MD report cards are out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baltimore City POLY scores:

http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Graphs/#/ReportCards/ReportCardSchool/3/17/6/30/0403

Asian: 90% math, 90% ela
Black / AA: 72% math, 80% ela
Hispanic: 69.6% math, 91.3% ela
White: 92.9% math, 95.7% ela

Find me another school with scores like that, let alone with such a diverse student population. And POLY is a couple blocks from Cross Keys and Roland Park, hardly dangerous neighborhoods.

Is that school 100% magnet? If so, I would think the scores would be closer to 100%. How are kids that are in a competitive magnet program not scoring as on grade level? That suggests to me that the test is not very good (or the school is a farce, but I think it's more likely a problem with the test).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what Credit for Well Rounded Curriculum means? And access to well rounded curriculum? They both seem like nondefined points. For example if a school near me has single digit percent proficient how can the same school earn 100% for access to s well rounded curriculum. The whole thing seems bogus to me.

It's social engineering imposed on all the states by federal law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So happy that my kids school got a 5! I always thought that Barnsley was great and nice to see them score so well! Principal and staff work so hard and its nice to see the high score!

Barnsley has CES which probably helps with the scores. My DC went to HGC there. I think the non CES part of the school is supposed to be pretty good, too, but I think the scores probably do reflect that the center is there.

I disagree. The non-CES part of Barnsley is deplorable. If you take out the CES part, I highly doubt that Barnsley would still be rated five stars. Certainly, my kids have had some good teachers over the years. But the principal continuously moves teachers from grade to grade, resulting in staff planning new lessons each year rather than honing ones that have been used in previous years. The principal also has an angry demeanor that I suspect is at least partially responsible for the ridiculous amount of staff turnover. Indeed, according to the latest staff climate survey, staff morale--only 24% say staff morale is positive--is much, much lower than at other schools in the cluster: http://sharedaccountability.mcpsmd.org/SurveyResults/content.php?l=0&sch=505&survey=2018SSE&type=Staff&comparison=4

Wow. That survey puts the principal in a pretty bad light.

[Anonymous]

Parents of middle-class means should note the 5 star elementaries in affordable districts that do not host a CES center. Then track the district through HS to make sure you are not looking at a 5* elementary feeding into a 3* HS, with exception of renters (they can move) and parents of highly gifted students who are strong candidates for a magnet program given the new admission preferences. Those, IMHO, are best values. Signed - a Diamond ES parent, with a nod to Olney and a few others on the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baltimore City POLY scores:

http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Graphs/#/ReportCards/ReportCardSchool/3/17/6/30/0403

Asian: 90% math, 90% ela
Black / AA: 72% math, 80% ela
Hispanic: 69.6% math, 91.3% ela
White: 92.9% math, 95.7% ela

Find me another school with scores like that, let alone with such a diverse student population. And POLY is a couple blocks from Cross Keys and Roland Park, hardly dangerous neighborhoods.

Is that school 100% magnet? If so, I would think the scores would be closer to 100%. How are kids that are in a competitive magnet program not scoring as on grade level? That suggests to me that the test is not very good (or the school is a farce, but I think it's more likely a problem with the test).

Why are these schools higher than in magnet schools like Blair and Poolesville? You only need a B average to get accepted to POLY, this is not a rigorous place to test into. Kids at this school are even testing better than kids at Churchill. You'd think a school of privileged kids from Potomac would be scoring better on the same exact test than kids from Baltimore City, many coming from extreme poverty, that only had to hold a B average in middle school to test in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RCES got a 71. Seems the cutoff for a 5 is 75, so not that far behind.

Again, almost certainly due to the fact that RCES has about 20% FARMS and is below 50% white.

Really nothing revelatory.

Weller Road ES got a 5, right? <5.0% white, 80% FARMs, 54% ESOL.

Sure, but they're an exception. Basically the scores are a proxy for FARMS and ESOL rates in the schools, like every other metric.

I agree, but that PP was making excuses for RCES only getting a 4. There are actually a few other ES with a highish FARMs rate, low white population that got a 5.

Beall ES -- white 35%, FARMS 25%

Stop making excuses. RCES is a fine school, but you're trying too hard to make excuses as to why it didn't get a 5.

Whitman didn't either. Explain that one.

