summary level DC-CAS scores realeased

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/pdf/CAS_Fact_SheetAlt.pdf?sid=ST2009071301540

The attached fact sheet shows DC-CAS scores for summary level, DCPS Elementary, Charter Elementary, DCPS Secondary, Charter Secondary. Scores for specific schools have been released to principals for review and comment. Public release in 10 days.

Overall, scores are up slightly for some school groups, a lot for some others, but the number and percent of schools making AYP is lower.

There is also a press release on DCPS website that provides summary scores for Special Ed, English Language Learners, and Low Income children

[Anonymous]

Thank you for posting this; it will be interesting to see the discrete scores.

[Anonymous]

http://blog.eduflack.com/2009/07/21/real-improvement-or-student-creaming-in-dc.aspx?ref=rss

What exactly is happening with K-12 transformation in our nation's capital? Last week, DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee announced that reading and math scores in the District improved for the second year in a row, with nearly half of DC's elementary students scoring proficiency or better on the standardized test. Two years ago, just more than a third of such students were posting such scores, allowing one to clearly proclaim that the past two years have resulted in test scores on the rise.


Buried under the test scores lede was that fewer DC schools made adequate yearly progress, or AYP, this year. Just 27 percent of DCPS schools made AYP, compared with 31 percent last year. And that is after Rhee closed 15 of the poorest-performing schools in the first place.


So how do scores go up, but AYP declines? Rhee herself provided us insight into how DCPS can improve yet do a poorer overall job. By teaching testing strategies, targeting "low-hanging" fruit students who could make one-year gains, and conducting that dreaded "teaching to the test," DC schools were able to focus on the immediate gains. And before one gets too critical of Eduflack's choice of words, look at Rhee's own word choice here. "Low-hanging fruit" is her description for DCPS' new targeted approach to learning

[Anonymous]

None of this test data is reliable or even useful. It doesn't prove that our Chancellor is successful or a failure.

Are high test scores the only goal you have for DC schools?

Is this all you want for your money? If all you want is higher test scores, turn all the schools over to Kaplan. They guarantee higher scores or your money back.

If you're really interested in education, start thinking and talking about the quality of educational opportunities being offered in the schools. Test data will not tell you anything about this. Read the DCPS standards. Examine the adopted textbooks. Ask questions about whether your child is reading any literature, learning any history or geography. Or art history, or science. Find out whether the teachers are relying solely on the adopted text. Ask for a syllabus. Examine the reading list. Spend a day in your child's class(es).

And stop focusing on AYP. You're wasting your energy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://blog.eduflack.com/2009/07/21/real-improvement-or-student-creaming-in-dc.aspx?ref=rss

So how do scores go up, but AYP declines? Rhee herself provided us insight into how DCPS can improve yet do a poorer overall job. By teaching testing strategies, targeting "low-hanging" fruit students who could make one-year gains, and conducting that dreaded "teaching to the test," DC schools were able to focus on the immediate gains. And before one gets too critical of Eduflack's choice of words, look at Rhee's own word choice here. "Low-hanging fruit" is her description for DCPS' new targeted approach to learning

A couple ways this can happen.

First test-taker data includes scores for all the students in the school. This is about as straightforward as you can get with summarizing data.

AYP proficiency rates are based on a slighly different set of rules, including how long a student was enrolled in that school. The purpose here is to hold schools "accountable" for the achievement of students who have been with them for at least almost the full school year.

Also, AYP targets increase every year, for each school overall and for the subgroups in each school. So every year, a school has to perform better and better to meet the higher and higher targets. Also, schools also often reach AYP targets not by actually hitting the target, but by showing some percentage of improvement every year. So every year it gets harder and harder to reach the higher targets and it gets more and more difficult to show improvement because the higher you score one year, the higher you have to score the next to show % improvement. Also other things such as attendance can come into play. If a school doesn't hit the target on every single one of the subgroups, they don't make AYP. It's an all or nothing designation.

That being said, when I see my neighborhood DC high school has 33% proficiency rate in reading and math, I am NOT impressed. And the fact that there are almost three times as many 9th graders as 12th graders makes me wonder: where do all the students go between freshman and senior year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://blog.eduflack.com/2009/07/21/real-improvement-or-student-creaming-in-dc.aspx?ref=rss

So how do scores go up, but AYP declines? Rhee herself provided us insight into how DCPS can improve yet do a poorer overall job. By teaching testing strategies, targeting "low-hanging" fruit students who could make one-year gains, and conducting that dreaded "teaching to the test," DC schools were able to focus on the immediate gains. And before one gets too critical of Eduflack's choice of words, look at Rhee's own word choice here. "Low-hanging fruit" is her description for DCPS' new targeted approach to learning

A couple ways this can happen.

