2022-2023 PARCC Data Released

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I do a FERPA request for my kid’s score?

I suppose, if you want to be extra. Is there a reason you need it right away?

Yes because it tells me how my kid is doing in math and whether he needs tutoring. Also the schools have this data and make placement decisions based on it, so parents ought to have access to it at the same time. This is my kids data.

I think it's too late for placement decisions-- that's just one more thing that stinks about the PARCC. So slow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliot Hine is on the move. Correct me if I pulled numbers incorrectly, I was using an old PARCC presentation slide of their year by year performance from a prior year.

ELA:
2017-2018: 13%
2018-2019: 23%
2021-2022: 28%
2021-23: 34%

Math:
2017-2018: 4%
2018-2019: 13%
2021-2022: 10%
2021-23: 19%

Of note, the scores stratified by race show very wide differences. Among Black, still improvement.
ELA
2018: 9%
2023: 22%

Math
2018: 2%
2023: 7%

Those scores are terrible.

Yes. But they are moving upward.

To evaluate real school performance, scores need to be stratified by SES. Unfortunately, DC doesn't provide that in a helpful way. It's otherwise difficult to understand teaching effectiveness when the primary differences between school scores are explained by SES. Essentially, if you cut the data by ethnicity, you'll see that school scores don't differ as much as you think they do.

Race/Ethnicity White - ELA:
Hardy: 86%
Deal: 92%
Eliot Hine: >95%

Race/Ethnicity White - Math:
Hardy - DS, too small to report
Deal: 84%
Eliot-Hine: 86%

#s too small to do a similar report for different middle schools for other ethnicities.

The bolded illustrates why people can look at the same scores and see different things. Or look at scores and try and just dismiss them. Your post reads like it was written by a teacher. From that perspective this is about teaching effectiveness and growth. That is not how most parents view these scores. We look at them and ask ourselves whether our kids will be in classes with a bunch of kids who are WAY behind grade level. You can try and rationalize away that low scores are because of low SES or other reasons, but whether 80+% of my kids classmates are low SES or not doesn't make me feel any better about my kid being in classes with a bunch of remedial students.

Wow. You are a terrible human being. Remedial students still have plenty to offer. My kid went to a Title I school all the way through elementary school. She made great friends. Now in HS, she is still friends with them. School isn’t where everyone excels and that’s ok. There is more to being human than good PARCC scores. You are just a miserable person.

??? Title 1 doesn't mean remedial?? My kid also went to a Title 1 school all the way through elementary and didn't have any remedial students in her class.

I chuckled when I read Ms. Holier than thou. She stepped up on her moral high ground to judge others and then equated Title 1 with remedial. I bet she's a peach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the proficiency results for high school. It looks like Walls (a selective school that only accepts students with an A average GPA) has slightly pulled ahead of BASIS DC (a 100% lottery school).

Walls

ELA 94.66
Math 67.44

BASIS DC

ELA 92.06
Math 66.12

Banneker

ELA 88.62
Math 44.52

Latin

ELA 70.71
Math 30.47

DCI

ELA 41.87
Math 20.74

This is high school? Why is DCI so bad?

There's a lot more than meets the eye with high school math PARCC scores. Analyze with caution.

Kid at DCI?

Not at all, I don't even have a child of that age. But if you read backwards through this thread and others, you'll see a discussion of how the math PARCC works and what it reports and does not report. I'm not saying any one school is better in math than another-- I'd have to really look through the data, and it depends on the modeling assumptions you make. The sad truth is PARCC doesn't tell us very much about math after 9th grade.

Everyone takes the same test in DC.

Maybe you prefer to rely for your data on anonymous posters in DCUM? Or does that just depend on modeling assumptions?

Oh FFS. No, not everyone takes the same test. Some people take Algebra I. Some people take Algebra II. Some people take Geometry. Some people take the MSAA. And some people take no math standardized test at all. Kids take the test for the *class* they are taking, not the grade they are in. So to do a geniune comparison of two schools' math performance, you'd have to carefully control for those things. And even then, it wouldn't tell you anything at all about upper-level math courses.

BASIS DC shows two different numbers for "Grade 7" and "Algebra 1." How is that possible, when the lowest class offered in 7th Grade is Algebra 1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I do a FERPA request for my kid’s score?

I suppose, if you want to be extra. Is there a reason you need it right away?

Yes because it tells me how my kid is doing in math and whether he needs tutoring. Also the schools have this data and make placement decisions based on it, so parents ought to have access to it at the same time. This is my kids data.

You have plenty of other assessments that tell you how your child is doing in math. We don't use this data in anyway for placement. Relax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the proficiency results for high school. It looks like Walls (a selective school that only accepts students with an A average GPA) has slightly pulled ahead of BASIS DC (a 100% lottery school).

