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. |
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. |
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. |
| The 3s metric is helpful because some of the smaller schools don't have enough 4s and 5s to make a meaningful data set. |
|
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. |
| 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. |
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. |
Truth, Global and Cap City not in trouble as far as this data shows. |
Washington Global is ok, Girls Global looks iffy. |
Yes. |