First test-taker data includes scores for all the students in the school. This is about as straightforward as you can get with summarizing data.

AYP proficiency rates are based on a slighly different set of rules, including how long a student was enrolled in that school. The purpose here is to hold schools "accountable" for the achievement of students who have been with them for at least almost the full school year.

Also, AYP targets increase every year, for each school overall and for the subgroups in each school. So every year, a school has to perform better and better to meet the higher and higher targets. Also, schools also often reach AYP targets not by actually hitting the target, but by showing some percentage of improvement every year. So every year it gets harder and harder to reach the higher targets and it gets more and more difficult to show improvement because the higher you score one year, the higher you have to score the next to show % improvement. Also other things such as attendance can come into play. If a school doesn't hit the target on every single one of the subgroups, they don't make AYP. It's an all or nothing designation.

That being said, when I see my neighborhood DC high school has 33% proficiency rate in reading and math, I am NOT impressed. And the fact that there are almost three times as many 9th graders as 12th graders makes me wonder: where do all the students go between freshman and senior year?

Really great post. Many thanks.

[Anonymous]

I am not a fan of testing - but let's step back for a 2nd and ask ourselves - should it be a goal for all students in DC to read and do math at grade level? I believe the answer is yes. When the tests are done and we see that we continuing to fail in providing the education that is needed for the majority of the students as a city fundamental change is needed.

I hope that Michelle Rhee is able to deliver on her vision - I really do.

[Anonymous]

i do too.

[Anonymous]

I agree; it should be a minimal goal for all DCPS students to be proficient at reading and math. But you know what? I have a somewhat higher goal for my children. And so while I can appreciate that Michelle Rhee needs to bring up proficiency in all children, I got sick of all the teaching to the test. I want my kids to have a well rounded education, which includes art and music and critical thinking. While I am sympathetic to all that the puclic schools have to deal with, once my kids finished 5th grade we went private, and I realize we were fortunate to be able to do it.

[Anonymous]

I adore the Title I elementary school where my children attend. They have a great and rigorous curriculum, wonderful music lessons and language instruction. Sadly though, the only measure of success right now is the DC-CAS.

I'm sorry, but my child could score "proficient" on the first day of school. He learned so much last academic year, but the DC-CAS doesn't measure what he gained at this school.

I'm proud of the principal and staff who refused to focus strictly on the children on the cusp of proficiency and instead taught every child in the building. (This school has a large percentage of ELL students and their learning gains aren't measured accurately by the CAS either.) Ultimately though, it was a stupid move in that they are likely to get fired by Michelle Rhee.

Like the previous poster, ES is the end of DCPS for us. We're trying a charter for middle school and if that doesn't work it's private or the suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of testing - but let's step back for a 2nd and ask ourselves - should it be a goal for all students in DC to read and do math at grade level? I believe the answer is yes. When the tests are done and we see that we continuing to fail in providing the education that is needed for the majority of the students as a city fundamental change is needed.

I hope that Michelle Rhee is able to deliver on her vision - I really do.

One size fits few. Grade level simply means grouping students by age. Students are not widgets. They come to us with different abilities, backgrounds, vocabulary levels, etc. They learn at different rates. So the goal of all students being "proficient" at grade level is not necessarily desirable. Nor is the fact that all students do not achieve these levels at the same time an indication that educators have "failed".

In the interest of promoting educational equity, we should be providing excellent educational opportunities to all children. Mandating that all children achieve at arbitrarily set standards is neither reasonable nor desirable. Unfortunately, these mandates and cut scores result in worse inequities than we had before, with low-income, high-needs students being subjected to a skills-heavy, bread-and-water, test-prep academic program which shortchanges them.

Our chancellor doesn't have a vision. All she has is a narrow, empty, metric-driven goal that really has nothing to do with teaching and learning.

Well all this testing and narrowing of the curriculum certainly isn't what I want for my child. Apparently it isn't what Obama wants for his children either. Is this what you want for your children? If not, why do you think this is good enough for other people's children?

[Anonymous]

Then how do you measure success?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then how do you measure success?

I don't. I evaluate the quality of the educational opportunities that are offered.

[Anonymous]

Proficiency could be measured by testing the kids at the beginning of the year and testing the same kids at the end of the year. There could be some sort of assessment that is based on what is actually taught during the given time frame. Not testing on a years worth of information two months early.

[Anonymous]

Ah, the Value Added Measure. Yes, you could do that.

For all the problems with this idea, see this very amusing video on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uONqxysWEk8