PARCC Comparison for MIDDLE SCHOOLS in MoCo and Upper Northwest

[Anonymous]

People, please don't misunderstand statistics speak for racism. Granted, it doesn't sound like normal english, but what the person is saying is not racist and is actually a good analysis of the data.

[Anonymous]

Would the schools perform similarly if the Bethesda schools had the same demographics as Deal and Hardy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, there is a huge huge assumption underlying your post -- that demographic categories are monolithic. You are assuming that SES and cultural capital holds constant across the demographic groupings in the data. It's an interesting way to crunch the data but it's not standard for the ed. field.

I don't understand this criticism. OP is only assuming subgroups are similar across the schools. That is, white students at Deal are similar to white students at Pyle, Westland and Hardy, or that Asian students are comparable across these four schools. This is reasonable given the schools being compared are all within three miles or so of the DC-MD border. They're all within a four mile radius from Westmoreland Circle.

+1

It is not reasonable to assume nationwide that all white kids are similar. White kids in appalachia versus white kids at prep school on the upper east side, etc.

But when comparing the DC area schools that OP compared, it's fair enough to treat the racial demographic as a broad proxy. It's infortunate that this is appropriate, says a lot about racial inequality in DC. But it's appropriate.

I get what the first poster is saying. OP could have avoided any confusion by stating outright this analysis was only useful when comparing scores of wealthy white children, not all children.

Ha! Yes, it probably *is* appropriate to assume that the white kids in the analysis are comparable. Is that actually what the analysis is for? That hadn't actually occurred to me, but I can see how there would be many many people on DCUM for whom that would be the primary question in their minds. Ouch.

What's your point? It's also safe to assume that the black kids are comparable across the MD-DC border as OP has done. And the asians, and the latinos. The point of OP's analysis is that in the DC region, for whatever reasons, there are racial differences in test scores. Race is a statistically powerful predictor of test score performance in our city. Therefore differences in racial composition across schools leads to misleading comparisons of aggregate test scores between schools. The OP has normalized the data to show us how the schools would perform if they all had the same set of students. And what we see is that Deal looks great on that measure. Which tells us that the instruction etc at Deal is just as good as say Pyle and the difference in test scores can be almost completely explained by differences in demographics.

If that was the case the non-white kids at Deal would be scoring so great, which they are not. Just because one race is scoring great doesn't mean it is attributed to the teaching though I do think Deal teachers are great. You can't make that assumption as the kids could be high scoring regardless of where they went.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, there is a huge huge assumption underlying your post -- that demographic categories are monolithic. You are assuming that SES and cultural capital holds constant across the demographic groupings in the data. It's an interesting way to crunch the data but it's not standard for the ed. field.

I don't understand this criticism. OP is only assuming subgroups are similar across the schools. That is, white students at Deal are similar to white students at Pyle, Westland and Hardy, or that Asian students are comparable across these four schools. This is reasonable given the schools being compared are all within three miles or so of the DC-MD border. They're all within a four mile radius from Westmoreland Circle.

+1

It is not reasonable to assume nationwide that all white kids are similar. White kids in appalachia versus white kids at prep school on the upper east side, etc.

But when comparing the DC area schools that OP compared, it's fair enough to treat the racial demographic as a broad proxy. It's infortunate that this is appropriate, says a lot about racial inequality in DC. But it's appropriate.

I get what the first poster is saying. OP could have avoided any confusion by stating outright this analysis was only useful when comparing scores of wealthy white children, not all children.

Ha! Yes, it probably *is* appropriate to assume that the white kids in the analysis are comparable. Is that actually what the analysis is for? That hadn't actually occurred to me, but I can see how there would be many many people on DCUM for whom that would be the primary question in their minds. Ouch.

What's your point? It's also safe to assume that the black kids are comparable across the MD-DC border as OP has done. And the asians, and the latinos. The point of OP's analysis is that in the DC region, for whatever reasons, there are racial differences in test scores. Race is a statistically powerful predictor of test score performance in our city. Therefore differences in racial composition across schools leads to misleading comparisons of aggregate test scores between schools. The OP has normalized the data to show us how the schools would perform if they all had the same set of students. And what we see is that Deal looks great on that measure. Which tells us that the instruction etc at Deal is just as good as say Pyle and the difference in test scores can be almost completely explained by differences in demographics.

I'm the OP. The last reply above is exactly on-point.

There was a request for a similar "analysis" of the 2016 data. I will do that when the scores are available. Hopefully -- i.e., crossing one's fingers (or pressing one's thumbs for the Europeans among us) -- the data will be rich enough to perform some cursory grade-level analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, there is a huge huge assumption underlying your post -- that demographic categories are monolithic. You are assuming that SES and cultural capital holds constant across the demographic groupings in the data. It's an interesting way to crunch the data but it's not standard for the ed. field.

I don't understand this criticism. OP is only assuming subgroups are similar across the schools. That is, white students at Deal are similar to white students at Pyle, Westland and Hardy, or that Asian students are comparable across these four schools. This is reasonable given the schools being compared are all within three miles or so of the DC-MD border. They're all within a four mile radius from Westmoreland Circle.

+1

It is not reasonable to assume nationwide that all white kids are similar. White kids in appalachia versus white kids at prep school on the upper east side, etc.

But when comparing the DC area schools that OP compared, it's fair enough to treat the racial demographic as a broad proxy. It's infortunate that this is appropriate, says a lot about racial inequality in DC. But it's appropriate.

I get what the first poster is saying. OP could have avoided any confusion by stating outright this analysis was only useful when comparing scores of wealthy white children, not all children.

Ha! Yes, it probably *is* appropriate to assume that the white kids in the analysis are comparable. Is that actually what the analysis is for? That hadn't actually occurred to me, but I can see how there would be many many people on DCUM for whom that would be the primary question in their minds. Ouch.

What's your point? It's also safe to assume that the black kids are comparable across the MD-DC border as OP has done. And the asians, and the latinos. The point of OP's analysis is that in the DC region, for whatever reasons, there are racial differences in test scores. Race is a statistically powerful predictor of test score performance in our city. Therefore differences in racial composition across schools leads to misleading comparisons of aggregate test scores between schools. The OP has normalized the data to show us how the schools would perform if they all had the same set of students. And what we see is that Deal looks great on that measure. Which tells us that the instruction etc at Deal is just as good as say Pyle and the difference in test scores can be almost completely explained by differences in demographics.

I'm the OP. The last reply above is exactly on-point.

There was a request for a similar "analysis" of the 2016 data. I will do that when the scores are available. Hopefully -- i.e., crossing one's fingers (or pressing one's thumbs for the Europeans among us) -- the data will be rich enough to perform some cursory grade-level analysis.

Looking forward to it. Hopefully more granular grade-level data will be available at the MS levels for each of the major subgroups. My DC is inbound for Hardy and word on the street is that more and more inbound parents have been/will be sending their child to Hardy. Although it may be too soon to tell, it would be interesting to see the impact, if any, of this trend on the data.

[Anonymous]

Just stumbled on this thread. Good stuff, OP. Interesting read.

Sam2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just stumbled on this thread. Good stuff, OP. Interesting read.

Sam2

sorry -- lost me at this:

"There are plenty of good schools in DCPS. I acknowledged this yesterday when saying that I view 95 out of the 120 DCPS schools as abject failures. This leaves 25 functional schools, a number far larger than just those in upper northwest."

grouping all multi-race students together as a single entity is equally ham fisted, but a single year of PARCC data does not qualify a schools as "abject failure". If nothing else that's a serious sample size issue. Not that it was in scope of that analysis, but OP should consider controlling for poverty and at-risk factors before drawing such an odious blanket conclusion about such a large pool of schools. It seriously undermines OP's credibility however many ditto heads encourage this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, there is a huge huge assumption underlying your post -- that demographic categories are monolithic. You are assuming that SES and cultural capital holds constant across the demographic groupings in the data. It's an interesting way to crunch the data but it's not standard for the ed. field.

I don't understand this criticism. OP is only assuming subgroups are similar across the schools. That is, white students at Deal are similar to white students at Pyle, Westland and Hardy, or that Asian students are comparable across these four schools. This is reasonable given the schools being compared are all within three miles or so of the DC-MD border. They're all within a four mile radius from Westmoreland Circle.

