MD 2022-2023 MCAP Results: Only 14% proficient ELA, 13 proficient math at state-level; MCPS 13.5% ELA, 13.7% math

[Anonymous]

Please change the name of this thread! 2024 results are not available anywhere and won’t be for some time. This all refers to 2021-2022 testing data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like bad tests. Maybe we should just stop testing and focus on learning?

It sounds like bad tests because the scores are low???

And scores are low because kids don't take them seriously. Teachers tell them not to worry about the tests because they don't impact their grades so why should they care?

I agree with you. This apathy toward the test on the part of students was actually brought up in the board testimony.

Teachers really need to be careful with their words. Even if they personally don't find value in the tests, or if they talk down the tests because they want to alleviate stress or anxiety from the tests for the students, enforcing a self-sabotage mindset by telling kids "The test doesn't matter" is wildly unhealthy and only ends up hurting and damaging the school environment, which trickles back down to the them anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please change the name of this thread! 2024 results are not available anywhere and won’t be for some time. This all refers to 2021-2022 testing data.

The thread title reflects what is in the article and report:





It says "2022-2023," not 2021-2022 testing data as you are claiming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please change the name of this thread! 2024 results are not available anywhere and won’t be for some time. This all refers to 2021-2022 testing data.

The thread title reflects what is in the article and report:





It says "2022-2023," not 2021-2022 testing data as you are claiming.

Well then the news article is wrong. Kids literally just finished taking these tests and it is not physically possible for results to be back yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please change the name of this thread! 2024 results are not available anywhere and won’t be for some time. This all refers to 2021-2022 testing data.

The thread title reflects what is in the article and report:





It says "2022-2023," not 2021-2022 testing data as you are claiming.

Well then the news article is wrong. Kids literally just finished taking these tests and it is not physically possible for results to be back yet.

They finished in april. It was on a computer. So yes its possible to get the data back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please change the name of this thread! 2024 results are not available anywhere and won’t be for some time. This all refers to 2021-2022 testing data.

The thread title reflects what is in the article and report:





It says "2022-2023," not 2021-2022 testing data as you are claiming.

Well then the news article is wrong. Kids literally just finished taking these tests and it is not physically possible for results to be back yet.

They finished in april. It was on a computer. So yes its possible to get the data back

That was my thought as well. And it tracks with MSDE giving out preliminary data at the state-level, and then reporting individual and more specific data a few months later.

So this is probably preliminary data, with more specifics to come later, either this summer or early next school year.

[Anonymous]

Who cares as the cold hard fact is you bought a house in a Non W school what do you expect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The numbers don’t make sense. How if it possible that 14.4 percent are proficient in ELA overall, but 24 percent of economically disadvantaged and 53 percent of more affluent students for the same? How does that add up to 14.4 percent?? It doesn’t.

Ok. Clearly your math proficiency also isn't up to par. Did you miss the coursework on statistics and percentages?

The economically advantaged group is a SUBSET of the overall Maryland student population.

The blended rate of ALL MD students is 14.4% ELA proficiency. However, if you EXTRACT only the "economically-advantaged" students, THAT group has a 53% ELA proficiency.

They are distinct data points and you're not supposed to add them up to equal 100%....

Oh my goodness!!!! Before you start being condescending it would help if you know what you are talking about. I interpret data for a living and this data, as presented is incomprehensible. I never suggested that the numbers needed to add up to 100 but if you had any clue about stats you’d see that they don’t MAKE SENSE.

Perhaps there is another category between economically disadvantaged and and economically advantaged, but how is it possible that both economically disadvantaged and economically advantaged kids have proficiency rates that are HIGHER than the overall average? If that’s actually true then it’s great news for the economically disadvantaged group which would typically have a lower rate of achievement than the general population. There is zero chance that this is the case.

If you click the link you’ll see that there are graphics included which fail to identify what the economic numbers refer to. I assume it’s a different metric than the 14.4 percent, but the reporter obviously doesn’t understand stats (just like you) and has conflated the two. Perhaps instead of the percentage provident it’s the number both proficient and approaching proficiency?

It’s a terrible article that doesn’t make sense in multiple places. Unfortunately many reporters misstate statistics so this isn’t uncommon, but this is a particularly egregious example. (As is the fact that you got the data so wrong and were so sanctimonious in making your error). Clearly most of DCUM is willing to accept any numbers without questioning.

Where is PP? Am I really the only person who actually read the article critically? The data is so poorly presented, I’d question anything it claims. It’s clearly inaccurate in multiple places.

