New Charter Tier Rankings Are Out

[Anonymous]

One thing that I noticed is that the sibling preference seems to hurt extended families who live together. E.g., two half-sisters are both single moms and they live together, raising their two daughters more like sisters than cousins. Because of the dynamic of the family, the cousins need to go to the same school (perhaps one aunt does drop-off and one does pick-up). They are forced, therefore, into the IB school because the HRC does not give them sibling preference and they can't handle two different pick-up, drop-offs.

I think if DCPS wanted to make a difference for DC families, situations like these should have been given sibling preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing that I noticed is that the sibling preference seems to hurt extended families who live together. E.g., two half-sisters are both single moms and they live together, raising their two daughters more like sisters than cousins. Because of the dynamic of the family, the cousins need to go to the same school (perhaps one aunt does drop-off and one does pick-up). They are forced, therefore, into the IB school because the HRC does not give them sibling preference and they can't handle two different pick-up, drop-offs.

I think if DCPS wanted to make a difference for DC families, situations like these should have been given sibling preference.

Actually each charter can define sibling differently and some have broader definitions. But you have to know to ask / do the research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me how Sela is ranked in a tier when it has no PARCC score? I do not understand this at all and it seems to undermine the whole tier system since you are no longer comparing apples to apples. The other schools that are not tiered did not have PARCC scores. And, for example, this is the first year that CMI is tiered. I do not see how Sela got a ranking - this must be a mistake, and if so, it should be fixed because it is misleading. Not knowing the school at all - I know happy people there - but this makes no sense.

In 2014-15 DCPCSB developed a PMF approach for ECE (PK-3 to 2nd). The idea was that although students shouldn't take an assessment like PARCC there needed to be some accountability measures and standard metrics.

50% of the PMF ranking for a PK3-2nd school is based on student performance and 50% on school culture and some other factors.

Schools like Bridges that are growing one grade at a time and are planned to go to 5th, will not be ranked until their oldest students reach 4th. Sela is only going to 3nd at this point, and has students in their top grade, thus is ranked.

See page 2 at this link for Sela's scores. http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/Sela%20PCS_EC_PK-2_2016.pdf

Great answer. But the sheet says Sela is going to 5th, just like Bridges. But I still don't agree a pk3-2 should be ranked. Scores? Sure. But not ranked tiers as 50% is based on a very easy measure that's easy to obtain 100% on every year. Other things are graded are easily obtained measures like attendance. If that's the case, why not rank AppleTree for Gold testing?

Agree that the asterisk on Bridges' sheet would seem to apply to Sela (i.e., "Schools that are growing one grade at a time that do not yet serve grade 4 or higher will receive an overall score but no tier"). So I'm not sure why Sela got a tier but Bridges didn't.

Also, while a tier 1 ranking is nice publicity and great recognition for hard-working teachers and a committed administration, I agree that not having PARCC scores makes horizontal comparison to other schools noisy at best.

So I'm more focused on time series analysis. Sela's 2016 report compared to its 2015 report shows marked improvement in student progress in both reading and math as assessed by NWEA MAP (17.6 to 70 reading; 33.3 to 82 math), as well as school environment (e.g., re-enrollment from 46.6 percent to 76.1 percent). What's more, Sela's total enrollment--which is an important indicator for young schools and has been the subject of some speculation on this board in the past--has risen from 86 to 134. In short, although the data don't allow for perfect comparison of Sela to other schools, they do show significant progress on both objective (e.g., re-enrollment, total enrollment) and more subjective measures (e.g., NWEA MAP assessments) year-over-year. That is worth celebration in my mind, tier or no tier.

And for full disclosure, yes I am a happy Sela parent


http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/Sela_PCS_2014-2015%20PMF.pdf

http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/Sela%20PCS_EC_PK-2_2016.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's really interesting to me that there are two Tier 1 charters accessible to Capitol Hill (Chamberlain and Eagle Academy) that have basically no white students; whereas two of DCUM's "HRCS" are tier 2.

