New DC School Report Cards have been posted to OSSE’s website

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Here is the methodology for these DC school “report cards”:

https://osse.dc.gov/blog/everything-you-need-know-about-summative-school-scores

For example, for elementary and middle school, they weight PARCC “median growth percentile” as 25% of the score and PARCC “growth to proficiency” as 25% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 20% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. So, in other words, a school where a lot of kids get their scores up from 1, 2, or 3 on the PARCC is worth much more than where kids score 4-5 on PARCC from the beginning and maintain those high scores. The other 20% of the score includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

The high school scoring rubric is a bit different. Here PARCC “growth to proficiency” is only 12.5% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 15% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. Graduation rate is 20% of the score, DE/AP/IB participation is 7.5%, AP/IB performance is 5%, and college preparedness is 5%. The other 25% includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

As a result, you get some perhaps perverse results. Here is an example:

DC Prep Edgewood significantly outranks Deal with a 83.3% score compared to Deal’s paltry 77.1.

However, if you look at PARCC proficiency scores for Deal, 77.9% are grade level in ELA and 63.7% are grade level in math. Deal’s chronic absence rate is 15.7%

In contrast, at DC Prep Edgewood, only 37.9% are grade level at in ELA and only 31.7 % are grade level in math. The chronic absence rate at DC Prep Edgewood is 30.5%.

However, because DC Prep Edgewood showed more PARCC “growth” than Deal (that is, more kids raised their PARCC scores up from 1, 2, or 3.), the DC school report card ranks DC Prep Edgewood ahead of Deal.

In short, at least with elementary and middle school, the DC school “score cards” prioritize improvement of academic performance over actual academic results. In other words, a school where a lot of kids improve their below-grade-level work or move from below grade level to grade level is considered “better” than a school where kids consistently do grade-level and above-grade-level work.

By this logic, actual DC report cards should give As to kids that move from C-level work to B-level and Bs to kids that consistently do A-level work.


Bingo.

+1 million


Disagree, 68% of students approached, met or exceeded expectations in ELA and 63.4% in math.
Deal certainly is higher in the category of meeting expectations and above.However to me Deal falls short because they aren't able to raise kids scores as much as DC prep middle did. They receive kids on a higher level academically but fail to get them even higher.

Deal also failed to raise the scores of students with disabilities, ELL, and the ones who are economically disadvantaged.

You have to look at the big picture, cool Deal does well teaching bon bons with tutors, parental help, or who have just experienced less trauma, and have more resources.



This raises the question of what the purpose of these scores is. If the purpose of the scores is for central admin to evaluate what schools have the best teachers/staff/learning model, I think the stats are reasonably calibrated for this aim, for the reasons you state above. But if the purpose of the scores is to help parents make an individual decision about what school to send their kid to, I think the scores are pretty useless. Parents should drill down in the data to figure it out - particularly if the child has an IEP or is economically disadvantaged.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why are they using “approached, met or exceeded expectations” as the PARCC benchmark to report?

Race to the bottom.


They are reporting both 3-4-5 and 4-5. Because a school with a lot of 3s is different from a school with hardly any 3s. It's just one more of their many performance metrics.


You either have kids on grade level or you don’t.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why are they using “approached, met or exceeded expectations” as the PARCC benchmark to report?

Race to the bottom.


They are reporting both 3-4-5 and 4-5. Because a school with a lot of 3s is different from a school with hardly any 3s. It's just one more of their many performance metrics.


You either have kids on grade level or you don’t.


So SO wrong. Kids getting 3s should be taught at grade level, benefit from standard instruction and don’t, as a general rule, disrupt class. Kids getting 1s & 2s are totally different. I actually think percentage of kids getting 3-5s is the best statistic to tell you what the classroom experience is like.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why are they using “approached, met or exceeded expectations” as the PARCC benchmark to report?

Race to the bottom.


They are reporting both 3-4-5 and 4-5. Because a school with a lot of 3s is different from a school with hardly any 3s. It's just one more of their many performance metrics.


You either have kids on grade level or you don’t.


Try to take a longer term view. 3s are next year's 4s, potentially. And yes, having them in a classroom is totally different from having 1s.
Anonymous
The 3s metric is helpful because some of the smaller schools don't have enough 4s and 5s to make a meaningful data set.
Anonymous
Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.


Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.
Anonymous
How do self-contained classrooms figure in here?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:How do self-contained classrooms figure in here?


I think it depends on if kids take PARCC or MSAA.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:How do self-contained classrooms figure in here?


I think it depends on if kids take PARCC or MSAA.


Is the school still held accountable for the self-contained test scores though?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:How do self-contained classrooms figure in here?


I think it depends on if kids take PARCC or MSAA.


Is the school still held accountable for the self-contained test scores though?


I think so, but not through this report card process. MSAA scoring and performance just isn't something the general public is gonna easily grasp.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.


Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.


No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.


Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Charters up for review this year:
DCI: 57.3
Harmony: 56.3
Lee Brookland: 41.2 (East End not listed)
DCB: 86.2
EL Haynes: 47.3 elementary, 64.5 middle, 34.5 high
Two Rivers: 48.2 4th, 26.0 Young, 40.7 middle.
Meridian: 43.9
Perry St: 45
Roots: 72.6
Seems like pretty much okay, assuming Two Rivers turns things around.

Charters up for review next year-- clearly some are in trouble.
Capital Village 12.9 (ouch!)
Girls Global 27.3
Social Justice 28.7
Truth 70.6
Washington Global 66.4
Bridges 41.7
Hope Community 17.6-- ouch!
Howard 37
Bethune 22.2
Cap City 50.1 high, 51.5 lower, 51.5 middle
Paul: 42.6 high, 57.4 middle
IDEA: 12.0-- ouch!


Truth, Global and Cap City not in trouble as far as this data shows.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Charters up for review this year:
DCI: 57.3
Harmony: 56.3
Lee Brookland: 41.2 (East End not listed)
DCB: 86.2
EL Haynes: 47.3 elementary, 64.5 middle, 34.5 high
Two Rivers: 48.2 4th, 26.0 Young, 40.7 middle.
Meridian: 43.9
Perry St: 45
Roots: 72.6
Seems like pretty much okay, assuming Two Rivers turns things around.

Charters up for review next year-- clearly some are in trouble.
Capital Village 12.9 (ouch!)
Girls Global 27.3
Social Justice 28.7
Truth 70.6
Washington Global 66.4
Bridges 41.7
Hope Community 17.6-- ouch!
Howard 37
Bethune 22.2
Cap City 50.1 high, 51.5 lower, 51.5 middle
Paul: 42.6 high, 57.4 middle
IDEA: 12.0-- ouch!


Truth, Global and Cap City not in trouble as far as this data shows.


Washington Global is ok, Girls Global looks iffy.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.


Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.


No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.




Yes.
post reply Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools
Message Quick Reply
Go to: