By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)

[Anonymous]

oh to get advanced for DCPS click on performance levels for some reason I cannot get it for basis which is in the graph right next to it - if you just click on proficient it will show you how many AA's scored proficient at BASIS and how many scored proficient AND advanced in DC

I am doing something really wrong re advanced someone help me

but you can get it by gender, race, economics, grade, and compare two years and allegedly compare two schools tho beats me how

for 2013 and 2014

[Anonymous]

how can they possibly be giving the # of advanced for all of DCPS but not for the individual schools can someone help me out here?

[Anonymous]

ok I figured out a way to do it using simple math I really am a computer idiot
but I will get you the disaggregated scores done by addition and subtraction of Deal, Latin and Basis
but it also includes DCPS and this site works! if you are computer savvy have at it please and see what interesting facts you come up with

if you find out why I can find advanced on all the graphs for DCPS as a whole but NOT for the individual schools
please help me

OP
you are wrong about DCPS not disaggregating for this - on this website they do it for themselves as a whole
and presumably for all the other schools if I knew how to work it correctly

AND they allow you to compare two years and at least two schools - and hypothetically only how AA kids do at each...
in math or science.......

[Anonymous]

Op here.

I have the scores, broken down by performance leve and race, for DCPS schools going back to 2006. That's what my original analysis was based upon.

I have seen the scores, broken down by race, for one year at Latin and Basis, and these scores are the combined advanced plus proficient percentages. That's what my comments from earlier this afternoon -- I see no defensible way to conclude that Latin and Basis are outperforming Hardy *based upon my recollection of the Hardy numbers*.

[Anonymous]

OP,
if you use the learndc website correctly you don't have to base anything on your recollection - they will give you the numbers and you can add it up for charters and for public schools and I am sure there is no fucking way they gave the number of advanced students ONLY for DCPS as a whole in 2013 and 2014 and NOT for the individual schools you are supposed to be allowed to compare them to - I am just not a computer person.

Learn dc does charter and public and
gives you the most recent stats

follow my breadcrumbs - is DCPS really providing advanced percentages for DCPS as a whole here and not for the individual schools?

I don't believe it

you originally said they did not disaggregate for race - they do here, they disaggregate for everything else and they do it for proficient and advanced for DCPS as a whole on their comparison chart why would they not do it for these schools

[Anonymous]

Op here,

Like you, I also have no clue what you're talking about. As I said, I have the data for DCPS back to 2006-2007. If you have learned nothing else today, let it be "he who bases conclusions off of one year is a fool."

It still remains the case that I have not seen the advanced-only percentages for Basis or Latin anywhere, even if only for one year.

There is no grand conspiracy here. Nobody is hiding anything, not even the charter board. We all want more data.

[Anonymous]

interesting info from the JKLM vs HRC thread

Here is the raw data:
school #mathtested % prof/adv% adv #readingtested % prof/adv %adv
Hearst ES 15 100.00% 86.67% 15 93.33% 46.67%
Ross ES 14 100.00% 64.29% 14 100.00% 35.71%
Mann ES 58 98.28% 51.72% 57 92.98% 31.58%
Eaton ES 85 97.65% 56.47% 85 95.29% 30.59%
Stoddert 68 97.06% 63.24% 66 89.39% 37.88%
Maury ES 33 96.97% 48.48% 33 93.94% 21.21%
Lafayette 212 95.75% 58.49% 213 94.37% 34.27%
Two Rivers 56 94.64% 57.14% 56 100.00% 37.50%
Yu Ying 37 94.59% 45.95% 37 86.49% 16.22%
Oyster 87 93.10% 75.86% 87 98.85% 45.98%
Janney ES 158 92.41% 58.86% 158 93.67% 37.34%
Key ES 91 91.21% 49.45% 91 92.31% 28.57%
Inspired 11 90.91% 45.45% 11 100.00% 45.45%
Stokes 11 90.91% 36.36% 11 100.00% 27.27%
Capital City 90.91% 27.27% 22 100.00% 22.73%
Murch ES 160 90.63% 49.38% 160 92.50% 25.63%
Haynes 25 88.00% 56.00% 25 92.00% 32.00%
Brent ES 58 82.76% 55.17% 58 84.48% 15.52%
Logan 16 81.25% 18.75% 16 87.50% 12.50%

these are all white kids, of course

[Anonymous]

source: http://osse.dc.gov/publication/2014-dc-cas-results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here,

Like you, I also have no clue what you're talking about. As I said, I have the data for DCPS back to 2006-2007. If you have learned nothing else today, let it be "he who bases conclusions off of one year is a fool."

