DC data on learning loss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, did you read that one thread with Mom McChores who, to provide her child with the socialization that the daughter was missing, encouraged the daughter to call stores and complain?

That was REAL. That was an actual person who thought that was a good idea.

I think. Who knows, anymore, though.

Yes. I saw that, and that was surreal. I also had to really think if the poster above was satire or pro-DL. Hard to tell!

Another Karen making a new karen. its the circle of life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS could spend time finding ways to make DL better and then study DL for results. But we hopefully won't be in DL forever so maybe that is why they aren't looking into it.

But DCPS is also not so good with real plans for the real world.

There are ways to do qualitative research but its more labor intensive than sitting in front of an excel spreadsheet. Ed research might not have the skills to do it. DL is set up so people can easily log into a class and check out how its going. But if the researchers can only do qualitative then????

What on earth are you talking about? There's a pretty good split of researchers doing quantitative and qualitative research (as well as smaller numbers in mixed methods, archival, PAR). You seem to be implying that education researchers cannot do qualitative research in the first sentence and that they only do it in the last. Is that right? Do you think that these tests were made to create numerical data to then be analyzed by qualitative researchers? Do you think someone is out there doing an ethnography on MAP scores? Do you think quantitative research is taking place primarily using Excel?

The fact that you're so clueless about GENERAL RESEARCH makes me wonder where you came across the word qualitative in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS could spend time finding ways to make DL better and then study DL for results. But we hopefully won't be in DL forever so maybe that is why they aren't looking into it.

But DCPS is also not so good with real plans for the real world.

There are ways to do qualitative research but its more labor intensive than sitting in front of an excel spreadsheet. Ed research might not have the skills to do it. DL is set up so people can easily log into a class and check out how its going. But if the researchers can only do qualitative then????

What on earth are you talking about? There's a pretty good split of researchers doing quantitative and qualitative research (as well as smaller numbers in mixed methods, archival, PAR). You seem to be implying that education researchers cannot do qualitative research in the first sentence and that they only do it in the last. Is that right? Do you think that these tests were made to create numerical data to then be analyzed by qualitative researchers? Do you think someone is out there doing an ethnography on MAP scores? Do you think quantitative research is taking place primarily using Excel?

The fact that you're so clueless about GENERAL RESEARCH makes me wonder where you came across the word qualitative in the first place.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm curious if the contractors for DCPS can do it. I have first hand knowledge of some DCPS contractors being woefully subpar on research.

I would love to see it done.

[Anonymous]

My kids used to get more instruction each day than they now get, in total, each week.

[Anonymous]

I'm just going to go back to this.

Researcher 1: "You know what we need bro? DATA!"

Researcher 2: "Yeah! What if we constructed a series of tests, made a huge testbank with carefully considered and tested items, created an app and testing protocol, went through a whole pilot study, convinced a bunch of administrators that our test would provide useful, comparable information, and then created new items every year?"

"Researcher 1: "Super sick bro, I'm in."

*Five Years Later*

"Researcher 2: "Hey man, we have all of this data but they're like...numbers..."

[fin]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids used to get more instruction each day than they now get, in total, each week.

How do you know this? Were you in the classroom with your children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids used to get more instruction each day than they now get, in total, each week.

How do you know this? Were you in the classroom with your children?

oh, fun, i see. you're suggesting that teachers were farting around in their classrooms in person, and those same teachers are no longer farting around and that also the test results don't really mean anything so that you cannot be proven wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids used to get more instruction each day than they now get, in total, each week.

How do you know this? Were you in the classroom with your children?

pffft. teaching is barely even a part-time job at this point. why is anyone surprised kids are not learning anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids used to get more instruction each day than they now get, in total, each week.

How do you know this? Were you in the classroom with your children?

oh, fun, i see. you're suggesting that teachers were farting around in their classrooms in person, and those same teachers are no longer farting around and that also the test results don't really mean anything so that you cannot be proven wrong.

No, I'm stating that you weren't in the classroom with your child so you don't have any real measure of how much instruction they really received. But now that you sat behind them you are an expert. (second sentence is sarcasm)

First day of school this year every parent complained their kids weren't focused. Every other year we never saw our precious children weren't focused on the first day of school so we couldn't complain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moms too stressed out to work and parent but on DCUM all day.

I'm removing my child from all testing for the next 3 years. I am very pro testing but I am really dismayed with how DCPS is using these scores now and miss-reporting.

Can you describe the misreporting in more detail?

A few months ago DCPS reported the "learning loss" of ECE/Kinder saying the slide was major, etc. The issue is tests aren't valid for learning loss - a child has to be in person for 6 weeks to have a valid score and no child had been in person since March. So testing children in September to show a summer slide doesn't really work. Even if the children were in person in September, the test wouldn't be valid until the children had been in school until October. DCPS published the data and there was the normal outrage and then retracted and kept the retraction updates quiet.

I've seen my child test badly for reading the first few weeks of school (me lingering from another room). He was camera shy and I have seen him read those same words with no problems. But per DCPS he's failing at reading. I send the teacher videos of him reading and he's fluid and fine. The teacher is not concerned about his reading. But again he didn't do it right for a digital test so he's failing.

I have seen my child do the math assessment and he was literally guessing at every answer. He got a fair amount right btw but only from guessing. He thought he was "winning" the game. I asked around most of the other children were in the same boat. Again the teacher has told me she has to do this. We also don't have to participate.

I do understand some testing needs to happen for federal funding so it is not always DCPS' driving this. But I can chose to opt-out.

Like I said I am a pro-tester. Our school has great scores and they improve too but its a pandemic this isn't right.

