New DC School Report Cards have been posted to OSSE’s website

[Anonymous]

Top 10 Elementary
Ross Elementary School 88.3
Washington Yu Ying PCS 86.2
DC Bilingual PCS 86.2
Hyde-Addison Elementary School 84.9
Whittier Elementary School 82.7
Shepherd Elementary School 81.4
Garrison Elementary School 76.9
Stoddert Elementary School 76.1
Murch Elementary School 75.8
Janney Elementary School 74.3

Top 10 Middle
DC Prep PCS - Edgewood Middle School 83.3
Deal Middle School 77.1
The Sojourner Truth School PCS 70.6
Friendship PCS - Ideal Middle 67.2
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Middle 67.0
Washington Global PCS 66.4
DC Prep PCS - Benning Middle School 66.3
BASIS DC PCS 63.4
Center City PCS - Petworth 62.0
Center City PCS - Congress Heights 61.3

Top 10 HS
School Without Walls High School 88.7
Benjamin Banneker High School 87.9
McKinley Technology High School 84.5
Washington Latin PCS - Upper School 70.9
Duke Ellington School of the Arts 67.7
E.L. Haynes PCS - High School 64.5
BASIS DC PCS 63.4
Jackson-Reed High School 57.0
District of Columbia International School 57.3
Richard Wright PCS for Journalism and Media Arts 45.6

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

As HS metrics should be different-- what the PP was trying to say is the argument that this scoring system favors high SES schools and masks terrible schools is not valid. Ok replace "Walls" with "Ross" another school with a low at-risk %

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

As HS metrics should be different-- what the PP was trying to say is the argument that this scoring system favors high SES schools and masks terrible schools is not valid. Ok replace "Walls" with "Ross" another school with a low at-risk %

The ES and MS "growth" metric is 50% of scoring and the HS "growth" metric (which is at least growth to proficiency) is only 12.5%.

Sure, Walls and Ross score high on PARCC "growth" but they also score high on the PARCC in terms of 4s and 5s.

If you have a high-performing kid, you are not going to choose a school based on DCPS's totally skewed/subjective school "report card" methodology. If you do, you could easily end up at a school where the majority of kids are below grade level. Rather, you are going to look at whether the school has a lot of high-performing kids.

In short, if I have a kid who is getting 5s on the PARCC, I am not interested in a school where they are bringing a lot of kids up from 1 to 2 on the PARCC.

[Anonymous]

I think this stuff is more about filling out the lower spots on your lottery list. Yes I'd love to go to a school where kids are doing super well, but if that's not gonna happen, then I'd rank a school with a good MGP over a school with a poor MGP, all else equal. I do find it impressive when a school delivers a strong MGP. I don't just take DCPS' Summative score ranking as my own priority list, but I do look at the factors and I do care about MGP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

If the numbers are calculated differently for middle and high schools, then how does BASIS DC have only one number?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

As HS metrics should be different-- what the PP was trying to say is the argument that this scoring system favors high SES schools and masks terrible schools is not valid. Ok replace "Walls" with "Ross" another school with a low at-risk %

The ES and MS "growth" metric is 50% of scoring and the HS "growth" metric (which is at least growth to proficiency) is only 12.5%.

Sure, Walls and Ross score high on PARCC "growth" but they also score high on the PARCC in terms of 4s and 5s.

If you have a high-performing kid, you are not going to choose a school based on DCPS's totally skewed/subjective school "report card" methodology. If you do, you could easily end up at a school where the majority of kids are below grade level. Rather, you are going to look at whether the school has a lot of high-performing kids.

In short, if I have a kid who is getting 5s on the PARCC, I am not interested in a school where they are bringing a lot of kids up from 1 to 2 on the PARCC.

Not always 1s to 2s, many are moving kids from 3s to 4s. Again, a very negative view as a whole on schools with a high MGP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

As HS metrics should be different-- what the PP was trying to say is the argument that this scoring system favors high SES schools and masks terrible schools is not valid. Ok replace "Walls" with "Ross" another school with a low at-risk %

The ES and MS "growth" metric is 50% of scoring and the HS "growth" metric (which is at least growth to proficiency) is only 12.5%.

Sure, Walls and Ross score high on PARCC "growth" but they also score high on the PARCC in terms of 4s and 5s.

If you have a high-performing kid, you are not going to choose a school based on DCPS's totally skewed/subjective school "report card" methodology. If you do, you could easily end up at a school where the majority of kids are below grade level. Rather, you are going to look at whether the school has a lot of high-performing kids.

In short, if I have a kid who is getting 5s on the PARCC, I am not interested in a school where they are bringing a lot of kids up from 1 to 2 on the PARCC.

Not always 1s to 2s, many are moving kids from 3s to 4s. Again, a very negative view as a whole on schools with a high MGP.

