GreatSchools Ratings Updated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GS has LAMB (who has kids preform worse than state average for both white and Hispanic) as a 10 and ITDS as a 2. I don't have a kid at either but attended ITDS 6 years ago. This tells me everything I need to know about GS.

LAMB at a 10/10 does seem a little wild. Not saying it is a bad school but when you look at the metrics.. what did they do to deserve a 10?

GS is absolute trash.

I think the LAMB one is wrong. They don't have a test score overall number like other schools and then they get a 10/10 for equity because "Underserved students at this school are performing far better than other students in the state, and this school is successfully closing the achievement gap." But then when you look at the Race/Equity data they provide, it shows Hispanic students are below the state average (as are white scores). It makes zero sense. I acutally wonder if despite showing the correct graphic here, they actually compared the scores to overall non-white scores in math and then you "win" GS by having non-AA non-white students because there is such a large acheivement gap for AA math scores especially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It dropped the Latin number to a 2/10 for their middle school.

Then you look at the data and nothing speaks 2/10. I guess Latin does not release some information and GS dinged them really hard for it.

Not sure releasing would have helped. Their numbers are pretty bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It dropped the Latin number to a 2/10 for their middle school.

Then you look at the data and nothing speaks 2/10. I guess Latin does not release some information and GS dinged them really hard for it.

Not sure releasing would have helped. Their numbers are pretty bad.

What numbers? Their PARCC scores are pretty similar to Hardy, which is a 9/10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It dropped the Latin number to a 2/10 for their middle school.

Then you look at the data and nothing speaks 2/10. I guess Latin does not release some information and GS dinged them really hard for it.

Not sure releasing would have helped. Their numbers are pretty bad.

What numbers? Their PARCC scores are pretty similar to Hardy, which is a 9/10.

No kids at Latin but it’s BS. It’s all about equity and at risk and Latin likely got dinged because they have low at risk.

When you see DCPS schools where overwhelming majority are not even on grade level higher than Latin, not to mention the data misinformation, I don’t know how you can take Great schools seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It dropped the Latin number to a 2/10 for their middle school.

Then you look at the data and nothing speaks 2/10. I guess Latin does not release some information and GS dinged them really hard for it.

Not sure releasing would have helped. Their numbers are pretty bad.

What numbers? Their PARCC scores are pretty similar to Hardy, which is a 9/10.

No kids at Latin but it’s BS. It’s all about equity and at risk and Latin likely got dinged because they have low at risk.

When you see DCPS schools where overwhelming majority are not even on grade level higher than Latin, not to mention the data misinformation, I don’t know how you can take Great schools seriously.

It's weird though because Latin middle school is showing 2/10 and the high school is showing 8/10. No idea why. And BASIS has super low at risk and 8/10 anyway. So low at risk cannot explain it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It dropped the Latin number to a 2/10 for their middle school.

Then you look at the data and nothing speaks 2/10. I guess Latin does not release some information and GS dinged them really hard for it.

Not sure releasing would have helped. Their numbers are pretty bad.

What numbers? Their PARCC scores are pretty similar to Hardy, which is a 9/10.

The PARCC scores are objectively bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It dropped the Latin number to a 2/10 for their middle school.

Then you look at the data and nothing speaks 2/10. I guess Latin does not release some information and GS dinged them really hard for it.

Not sure releasing would have helped. Their numbers are pretty bad.

What numbers? Their PARCC scores are pretty similar to Hardy, which is a 9/10.

The PARCC scores are objectively bad.

Anacostia got 4/10 despite its PARCC scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It dropped the Latin number to a 2/10 for their middle school.

Then you look at the data and nothing speaks 2/10. I guess Latin does not release some information and GS dinged them really hard for it.

Not sure releasing would have helped. Their numbers are pretty bad.

What numbers? Their PARCC scores are pretty similar to Hardy, which is a 9/10.

No kids at Latin but it’s BS. It’s all about equity and at risk and Latin likely got dinged because they have low at risk.

When you see DCPS schools where overwhelming majority are not even on grade level higher than Latin, not to mention the data misinformation, I don’t know how you can take Great schools seriously.

The ratings are incomplete. The overall rating is supposed to be a compilation of academic data (including test scores), equity, etc. But none of the DC charters seem to have test score data available so the score is defaulting to equity only in most cases. If the equity score is low, it appears the overall rating is low. For example, Cap City's middle school has a 5 for equity and a 5 as the overall rating. Sela is a 7 for equity and a 7 overall.

The charter high schools look a little better because their scores reflect both college readiness and equity but still don't have test scores.

GreatSchools sucks. It's ridiculous that it is still around when it has been inaccurate and presenting faulty information for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It dropped the Latin number to a 2/10 for their middle school.

Then you look at the data and nothing speaks 2/10. I guess Latin does not release some information and GS dinged them really hard for it.

Not sure releasing would have helped. Their numbers are pretty bad.

What numbers? Their PARCC scores are pretty similar to Hardy, which is a 9/10.

No kids at Latin but it’s BS. It’s all about equity and at risk and Latin likely got dinged because they have low at risk.

When you see DCPS schools where overwhelming majority are not even on grade level higher than Latin, not to mention the data misinformation, I don’t know how you can take Great schools seriously.

The ratings are incomplete. The overall rating is supposed to be a compilation of academic data (including test scores), equity, etc. But none of the DC charters seem to have test score data available so the score is defaulting to equity only in most cases. If the equity score is low, it appears the overall rating is low. For example, Cap City's middle school has a 5 for equity and a 5 as the overall rating. Sela is a 7 for equity and a 7 overall.

The charter high schools look a little better because their scores reflect both college readiness and equity but still don't have test scores.

GreatSchools sucks. It's ridiculous that it is still around when it has been inaccurate and presenting faulty information for years.

Ahh, this explains LAMB too, because there is 0 chance it should have a 10 based on the test scores it's showing and it has a 10 for equity (maybe because all groups do equally poorly on tests?).