I just scooped the DCPCSB - 2018 tiers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does "instructional support" actually mean?

Under CLASS? See below.

What does CLASS assess? CLASS focuses on teacher-child interactions. CLASS assesses processes rather
than structure. Tis means that CLASS is not looking at the content of the physical environment, materials, or specific curricula. At the broadest level, CLASS describes three domains of teacher-child interactions that support children’s learning and development: Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, and Instructional Support.
• Emotional Support captures how teachers help children develop positive relationships, enjoyment in learning, comfort in the classroom, and appropriate levels of independence.
• Classroom Organization focuses on how teachers manage the classroom to maximize learning and keep children engaged.
• Instructional Support involves how teachers promote children’s thinking and problem solving, use feedback to deepen understanding, and help children develop more complex language skills.

I have to wonder how that is measured. I looked at several of the reports and it looked like many were below target in that area. Lee, where I send my kid, also was. But I feel like that's part of what they do so well there, hands on problem solving and contextual understanding. Are schools given ideas for improvement in the areas they score below target?

My kids go to LAMB and this Instructional Support is always where they receive their worst score. I believe it is hard for Montessori programs to score well on this measure because by design they are more hands-off in directing the kids. I thought I read that they were working on a way to take this in to account in this measurement.

Instructional Support is where all of the preschools generally receive a lower score than in the other two CLASS indicators. The range for points for Instructional Support is between a 2 and 4. The range for the other two indicators is 4.5 to 6.

I'm a certified CLASS observer and the range for all 3 areas is 1-7.

How do you adapt CLASS for Montessori and other student-driven learning environments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does "instructional support" actually mean?

Under CLASS? See below.

What does CLASS assess? CLASS focuses on teacher-child interactions. CLASS assesses processes rather
than structure. Tis means that CLASS is not looking at the content of the physical environment, materials, or specific curricula. At the broadest level, CLASS describes three domains of teacher-child interactions that support children’s learning and development: Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, and Instructional Support.
• Emotional Support captures how teachers help children develop positive relationships, enjoyment in learning, comfort in the classroom, and appropriate levels of independence.
• Classroom Organization focuses on how teachers manage the classroom to maximize learning and keep children engaged.
• Instructional Support involves how teachers promote children’s thinking and problem solving, use feedback to deepen understanding, and help children develop more complex language skills.

I have to wonder how that is measured. I looked at several of the reports and it looked like many were below target in that area. Lee, where I send my kid, also was. But I feel like that's part of what they do so well there, hands on problem solving and contextual understanding. Are schools given ideas for improvement in the areas they score below target?

My kids go to LAMB and this Instructional Support is always where they receive their worst score. I believe it is hard for Montessori programs to score well on this measure because by design they are more hands-off in directing the kids. I thought I read that they were working on a way to take this in to account in this measurement.

Instructional Support is where all of the preschools generally receive a lower score than in the other two CLASS indicators. The range for points for Instructional Support is between a 2 and 4. The range for the other two indicators is 4.5 to 6.

I'm a certified CLASS observer and the range for all 3 areas is 1-7.

How do you adapt CLASS for Montessori and other student-driven learning environments?

Honestly you don't adapt CLASS. It is a research-based tool. I think that is a question that would have to be answered by the developers.

[Anonymous]

So what was the PCSB emergency meeting about today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I am a parent of a student at Breakthrough in my third year at the school. I understand the reason for those scores but it is not at all reflective of the quality of education my kid is receiving. Breakthrough is only around for 2 years when it got tested and only its kindergarten scores got counted toward its final grade. It's Pre-K 3 and 4 kids tested in the 90th percentile.

Also a Breakthrough parent. We love our little school and are so thankful for the education our daughter is receiving in pk4. Of course a (surprisingly) low score isn’t good, but my biggest concern is trend more than anything else. If next year’s score is equally low, that’s a clear sign to me that it’s time to explore other options. I’m sure others- even other parents of students at our school- won’t all agree with me, but that’s where we find ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does "instructional support" actually mean?

Under CLASS? See below.

