PARCC data is up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB down quite a bit. Mundo is underwhelming as well.

Lee Montessori is also really disappointing. Down overall in ELA, only slightly better in math. But their black performance is really low -- 0 in math and 13% in ELA.

Yikes
Granted PARCC is far from perfect, but is this a model that should be replicated EOTR?

Lee is down in ELA but up in Math from last year. Their scores have never been all that. Wondering why this is news to you?

Shining Stars is significantly down in both.

Is this a group you trust to start a new middle and high school?

Cont on folks, did you look at how many kids they have in grades 3, 4 and 5? 30 across all the grades and less than 10 in both 4th and 5th. You can't draw any conclusions from that data, the numbers are just too small.

[Anonymous]

Maury has the highest scores on the Hill for the first time, (just barely) edging out Brent and SWS. And Murch for that matter. Go Maury!

[Anonymous]

Both of these schools need to walk before they run. Launching a MS is definitely running.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB down quite a bit. Mundo is underwhelming as well.

Lee Montessori is also really disappointing. Down overall in ELA, only slightly better in math. But their black performance is really low -- 0 in math and 13% in ELA.

Yikes
Granted PARCC is far from perfect, but is this a model that should be replicated EOTR?

Lee is down in ELA but up in Math from last year. Their scores have never been all that. Wondering why this is news to you?

Shining Stars is significantly down in both.

Is this a group you trust to start a new middle and high school?

Cont on folks, did you look at how many kids they have in grades 3, 4 and 5? 30 across all the grades and less than 10 in both 4th and 5th. You can't draw any conclusions from that data, the numbers are just too small.

Well, arguendo, you could draw the conclusion that there is not enough data for replication or creating a middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sela has a low gap. Whittier has a low gap with at-risk kids outperforming not at risk on ELA.

Enough with the sela boosting. Let them get to be a real size school before we star the boosting already. TIA

Sela has 16% more students than Ross. (202 vs. 174). So if one isn't a "real size school" and can't take pride in its accomplishments, than neither should the other.

I don't have a dog in this fight but I just went and looked at both schools and Ross seems to be doing better than Sela in every conceivable way - signficantly higher scores and almost no achievement gap. Is the only thing that made you mention Ross that it's a small school, or am I missing some other obvious correlation?

I agree that being a small school doesn't mean there's nothing to be proud of, but not sure why a Sela booster would compare it to a school that is so clearly outperforming it.

I'm not a Sela booster. I just don't think that Sela is too small to have its accomplishments disregarded. Or, if it is, there are other schools that should have their accomplishments disregarded too.
Ross and Sela have very different demographics (Sela is 17% white, Ross is 17% black; Sela is 22% at risk, Ross is 6%) not to mention the differences between DCPA and charters and language immersion vs. monolingual schools. Neither school is right for everyone (and it's not like most people can get into Ross anyway) but both seem to be doing well in their own ways--they both get 4 stars--and it seems silly for someone to think we can applaud one school and not the other.

Stop being sensitive. I mean why don’t we wait until the school reaches full capacity and has some 5th grades testers before we start hyping it too much. Patience is a virtue.

[Anonymous]

Have you seen the practice tests? It is very easy to miss a few questions and just miss a 4 or 5 score. It doesn't mean that the student is behind. When I looked at it, there were questions that I wasn't sure about on the elementary test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone noted a spreadsheet above. Has a link to the raw data been released?

https://osse.dc.gov/page/2018-19-parcc-results-and-resources

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen the practice tests? It is very easy to miss a few questions and just miss a 4 or 5 score. It doesn't mean that the student is behind. When I looked at it, there were questions that I wasn't sure about on the elementary test.

According to my child, many kids don’t care about taking PARCC and just speed through it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Creative Minds continues its downward spiral. Not at-risk scores a whopping 41/48 compared to their at-risk population of 14/16.

Their middle school results dragged down the numbers for the elementary. 3rd and 4th grade results are improved over last year, and math scores are really good - not a surprise as the 3rd and 4th grade math teachers last year were wonderful.

Less than half of the non at risk kids passed. Spin it how you wish but don’t blame middle school kids.

The 2019 scores are overall slightly better than last year's How is that "continuing its downward spiral"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen the practice tests? It is very easy to miss a few questions and just miss a 4 or 5 score. It doesn't mean that the student is behind. When I looked at it, there were questions that I wasn't sure about on the elementary test.

This just isn't true. Have you seen the score reports? Sure, at some point, you will miss a question that drops the score from a 5 to a 4. But it's not a couple question difference.

