2022-2023 PARCC Data Released

[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.

This, this, this!! if you have a higher performing kid, I don’t care about at risk. I care bout overall scores and how many are at least on or above for peer groups.

Exactly! They just talk about at risk, but those are the same schools that 90% of DCUM avoids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This, this, this!! if you have a higher performing kid, I don’t care about at risk. I care bout overall scores and how many are at least on or above for peer groups.

Exactly! They just talk about at risk, but those are the same schools that 90% of DCUM avoids.

OK but then you should still filter the data to compare schools by "Not at risk" - no matter what, the proportion of at risk matters. You can't say x high performing school is better than y high performing school when x high performing school has 5% at risk, but y high performing school has 15% at risk and their overall scores are 10% different.

It matters to make apples to apples comparison whether it's for high or low performing kids.

[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.

The data is given to parents. The schools received the embargoed data a week ago to vet, make appeals, etc. Yesterday, citywide information was released along with spreadsheets showing city, DCPS, charter LEA and school level results. The individual student home reports won't be received by schools until a week or two from now and that's when they will start going out to parents.

I would be very interested in hearing if there are schools who received the embargoed data a week ago and made changes to a student's placement based on PARCC when school starts on Monday. There may be some that are doing so but seems unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This, this, this!! if you have a higher performing kid, I don’t care about at risk. I care bout overall scores and how many are at least on or above for peer groups.

Exactly! They just talk about at risk, but those are the same schools that 90% of DCUM avoids.

OK but then you should still filter the data to compare schools by "Not at risk" - no matter what, the proportion of at risk matters. You can't say x high performing school is better than y high performing school when x high performing school has 5% at risk, but y high performing school has 15% at risk and their overall scores are 10% different.

It matters to make apples to apples comparison whether it's for high or low performing kids.

Not sure that really matters here.

Almost half of DC public students are “at risk.” But “at risk” can mean different things.

At risk means that the students qualify for TANF, SNAP, are homeless, in foster care, OR are high school students at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

You could be a high-performing kid from a single-parent home where mom gets food stamps. However, you could also just be a low-performing high school student who missed so much school that you were held back one or a few grades.

More important is whether a school takes any kid (100% lottery)—at-risk or not—and does a great job educating them and giving them a chance to succeed. In that regard, BASIS DC seems head and shoulders above the rest of the non-selective DCPS schools/charters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The data is given to parents. The schools received the embargoed data a week ago to vet, make appeals, etc. Yesterday, citywide information was released along with spreadsheets showing city, DCPS, charter LEA and school level results. The individual student home reports won't be received by schools until a week or two from now and that's when they will start going out to parents.

I would be very interested in hearing if there are schools who received the embargoed data a week ago and made changes to a student's placement based on PARCC when school starts on Monday. There may be some that are doing so but seems unlikely.

They used the prior year’s scores and placement decisions are still being made. And more importantly it’s my own child’s data and it informs me about his needs. If schools immediately sent the reports as soon as they got them maybe I wouldn’t care, but there is no uniform policy. DCPS central should put them on ASPEN as soon as they get them. In the meantime, FERPA exists for a reason, so I’ll use it.

[Anonymous]

Per PP's helpful analysis of the top schools in DC for ELA and Math, it looks like Deal academically comes out on top for middle school. I guess the fights, drugs and other dysfunction I hear about on DCUM isn't affecting kids academically? I know that came across sounding snarky, but it's not intended to. I'm a parent with children IB for Deal (in the future) that has concerns when reading DCUM, but these PARCC results seem to tell another story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This, this, this!! if you have a higher performing kid, I don’t care about at risk. I care bout overall scores and how many are at least on or above for peer groups.

Exactly! They just talk about at risk, but those are the same schools that 90% of DCUM avoids.

OK but then you should still filter the data to compare schools by "Not at risk" - no matter what, the proportion of at risk matters. You can't say x high performing school is better than y high performing school when x high performing school has 5% at risk, but y high performing school has 15% at risk and their overall scores are 10% different.

It matters to make apples to apples comparison whether it's for high or low performing kids.

Not sure that really matters here.

Almost half of DC public students are “at risk.” But “at risk” can mean different things.

