PARCC data is up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also be aware of wide variation in special needs and ELL populations. Some schools operate specialized classrooms for autism, behavior support, etc. Some schools refuse to. Some schools push out the harder kids so their at-risk population is the easier group of at-risk kids. Some schools have the challenge of mid-year entries, others refuse to share in that work.

Yep - I don't think you could use that crosstab data to describe school-level results with any degree of accuracy due to small sample size, population variation between schools, etc. But I do think that there are a bunch of middle and upper middle class black kids (and parents) in DC who are looking at achievement gaps in their schools and citywide and wondering how schools are serving kids like theirs.

Totally agree. OSSE might give you the data if you asked.

I am really struck by the number of supposedlly HRCS that have an achievement gap despite having low at-risk and also a substantial population of non-at-risk AA kids, some who are not even low-income.

Yep, me too. But if close to half the black kids at a school in the testing grades are at-risk and <2% of the white kids are at-risk (which is kinda roughly how my back of the envelope calculations show it would play out), that is really significant.

Yes. And sometimes the non-at-risk AA kids are not performing very well. Why??? Schools should be prepared to answer.

At our school it's the white kids who are performing lower than the average. And most kids are white. So what does that say? The other races are doing better than expected.

I have no clue. Does grade level analysis reveal any patterns?

Hmm, grade 4 and 5, not enough white to assess (so maybe "most" was overstating). Grade 3 was about average. So those few in 4 and 5 tipped it lower than average (for whites). I guess that's not a super big deal but it was similar last year.

It's the same at some other HRCS. I think I figured out why - white data averages are skewed by WOTP DCPS who score very high. Anyone else may expect to score lower, somewhat... Could that be it? My only question there would be, does this mean WOTP schools are better. or just richer? What do we attribute this to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not looking for an "explanation" of the scores. What I would like to know is why someone thinks it's fine to post a, shall we say, blatantly untruthful statement that would mislead others into thinking that CMI's PAARC scores are tanking, when they clearly aren't?

[Anonymous]

WOTP is populated by highly educated families. Not just affluent, but highly educated. They are passing (or attempting to pass) the human capital/habits of how to succeed scholastically onto their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not looking for an "explanation" of the scores. What I would like to know is why someone thinks it's fine to post a, shall we say, blatantly untruthful statement that would mislead others into thinking that CMI's PAARC scores are tanking, when they clearly aren't?

How about “CMI continues to be well below every single measure compared to poorer DCPS schools.” Or “you’re CMI student is more likely to score a 1 than a 4 on PARCC.” What about “Even rich, White kids are 20+ points below their white peers across the city and not being well-served by CMI.” To be honest, saying they continue to spiral is better than the reality of how bad they’re doing. Should have let that slide o stead of quibbling over whether the scores stayed the same, went down a few points, or went up a few points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also be aware of wide variation in special needs and ELL populations. Some schools operate specialized classrooms for autism, behavior support, etc. Some schools refuse to. Some schools push out the harder kids so their at-risk population is the easier group of at-risk kids. Some schools have the challenge of mid-year entries, others refuse to share in that work.

Yep - I don't think you could use that crosstab data to describe school-level results with any degree of accuracy due to small sample size, population variation between schools, etc. But I do think that there are a bunch of middle and upper middle class black kids (and parents) in DC who are looking at achievement gaps in their schools and citywide and wondering how schools are serving kids like theirs.

Totally agree. OSSE might give you the data if you asked.

I am really struck by the number of supposedlly HRCS that have an achievement gap despite having low at-risk and also a substantial population of non-at-risk AA kids, some who are not even low-income.

Yep, me too. But if close to half the black kids at a school in the testing grades are at-risk and <2% of the white kids are at-risk (which is kinda roughly how my back of the envelope calculations show it would play out), that is really significant.

Yes. And sometimes the non-at-risk AA kids are not performing very well. Why??? Schools should be prepared to answer.