This. I'm sorry but taking a low-scoring kid up to grade level doesn't happen overnight. They have to do more than a year's worth of progress for at least one year, usually two or three. It's a huge effort and requires really skillful teaching. I really don't understand why people complain that not enough kids are scoring 4s and 5s but don't think it's important to track score improvements. Strong MGP is how we get more 4s and 5s. It absolutely does matter. And if I had a child scoring a 1 or a 2 or a 3, I would care about this measure above all else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

As HS metrics should be different-- what the PP was trying to say is the argument that this scoring system favors high SES schools and masks terrible schools is not valid. Ok replace "Walls" with "Ross" another school with a low at-risk %

The ES and MS "growth" metric is 50% of scoring and the HS "growth" metric (which is at least growth to proficiency) is only 12.5%.

Sure, Walls and Ross score high on PARCC "growth" but they also score high on the PARCC in terms of 4s and 5s.

If you have a high-performing kid, you are not going to choose a school based on DCPS's totally skewed/subjective school "report card" methodology. If you do, you could easily end up at a school where the majority of kids are below grade level. Rather, you are going to look at whether the school has a lot of high-performing kids.

In short, if I have a kid who is getting 5s on the PARCC, I am not interested in a school where they are bringing a lot of kids up from 1 to 2 on the PARCC.

MGP means growth relative to how a student did last year when compared to students who had the same/similar PARCC score--
Student 1 goes to School A has a low 4 moves to a high 4
Student 2 goes to School B has a low 4 stays a low 4

School A has a more positive MGP.

Not always a focus on "moving from a 1 to a 2"-- that's a very basic analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

If the numbers are calculated differently for middle and high schools, then how does BASIS DC have only one number?

See below.

Because DC factored the ES/MS "growth" 50% as part of the overall BASIS DC score for ES/MS/HS, the school received a much lower score than if DC were just looking at BASIS's very high PARCC, etc. numbers. Walls, Banneker, J-R, and other HS didn't have this issue.

Yet another reason why this scoring methodology is dumb.

"You may be wondering about schools that serve students K–8 or 6–12. For schools that serve students within more than one grade band, we calculate summative scores for each grade band (elementary school, middle school, or high school) and then weight the frameworks according to the percent of students served. For example, if a school is K–8, and K–5 makes up 75 percent of their student population and 6–8 makes up 25 percent of their student population, the schools’ summative score will be (Elementary Framework Score x .75) + (Middle School Framework x .25)."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

As HS metrics should be different-- what the PP was trying to say is the argument that this scoring system favors high SES schools and masks terrible schools is not valid. Ok replace "Walls" with "Ross" another school with a low at-risk %

The ES and MS "growth" metric is 50% of scoring and the HS "growth" metric (which is at least growth to proficiency) is only 12.5%.

Sure, Walls and Ross score high on PARCC "growth" but they also score high on the PARCC in terms of 4s and 5s.

If you have a high-performing kid, you are not going to choose a school based on DCPS's totally skewed/subjective school "report card" methodology. If you do, you could easily end up at a school where the majority of kids are below grade level. Rather, you are going to look at whether the school has a lot of high-performing kids.

In short, if I have a kid who is getting 5s on the PARCC, I am not interested in a school where they are bringing a lot of kids up from 1 to 2 on the PARCC.

MGP means growth relative to how a student did last year when compared to students who had the same/similar PARCC score--
Student 1 goes to School A has a low 4 moves to a high 4
Student 2 goes to School B has a low 4 stays a low 4

School A has a more positive MGP.

Not always a focus on "moving from a 1 to a 2"-- that's a very basic analysis.

That is a misleading analysis.

Moving from 1 to a 2 counts more than moving from a low 4 to a high 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

As HS metrics should be different-- what the PP was trying to say is the argument that this scoring system favors high SES schools and masks terrible schools is not valid. Ok replace "Walls" with "Ross" another school with a low at-risk %

The ES and MS "growth" metric is 50% of scoring and the HS "growth" metric (which is at least growth to proficiency) is only 12.5%.

Sure, Walls and Ross score high on PARCC "growth" but they also score high on the PARCC in terms of 4s and 5s.

If you have a high-performing kid, you are not going to choose a school based on DCPS's totally skewed/subjective school "report card" methodology. If you do, you could easily end up at a school where the majority of kids are below grade level. Rather, you are going to look at whether the school has a lot of high-performing kids.

In short, if I have a kid who is getting 5s on the PARCC, I am not interested in a school where they are bringing a lot of kids up from 1 to 2 on the PARCC.

Not always 1s to 2s, many are moving kids from 3s to 4s. Again, a very negative view as a whole on schools with a high MGP.

Again, you are cherry picking what data you are looking at.

Very misleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

As HS metrics should be different-- what the PP was trying to say is the argument that this scoring system favors high SES schools and masks terrible schools is not valid. Ok replace "Walls" with "Ross" another school with a low at-risk %

The ES and MS "growth" metric is 50% of scoring and the HS "growth" metric (which is at least growth to proficiency) is only 12.5%.

Sure, Walls and Ross score high on PARCC "growth" but they also score high on the PARCC in terms of 4s and 5s.

If you have a high-performing kid, you are not going to choose a school based on DCPS's totally skewed/subjective school "report card" methodology. If you do, you could easily end up at a school where the majority of kids are below grade level. Rather, you are going to look at whether the school has a lot of high-performing kids.

In short, if I have a kid who is getting 5s on the PARCC, I am not interested in a school where they are bringing a lot of kids up from 1 to 2 on the PARCC.