At risk means that the students qualify for TANF, SNAP, are homeless, in foster care, OR are high school students at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

You could be a high-performing kid from a single-parent home where mom gets food stamps. However, you could also just be a low-performing high school student who missed so much school that you were held back one or a few grades.

More important is whether a school takes any kid (100% lottery)—at-risk or not—and does a great job educating them and giving them a chance to succeed. In that regard, BASIS DC seems head and shoulders above the rest of the non-selective DCPS schools/charters.

Right, your "100% lottery" which somehow magically results in a rock bottom low at-risk percentage. How wonderful BASIS is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This, this, this!! if you have a higher performing kid, I don’t care about at risk. I care bout overall scores and how many are at least on or above for peer groups.

Exactly! They just talk about at risk, but those are the same schools that 90% of DCUM avoids.

OK but then you should still filter the data to compare schools by "Not at risk" - no matter what, the proportion of at risk matters. You can't say x high performing school is better than y high performing school when x high performing school has 5% at risk, but y high performing school has 15% at risk and their overall scores are 10% different.

It matters to make apples to apples comparison whether it's for high or low performing kids.

Not sure that really matters here.

Almost half of DC public students are “at risk.” But “at risk” can mean different things.

At risk means that the students qualify for TANF, SNAP, are homeless, in foster care, OR are high school students at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

You could be a high-performing kid from a single-parent home where mom gets food stamps. However, you could also just be a low-performing high school student who missed so much school that you were held back one or a few grades.

More important is whether a school takes any kid (100% lottery)—at-risk or not—and does a great job educating them and giving them a chance to succeed. In that regard, BASIS DC seems head and shoulders above the rest of the non-selective DCPS schools/charters.

Right, your "100% lottery" which somehow magically results in a rock bottom low at-risk percentage. How wonderful BASIS is!

Well no, Basis looks about the same as Deal, perhaps a bit worse than Deal actually

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Per PP's helpful analysis of the top schools in DC for ELA and Math, it looks like Deal academically comes out on top for middle school. I guess the fights, drugs and other dysfunction I hear about on DCUM isn't affecting kids academically? I know that came across sounding snarky, but it's not intended to. I'm a parent with children IB for Deal (in the future) that has concerns when reading DCUM, but these PARCC results seem to tell another story.

+1, Deal looks good and performance is really not different than BASIS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per PP's helpful analysis of the top schools in DC for ELA and Math, it looks like Deal academically comes out on top for middle school. I guess the fights, drugs and other dysfunction I hear about on DCUM isn't affecting kids academically? I know that came across sounding snarky, but it's not intended to. I'm a parent with children IB for Deal (in the future) that has concerns when reading DCUM, but these PARCC results seem to tell another story.

+1, Deal looks good and performance is really not different than BASIS

Wait-- so a school can backfill-- more than backfill, take students by-right at any time of year-- and yet perform as well as BASIS? AMAZING. I never would have thought such a thing is possible! Tell us, Deal, how do you manage this stunning feat, which is impossible according to BASIS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Per PP's helpful analysis of the top schools in DC for ELA and Math, it looks like Deal academically comes out on top for middle school. I guess the fights, drugs and other dysfunction I hear about on DCUM isn't affecting kids academically? I know that came across sounding snarky, but it's not intended to. I'm a parent with children IB for Deal (in the future) that has concerns when reading DCUM, but these PARCC results seem to tell another story.

It's probably affecting *some* of the kids. Others not, according to their social interaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per PP's helpful analysis of the top schools in DC for ELA and Math, it looks like Deal academically comes out on top for middle school. I guess the fights, drugs and other dysfunction I hear about on DCUM isn't affecting kids academically? I know that came across sounding snarky, but it's not intended to. I'm a parent with children IB for Deal (in the future) that has concerns when reading DCUM, but these PARCC results seem to tell another story.