It still remains the case that I have not seen the advanced-only percentages for Basis or Latin anywhere, even if only for one year.

There is no grand conspiracy here. Nobody is hiding anything, not even the charter board. We all want more data.

Basis has only been open since 2012. So we only have 3 years of data. What exactly are you saying?
I have given you links to 2012, 2013, 2014 by race, FARMS, etc - and asked you to find advanced since they offer it for DCPS as a whole on learndc. Can you do it?
Hardy is there. If not, use OSSE. Seems to have worked pretty well for the HRCS poster

[Anonymous]

OP
ok again not a computer person, but OSSE (the link provided above) breaks down advanced and proficient
it also allows you to break it down by race but my computer is too old I don't have wizard something
every time I click on white it will not let me

Basis math:
test takers 454
below basic 10
basic 75
prof 169
advanced 200

Basis reading (we stink)
test takers (missed that, add it up)
below basic 6
basic 64
proficient 279
advanced 105

so your claim that no one separates out advanced and proficient is debunked. Go to OSSE and see for yourself

[Anonymous]

OP here.

Overall numbers are not of much use for comparison to Hardy. Basis is 34% white (Latin is something like 43%). Hardy is roughly 11% for the same year. Overall numbers reflect composition as well as performance. We want to separate composition (demographics) from the overall numbers so that we are only looking at performance.

[Anonymous]

Op here.

I'm on a phone. The OSSE link doesn't provide advanced scorers by race for Latin or Basis, at least on my phone. If that's a limitation of my phone -- which is entirely possible -- then that limits my ability to say anything useful.

[Anonymous]

you can also do it by percentages as the above poster did in the other thread if you are more computer savvy,
or you can do the math

either way,
OSSE did not just provide the raw data for all schools for last year, I'm sure
and I'm sure it did not just provide percentages for elementary schools

you made a spreadsheet based on the supposition that there was no data distinguishing proficient from advanced
you are wrong
and it matters

and there is someone above, far better than me at navigating the OSSE site, who did
only white kids
numbers of test takers
percentage that came out to
how many scored proficient
and how many scored advanced

to make a pretty important point which ultimately may support your argument - although I cannot look up Hardy
but certainly supports another pp's

Hardy would not have benefited from getting Mann or Key kids in terms of upping its advanced scorers on the former DC CAS- they don't score advanced on average.........and they go to private schools!

it is the Janney kids who are kicking some real ass, and they all go to Deal and many go on to Wilson

and perhaps it explains why there are so few Mann and Key kids at Basis - they are not "up for the challenge"
as per the Hardy poster who wondered why no one from Basis or Deal showed up for the math competition.......

I think I did pretty well for someone who does not know their ass from their elbow where computers are concerned, don't think my grandfather the economist would be particularly proud of me......

but I did find you at least two places where you can discover how many kids are advanced vs proficient, and do it by race, by economics, by gender..... You are right, there is no conspiracy here. There is only your wilful blindness.

[Anonymous]

I believe it is a limitation of your phone. I was able to do it last year. I just cannot remember which site I did it on and cannot do it now - limitations on my time and my ability to navigate these sites and DCUM. One of them absolutely kicked ass - you could see for individual schools what you could see for DC on the NAEP - proficient vs advanced by race, economics, gender, everything.

But I'm sure you will find it in the end...........

[Anonymous]

Op here.

I came in here to apologize for being snippy. My kids are driving me nuts right now.

And then I read your latest post. You remain confused. Your point about Janney is neither robust nor accurate. If anything, Stoddert has the best scores (of a decent sized sample).

Your nonsensical ramblings about Key and Mann not being "up for the challenge" makes you sound like Benjy from The Sound and the Fury: a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing. (Perhaps the American classics aren't included in your curriculum. I hope that the original source -- Shakespeare -- is, at least.)