PARCC scores not aligning with SES

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DP. SES is socioeconomic status. So yes, SES by definition is not based solely in income.

Either share what criteria YOU include in SES or stop posting on the thread.

NP here. Why is this a difficult concept for you?
Here is an example. I have friends who live in Silver spring. One parent is a grad student, after having a career in another field. The other works in the arts. At the moment, their income is fairly low. However, both come from UMC families, have college degrees, have had higher incomes in the past, and are very involved in their child's education. But on income alone, they would qualify for FARMS. But they would generally not be considered to be of a lower SES. Just temporarily of lower income.

[Anonymous]

Income = dollars

SES = Combination of education, income, professional prestige, and some nebulous stuff about values and expectations

[Anonymous]

Income = dollars

SES = Combination of education, income, professional prestige, and some nebulous stuff about values and expectations

School systems do not collect data on nebulous stuff about values, they collect data on who opts into or out of FARMS. The Phd artist with a low temporary income is probably not filing for assistance. If she is then she's rare and not enough to screw the data and if anything would serve to falsely raise the scores of the FARMS category not lower it.

FARMS data is regularly and appropriately used as a proxy measure for low SES.

There is research that shows a correlation between poverty and poor school performance. Poverty is consistently shown to be a stronger factor than any other influencer. Whites living in poverty score low. Wealthy whites score high. AA living in poverty score low. Wealthy AA score higher on tests. Asian immigrants are the only ethnic group that breaks this pattern.

The discrepancy comes in by assuming that anyone not living in poverty will do just fine in the MCPS school system. The PARCC scores break this myth by showing large failure rates above FARMS rate in many schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I bet those kids go to schools with lower FARMS rates. Once you hit a tipping point, those kids aren't doing well. A school full of poor kids isn't going to do well.

FARMs is a measure of household income, not socioeconomic status. I wish that people would stop conflating the two. I'm talking to the OP, not to you, PP.

What's the difference between income and SES?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_status

Income is one factor but not the only one used to determine SES. A PhD student or medical resident might have low income but higher SES based on occupation and education.

Great example. In our Silver Spring neighborhood, there are a fair number of recent immigrants and refugees from East Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. These are often folks who were well-educated back home, and some are here are special visas for individuals who worked with US troops. So, they are low income because their specific skills aren't in particularly high demand in the United States in 2018, but they expect a lot from their kids, create a stable home, and in all other ways "share the values" of any other family in the area.

Same is true of Ethiopian students. Many of the students are very well educated in their home country have beautiful handwriting and come to school ready to learn and are well-behaved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Income = dollars

SES = Combination of education, income, professional prestige, and some nebulous stuff about values and expectations

School systems do not collect data on nebulous stuff about values, they collect data on who opts into or out of FARMS. The Phd artist with a low temporary income is probably not filing for assistance. If she is then she's rare and not enough to screw the data and if anything would serve to falsely raise the scores of the FARMS category not lower it.

FARMS data is regularly and appropriately used as a proxy measure for low SES.

There is research that shows a correlation between poverty and poor school performance. Poverty is consistently shown to be a stronger factor than any other influencer. Whites living in poverty score low. Wealthy whites score high. AA living in poverty score low. Wealthy AA score higher on tests. Asian immigrants are the only ethnic group that breaks this pattern.

The discrepancy comes in by assuming that anyone not living in poverty will do just fine in the MCPS school system. The PARCC scores break this myth by showing large failure rates above FARMS rate in many schools.

Free and reduced meals is a measure of low household income. That's it. Yes, people may use it as a proxy measure for socioeconomic status, but it is not a measure of socioeconomic status. What the OP meant is: PARCC scores not aligning with household income (specifically, low household income vs. not-low household income).

And I know graduate students with children who qualified for FARMs, used SNAP, etc. I don't know why you think a graduate student wouldn't use these programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Income = dollars

SES = Combination of education, income, professional prestige, and some nebulous stuff about values and expectations

School systems do not collect data on nebulous stuff about values, they collect data on who opts into or out of FARMS. The Phd artist with a low temporary income is probably not filing for assistance. If she is then she's rare and not enough to screw the data and if anything would serve to falsely raise the scores of the FARMS category not lower it.

FARMS data is regularly and appropriately used as a proxy measure for low SES.

There is research that shows a correlation between poverty and poor school performance. Poverty is consistently shown to be a stronger factor than any other influencer. Whites living in poverty score low. Wealthy whites score high. AA living in poverty score low. Wealthy AA score higher on tests. Asian immigrants are the only ethnic group that breaks this pattern.