+1, Deal looks good and performance is really not different than BASIS

Wait-- so a school can backfill-- more than backfill, take students by-right at any time of year-- and yet perform as well as BASIS? AMAZING. I never would have thought such a thing is possible! Tell us, Deal, how do you manage this stunning feat, which is impossible according to BASIS?

stupid argument. it’s not like hundreds of at-risk kids are moving into the Deal zone. The Basis lottery unequivocally means that more at-risk kids have access to Basis than to Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per PP's helpful analysis of the top schools in DC for ELA and Math, it looks like Deal academically comes out on top for middle school. I guess the fights, drugs and other dysfunction I hear about on DCUM isn't affecting kids academically? I know that came across sounding snarky, but it's not intended to. I'm a parent with children IB for Deal (in the future) that has concerns when reading DCUM, but these PARCC results seem to tell another story.

+1, Deal looks good and performance is really not different than BASIS

Wait-- so a school can backfill-- more than backfill, take students by-right at any time of year-- and yet perform as well as BASIS? AMAZING. I never would have thought such a thing is possible! Tell us, Deal, how do you manage this stunning feat, which is impossible according to BASIS?

stupid argument. it’s not like hundreds of at-risk kids are moving into the Deal zone. The Basis lottery unequivocally means that more at-risk kids have access to Basis than to Deal.

Reality check: In SY 21-22, Deal was actually serving 10.44% at-risk kids and BASIS was serving 7.76% at-risk kids. https://stossepublicdocsprod.blob.core.windows.net/public-docs/dc-school-report-card/2021-22/profiles/001-0405(Deal%20Middle%20School).pdf https://stossepublicdocsprod.blob.core.windows.net/public-docs/dc-school-report-card/2021-22/profiles/168-3068(BASIS%20DC%20PCS).pdf

How does Deal manage to perform as well as BASIS despite taking all by-right kids at any point in any year, serving a higher percentage of at-risk kids, and also a higher percentage of students with disabilities, and a much higher percentage of English Language Learners? Do tell, BASIS boosters!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per PP's helpful analysis of the top schools in DC for ELA and Math, it looks like Deal academically comes out on top for middle school. I guess the fights, drugs and other dysfunction I hear about on DCUM isn't affecting kids academically? I know that came across sounding snarky, but it's not intended to. I'm a parent with children IB for Deal (in the future) that has concerns when reading DCUM, but these PARCC results seem to tell another story.

+1, Deal looks good and performance is really not different than BASIS

Wait-- so a school can backfill-- more than backfill, take students by-right at any time of year-- and yet perform as well as BASIS? AMAZING. I never would have thought such a thing is possible! Tell us, Deal, how do you manage this stunning feat, which is impossible according to BASIS?

stupid argument. it’s not like hundreds of at-risk kids are moving into the Deal zone. The Basis lottery unequivocally means that more at-risk kids have access to Basis than to Deal.

Bingo. Such a weird example out little BASIS hater chose to make his point. I don't think I'd have chosen W3 privilege as the example of access for low SES. Every at risk family in DC has an equal shot at BASIS. No one who can't afford to live IB for Deal does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This, this, this!! if you have a higher performing kid, I don’t care about at risk. I care bout overall scores and how many are at least on or above for peer groups.

Exactly! They just talk about at risk, but those are the same schools that 90% of DCUM avoids.

OK but then you should still filter the data to compare schools by "Not at risk" - no matter what, the proportion of at risk matters. You can't say x high performing school is better than y high performing school when x high performing school has 5% at risk, but y high performing school has 15% at risk and their overall scores are 10% different.

It matters to make apples to apples comparison whether it's for high or low performing kids.

Not sure that really matters here.

Almost half of DC public students are “at risk.” But “at risk” can mean different things.

At risk means that the students qualify for TANF, SNAP, are homeless, in foster care, OR are high school students at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

You could be a high-performing kid from a single-parent home where mom gets food stamps. However, you could also just be a low-performing high school student who missed so much school that you were held back one or a few grades.

More important is whether a school takes any kid (100% lottery)—at-risk or not—and does a great job educating them and giving them a chance to succeed. In that regard, BASIS DC seems head and shoulders above the rest of the non-selective DCPS schools/charters.

Right, your "100% lottery" which somehow magically results in a rock bottom low at-risk percentage. How wonderful BASIS is!

Janney is only 1% at risk. Let's reserve 25% of the seats there for at-risk and bus kids in!

C'mon DCUM let's go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!