[Anonymous]

This report from MSDE which shows a gap between Economically-Disadvantaged Student Group, which is a student group designation that was created recently with ESSA, suggests that Economically Advantaged vs. Disadvantaged are not the only two student groups represented in this data: https://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/2021/0928/SpotlightOnEconomicallyDisadvantaged.pdf

If anyone knows the full list of student group categories that the MSDE uses, that would clarify things. But clearly, a MD student can be economically-advantaged but also still qualify for FARMS. So these student groups are not necessarily mutually exclusive, because the criteria for the groups come from different legislations or initiatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This report from MSDE which shows a gap between Economically-Disadvantaged Student Group, which is a student group designation that was created recently with ESSA, suggests that Economically Advantaged vs. Disadvantaged are not the only two student groups represented in this data: https://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/2021/0928/SpotlightOnEconomicallyDisadvantaged.pdf

If anyone knows the full list of student group categories that the MSDE uses, that would clarify things. But clearly, a MD student can be economically-advantaged but also still qualify for FARMS. So these student groups are not necessarily mutually exclusive, because the criteria for the groups come from different legislations or initiatives.

It is inconceivable that the economically disadvantaged group would fare substantially better than the population overall. If that was actually the fact it would be big news and for any decent journalist would be the top headline here. It’s clear that this data is sloppily presented and misunderstood by the reporters who could do with a stats course and some lessons in analyzing data critically.

[Anonymous]

Maybe there are 3 economic groups: the disadvantaged, the advantaged, and the middle. Otherwise the numbers don’t add up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe there are 3 economic groups: the disadvantaged, the advantaged, and the middle. Otherwise the numbers don’t add up.

There have to be more than three groups though, because even FARMS and Economically Disadvantaged do not completely overlapped.

The report I linked to says that in 2020-2021, there were 246,780 MD students that met the Economically-Disadvantaged criteria, but there were 382,118 MD students that met the FARMS criteria.

So there's probably a variety of ways to slice the student groups up, depending on these statuses and it's clear that these student group statuses aren't mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe there are 3 economic groups: the disadvantaged, the advantaged, and the middle. Otherwise the numbers don’t add up.

Again, either way they don’t add up. There is no way that the economically disadvantaged performed substantially BETTER than the general population (of which they are a part). It’s not possible. The stats as cited in this article are wrong for ELA but it’s unclear which part is wrong, whether it’s the overall number or one of the subgroups. Whatever the error is it casts doubt on the entire badly written article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evidence of Learning presentation to BOe
https://mcpsmd.new.swagit.com/videos/222933

K-12 Comprehensive math plan update
https://mcpsmd.new.swagit.com/videos/230561

Not sure if you posted this in support of MCPS, but I did rewatch the math plan update.

As usual, MCPS talked around the problem, but board member Wolff got to the heart of it when she basically got them to admit that part of the reason for the poor math proficiency scores is because too many MCPS kids are being pushed into Algebra 1 early, which requires compacted math, which means they're not building and getting the appropriate amount of exposure and time to master those foundational skills.

This means the problem is on two parties:

1. Parents: We need to stop treating 7th or 8th grade Algebra 1 as the benchmark. Many of our kids aren't ready for it. (Not sure why this is revolutionary, Algebra 1 in 9th grade was completely the norm back when I was in MCPS). Stop pushing your schools to put your kid in "accelerated math" programs unless the test scores demonstrate they have a genuine need at that level. It's great that you believe in your baby's potential, but there's no rush. 9th grade Algebra 1 is ON TRACK, not behind.

2. Admin: Stop cowtowing to pushy parents. Trust the teachers' evaluations and stop allowing any of your staff in the counseling office or team leads to parrot things like "Your child isn't college ready unless they take Algebra 1 by 8th grade."

As usual, it looks like we have created our own problem and now we have to untangle ourselves from a web of our own making.

Are you claiming that the students in 7/8 Algebra are scoring lower on MCAP than the students in 9 algebra?
Is that comparison reported somewhere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe there are 3 economic groups: the disadvantaged, the advantaged, and the middle. Otherwise the numbers don’t add up.

There have to be more than three groups though, because even FARMS and Economically Disadvantaged do not completely overlapped.

The report I linked to says that in 2020-2021, there were 246,780 MD students that met the Economically-Disadvantaged criteria, but there were 382,118 MD students that met the FARMS criteria.

So there's probably a variety of ways to slice the student groups up, depending on these statuses and it's clear that these student group statuses aren't mutually exclusive.

There's no way for there to be more than two groups, though, unless they are using population-level data by zip code. Maryland knows which kids qualify for FARMS, but they don't know anything beyond that. So, on paper, there is no difference between a poor kid who just never filed for FARMS and a wealthy kid in Potomac.