You are ignoring Two Rivers. Tier 1 with a student population that mirrors DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me how Sela is ranked in a tier when it has no PARCC score? I do not understand this at all and it seems to undermine the whole tier system since you are no longer comparing apples to apples. The other schools that are not tiered did not have PARCC scores. And, for example, this is the first year that CMI is tiered. I do not see how Sela got a ranking - this must be a mistake, and if so, it should be fixed because it is misleading. Not knowing the school at all - I know happy people there - but this makes no sense.

In 2014-15 DCPCSB developed a PMF approach for ECE (PK-3 to 2nd). The idea was that although students shouldn't take an assessment like PARCC there needed to be some accountability measures and standard metrics.

50% of the PMF ranking for a PK3-2nd school is based on student performance and 50% on school culture and some other factors.

Schools like Bridges that are growing one grade at a time and are planned to go to 5th, will not be ranked until their oldest students reach 4th. Sela is only going to 3nd at this point, and has students in their top grade, thus is ranked.

See page 2 at this link for Sela's scores. http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/Sela%20PCS_EC_PK-2_2016.pdf

Great answer. But the sheet says Sela is going to 5th, just like Bridges. But I still don't agree a pk3-2 should be ranked. Scores? Sure. But not ranked tiers as 50% is based on a very easy measure that's easy to obtain 100% on every year. Other things are graded are easily obtained measures like attendance. If that's the case, why not rank AppleTree for Gold testing?

Agree that the asterisk on Bridges' sheet would seem to apply to Sela (i.e., "Schools that are growing one grade at a time that do not yet serve grade 4 or higher will receive an overall score but no tier"). So I'm not sure why Sela got a tier but Bridges didn't.

Also, while a tier 1 ranking is nice publicity and great recognition for hard-working teachers and a committed administration, I agree that not having PARCC scores makes horizontal comparison to other schools noisy at best.

So I'm more focused on time series analysis. Sela's 2016 report compared to its 2015 report shows marked improvement in student progress in both reading and math as assessed by NWEA MAP (17.6 to 70 reading; 33.3 to 82 math), as well as school environment (e.g., re-enrollment from 46.6 percent to 76.1 percent). What's more, Sela's total enrollment--which is an important indicator for young schools and has been the subject of some speculation on this board in the past--has risen from 86 to 134. In short, although the data don't allow for perfect comparison of Sela to other schools, they do show significant progress on both objective (e.g., re-enrollment, total enrollment) and more subjective measures (e.g., NWEA MAP assessments) year-over-year. That is worth celebration in my mind, tier or no tier.

And for full disclosure, yes I am a happy Sela parent


http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/Sela_PCS_2014-2015%20PMF.pdf

http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/Sela%20PCS_EC_PK-2_2016.pdf

Per the PMF Policy and Technical Guide (see page 6 of the link below):

"Schools that recently opened and are growing one grade at a time that do not yet serve grade 4 or higher and also do not use Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress (NWEA MAP) will receive an overall score but no tier. (Note: Schools that choose to give NWEA MAP will follow the framework guidelines for schools ending prior to grade 4 and will receive a tier.)"

Bridges did not have 4th grade last year and chose not to give the NWEA MAP, so it didn't get a tier. Sela also did not have a 4th grade, but it chose to give the NWEA MAP, so it got a tier.

http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/Vote--2015-16%20PMF_Policy%20%20Tech_March%20Meeting%20Final%20Clean%20Copy.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's really interesting to me that there are two Tier 1 charters accessible to Capitol Hill (Chamberlain and Eagle Academy) that have basically no white students; whereas two of DCUM's "HRCS" are tier 2.

You are ignoring Two Rivers. Tier 1 with a student population that mirrors DC.

Also, regarding the two HRCS that are not tier 1, I wouldn't be too concerned. They literally had the same PARCC scores if not better than some tier 1s. Sure they didn't have growth (which I wouldn't make excuses for) but one can wager that a school that size (I think they both only have two classes per grade) any fluctuation from year to year will have large impact. Additionally, they will probably always be a few points lower with attrition as they don't have high school paths. As both schools are entering their older grades, they find themselves seeing kids leave for high school feeders (Two Rivers doesn't have this as much but they are established and a lot larger). Again because of their small size per grade, this will impact overall %. Is there any other newer (5 years or less) charter that only has two class grades and not have high school path that made tier 1 (save Sela)?