At our school it's the white kids who are performing lower than the average. And most kids are white. So what does that say? The other races are doing better than expected.

I have no clue. Does grade level analysis reveal any patterns?

Hmm, grade 4 and 5, not enough white to assess (so maybe "most" was overstating). Grade 3 was about average. So those few in 4 and 5 tipped it lower than average (for whites). I guess that's not a super big deal but it was similar last year.

It's the same at some other HRCS. I think I figured out why - white data averages are skewed by WOTP DCPS who score very high. Anyone else may expect to score lower, somewhat... Could that be it? My only question there would be, does this mean WOTP schools are better. or just richer? What do we attribute this to?

Not necessarily a WOTP thing. White kids at Shepherd scored a 94 on both sections, so as well as or better than WOTP schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hello 50 point achievement gap at its.

It's shocking really.

Grade Black White 4th 60/53 95/86 5th 23/9 72/67 6th 48/9 100/67 7th 23/0 too few to report 8th 36/36 too few

Those 5th-7th math scores are horrible. We left ITS in part because, in the higher grades, there's too much focus on SJ political stuff (IMO) and not enough on core material and critical thinking. Plus, who wants their DC in a math class where NOT ONE other child is on grade level. Grim.

I don’t understand this post. Which grade doesn’t have 1 on grade level in math?

7th grade - 0%.

7th grade is 22% on grade level. They are also 48% that score 3, 4, 5. Also, you should note that last year’s 7th grade only had like 20 kids so not the best sample.

Just checked: you are right and I was wrong. I was looking at the demographic breakdown, which only shows the scores of black kids because there aren't enough of any other demographic to show. Among black kids, 0% were on grade level in math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also be aware of wide variation in special needs and ELL populations. Some schools operate specialized classrooms for autism, behavior support, etc. Some schools refuse to. Some schools push out the harder kids so their at-risk population is the easier group of at-risk kids. Some schools have the challenge of mid-year entries, others refuse to share in that work.

Yep - I don't think you could use that crosstab data to describe school-level results with any degree of accuracy due to small sample size, population variation between schools, etc. But I do think that there are a bunch of middle and upper middle class black kids (and parents) in DC who are looking at achievement gaps in their schools and citywide and wondering how schools are serving kids like theirs.

Totally agree. OSSE might give you the data if you asked.

I am really struck by the number of supposedlly HRCS that have an achievement gap despite having low at-risk and also a substantial population of non-at-risk AA kids, some who are not even low-income.

Yep, me too. But if close to half the black kids at a school in the testing grades are at-risk and <2% of the white kids are at-risk (which is kinda roughly how my back of the envelope calculations show it would play out), that is really significant.

Yes. And sometimes the non-at-risk AA kids are not performing very well. Why??? Schools should be prepared to answer.

At our school it's the white kids who are performing lower than the average. And most kids are white. So what does that say? The other races are doing better than expected.

I have no clue. Does grade level analysis reveal any patterns?

Hmm, grade 4 and 5, not enough white to assess (so maybe "most" was overstating). Grade 3 was about average. So those few in 4 and 5 tipped it lower than average (for whites). I guess that's not a super big deal but it was similar last year.

It's the same at some other HRCS. I think I figured out why - white data averages are skewed by WOTP DCPS who score very high. Anyone else may expect to score lower, somewhat... Could that be it? My only question there would be, does this mean WOTP schools are better. or just richer? What do we attribute this to?

Not necessarily a WOTP thing. White kids at Shepherd scored a 94 on both sections, so as well as or better than WOTP schools.

Just adding--a few years ago at a meet and greet I recall meeting a white mom who seemed to turn her nose up at Shepherd, stating that CMI seemed to fit her educational philosophy more. I guess her kids may have actually done better had she sent them to Shepherd (her IB).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:well, you are literally judging their life choices if you are doing what's in the message chain above.

