2022-2023 PARCC Data Released

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the schools have the students' individual scores? Can I call or go to the school and get my child's score?

No. Late September.

Technically yes. I can see every student’s score in MTSS Panorama.

Right - the school/teachers can see them, but I am under the impression that they do not have permission to share the scores, right?

that’s really not right. if they are already making decisions based on the scores, I need to be able to see them too.

Why don’t you lobby OSSE to develop an online portal for releasing scores, similar to the College Board portal? Then we can spend a lot of tax dollars on a contractor to build one.

NP they don’t really have to do all that. They can upload the physical report into Aspen like report cards. Save a lot of postage.

Schools don't have the physical reports yet. There are spreadsheets with all of the student data. I suppose those could be parsed and just the performance level loaded for each student.

For what it's worth, my school isn't making decisions on individual students (yet) based on the scores. Instead, the decisions being made are based on hearing perspectives from teachers on what worked, what resources are needed, what PD etc to improve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://app.box.com/s/gprj6zadfk6a9d1w4527e69bwf0zf2rk

I know dc is full of people who know what to do with data in a spreadsheet like this. Can someone please turn this into information my simple brain can understand!?

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

This is a great dashboard. Very interesting to see YOY results as well as results compared to the pre-COVID baseline.

However, this dashboard doesn't really tell you much about picking a school because you have to take other factors into account and drill down further. For instance, you should look at Brent and Maury scores for 4th grade since a lot of high-scoring kids leave for Basis, Latin etc. for 5th. Similarly, you should look at 9th grade for Basis, Latin, DCI, etc. since these schools start in 5th or 6th grade and you want to see the scores of kids after they have been at those schools for a few years.

However, there are some interesting details here. For example, for 4+, Banneker math scores are 38% lower than 2019 and Walls math scores are 16.7% lower. Apparently, learning math during the pandemic was a challenge even for normally high-achieving kids.

No, high achievers aren’t taking PARCC math at Banneker. High achievers are past algebra by high school.

Huh? High achievers (as used in the previous post) are high school kids who would get a 4 or 5 on the PARCC, which is administered in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://app.box.com/s/gprj6zadfk6a9d1w4527e69bwf0zf2rk

I know dc is full of people who know what to do with data in a spreadsheet like this. Can someone please turn this into information my simple brain can understand!?

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

This is a great dashboard. Very interesting to see YOY results as well as results compared to the pre-COVID baseline.

However, this dashboard doesn't really tell you much about picking a school because you have to take other factors into account and drill down further. For instance, you should look at Brent and Maury scores for 4th grade since a lot of high-scoring kids leave for Basis, Latin etc. for 5th. Similarly, you should look at 9th grade for Basis, Latin, DCI, etc. since these schools start in 5th or 6th grade and you want to see the scores of kids after they have been at those schools for a few years.

However, there are some interesting details here. For example, for 4+, Banneker math scores are 38% lower than 2019 and Walls math scores are 16.7% lower. Apparently, learning math during the pandemic was a challenge even for normally high-achieving kids.

No, high achievers aren’t taking PARCC math at Banneker. High achievers are past algebra by high school.

Huh? High achievers (as used in the previous post) are high school kids who would get a 4 or 5 on the PARCC, which is administered in high school.

The PARCC is only Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry. High achievers, after 9th grade, are not in those classes. They're in pre-calc, calc, statistics, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://app.box.com/s/gprj6zadfk6a9d1w4527e69bwf0zf2rk

I know dc is full of people who know what to do with data in a spreadsheet like this. Can someone please turn this into information my simple brain can understand!?

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

This is a great dashboard. Very interesting to see YOY results as well as results compared to the pre-COVID baseline.

However, this dashboard doesn't really tell you much about picking a school because you have to take other factors into account and drill down further. For instance, you should look at Brent and Maury scores for 4th grade since a lot of high-scoring kids leave for Basis, Latin etc. for 5th. Similarly, you should look at 9th grade for Basis, Latin, DCI, etc. since these schools start in 5th or 6th grade and you want to see the scores of kids after they have been at those schools for a few years.