+1

It is not reasonable to assume nationwide that all white kids are similar. White kids in appalachia versus white kids at prep school on the upper east side, etc.

But when comparing the DC area schools that OP compared, it's fair enough to treat the racial demographic as a broad proxy. It's infortunate that this is appropriate, says a lot about racial inequality in DC. But it's appropriate.

I get what the first poster is saying. OP could have avoided any confusion by stating outright this analysis was only useful when comparing scores of wealthy white children, not all children.

Ha! Yes, it probably *is* appropriate to assume that the white kids in the analysis are comparable. Is that actually what the analysis is for? That hadn't actually occurred to me, but I can see how there would be many many people on DCUM for whom that would be the primary question in their minds. Ouch.

What's your point? It's also safe to assume that the black kids are comparable across the MD-DC border as OP has done. And the asians, and the latinos. The point of OP's analysis is that in the DC region, for whatever reasons, there are racial differences in test scores. Race is a statistically powerful predictor of test score performance in our city. Therefore differences in racial composition across schools leads to misleading comparisons of aggregate test scores between schools. The OP has normalized the data to show us how the schools would perform if they all had the same set of students. And what we see is that Deal looks great on that measure. Which tells us that the instruction etc at Deal is just as good as say Pyle and the difference in test scores can be almost completely explained by differences in demographics.

I'm the OP. The last reply above is exactly on-point.

There was a request for a similar "analysis" of the 2016 data. I will do that when the scores are available. Hopefully -- i.e., crossing one's fingers (or pressing one's thumbs for the Europeans among us) -- the data will be rich enough to perform some cursory grade-level analysis.

Looking forward to it. Hopefully more granular grade-level data will be available at the MS levels for each of the major subgroups. My DC is inbound for Hardy and word on the street is that more and more inbound parents have been/will be sending their child to Hardy. Although it may be too soon to tell, it would be interesting to see the impact, if any, of this trend on the data.

+1.

Let's just ignore the stupid haters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just stumbled on this thread. Good stuff, OP. Interesting read.

Sam2

sorry -- lost me at this:

"There are plenty of good schools in DCPS. I acknowledged this yesterday when saying that I view 95 out of the 120 DCPS schools as abject failures. This leaves 25 functional schools, a number far larger than just those in upper northwest."

grouping all multi-race students together as a single entity is equally ham fisted, but a single year of PARCC data does not qualify a schools as "abject failure". If nothing else that's a serious sample size issue. Not that it was in scope of that analysis, but OP should consider controlling for poverty and at-risk factors before drawing such an odious blanket conclusion about such a large pool of schools. It seriously undermines OP's credibility however many ditto heads encourage this.

I'm the OP. I don't object to this response, and I caution others against portraying you as a hater.

I will explain, a bit, however. I've been in the city for a long time (since early in Tony Williams' administration). When I said I considered schools abject failures, it was most certainly not a function of the PARCC scores. It was a function of years, decades even, of systemic and systematic failure. I'm talking about math teachers at Cardozo High assigning collages as homework. (An industrious reader can google for the article. It was in the Post, circa 2004, give or take.) I'm talking about schools where truancy rates of students routinely break 40%. I'm talking about policies like social promotion, where students who are woefully unprepared are "advanced" to the next grade, kicking the proverbial can down the road until they graduate, unable to read, write, do math, and, honestly, function in society. The blame is extensive. Some of it lies with the students. Some, much even, lies with their parents. Some it is is the product of soft and hard bigotry and discrimination. Some of it lies with the teachers, administrators and central office. In short, my attribution of a school as an abject failure has nothing to do with race, poverty and at-risk factors, per se. Over time, these descriptions fit fewer schools, but they still apply extensively across the city, and we should demand improvement and accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just stumbled on this thread. Good stuff, OP. Interesting read.

Sam2

sorry -- lost me at this:

"There are plenty of good schools in DCPS. I acknowledged this yesterday when saying that I view 95 out of the 120 DCPS schools as abject failures. This leaves 25 functional schools, a number far larger than just those in upper northwest."

grouping all multi-race students together as a single entity is equally ham fisted, but a single year of PARCC data does not qualify a schools as "abject failure". If nothing else that's a serious sample size issue. Not that it was in scope of that analysis, but OP should consider controlling for poverty and at-risk factors before drawing such an odious blanket conclusion about such a large pool of schools. It seriously undermines OP's credibility however many ditto heads encourage this.

