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

[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:

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.

Remember that DC is calling these "Report Cards." Not "High Testing Score Growth Schools."

Report cards don't grade you on how much you improved but on how well you did.

[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:

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.

Remember that DC is calling these "Report Cards." Not "High Testing Score Growth Schools."

Report cards don't grade you on how much you improved but on how well you did.

It's a report card on the school, not on the students. How much growth the school produces *is* how well the school is doing.

Some of the testing data I receive on my children does show their prior year scores btw.

[Anonymous]

Guess what? You are free to interpret the data as you see fit. So long as they provide the methodology and criteria, what’s the complaint?

Plenty of other things to fret about of course.

[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.

That's not true. It depends on how academic peers are moving.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yes.

UMC parents have zero excuse for no being on top of things from the jump. The schools are shady, lack transparency, and generally unreliable. That isn’t new despite the faux social contract of “you just send the kids to school well-rested/fed and we’ll do the rest and alert you to any red flags in.” It’s not fair or right, but YOU are the only one capable to ensuring that your kids are where they need to be in terms of ELA and math, just to start.

That UMC types “discover” that their 3rd/4th grader hasn’t mastered grade-level math is beyond me…but I’ve come to expect it, sadly.

I’m sorry but people like you who make excuses and expect parents to do everything and be on top of everything just because they are UMC are the problem and why DCPS sucks.

So if you are not UMC, you get a pass card out of jail wherever your kid is and if they are below grade level. If you are UMC, it’s your fault because you did not supplement and know exactly what your kid is learning and provide extra support outside the classroom?

The reality is that when the majority of kids are below grade level, that is where the teaching occurs and the few who are above are left to computers, helping all the other students and their needs are not being met. The teacher is teaching where the 1 and 2 are to bring them up. The kid who is 3 and 4 are barely learning anything.

Lastly, lots of UMC parents both work with demanding jobs with multiple kids have the same time constraints.

[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:

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.

Remember that DC is calling these "Report Cards." Not "High Testing Score Growth Schools."

Report cards don't grade you on how much you improved but on how well you did.

It's a report card on the school, not on the students. How much growth the school produces *is* how well the school is doing.

Some of the testing data I receive on my children does show their prior year scores btw.

You missed the point about how the methodology is bonkers.

A school where most kids read below grade level is not better than a school where most kids read above grade level.

[Anonymous]

You missed the point about how the methodology is bonkers.

A school where most kids read below grade level is not better than a school where most kids read above grade level.

Let’s try a hospital analogy. Should hispital A that only sees patients with minor injuries score better than hospital B that accepts all people just because less people die of their injuries at hospital A? Does hospital A have better doctors?

[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.

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)."

This is stupid. Why not just assign 2 numbers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guess what? You are free to interpret the data as you see fit. So long as they provide the methodology and criteria, what’s the complaint?

Plenty of other things to fret about of course.

The complaint is that the data is misleading. Summative scores aren't useful if a 5-12 school is compared against a 9-12 school using different methodologies.

[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:

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.

Remember that DC is calling these "Report Cards." Not "High Testing Score Growth Schools."

Report cards don't grade you on how much you improved but on how well you did.

It's a report card on the school, not on the students. How much growth the school produces *is* how well the school is doing.

Some of the testing data I receive on my children does show their prior year scores btw.

No, it isn't. By your logic schools are failing kids who remain at the 98th percentile year after year. And schools that progress kids from 4 grade levels behind to 3 grade levels behind are the best.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about how we value growth vs excellence. Your statement tells us you just aren't serious about having public policy discussions. Or you are just ignorant of what the data means.

[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:

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.

Remember that DC is calling these "Report Cards." Not "High Testing Score Growth Schools."

Report cards don't grade you on how much you improved but on how well you did.

It's a report card on the school, not on the students. How much growth the school produces *is* how well the school is doing.

Some of the testing data I receive on my children does show their prior year scores btw.

No, it isn't. By your logic schools are failing kids who remain at the 98th percentile year after year. And schools that progress kids from 4 grade levels behind to 3 grade levels behind are the best.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about how we value growth vs excellence. Your statement tells us you just aren't serious about having public policy discussions. Or you are just ignorant of what the data means.

Wow, so rude. No, producing one year of growth is not failing. But producing two years of growth in one year's time is very impressive.

[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:

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.

Remember that DC is calling these "Report Cards." Not "High Testing Score Growth Schools."

Report cards don't grade you on how much you improved but on how well you did.

Report cards don’t aggregate all your subjects.

[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:

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.

Remember that DC is calling these "Report Cards." Not "High Testing Score Growth Schools."

Report cards don't grade you on how much you improved but on how well you did.

It's a report card on the school, not on the students. How much growth the school produces *is* how well the school is doing.

Some of the testing data I receive on my children does show their prior year scores btw.

No, it isn't. By your logic schools are failing kids who remain at the 98th percentile year after year. And schools that progress kids from 4 grade levels behind to 3 grade levels behind are the best.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about how we value growth vs excellence. Your statement tells us you just aren't serious about having public policy discussions. Or you are just ignorant of what the data means.

There's really no reason to be so rude. We're not rating the performance of the kids. We're rating the schools. So a school that produces a year's worth of growth each year is a fine school. But it's not especially impressive. It's not "excellent" to accomplish a year of growth in a year, even if the performance of the kids themselves is "excellent". Because high-income, high-IQ kids are in general pretty easy to educate. "Excellence" in a *school* can mean any number of things and getting high scores from the kids is only one piece of the puzzle. A high-income school where kids enter with good test scores and maintain those scores can be "excellent" if the school achieves a number of other things in addition.

[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:

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.

Remember that DC is calling these "Report Cards." Not "High Testing Score Growth Schools."

Report cards don't grade you on how much you improved but on how well you did.

It's a report card on the school, not on the students. How much growth the school produces *is* how well the school is doing.

Some of the testing data I receive on my children does show their prior year scores btw.

No, it isn't. By your logic schools are failing kids who remain at the 98th percentile year after year. And schools that progress kids from 4 grade levels behind to 3 grade levels behind are the best.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about how we value growth vs excellence. Your statement tells us you just aren't serious about having public policy discussions. Or you are just ignorant of what the data means.

Wow, so rude. No, producing one year of growth is not failing. But producing two years of growth in one year's time is very impressive.

Sure but let’s be real. Very, very few teachers can do that and that is a fact.

Growth from being worst to bad is not better than being at good.

You also need to acknowledge why these kids are failing so bad to begin with and that fault rests squarely with DCPS. But hey let’s make these failing schools look good by the grading we set and instead of 4 grade levels behind, they are 2.

The fact of the matter is temporary growth or gains one year doesn’t guarantee growth another year. Look at the endpoint of the majority of DCPS middle and high schools. Majority are not just below grade level but way below grade level.

[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:

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.

Remember that DC is calling these "Report Cards." Not "High Testing Score Growth Schools."

Report cards don't grade you on how much you improved but on how well you did.

Report cards don’t aggregate all your subjects.

Dumb.

Reports aren’t ducks either.