BTW as a pro-tester I do not like the amount of time we are spending teaching to the test, time for testing, etc. I believe it could be done in a better way. I also don't think it should be tied to teacher performance.

THIS. The testing environment is not controlled, so the test isn't valid, so the results aren't valid. Data that is not valid is not reliable. It is completely irresponsible to use data gathered this way for this purpose.

so what data should we use? come on.

Clutch your pearls - no data right now. When we are able to get kids safely back in the classroom then start assessments then and move forward.

Some children will catch up quickly once the mental stain is no longer there; some will need more remediation, etc.

But information about how much learning loss children are experiencing because of DL is crucial to the decision about how and when to get kids back to school. We can't just wait until everyone is back for 6 weeks in normal school. We could legitimately be talking about 2022 if that is the metric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids used to get more instruction each day than they now get, in total, each week.

How do you know this? Were you in the classroom with your children?

oh, fun, i see. you're suggesting that teachers were farting around in their classrooms in person, and those same teachers are no longer farting around and that also the test results don't really mean anything so that you cannot be proven wrong.

No, I'm stating that you weren't in the classroom with your child so you don't have any real measure of how much instruction they really received. But now that you sat behind them you are an expert. (second sentence is sarcasm)

First day of school this year every parent complained their kids weren't focused. Every other year we never saw our precious children weren't focused on the first day of school so we couldn't complain.

Of actual instruction, from what I've seen, it's about 30 minutes a day of meaningful interaction. And the tests results reflect that. Tell me what data is on your side?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids used to get more instruction each day than they now get, in total, each week.

How do you know this? Were you in the classroom with your children?

oh, fun, i see. you're suggesting that teachers were farting around in their classrooms in person, and those same teachers are no longer farting around and that also the test results don't really mean anything so that you cannot be proven wrong.

No, I'm stating that you weren't in the classroom with your child so you don't have any real measure of how much instruction they really received. But now that you sat behind them you are an expert. (second sentence is sarcasm)

First day of school this year every parent complained their kids weren't focused. Every other year we never saw our precious children weren't focused on the first day of school so we couldn't complain.

OK, let me rephrase, my kids used to be in a classroom longer in one day than they now have the screen turned on in a week. In neither case is there instruction the whole time, but come on. You really expect me to believe that school previously involved less than 1.5 hours of learning of any kind per day??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moms too stressed out to work and parent but on DCUM all day.

I'm removing my child from all testing for the next 3 years. I am very pro testing but I am really dismayed with how DCPS is using these scores now and miss-reporting.

Can you describe the misreporting in more detail?

A few months ago DCPS reported the "learning loss" of ECE/Kinder saying the slide was major, etc. The issue is tests aren't valid for learning loss - a child has to be in person for 6 weeks to have a valid score and no child had been in person since March. So testing children in September to show a summer slide doesn't really work. Even if the children were in person in September, the test wouldn't be valid until the children had been in school until October. DCPS published the data and there was the normal outrage and then retracted and kept the retraction updates quiet.

I've seen my child test badly for reading the first few weeks of school (me lingering from another room). He was camera shy and I have seen him read those same words with no problems. But per DCPS he's failing at reading. I send the teacher videos of him reading and he's fluid and fine. The teacher is not concerned about his reading. But again he didn't do it right for a digital test so he's failing.

I have seen my child do the math assessment and he was literally guessing at every answer. He got a fair amount right btw but only from guessing. He thought he was "winning" the game. I asked around most of the other children were in the same boat. Again the teacher has told me she has to do this. We also don't have to participate.

I do understand some testing needs to happen for federal funding so it is not always DCPS' driving this. But I can chose to opt-out.

Like I said I am a pro-tester. Our school has great scores and they improve too but its a pandemic this isn't right.

BTW as a pro-tester I do not like the amount of time we are spending teaching to the test, time for testing, etc. I believe it could be done in a better way. I also don't think it should be tied to teacher performance.

THIS. The testing environment is not controlled, so the test isn't valid, so the results aren't valid. Data that is not valid is not reliable. It is completely irresponsible to use data gathered this way for this purpose.

so what data should we use? come on.

Clutch your pearls - no data right now. When we are able to get kids safely back in the classroom then start assessments then and move forward.

Some children will catch up quickly once the mental stain is no longer there; some will need more remediation, etc.

But information about how much learning loss children are experiencing because of DL is crucial to the decision about how and when to get kids back to school. We can't just wait until everyone is back for 6 weeks in normal school. We could legitimately be talking about 2022 if that is the metric.

ugh don't even suggest it. you'll get some martyr-moms who will say that their kids can and should sacrifice as many years as necessary to prevent a potential minor risk to even one teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids used to get more instruction each day than they now get, in total, each week.

How do you know this? Were you in the classroom with your children?

Sigh. The parent can presently observe how much instruction her children get. If this is NOT lower than the prior in-person amount, it suggests that the amount of instruction was low before and leads to questions of what teachers were doing in the before-times. You seem to be suggesting that teachers maybe weren't doing a whole lot BEFORE. Is that what you want to suggest?

I mean, that might be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids used to get more instruction each day than they now get, in total, each week.

How do you know this? Were you in the classroom with your children?

Sigh. The parent can presently observe how much instruction her children get. If this is NOT lower than the prior in-person amount, it suggests that the amount of instruction was low before and leads to questions of what teachers were doing in the before-times. You seem to be suggesting that teachers maybe weren't doing a whole lot BEFORE. Is that what you want to suggest?

I mean, that might be true.

It's my favorite when they try to make a point and it ends up being Definitely Not What Was Intended.