SWW and Banneker.

On the charter side some of the KIPPs, DC Preps, BASIS, Latin, LAMB, YY, ITS, etc will do well (same as the PARCC scores).

Nonetheless, there will be some surprises and some off a star from expectations.

Example:
CMI - 2 stars
Bridges - 2 stars
Shining stars - 3 stars
Deal - 4 stars
Janney - 5 stars
Stoddert - 5 stars
Mundo Verde - 3 stars
Burroughs - 3 stars
Shepherd - 4 stars
Stokes - 3 stars
ITS - 4 stars
Hearst - 4 stars
DC prep - 4 stars

[Anonymous]

Nonetheless, there will be some surprises and some off a star from expectations.

Example:
CMI - 2 stars
Bridges - 2 stars
Shining stars - 3 stars
Deal - 4 stars
Janney - 5 stars
Stoddert - 5 stars
Mundo Verde - 3 stars
Burroughs - 3 stars
Shepherd - 4 stars
Stokes - 3 stars
ITS - 4 stars
Hearst - 4 stars
DC prep - 4 stars



Shining Stars, Mundi, Stokes= 3 stars? Never
ITS, DC Prep = 4 stars. I don’t think so.

We will see in time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a swami but, i think the Dcps in the richest neighborhoods come out on top followed by a mixture of DCPS in gentrifying neighborhoods mixed with HRCS. DCPS in the poorest neighborhoods and less regarded charter schools occupy the bottom.

It’s not rocket science. This thing is mostly just going to track wealth.

it might help neighborhood schools. If stokes is a 4 and Burroughs is a 3, you'll feel better about Burroughs.

I hope so. I feel like the charter Tiers and PMFs became a way to hide mediocrity.

But then I remember that parents wanted racial enrollment #s listed clearly and I lose hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nonetheless, there will be some surprises and some off a star from expectations.

Example:
CMI - 2 stars
Bridges - 2 stars
Shining stars - 3 stars
Deal - 4 stars
Janney - 5 stars
Stoddert - 5 stars
Mundo Verde - 3 stars
Burroughs - 3 stars
Shepherd - 4 stars
Stokes - 3 stars
ITS - 4 stars
Hearst - 4 stars
DC prep - 4 stars

Shining Stars, Mundi, Stokes= 3 stars? Never
ITS, DC Prep = 4 stars. I don’t think so.

We will see in time.

Curious, what do you think those 5 will be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nonetheless, there will be some surprises and some off a star from expectations.

Example:
CMI - 2 stars
Bridges - 2 stars
Shining stars - 3 stars
Deal - 4 stars
Janney - 5 stars
Stoddert - 5 stars
Mundo Verde - 3 stars
Burroughs - 3 stars
Shepherd - 4 stars
Stokes - 3 stars
ITS - 4 stars
Hearst - 4 stars
DC prep - 4 stars

Shining Stars, Mundi, Stokes= 3 stars? Never
ITS, DC Prep = 4 stars. I don’t think so.

We will see in time.

ITS has same test scores (better if you compare 3rd-5th grade and not their middle school) as Brent, Hearst, and Shepherd but you don’t have an issue with guessing they’ll be a 4? Are you just a charter hater? Wondering if you think MV should be a 4 or a 2?

[Anonymous]

Aren't people already informally doing this by ranking PARCC scores on this very website? Despite the low scores at some schools, there are always parents who pick mediocre schools because they have the "right" demographics or is deemed the "right fit". I don't see how the ESSA will change anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aren't people already informally doing this by ranking PARCC scores on this very website? Despite the low scores at some schools, there are always parents who pick mediocre schools because they have the "right" demographics or is deemed the "right fit". I don't see how the ESSA will change anything.

Yes people do. But few focus on the growth scores, because it is more complicated and not easily accessible.

So some schools with low or middling PARCC proficiency scores may wind up with strong ratings because they do a good job of moving kids toward proficiency from one year to the next, and some schools ugh great PARCC scores may get lower scores if their student body is doing quite well on PARCC but not doing better each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't people already informally doing this by ranking PARCC scores on this very website? Despite the low scores at some schools, there are always parents who pick mediocre schools because they have the "right" demographics or is deemed the "right fit". I don't see how the ESSA will change anything.

Yes people do. But few focus on the growth scores, because it is more complicated and not easily accessible.

So some schools with low or middling PARCC proficiency scores may wind up with strong ratings because they do a good job of moving kids toward proficiency from one year to the next, and some schools ugh great PARCC scores may get lower scores if their student body is doing quite well on PARCC but not doing better each year.

So that sounds like an improvement over DCUMers ranking based on PARCC.

[Anonymous]

I think actually there has been quite a lot of discussion of growth scores on here.

Thing that bothers me is when I see PARCC a bit over valued. I wish we had other metrics as well aside from things like attendance, re-enrollment. We're really putting a lot of weight on this one metric.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know when these are coming out exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think actually there has been quite a lot of discussion of growth scores on here.

Thing that bothers me is when I see PARCC a bit over valued. I wish we had other metrics as well aside from things like attendance, re-enrollment. We're really putting a lot of weight on this one metric.

Such as?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think actually there has been quite a lot of discussion of growth scores on here.

Thing that bothers me is when I see PARCC a bit over valued. I wish we had other metrics as well aside from things like attendance, re-enrollment. We're really putting a lot of weight on this one metric.

For high school the STAR ratings take into account other metrics (e.g. AP/IB exam scores). Of course that will favor schools with cardres of college-bound students, which shouldn't be the only acceptable destination for a high school graduate.