The discrepancy comes in by assuming that anyone not living in poverty will do just fine in the MCPS school system. The PARCC scores break this myth by showing large failure rates above FARMS rate in many schools.

The scores also show some schools with higher passage rates than their FARMS rates would suggest. The scores also show white kids in mixed income schools performing as well as white kids in highly segregated schools. What this tells us is that just because some schools are rich and white, doesn't mean they are necessarily good schools with effective teaching. Also that just because schools are racially and economically integrated doesn't make them bad schools.

[Anonymous]

It's ridiculous to argue about PARCC scores. It's an awful test pasted on top of an even worse curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some posters constantly want to dismiss performance scores because they believe they only reflect SES. The PARCC scores don't align with this view and many schools with lower rates of students achieving proficiency are doing so at percentages much higher than their FARMS rates.

THank you central office and BOE!! You have solved achievement gap.

Wow, is THAT what happens when you start running a daycare at schools w free breakfast, lunch, dinner and weekend meals for most all?

When is federal Dept of Ed throwing the banquet for y'all?

You mean omitting final exams, test scores, rounding grades up to only a full A or B, weekly MAP/PARCC test practice classes, bussing in CES/magnet students to worst-performing schools, and only attempting to teach two subjects all of ES resulted in super high FARM rates and not as high proficiency rates.

THank goodness for proficiency and MoCo Community College goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some posters constantly want to dismiss performance scores because they believe they only reflect SES. The PARCC scores don't align with this view and many schools with lower rates of students achieving proficiency are doing so at percentages much higher than their FARMS rates.

I’m sorry, but I don’t really understand what you are saying? Do you mean that there are schools with, for example, 40% FARMS rate that are achieving 50%proficiency? I don’t really see that as surprising.

yep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-maryland-parcc-scores-20180828-htmlstory.html

You can look up schools here. I just looked up Rachel Carson/Quince Orchard which is an area that we are considering.

It doesn't make sense why the % of kids failing to reach proficiency is so high. RC is in the 60s (E 57-69 and M 52-70)but the FARMS rate is very low. QO is 64 for English and 13 for Algebra. NW which has many more FARMS students is almost identical.

Piney Branch is in the 40s BUT there are at least 4 times more FARMS students at PB. Blair is 54 for English and 5.0 for Algebra but again there are lots of FARMS students.

My understanding is that the Algebra scores are jacked because they are only looking at kids who take Algebra in HS. I think the "on grade level" curriculum currently has students taking Algebra in 8th grade, and many take it in 7th. They are not counted in a HS's Algebra pass rate. I'm not sure exactly how it works, just that the kids taking algebra in middle school mess up the numbers in some way.

Yes, this is a big problem for math but doesn't explain ELA. I think it is a curriculum problem. Mcps doesn't align with PARCC expectations. My child consistently gets high 4/low 5 on Math in ES. Always high 3 on ELA. Always has trouble with the writing part according to the report. Reads above level but can't write. I plan to get a tutor this year.

Last year mCPS announced getting rid of PARCC (last of the majority of districts to cease using buddy buddy Pearson's PARCC test). What is the replacement going to be? Are they reverse engineering the "curriculum" to score well yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you look at Algebra 1 for middle school it gets even stranger. Algebra 1 in middle school should be kids working at grade level. The kids who are struggling should be in Math 8 not Algebra 1. If you look at where the schools fell in % of students that showed proficiency is really bad. The schools on the bottom list do not all have more than 50% FARMS kids. Many schools in the middle have FARMS rate that are pretty low.

Where is Silver Creek? This school outscored the Ws in Algebra 1.

Top Schools - over 85%
Silver Creek 93.2
Cabin John 92.7
Westland 92.7
Pyle 91.3
Hoover 87.9
Takoma Park 89.9
Frost 86.6

Middle 84.9-50
North Bethesda 84.5
Lakelands 76.6
Julius West 72.3
Rosa Parks 71.7
Rocky Hills 69
Tilden 65.4
Kingsview 54.3
Hallie Wells 52
Poole 60.9
Martin Luther King 57.6

Bottom - lower than 50% pass
Parkland 39.9
Silver Spring International 46
Clemente 43.5
Eastern 43
Briggs Chaney 42.4
Baker 46.7
Ridgeview 45.5
Newport Middle 37.9
Forest Oak 35.3
Francis Scott Key 29.3
Gaithersburg 21.3
Montgomery Middle 18.3
Neelsville 12.2
White Oak 18.3
Sligo 39.3
Banneker 20.8
Argule 31.4
Loiderman 20.3

Yikes.
Time for MATH SPECIALISTS in K-8 teaching math. Plus 2 teachers per core class or smaller class sizes. Plus hold kids and parents accountable. Plus hold back kids who are not mastering core materials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, this is a big problem for math but doesn't explain ELA. I think it is a curriculum problem. Mcps doesn't align with PARCC expectations. My child consistently gets high 4/low 5 on Math in ES. Always high 3 on ELA. Always has trouble with the writing part according to the report. Reads above level but can't write. I plan to get a tutor this year.