Walls

ELA 94.66
Math 67.44

BASIS DC

ELA 92.06
Math 66.12

Banneker

ELA 88.62
Math 44.52

Latin

ELA 70.71
Math 30.47

DCI

ELA 41.87
Math 20.74

This is high school? Why is DCI so bad?

There's a lot more than meets the eye with high school math PARCC scores. Analyze with caution.

Kid at DCI?

Not at all, I don't even have a child of that age. But if you read backwards through this thread and others, you'll see a discussion of how the math PARCC works and what it reports and does not report. I'm not saying any one school is better in math than another-- I'd have to really look through the data, and it depends on the modeling assumptions you make. The sad truth is PARCC doesn't tell us very much about math after 9th grade.

Everyone takes the same test in DC.

Maybe you prefer to rely for your data on anonymous posters in DCUM? Or does that just depend on modeling assumptions?

Oh FFS. No, not everyone takes the same test. Some people take Algebra I. Some people take Algebra II. Some people take Geometry. Some people take the MSAA. And some people take no math standardized test at all. Kids take the test for the *class* they are taking, not the grade they are in. So to do a geniune comparison of two schools' math performance, you'd have to carefully control for those things. And even then, it wouldn't tell you anything at all about upper-level math courses.

BASIS DC shows two different numbers for "Grade 7" and "Algebra 1." How is that possible, when the lowest class offered in 7th Grade is Algebra 1?

Could be 6th graders taking 7th grade math. Or maybe what BASIS tells you is different from what actually happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm no fan of PARCC, but you have to look at that data generally. It's appalling that DC can look at this data and not claim that there is a crisis in education here. Only 30% of kids are at grade level in math and reading? Hello? We need a major overhaul of the system. And kids who are not at grade level should be in school all year.

A lot of them are in summer school already, yes.

I don't know why you think you're making some original point here. Everyone knows it's terrible. The city is investing more and more funding. Do you have some special solution that nobody has thought of.

City needs to step up truancy patrols and outreach as attendance is awful as kids get into the highschool per DC's published attendance records. All the money poured into schools doesn't do anything when significant numbers of kids aren't even showing up to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cap City and EL Haynes are taking nose dives. Back when my kids were in PK3, they are hard to get into. What's up?

Wondering this too because these schools are ones we were considering for PK3 and that I thought were pretty popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I do a FERPA request for my kid’s score?

I suppose, if you want to be extra. Is there a reason you need it right away?

Yes because it tells me how my kid is doing in math and whether he needs tutoring. Also the schools have this data and make placement decisions based on it, so parents ought to have access to it at the same time. This is my kids data.

You have plenty of other assessments that tell you how your child is doing in math. We don't use this data in anyway for placement. Relax

Our school absolutely uses PARCC for placement. They told me that. And it’s just wrong not to give the data to parents. PARCC is a huge use of resources for DCPS and takes up weeks of the school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the proficiency results for high school. It looks like Walls (a selective school that only accepts students with an A average GPA) has slightly pulled ahead of BASIS DC (a 100% lottery school).

Walls

ELA 94.66
Math 67.44

BASIS DC

ELA 92.06
Math 66.12

Banneker

ELA 88.62
Math 44.52

Latin

ELA 70.71
Math 30.47

DCI

ELA 41.87
Math 20.74

This is high school? Why is DCI so bad?

There's a lot more than meets the eye with high school math PARCC scores. Analyze with caution.

Kid at DCI?

Not at all, I don't even have a child of that age. But if you read backwards through this thread and others, you'll see a discussion of how the math PARCC works and what it reports and does not report. I'm not saying any one school is better in math than another-- I'd have to really look through the data, and it depends on the modeling assumptions you make. The sad truth is PARCC doesn't tell us very much about math after 9th grade.

Everyone takes the same test in DC.

Maybe you prefer to rely for your data on anonymous posters in DCUM? Or does that just depend on modeling assumptions?

Oh FFS. No, not everyone takes the same test. Some people take Algebra I. Some people take Algebra II. Some people take Geometry. Some people take the MSAA. And some people take no math standardized test at all. Kids take the test for the *class* they are taking, not the grade they are in. So to do a geniune comparison of two schools' math performance, you'd have to carefully control for those things. And even then, it wouldn't tell you anything at all about upper-level math courses.

BASIS DC shows two different numbers for "Grade 7" and "Algebra 1." How is that possible, when the lowest class offered in 7th Grade is Algebra 1?

Could be 6th graders taking 7th grade math. Or maybe what BASIS tells you is different from what actually happens.

This year it was the 10th graders at BASIS who took the Algebra I PARCC. Last year it was the 9th graders. Which means, yes, they were all taking it for the second time.