However, there are some interesting details here. For example, for 4+, Banneker math scores are 38% lower than 2019 and Walls math scores are 16.7% lower. Apparently, learning math during the pandemic was a challenge even for normally high-achieving kids.

Pre-pandemic, both Banneker and Walls used PARCC scores in admissions. Post-pandemic, that’s not allowed. That’s why math PARCC scores fell at both schools. (English PARCC scores are easier to predict from a writing sample and/or interview.)

That could be be part of it, although I doubt the 5-minute student-led Walls interview really substitutes for an ELA PARCC score. Moreover, given the GPA cut-off at Walls, presumably all these kids had straight As/A-s in math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://app.box.com/s/gprj6zadfk6a9d1w4527e69bwf0zf2rk

I know dc is full of people who know what to do with data in a spreadsheet like this. Can someone please turn this into information my simple brain can understand!?

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

This is a great dashboard. Very interesting to see YOY results as well as results compared to the pre-COVID baseline.

However, this dashboard doesn't really tell you much about picking a school because you have to take other factors into account and drill down further. For instance, you should look at Brent and Maury scores for 4th grade since a lot of high-scoring kids leave for Basis, Latin etc. for 5th. Similarly, you should look at 9th grade for Basis, Latin, DCI, etc. since these schools start in 5th or 6th grade and you want to see the scores of kids after they have been at those schools for a few years.

However, there are some interesting details here. For example, for 4+, Banneker math scores are 38% lower than 2019 and Walls math scores are 16.7% lower. Apparently, learning math during the pandemic was a challenge even for normally high-achieving kids.

No, high achievers aren’t taking PARCC math at Banneker. High achievers are past algebra by high school.

Huh? High achievers (as used in the previous post) are high school kids who would get a 4 or 5 on the PARCC, which is administered in high school.

The PARCC is only Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry. High achievers, after 9th grade, are not in those classes. They're in pre-calc, calc, statistics, etc.

Apparently, you have a different definition of "high achiever" than used by the PP.

[Anonymous]

Looking at the Empower K12 dashboard, I'm curious--what do people think about the idea of using PARCC scores for at-risk kids as a marker of how well a school is doing at educating its kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower K12 dashboard, I'm curious--what do people think about the idea of using PARCC scores for at-risk kids as a marker of how well a school is doing at educating its kids?

I find that very useful, I think it is important to see how well at risk students are doing for a multitude of reasons. However, it seems on this forum that people are more concerned with which class their child can be in and how high achieving every student in each class is.
I don't know if it will actually change anybody's mind, but there is a lot of research about the benefits of classrooms NOT having all kids at the same level all the time. It is easy to find online for those interested, I pasted one link below.

https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-socioeconomically-and-racially-integrated-schools-and-classrooms/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower K12 dashboard, I'm curious--what do people think about the idea of using PARCC scores for at-risk kids as a marker of how well a school is doing at educating its kids?

I think it's relevant definitely, but not the whole story. For instance, I don't think it would help me pick a school for my kids. Some schools are good at educating at risk kids by basically ignoring high achieving ones/teaching classes below grade level with limited upwards differentiation. There are schools that are absolutely the reverse. Choosing to only teach to the bottom of the class is a good way to improve those kids scores, but not good for my kids who needs on or ahead of grade level work. Schools should teach to both groups, but there is absolutely a balance and it can be hard to do both. On the flip side, for a school with a tiny at-risk population, it can be easy to allocate them tons of resources; for a school with a larger at risk population but no T1 funds (e.g., a school that lost T1 funds in the last few years), it can be much harder. I would want to send my at risk kid to the former school rather than the latter, but that doesn't mean it's doing a better job of educating all kids (see first point about balancing resources; especially relevant if more limited relative to need).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower K12 dashboard, I'm curious--what do people think about the idea of using PARCC scores for at-risk kids as a marker of how well a school is doing at educating its kids?