[Anonymous]

Sela needs to be investigated. But if you think that they really got a 100% score on all of the academic areas...just no. As a former teacher there I'm going to say that someone should contact the board.

[Anonymous]

Totally agree. The PARCC scores are only provided in the aggregate so a school with a significant population of SN kids, like CMI or Bridges (once Bridges is reported out) will always probably have lower scores. So, you need to look at the other factors to better understand what might be happening at the school. Of course, you should also look at your own child and make your own determination based on how your child is individually doing at any given school. Each child is unique and there is absolutely no one school that is right for every child. The fact is that when white families see a significant percentage of white students at a CMI or ITS (and let's be honest about the fact that 40 - 46% is very high percentage given the demographics of the white student population in public schools is DC), they flock to those schools because assumptions are made about ithe quality of the educational program, the "values" of the other families at the school, the economic background of the families, the "readiness" of the other students, the safety of the school, etc. There is nothing new about this - this has been going on in America forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree. The PARCC scores are only provided in the aggregate so a school with a significant population of SN kids, like CMI or Bridges (once Bridges is reported out) will always probably have lower scores. So, you need to look at the other factors to better understand what might be happening at the school. Of course, you should also look at your own child and make your own determination based on how your child is individually doing at any given school. Each child is unique and there is absolutely no one school that is right for every child. The fact is that when white families see a significant percentage of white students at a CMI or ITS (and let's be honest about the fact that 40 - 46% is very high percentage given the demographics of the white student population in public schools is DC), they flock to those schools because assumptions are made about ithe quality of the educational program, the "values" of the other families at the school, the economic background of the families, the "readiness" of the other students, the safety of the school, etc. There is nothing new about this - this has been going on in America forever.

You can get deaggregated PARCC scores on learndc.org Go to the Next Generation Assessment section, search for a school and scroll down to where you can sort by grade, demographics or special populations (eg students with or without SN). In some cases the numbers are too small to report but for ITS and. MI you get a sense of how various populations are doing relative to each other.

[Anonymous]

typo: for ITS and CMI

[Anonymous]

I don't see what the big deal is about these rankings since, according to this thread, there are only 5 charter schools in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see what the big deal is about these rankings since, according to this thread, there are only 5 charter schools in DC.

The rankings drive which schools are likely to expand (see the Tier 1 schools no one mentions here) as well as which will attract outside / private foundation donors. They may not matter much to parents but they do matter.

[Anonymous]

I am an ITS parent and my take is that the PARCC test measures how much test preparation a school/class has done as much as it measures whether or not students are on grade level. Historically, ITS has done very little formal test prep and I think their results (especially given the computer-based format of PARCC) reflect this. I'd hate to go down the road of lots more test prep because I am skeptical that PARCC does a good job of measuring the skills that I most want my kids to have. But I think the school is stuck in a hard place on this.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes (not always) a standardized test can tease out issues that a progressive curriculum can mask, such as learning disabilities or differences.

If an otherwise strong student or reader gets a 2 or 3 it is time for parents and teachers to ask questions and consider why there is a discrepancy. But simply dismissing the test as invalid seems foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes (not always) a standardized test can tease out issues that a progressive curriculum can mask, such as learning disabilities or differences.

If an otherwise strong student or reader gets a 2 or 3 it is time for parents and teachers to ask questions and consider why there is a discrepancy. But simply dismissing the test as invalid seems foolish.

I'm not dismissing the test results nor are my friends that got 2 or 3. Like I said, my DD got 4s on PARCC and we do not supplement. I was just trying to give my testimony. I see today's PARCC as a step above DCCAS in that a 3 on PARCC is like passing on PARCC. When I look at the % of 3s, I feel more at ease. I'm sure the % of kids getting from 3 to 4 will continue increase, especially as the younger kids get into testing grades (current 1st and 2nd).