[Anonymous]

Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

So, it's actually more complicated than that if you're looking as a parent. My kid's school seems to do really well with not at risk kids (like top 10 for ELA) and horrendously for at-risk kids. This is awful for those kids and inequitable, but actually the data suggests the school is good for those not at risk. Other schools have a reverse profile. I appreciate that those schools are taking more of the load & are doing it well, but they wouldn't be as good for my kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

So, it's actually more complicated than that if you're looking as a parent. My kid's school seems to do really well with not at risk kids (like top 10 for ELA) and horrendously for at-risk kids. This is awful for those kids and inequitable, but actually the data suggests the school is good for those not at risk. Other schools have a reverse profile. I appreciate that those schools are taking more of the load & are doing it well, but they wouldn't be as good for my kid.

Disagree with the interpretation here - this indicates that not at-risk kids at your school do well primarily because of their SES, not that your school's teaching is particularly extraordinary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I do a FERPA request for my kid’s score?

I suppose, if you want to be extra. Is there a reason you need it right away?

Yes because it tells me how my kid is doing in math and whether he needs tutoring. Also the schools have this data and make placement decisions based on it, so parents ought to have access to it at the same time. This is my kids data.

You have plenty of other assessments that tell you how your child is doing in math. We don't use this data in anyway for placement. Relax

Our school absolutely uses PARCC for placement. They told me that. And it’s just wrong not to give the data to parents. PARCC is a huge use of resources for DCPS and takes up weeks of the school year.

I really doubt that schools are making placement plans today based on PARCC when school starts on Monday. I'm also not sure who you want taking time out of their day during the busiest point of the school year to individually package and mail out data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliot Hine is on the move. Correct me if I pulled numbers incorrectly, I was using an old PARCC presentation slide of their year by year performance from a prior year.

ELA:
2017-2018: 13%
2018-2019: 23%
2021-2022: 28%
2021-23: 34%

Math:
2017-2018: 4%
2018-2019: 13%
2021-2022: 10%
2021-23: 19%

Of note, the scores stratified by race show very wide differences. Among Black, still improvement.
ELA
2018: 9%
2023: 22%

Math
2018: 2%
2023: 7%

Those scores are terrible.

Yes. But they are moving upward.

To evaluate real school performance, scores need to be stratified by SES. Unfortunately, DC doesn't provide that in a helpful way. It's otherwise difficult to understand teaching effectiveness when the primary differences between school scores are explained by SES. Essentially, if you cut the data by ethnicity, you'll see that school scores don't differ as much as you think they do.

Race/Ethnicity White - ELA:
Hardy: 86%
Deal: 92%
Eliot Hine: >95%

Race/Ethnicity White - Math:
Hardy - DS, too small to report
Deal: 84%
Eliot-Hine: 86%

#s too small to do a similar report for different middle schools for other ethnicities.

The bolded illustrates why people can look at the same scores and see different things. Or look at scores and try and just dismiss them. Your post reads like it was written by a teacher. From that perspective this is about teaching effectiveness and growth. That is not how most parents view these scores. We look at them and ask ourselves whether our kids will be in classes with a bunch of kids who are WAY behind grade level. You can try and rationalize away that low scores are because of low SES or other reasons, but whether 80+% of my kids classmates are low SES or not doesn't make me feel any better about my kid being in classes with a bunch of remedial students.

Wow. You are a terrible human being. Remedial students still have plenty to offer. My kid went to a Title I school all the way through elementary school. She made great friends. Now in HS, she is still friends with them. School isn’t where everyone excels and that’s ok. There is more to being human than good PARCC scores. You are just a miserable person.

??? Title 1 doesn't mean remedial?? My kid also went to a Title 1 school all the way through elementary and didn't have any remedial students in her class.

I chuckled when I read Ms. Holier than thou. She stepped up on her moral high ground to judge others and then equated Title 1 with remedial. I bet she's a peach.

Terrible PP brought up low SES, which is why I mentioned Title I. Obviously, poor doesn’t always equate to remedial. There is more to life than kids’ test scores. Other people’s scores doesn’t mean your kid will score low but you will learn this as your kids get older. Or maybe not, perhaps you should try private. They’re full of acceptable rich kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

So, it's actually more complicated than that if you're looking as a parent. My kid's school seems to do really well with not at risk kids (like top 10 for ELA) and horrendously for at-risk kids. This is awful for those kids and inequitable, but actually the data suggests the school is good for those not at risk. Other schools have a reverse profile. I appreciate that those schools are taking more of the load & are doing it well, but they wouldn't be as good for my kid.

Disagree with the interpretation here - this indicates that not at-risk kids at your school do well primarily because of their SES, not that your school's teaching is particularly extraordinary.

DP but would also bet that if you sliced data by caucasion ethnicity, your school suddenly wouldn't stand out as a top 10 anymore.

Can't seem to do this with the Empower dashboard which only allows you to use filters focused on disadvantage rather than advantage (feedback to the person who actually produces the data and was posting here)....