DC School Report Cards are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two Ward 5 elementary schools rank the same (3) as the nearby popular charters that siphon off their IB students.

Maybe this will system will help neighborhood schools?

It should, and it should push the charters to do better. Name the schools?

Langdon got 4 stars but I have my doubts. It seems like a lot of this data is just not correct.

Based on what? Your gut?

[Anonymous]

Yes. LAMB, Yu Ying also showing very low numbers for white students. I am trying to understand this metric better. Disabled students showing very high numbers.

White schools at both schools are much lower than white students’ scores across the District. Once would assume that is related to bilingual learning but who knows. So the number reflected for white students as part of the group score is low because it’s relying on that comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two Ward 5 elementary schools rank the same (3) as the nearby popular charters that siphon off their IB students.

Maybe this will system will help neighborhood schools?

It should, and it should push the charters to do better. Name the schools?

Langdon got 4 stars but I have my doubts. It seems like a lot of this data is just not correct.

Langdon has a strong score for students scoring 3 and above in PARCC (63% ELA; 54% Math) which is one of the data points. Its median growth percentil is much higher than the DC average (by 30 points in ELA and 20 in Math).

Also its student growth its "growth to proficiency" score is really high.

[Anonymous]

White schools at both schools are much lower than white students’ scores across the District.

Errrg should have reread before posting. Beginning of sentence should have said Scores of white students at both of these schools...

[Anonymous]

I love data and numbers, and I would say these reports are too complicated to be useful. And there is no easily accessible information about what each metric actually is (i.e., how it is computed) in a school's profile. And they put a possible range of scores and then have data points for a school that are outside that.

I think this could have been a useful exercise but ultimately wasn't because it is so poorly documented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Deal feeders, at risk %

Janney 5, 0% 88.43, 70.10
Hearst 4, 8% 77.32, 60.95
Murch 4, 5% 79.85, 58.63
Lafayette 4, 3% 78.00, 69.25
Shepherd 4, 15% 71.61, 76.25
Bancroft 4, 31% 80.16, < 10 AA students

PP here. I was interested in how AA students perform at these schools. I've added the Star Framework score for all students, followed by score for black students, for each school.

Overall, it looks like Shepherd has the best score for AA students. However, they don't offer breakdowns for "at-risk" etc. within subgroups, and so it's unclear whether the higher score at Shepherd is attributable to something about instruction, demographic factors, or a combination.

I did this quickly, but hopefully no errors.

Oh, and forgot to add, it's curious why the score for AA students at Shepherd is actually higher than the score for all students--this is the only Deal feeder where that is true. I need to read a fuller description of how these scores were calculated.

Um why do you find that curious? Do you know anything about Shepherd and the families that live in that neighborhood, or do you just assume that all AAs underperform compared to whites?

PP here. I'm black, IB for Shepherd, and was actively involved while my kid attended for several years, so I'm familiar with the student body. The reason I said it's "curious" is because Shepherd is actually 57% OOB, 15% at-risk, and 2% homeless--so it's a very mixed, SES-diverse student body.

This data point would suggest to me that there's something about the instruction at Shepherd that's leading to higher ratings among the black students relative to any other Deal feeder, but I'm interested to hear other possible explanations too.

Ok sorry, you never know around here Don't you think it's a big part that AA students at Shepherd are from high SES families that value education?

I think that's part of it but not the whole answer, because Shepherd has a lot of kids from struggling families too, a much higher percentage than most other Deal feeders. And yet, Shepherd's AA scores were highest.

[Anonymous]

I am very happy to have a (AA) kid attending Shepherd next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love data and numbers, and I would say these reports are too complicated to be useful. And there is no easily accessible information about what each metric actually is (i.e., how it is computed) in a school's profile. And they put a possible range of scores and then have data points for a school that are outside that.

I think this could have been a useful exercise but ultimately wasn't because it is so poorly documented.

Yep, totally agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overall comment - there is a lot of data here.

Forget the stars, you can definitely dig in and see how different students are doing on a range of measures.

I like these. They seem helpful.

-parent, no OSSE affiliation

Agreed- this is the best thing I have ever seen out of OSSE.

Is it? It lists Janney as Title I, and a lot of schools have no Kindergarten kids at all.