And? Some life choices are proven to be better than others with respect to family income and parenting, for a start. Should you not be judged if you make the "life choice" to start using heroin when you have as first grader, or rob a bank?

[Anonymous]

I’m a law firm partner and single parent (not my choice), myself the daughter of a divorced single mother academic. The biggest predictor of student outcomes is the education level of the mother not the SES of the mother. Let’s not generalize there are a lot of poor parenting dual income households who don’t enforce study habits. Let’s not kid ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Large EOTP non-charter High Schools scraping the barrel bottom with math scores in the 0% - 3% range.

Ballou: 5% / 2%
Cardoza: 13% / 4%
Dunbar: 16% / 0%
Eastern: 25% / 0%

Why isn't this the #1 story in the city?

Why is ballou still operating as a regular public school? Less than 2% at grade level? How can these even be valid diplomas?

I don't even know what this means. It is operating as a school that provides a lot more services than a regular school.

FYI one time they had a contractor run Dunbar for a few years and the results were terrible. Charters do no better when they have to serve all residents and can't push out the difficult kids.

It’s true, all you’re saying here is this is how little learning can happen when 90% of your students are at risk.

The term "at risk" seems to be used as an explanation as to why learning doesn't happen. If we were to double click on it, we'd find many factors and symptoms and behaviors. For some of these kids, doesn't it include disruptive and deviant behavior that prevents others from learning? Which is to say, my heart goes out to the homeless child who has few resources, unsupportive parents, yet a desire to behave and learn, but less so to the kid who acts out and wrecks the class for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a law firm partner and single parent (not my choice), myself the daughter of a divorced single mother academic. The biggest predictor of student outcomes is the education level of the mother not the SES of the mother. Let’s not generalize there are a lot of poor parenting dual income households who don’t enforce study habits. Let’s not kid ourselves.

It is mother’s education level that is the biggest predictor of child success. But to say that women don’t struggle with income after divorce is crazy. Many men do not support their kids!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hello 50 point achievement gap at its.

It's shocking really.

Grade Black White 4th 60/53 95/86 5th 23/9 72/67 6th 48/9 100/67 7th 23/0 too few to report 8th 36/36 too few

Those 5th-7th math scores are horrible. We left ITS in part because, in the higher grades, there's too much focus on SJ political stuff (IMO) and not enough on core material and critical thinking. Plus, who wants their DC in a math class where NOT ONE other child is on grade level. Grim.

I don’t understand this post. Which grade doesn’t have 1 on grade level in math?

7th grade - 0%.

7th grade is 22% on grade level. They are also 48% that score 3, 4, 5. Also, you should note that last year’s 7th grade only had like 20 kids so not the best sample.

Just checked: you are right and I was wrong. I was looking at the demographic breakdown, which only shows the scores of black kids because there aren't enough of any other demographic to show. Among black kids, 0% were on grade level in math.

Thanks. Not to quibble at all as I agree with you. I just wanted to point out how awesome our 7th graders are (current 8th). There are 24 kids in the class. I believe about 6 that have been at the school > 3 years. I do appreciate that the new kids have seemed to adapt well. While I agree the scores in math aren’t the best (48% that score 3+), I will say the overall cohort is a fantastic group of kids. 70% that score 3+ in ELA. School just recently switched to Eureka so I imagine that will work itself out. There are two citywide debate champs in that cohort (one white and one biracial that could qualify as a black peer with a 5 on parcc). My kid is only one grade away from this cohort, but I’d be thrilled if we were in that cohort. The current 7th and 8th graders that excel in math can take higher math so there will be peers on level just not same grade and as the school reached full capacity next year, it should be easier to do that. As a AA parent, I do want the school to address overall gap but not lose sight of the things that work. I have no answers and hope the recent changes to structure will help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also be aware of wide variation in special needs and ELL populations. Some schools operate specialized classrooms for autism, behavior support, etc. Some schools refuse to. Some schools push out the harder kids so their at-risk population is the easier group of at-risk kids. Some schools have the challenge of mid-year entries, others refuse to share in that work.