Not always 1s to 2s, many are moving kids from 3s to 4s. Again, a very negative view as a whole on schools with a high MGP.

This. I'm sorry but taking a low-scoring kid up to grade level doesn't happen overnight. They have to do more than a year's worth of progress for at least one year, usually two or three. It's a huge effort and requires really skillful teaching. I really don't understand why people complain that not enough kids are scoring 4s and 5s but don't think it's important to track score improvements. Strong MGP is how we get more 4s and 5s. It absolutely does matter. And if I had a child scoring a 1 or a 2 or a 3, I would care about this measure above all else.

I don’t disagree with you, but these different interests just go to show why an aggregated score doesn’t make a tom of sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the methodology for these DC school “report cards”:

https://osse.dc.gov/blog/everything-you-need-know-about-summative-school-scores

For example, for elementary and middle school, they weight PARCC “median growth percentile” as 25% of the score and PARCC “growth to proficiency” as 25% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 20% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. So, in other words, a school where a lot of kids get their scores up from 1, 2, or 3 on the PARCC is worth much more than where kids score 4-5 on PARCC from the beginning and maintain those high scores. The other 20% of the score includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

The high school scoring rubric is a bit different. Here PARCC “growth to proficiency” is only 12.5% of the score with 4-5 on PARCC being 15% of score and 3, 4, or 5 on PARCC being 10% of the score. Graduation rate is 20% of the score, DE/AP/IB participation is 7.5%, AP/IB performance is 5%, and college preparedness is 5%. The other 25% includes English learning, absenteeism, attendance growth, and reenrollment.

As a result, you get some perhaps perverse results. Here is an example:

DC Prep Edgewood significantly outranks Deal with a 83.3% score compared to Deal’s paltry 77.1.

However, if you look at PARCC proficiency scores for Deal, 77.9% are grade level in ELA and 63.7% are grade level in math. Deal’s chronic absence rate is 15.7%

In contrast, at DC Prep Edgewood, only 37.9% are grade level at in ELA and only 31.7 % are grade level in math. The chronic absence rate at DC Prep Edgewood is 30.5%.

However, because DC Prep Edgewood showed more PARCC “growth” than Deal (that is, more kids raised their PARCC scores up from 1, 2, or 3.), the DC school report card ranks DC Prep Edgewood ahead of Deal.

In short, at least with elementary and middle school, the DC school “score cards” prioritize improvement of academic performance over actual academic results. In other words, a school where a lot of kids improve their below-grade-level work or move from below grade level to grade level is considered “better” than a school where kids consistently do grade-level and above-grade-level work.

By this logic, actual DC report cards should give As to kids that move from C-level work to B-level and Bs to kids that consistently do A-level work.

Bingo.

+1 million

Disagree, 68% of students approached, met or exceeded expectations in ELA and 63.4% in math.
Deal certainly is higher in the category of meeting expectations and above.However to me Deal falls short because they aren't able to raise kids scores as much as DC prep middle did. They receive kids on a higher level academically but fail to get them even higher.

Deal also failed to raise the scores of students with disabilities, ELL, and the ones who are economically disadvantaged.

You have to look at the big picture, cool Deal does well teaching bon bons with tutors, parental help, or who have just experienced less trauma, and have more resources.

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.

It is for parents as well, why would you want to send your kid to Deal for example if your child has an IEP AND needs significant academic support? They do not move their IEP students, ELL, or economically disadvantaged students.

If you want your child to stay at the same level then Deal will keep them there. If you have an A student who isn’t any of the above, they will very likely stay there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

No.

The criteria for high schools are totally different than for elementary and middle schools.

As HS metrics should be different-- what the PP was trying to say is the argument that this scoring system favors high SES schools and masks terrible schools is not valid. Ok replace "Walls" with "Ross" another school with a low at-risk %

The ES and MS "growth" metric is 50% of scoring and the HS "growth" metric (which is at least growth to proficiency) is only 12.5%.

Sure, Walls and Ross score high on PARCC "growth" but they also score high on the PARCC in terms of 4s and 5s.

If you have a high-performing kid, you are not going to choose a school based on DCPS's totally skewed/subjective school "report card" methodology. If you do, you could easily end up at a school where the majority of kids are below grade level. Rather, you are going to look at whether the school has a lot of high-performing kids.

In short, if I have a kid who is getting 5s on the PARCC, I am not interested in a school where they are bringing a lot of kids up from 1 to 2 on the PARCC.

MGP means growth relative to how a student did last year when compared to students who had the same/similar PARCC score--
Student 1 goes to School A has a low 4 moves to a high 4
Student 2 goes to School B has a low 4 stays a low 4

School A has a more positive MGP.

Not always a focus on "moving from a 1 to a 2"-- that's a very basic analysis.

That is a misleading analysis.

Moving from 1 to a 2 counts more than moving from a low 4 to a high 4.

Not true at all. Depends how the kids with similar scores from the previous years perform on a current assessment- it’s a cohorted data analysis model. A school with a 70 MGP means that 70% of their students outperformed students from across the city who had similar scores the previous year. That is an extremely high MGP.