Eaton is also listed as Title 1 and it says before and aftercare are free. Someone messed up some pretty basic facts on these.

That stuff is coming from DCPS -- according to the technical guide.

It says it can be updated via the "eschools" system, and the report cards will be updated monthly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love data and numbers, and I would say these reports are too complicated to be useful. And there is no easily accessible information about what each metric actually is (i.e., how it is computed) in a school's profile. And they put a possible range of scores and then have data points for a school that are outside that.

I think this could have been a useful exercise but ultimately wasn't because it is so poorly documented.

Yep, totally agree.

Agree. I think it could be salvaged if we could see a breakdown of how all the scores affected the bottom line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm looking at KIPP and DC Prep as LEAs.

KIPP - Most of their elementaries are 4s, some are 3s. All MS + HS are 3s.

DC Prep - Half of the ES are 3s and half are 4s. The MS are 5.

That's inaccurate: All DC Prep Campuses are 4's

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm looking at KIPP and DC Prep as LEAs.

KIPP - Most of their elementaries are 4s, some are 3s. All MS + HS are 3s.

DC Prep - Half of the ES are 3s and half are 4s. The MS are 5.

That's inaccurate: All DC Prep Campuses are 4's

Except Anacostia, which isn't rated. Maybe the rollup is wrong. Because the LEA page for ES clearly says 50/50%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Deal feeders, at risk %

Janney 5, 0% 88.43, 70.10
Hearst 4, 8% 77.32, 60.95
Murch 4, 5% 79.85, 58.63
Lafayette 4, 3% 78.00, 69.25
Shepherd 4, 15% 71.61, 76.25
Bancroft 4, 31% 80.16, < 10 AA students

PP here. I was interested in how AA students perform at these schools. I've added the Star Framework score for all students, followed by score for black students, for each school.

Overall, it looks like Shepherd has the best score for AA students. However, they don't offer breakdowns for "at-risk" etc. within subgroups, and so it's unclear whether the higher score at Shepherd is attributable to something about instruction, demographic factors, or a combination.

I did this quickly, but hopefully no errors.

Oh, and forgot to add, it's curious why the score for AA students at Shepherd is actually higher than the score for all students--this is the only Deal feeder where that is true. I need to read a fuller description of how these scores were calculated.

Um why do you find that curious? Do you know anything about Shepherd and the families that live in that neighborhood, or do you just assume that all AAs underperform compared to whites?

PP here. I'm black, IB for Shepherd, and was actively involved while my kid attended for several years, so I'm familiar with the student body. The reason I said it's "curious" is because Shepherd is actually 57% OOB, 15% at-risk, and 2% homeless--so it's a very mixed, SES-diverse student body.

This data point would suggest to me that there's something about the instruction at Shepherd that's leading to higher ratings among the black students relative to any other Deal feeder, but I'm interested to hear other possible explanations too.

Ok sorry, you never know around here Don't you think it's a big part that AA students at Shepherd are from high SES families that value education?

I think that's part of it but not the whole answer, because Shepherd has a lot of kids from struggling families too, a much higher percentage than most other Deal feeders. And yet, Shepherd's AA scores were highest.

No answer but will say Shepherd is just a fabulous school. It is a great mix of kids. My theory (and hope) is that when you don't have just one type of student it becomes a better environment for all. My child is white in an upper grade. I have been nothing but impressed with the school (students and teachers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A few (I'm not interested in ES)

Deal 5 star
Wilson 4 star
Hardy 5 star
Jefferson 3 star
Hobson 3 star
Latin 5 star
BASIS 5 star
DCI 4 star
CMI 3 star

Latin MS is 4 star not 5. HS is 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love data and numbers, and I would say these reports are too complicated to be useful. And there is no easily accessible information about what each metric actually is (i.e., how it is computed) in a school's profile. And they put a possible range of scores and then have data points for a school that are outside that.

I think this could have been a useful exercise but ultimately wasn't because it is so poorly documented.

Yep, totally agree.

It's true, they are very complicated. I'm reading the technical manual to understand how the calculations were made and it's nearly 200 pages long. I also do not have trouble with numbers and data but this is a bit nuts.