I'm the OP. I don't object to this response, and I caution others against portraying you as a hater.

I will explain, a bit, however. I've been in the city for a long time (since early in Tony Williams' administration). When I said I considered schools abject failures, it was most certainly not a function of the PARCC scores. It was a function of years, decades even, of systemic and systematic failure. I'm talking about math teachers at Cardozo High assigning collages as homework. (An industrious reader can google for the article. It was in the Post, circa 2004, give or take.) I'm talking about schools where truancy rates of students routinely break 40%. I'm talking about policies like social promotion, where students who are woefully unprepared are "advanced" to the next grade, kicking the proverbial can down the road until they graduate, unable to read, write, do math, and, honestly, function in society. The blame is extensive. Some of it lies with the students. Some, much even, lies with their parents. Some it is is the product of soft and hard bigotry and discrimination. Some of it lies with the teachers, administrators and central office. In short, my attribution of a school as an abject failure has nothing to do with race, poverty and at-risk factors, per se. Over time, these descriptions fit fewer schools, but they still apply extensively across the city, and we should demand improvement and accountability.

Would you be willing to share the 25 schools that you find to be not abject failures? I'd be interested to see which are not on the typical list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just stumbled on this thread. Good stuff, OP. Interesting read.

Sam2

sorry -- lost me at this:

"There are plenty of good schools in DCPS. I acknowledged this yesterday when saying that I view 95 out of the 120 DCPS schools as abject failures. This leaves 25 functional schools, a number far larger than just those in upper northwest."

grouping all multi-race students together as a single entity is equally ham fisted, but a single year of PARCC data does not qualify a schools as "abject failure". If nothing else that's a serious sample size issue. Not that it was in scope of that analysis, but OP should consider controlling for poverty and at-risk factors before drawing such an odious blanket conclusion about such a large pool of schools. It seriously undermines OP's credibility however many ditto heads encourage this.

I'm the OP. I don't object to this response, and I caution others against portraying you as a hater.

I will explain, a bit, however. I've been in the city for a long time (since early in Tony Williams' administration). When I said I considered schools abject failures, it was most certainly not a function of the PARCC scores. It was a function of years, decades even, of systemic and systematic failure. I'm talking about math teachers at Cardozo High assigning collages as homework. (An industrious reader can google for the article. It was in the Post, circa 2004, give or take.) I'm talking about schools where truancy rates of students routinely break 40%. I'm talking about policies like social promotion, where students who are woefully unprepared are "advanced" to the next grade, kicking the proverbial can down the road until they graduate, unable to read, write, do math, and, honestly, function in society. The blame is extensive. Some of it lies with the students. Some, much even, lies with their parents. Some it is is the product of soft and hard bigotry and discrimination. Some of it lies with the teachers, administrators and central office. In short, my attribution of a school as an abject failure has nothing to do with race, poverty and at-risk factors, per se. Over time, these descriptions fit fewer schools, but they still apply extensively across the city, and we should demand improvement and accountability.

just curious and don't mean it in a dismissive way -- are you a parent and if so, have your children attended public school in DC? Are you familiar with any of the schools you've characterized this way. Given the methodically analysis, I'm curious where you draw the 95 out of 120 figure, if not from test scores? That seems less than analytical if based on a 12 year old WP article rather than data.

There are plenty of schools with high rates of academic failure in DC, many of which serve struggling communities. In some cases the schools are the biggest source of stability and support in the lives of these students. The students may be behind academically and in many cases profoundly so, but that is not simply because their schools have failed. There are cases where well regarded charters schools are getting impressive academic improvement rates with this population yet still reveal high failure rates and an enormous achievement gap. Some of these schools provide the only stable meals these students will see in a given day, and some a sanctuary from broken community and homes.

I agree that academic failure has profound impact on society as a whole, but I'm cautious in assigning blame to a very complex problem. I'm not a hater -- I actually think you provided an interesting and useful analysis on a related but distinctly different topic, one that's probably of greater concern in the pissing contest between upper NW families and those across the District line in equally affluent communities.