Yep - I don't think you could use that crosstab data to describe school-level results with any degree of accuracy due to small sample size, population variation between schools, etc. But I do think that there are a bunch of middle and upper middle class black kids (and parents) in DC who are looking at achievement gaps in their schools and citywide and wondering how schools are serving kids like theirs.

Totally agree. OSSE might give you the data if you asked.

I am really struck by the number of supposedlly HRCS that have an achievement gap despite having low at-risk and also a substantial population of non-at-risk AA kids, some who are not even low-income.

Yep, me too. But if close to half the black kids at a school in the testing grades are at-risk and <2% of the white kids are at-risk (which is kinda roughly how my back of the envelope calculations show it would play out), that is really significant.

Yes. And sometimes the non-at-risk AA kids are not performing very well. Why??? Schools should be prepared to answer.

At our school it's the white kids who are performing lower than the average. And most kids are white. So what does that say? The other races are doing better than expected.

I have no clue. Does grade level analysis reveal any patterns?

Hmm, grade 4 and 5, not enough white to assess (so maybe "most" was overstating). Grade 3 was about average. So those few in 4 and 5 tipped it lower than average (for whites). I guess that's not a super big deal but it was similar last year.

It's the same at some other HRCS. I think I figured out why - white data averages are skewed by WOTP DCPS who score very high. Anyone else may expect to score lower, somewhat... Could that be it? My only question there would be, does this mean WOTP schools are better. or just richer? What do we attribute this to?

Its very possible that the schools are actually better. The curriculums are very different that those of most HRCSs -- for example, all kids learn to read in K and K is generally much more rigorous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hello 50 point achievement gap at its.

It's shocking really.

Grade Black White 4th 60/53 95/86 5th 23/9 72/67 6th 48/9 100/67 7th 23/0 too few to report 8th 36/36 too few

Those 5th-7th math scores are horrible. We left ITS in part because, in the higher grades, there's too much focus on SJ political stuff (IMO) and not enough on core material and critical thinking. Plus, who wants their DC in a math class where NOT ONE other child is on grade level. Grim.

I don’t understand this post. Which grade doesn’t have 1 on grade level in math?

7th grade - 0%.

7th grade is 22% on grade level. They are also 48% that score 3, 4, 5. Also, you should note that last year’s 7th grade only had like 20 kids so not the best sample.

Just checked: you are right and I was wrong. I was looking at the demographic breakdown, which only shows the scores of black kids because there aren't enough of any other demographic to show. Among black kids, 0% were on grade level in math.

Thanks. Not to quibble at all as I agree with you. I just wanted to point out how awesome our 7th graders are (current 8th). There are 24 kids in the class. I believe about 6 that have been at the school > 3 years. I do appreciate that the new kids have seemed to adapt well. While I agree the scores in math aren’t the best (48% that score 3+), I will say the overall cohort is a fantastic group of kids. 70% that score 3+ in ELA. School just recently switched to Eureka so I imagine that will work itself out. There are two citywide debate champs in that cohort (one white and one biracial that could qualify as a black peer with a 5 on parcc). My kid is only one grade away from this cohort, but I’d be thrilled if we were in that cohort. The current 7th and 8th graders that excel in math can take higher math so there will be peers on level just not same grade and as the school reached full capacity next year, it should be easier to do that. As a AA parent, I do want the school to address overall gap but not lose sight of the things that work. I have no answers and hope the recent changes to structure will help.

I am not an ITS detractor, btw. I'm glad to see the healthy % of 3s and hope to see those evolving into 4s over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Common Core Standard by grade can be found here (scroll down)

http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/

but then not again by other criteria historically, long-term data tracking is poor. Also, how are we really showing growth if we are not comparing the same kids over time...