The PARCC isn't rocket science. A reasonably bright kid who is being taught what they are supposed to be taught (and who takes the test seriously) should get a 4. No question.
If he/she isn't there is a major problem at the instructional level.

I have 3 kids who have taken the PARCC for 4 years each (with strong teachers at a JKLM) and their score percentages are very similar year-after-year down to about 5 percentage points. I've discussed the results with many friends. The over-achieving kids we have or know always get 5's. The kids who struggle in school (for whatever reason) sometimes get 3's. The majority of kids get 4's. If a kid has sat through the instruction all year and the instruction has encompassed the standards for the year a kid without learning a learning disability should get a 4 without any issue at all (unless the kid blows off the test).

[Anonymous]

I would suggest that people not hide behind the protection of anonymous posting to say things they likely wouldn't say if their names were attributed. My comment is specifically directed at those equating success solely to race. Trying to explain/justify scores and make comparisons based on the student racial make-up is insulting and wrong. I don't feel a need to go through every post on this particular thread that has done this, but there were a few. I don't even assume that people of color are not guilty of this by the way. I'm a person of color and I've heard it, but it's not truly race in my experience. It's economics that create the differences. Someone else mentioned that poverty is the culprit and ultimately root of the disparities. I tend to agree. I just urge everyone to be more mindful of that - even when posting with anonymity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Creative Minds continues its downward spiral. Not at-risk scores a whopping 41/48 compared to their at-risk population of 14/16.

Their middle school results dragged down the numbers for the elementary. 3rd and 4th grade results are improved over last year, and math scores are really good - not a surprise as the 3rd and 4th grade math teachers last year were wonderful.

Less than half of the non at risk kids passed. Spin it how you wish but don’t blame middle school kids.

The 2019 scores are overall slightly better than last year's How is that "continuing its downward spiral"?

That can be explained by the increase in white students into testing grades (ie, 3 more passing kids).

Put it this way: Creative Minds, a school with 1/3 white kids, scored 34% in ELA. District wide is 37%. Their white students scored 61%, what’s the DC average, like 81%? Grade by grade, 17-26% scored a 1 on ELA. These are not kids that are 1-2 questions away from getting a 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would suggest that people not hide behind the protection of anonymous posting to say things they likely wouldn't say if their names were attributed. My comment is specifically directed at those equating success solely to race. Trying to explain/justify scores and make comparisons based on the student racial make-up is insulting and wrong. I don't feel a need to go through every post on this particular thread that has done this, but there were a few. I don't even assume that people of color are not guilty of this by the way. I'm a person of color and I've heard it, but it's not truly race in my experience. It's economics that create the differences. Someone else mentioned that poverty is the culprit and ultimately root of the disparities. I tend to agree. I just urge everyone to be more mindful of that - even when posting with anonymity.

I disagree with you fundamentally. DC is a very dynamic city that makes it hard to compare apples to apples due to variables in class and race (i.e., no low income white students in the system).

A brown person named Andrea

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would suggest that people not hide behind the protection of anonymous posting to say things they likely wouldn't say if their names were attributed. My comment is specifically directed at those equating success solely to race. Trying to explain/justify scores and make comparisons based on the student racial make-up is insulting and wrong. I don't feel a need to go through every post on this particular thread that has done this, but there were a few. I don't even assume that people of color are not guilty of this by the way. I'm a person of color and I've heard it, but it's not truly race in my experience. It's economics that create the differences. Someone else mentioned that poverty is the culprit and ultimately root of the disparities. I tend to agree. I just urge everyone to be more mindful of that - even when posting with anonymity.

I don't assume people are attributing the differences to melanin or melanin-related average IQ. Clearly, culture -- influenced by poverty and other factors -- and behavior (including choices about marriage and family structure) are implicated, especially as they relate to attitudes towards education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would suggest that people not hide behind the protection of anonymous posting to say things they likely wouldn't say if their names were attributed. My comment is specifically directed at those equating success solely to race. Trying to explain/justify scores and make comparisons based on the student racial make-up is insulting and wrong. I don't feel a need to go through every post on this particular thread that has done this, but there were a few. I don't even assume that people of color are not guilty of this by the way. I'm a person of color and I've heard it, but it's not truly race in my experience. It's economics that create the differences. Someone else mentioned that poverty is the culprit and ultimately root of the disparities. I tend to agree. I just urge everyone to be more mindful of that - even when posting with anonymity.

It's not poverty either.

It's behavior.