Last year mCPS announced getting rid of PARCC (last of the majority of districts to cease using buddy buddy Pearson's PARCC test). What is the replacement going to be? Are they reverse engineering the "curriculum" to score well yet?

Where and when did you see a MCPS announcement about getting rid of PARCC? It's not a district decision, it's a state decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, this is a big problem for math but doesn't explain ELA. I think it is a curriculum problem. Mcps doesn't align with PARCC expectations. My child consistently gets high 4/low 5 on Math in ES. Always high 3 on ELA. Always has trouble with the writing part according to the report. Reads above level but can't write. I plan to get a tutor this year.

Last year mCPS announced getting rid of PARCC (last of the majority of districts to cease using buddy buddy Pearson's PARCC test). What is the replacement going to be? Are they reverse engineering the "curriculum" to score well yet?

Where and when did you see a MCPS announcement about getting rid of PARCC? It's not a district decision, it's a state decision.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wtop.com/maryland/2018/09/maryland-wants-to-see-end-of-parcc-tests-but-whats-next/amp/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at Algebra 1 for middle school it gets even stranger. Algebra 1 in middle school should be kids working at grade level. The kids who are struggling should be in Math 8 not Algebra 1. If you look at where the schools fell in % of students that showed proficiency is really bad. The schools on the bottom list do not all have more than 50% FARMS kids. Many schools in the middle have FARMS rate that are pretty low.

Where is Silver Creek? This school outscored the Ws in Algebra 1.

Top Schools - over 85%
Silver Creek 93.2
Cabin John 92.7
Westland 92.7
Pyle 91.3
Hoover 87.9
Takoma Park 89.9
Frost 86.6

Middle 84.9-50
North Bethesda 84.5
Lakelands 76.6
Julius West 72.3
Rosa Parks 71.7
Rocky Hills 69
Tilden 65.4
Kingsview 54.3
Hallie Wells 52
Poole 60.9
Martin Luther King 57.6

Bottom - lower than 50% pass
Parkland 39.9
Silver Spring International 46
Clemente 43.5
Eastern 43
Briggs Chaney 42.4
Baker 46.7
Ridgeview 45.5
Newport Middle 37.9
Forest Oak 35.3
Francis Scott Key 29.3
Gaithersburg 21.3
Montgomery Middle 18.3
Neelsville 12.2
White Oak 18.3
Sligo 39.3
Banneker 20.8
Argule 31.4
Loiderman 20.3

Yikes.
Time for MATH SPECIALISTS in K-8 teaching math. Plus 2 teachers per core class or smaller class sizes. Plus hold kids and parents accountable. Plus hold back kids who are not mastering core materials.

This is a big issue. MCPS really doesn't want to 'hold kids back'. Honestly, it's a disservice to those kids. Let them have some extra time to actually learn the information they are supposed to. Instead of pushing them ahead.

MCPS needs to focus more on the improvement of ALL kids. Not just closing the 'achievement gap'. Show that the kids are actually learning something for all those hours they spend at school. At whatever level they need to be at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, this is a big problem for math but doesn't explain ELA. I think it is a curriculum problem. Mcps doesn't align with PARCC expectations. My child consistently gets high 4/low 5 on Math in ES. Always high 3 on ELA. Always has trouble with the writing part according to the report. Reads above level but can't write. I plan to get a tutor this year.

Last year mCPS announced getting rid of PARCC (last of the majority of districts to cease using buddy buddy Pearson's PARCC test). What is the replacement going to be? Are they reverse engineering the "curriculum" to score well yet?

Where and when did you see a MCPS announcement about getting rid of PARCC? It's not a district decision, it's a state decision.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wtop.com/maryland/2018/09/maryland-wants-to-see-end-of-parcc-tests-but-whats-next/amp/

Ah. MARYLAND is getting rid of PARCC. And replacing it with tests written by Maryland, just like we used to have. Why would you think that the new state-written tests would be better than the PARCC tests, if the previous state-written tests weren't better?