Don’t worry, “they did it on purpose”. Remember?

What did they do "on purpose"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RCES got a 71. Seems the cutoff for a 5 is 75, so not that far behind.

Again, almost certainly due to the fact that RCES has about 20% FARMS and is below 50% white.

Really nothing revelatory.

Weller Road ES got a 5, right? <5.0% white, 80% FARMs, 54% ESOL.

Sure, but they're an exception. Basically the scores are a proxy for FARMS and ESOL rates in the schools, like every other metric.

I agree, but that PP was making excuses for RCES only getting a 4. There are actually a few other ES with a highish FARMs rate, low white population that got a 5.

Beall ES -- white 35%, FARMS 25%

Stop making excuses. RCES is a fine school, but you're trying too hard to make excuses as to why it didn't get a 5.

Whitman didn't either. Explain that one.

Don’t worry, “they did it on purpose”. Remember?

What did they do "on purpose"?

Tank parcc which brought the GS rating down to 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RCES got a 71. Seems the cutoff for a 5 is 75, so not that far behind.

Again, almost certainly due to the fact that RCES has about 20% FARMS and is below 50% white.

Really nothing revelatory.

Weller Road ES got a 5, right? <5.0% white, 80% FARMs, 54% ESOL.

Sure, but they're an exception. Basically the scores are a proxy for FARMS and ESOL rates in the schools, like every other metric.

I agree, but that PP was making excuses for RCES only getting a 4. There are actually a few other ES with a highish FARMs rate, low white population that got a 5.

Beall ES -- white 35%, FARMS 25%

Stop making excuses. RCES is a fine school, but you're trying too hard to make excuses as to why it didn't get a 5.

Whitman didn't either. Explain that one.

Don’t worry, “they did it on purpose”. Remember?

What did they do "on purpose"?

Tank parcc which brought the GS rating down to 5.

Actually Whitman's GS rating was 4 for a while. Because when rich white kids do badly on standardized tests it's because they're too smart to care about the test.

[Anonymous]

Actually Whitman's GS rating was 4 for a while. Because when rich white kids do badly on standardized tests it's because they're too smart to care about the test.

They boycotted the test. Everyone knows this. The drooling with jealously non-Whitman parents living in discount houses keep trying to spin it to their benefit.

[Anonymous]

Sure, but they're an exception. Basically the scores are a proxy for FARMS and ESOL rates in the schools, like every other metric.

Except they aren't if you look closely at the data.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if the MD report card will change ratings on US News or Great Schools? QO got 4th place in MD -albeit just once- but on the new MD report card it is only 66%. This is lower than NW and many, many other schools. Will this drop its ranking across the sites too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually Whitman's GS rating was 4 for a while. Because when rich white kids do badly on standardized tests it's because they're too smart to care about the test.

They boycotted the test. Everyone knows this. The drooling with jealously non-Whitman parents living in discount houses keep trying to spin it to their benefit.

Did it ever occur to you that other kids from other schools might not care about PARCC so they tanked it on purpose, too? Just randomly chose answers like I'm sure those Whitman students did?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if the MD report card will change ratings on US News or Great Schools? QO got 4th place in MD -albeit just once- but on the new MD report card it is only 66%. This is lower than NW and many, many other schools. Will this drop its ranking across the sites too?

And several W schools aren't ranked on US News at all.

I know you're all desperately trying to bash all non-W schools, making excuses whenever they show themselves to be anything but mediocre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually Whitman's GS rating was 4 for a while. Because when rich white kids do badly on standardized tests it's because they're too smart to care about the test.

They boycotted the test. Everyone knows this. The drooling with jealously non-Whitman parents living in discount houses keep trying to spin it to their benefit.

Did it ever occur to you that other kids from other schools might not care about PARCC so they tanked it on purpose, too? Just randomly chose answers like I'm sure those Whitman students did?

Oh that's IMPOSSIBLE because it doesn't fit with the narrative Whitman parents have spun up. And when we point it out, we're apparently just jealous!

[Anonymous]

I knew there would be a huge discussion about these worthless, waste of money reports. Why do people even care about these? The fact that you need to parse our data and consider that kids didn’t take PARCC seriously the first year it was given speaks to the idiocy of these report cards. They are inaccurate and therefore worthless.