I find that very useful, I think it is important to see how well at risk students are doing for a multitude of reasons. However, it seems on this forum that people are more concerned with which class their child can be in and how high achieving every student in each class is.
I don't know if it will actually change anybody's mind, but there is a lot of research about the benefits of classrooms NOT having all kids at the same level all the time. It is easy to find online for those interested, I pasted one link below.

https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-socioeconomically-and-racially-integrated-schools-and-classrooms/

Hon. That article is about economic and racial integration. It is not *at all* about the impact of being in a classroom with massive ability and academic preparedness disparities. That is what people are talking about.

Nobody's pushing for literally all kids at the same academic level all the time. But we do want the school to be honest with us about the actual content of the class, and not tell us they are teaching at a certain level or a certain content when they actually aren't.

[Anonymous]

Is there an article on the benefits of being incessantly lied and b*lsh*tted to by DCPS? Or anything about the benefits of being in a classroom where most of the kids are several years below grade level? Do tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://app.box.com/s/gprj6zadfk6a9d1w4527e69bwf0zf2rk

I know dc is full of people who know what to do with data in a spreadsheet like this. Can someone please turn this into information my simple brain can understand!?

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

This is a great dashboard. Very interesting to see YOY results as well as results compared to the pre-COVID baseline.

However, this dashboard doesn't really tell you much about picking a school because you have to take other factors into account and drill down further. For instance, you should look at Brent and Maury scores for 4th grade since a lot of high-scoring kids leave for Basis, Latin etc. for 5th. Similarly, you should look at 9th grade for Basis, Latin, DCI, etc. since these schools start in 5th or 6th grade and you want to see the scores of kids after they have been at those schools for a few years.

However, there are some interesting details here. For example, for 4+, Banneker math scores are 38% lower than 2019 and Walls math scores are 16.7% lower. Apparently, learning math during the pandemic was a challenge even for normally high-achieving kids.

Pre-pandemic, both Banneker and Walls used PARCC scores in admissions. Post-pandemic, that’s not allowed. That’s why math PARCC scores fell at both schools. (English PARCC scores are easier to predict from a writing sample and/or interview.)

That could be be part of it, although I doubt the 5-minute student-led Walls interview really substitutes for an ELA PARCC score. Moreover, given the GPA cut-off at Walls, presumably all these kids had straight As/A-s in math.

You hardly need to be testing proficient to get an A in 7th grade math in DCPS. But sure, both the pandemic and the changed admissions standards likely play a role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower K12 dashboard, I'm curious--what do people think about the idea of using PARCC scores for at-risk kids as a marker of how well a school is doing at educating its kids?

Nah.

Hard pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower K12 dashboard, I'm curious--what do people think about the idea of using PARCC scores for at-risk kids as a marker of how well a school is doing at educating its kids?

Nah.

Hard pass.

Here are the top five middle and high schools, by portion of at-risk students scoring 3+ on the math PARCC:
Banneker (75%)
Walls (73%)
McKinley (64%)
Basis (58%)
Deal (50%)

If would really take a hard pass on all five of those schools, you’re a real outlier on this page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower K12 dashboard, I'm curious--what do people think about the idea of using PARCC scores for at-risk kids as a marker of how well a school is doing at educating its kids?

Nah.

Hard pass.

Here are the top five middle and high schools, by portion of at-risk students scoring 3+ on the math PARCC:
Banneker (75%)
Walls (73%)
McKinley (64%)
Basis (58%)
Deal (50%)

If would really take a hard pass on all five of those schools, you’re a real outlier on this page.

Now do the ranking by not at-risk students. If not identical, why would the former matter more than the latter (the original question)? Especially at schools where the latter is a MUCH bigger slice of the pie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LEA results embargoed until tomorrow Individual reports in Sept

What is LEA?