What does CLASS assess? CLASS focuses on teacher-child interactions. CLASS assesses processes rather
than structure. Tis means that CLASS is not looking at the content of the physical environment, materials, or specific curricula. At the broadest level, CLASS describes three domains of teacher-child interactions that support children’s learning and development: Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, and Instructional Support.
• Emotional Support captures how teachers help children develop positive relationships, enjoyment in learning, comfort in the classroom, and appropriate levels of independence.
• Classroom Organization focuses on how teachers manage the classroom to maximize learning and keep children engaged.
• Instructional Support involves how teachers promote children’s thinking and problem solving, use feedback to deepen understanding, and help children develop more complex language skills.

I have to wonder how that is measured. I looked at several of the reports and it looked like many were below target in that area. Lee, where I send my kid, also was. But I feel like that's part of what they do so well there, hands on problem solving and contextual understanding. Are schools given ideas for improvement in the areas they score below target?

My kids go to LAMB and this Instructional Support is always where they receive their worst score. I believe it is hard for Montessori programs to score well on this measure because by design they are more hands-off in directing the kids. I thought I read that they were working on a way to take this in to account in this measurement.

Instructional Support is where all of the preschools generally receive a lower score than in the other two CLASS indicators. The range for points for Instructional Support is between a 2 and 4. The range for the other two indicators is 4.5 to 6.

I'm a certified CLASS observer and the range for all 3 areas is 1-7.

For instructional support the range to receive points on the PMF is 2 to 4. No points are received for a score under 2 and max points are given for a score at 4 or above. Call me a certified PMF observer or check it out for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazed that SSMA did that well.

This just proves to me that these tiers are complete nonsense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazed that SSMA did that well.

This just proves to me that these tiers are complete nonsense

Well, even re-enrollment was up so, ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The aggregate reports aren't out, but I just was clicking around to do some research on another thread, and discovered that the 2018 PMF/Tiering are active on the DCPCSB website. The cut off for Tier One was 65% this year

Some "HRCSs"

Tier One:
Basis Upper 97.3
Basis Middle 70.8
DCB 74.7
ITS 74.6
Latin Middle 72.2
Latin Upper 93.4
Lee Montessori 70.1
LAMB 86.0
Mundo Verde 73.3
SSMA 75.4
TR4 72.0
YY 93.8



Tier Two:
Bridges 42.3
Creative Minds 55.4


Tier Three:
Breakthrough 28.8

How fair is the PMF really? Schools like Bridges and Creative Minds with higher populations of special needs and other schools with higher at-risk don't seem to get the same credit on the PMF as schools with lower populations of SPED or at-risk kids. This isn't just sour grapes (ok, maybe a little). But it is what seems apparent to me in looking at OSSE's averages for PARCC growth for different groups.

PARCC Growth Percentiles, Math, Reading
All Students, 50, 50
Econ Disadvantaged, 47, 47
Special Education, 44, 40
Black, 46, 46
White, 65, 63
https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/2017_Equity_Report_Citywide_District%20of%20Columbia.pdf (page 5)


If a school serving SPED kids has average growth for their students, they'd earn 10.5 points on the growth section of the PMF.
A school serving Black kids with average growth for their students, would earn 14 points.
A school serving White kids with average growth would earn 29.7 points.

The PMF calculator is online and you can enter the numbers yourself and see what I mean. https://www.dcpcsb.org/performance-management-framework-pmf/performance-management-framework-pmf-calculators

This is a really good point. At the same time, these two schools' growth numbers this year are lower than they should be, even taking into account the makeup of their student bodies.

Link to their pmfs? I can't access them.

You can access them using the Sela link earlier in the thread, but replacing the school name in the link.

https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2018-10-29%20Creative%20Minds%20International%20PCS%20PK3-8%20PMF.pdf

https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2018-10-29%20Bridges%20PCS%20PK3-8%20PMF.pdf

My attempts to crack the code for LAMB have been unsuccessful; help me out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The aggregate reports aren't out, but I just was clicking around to do some research on another thread, and discovered that the 2018 PMF/Tiering are active on the DCPCSB website. The cut off for Tier One was 65% this year

Some "HRCSs"

Tier One:
Basis Upper 97.3
Basis Middle 70.8
DCB 74.7
ITS 74.6
Latin Middle 72.2
Latin Upper 93.4
Lee Montessori 70.1
LAMB 86.0
Mundo Verde 73.3
SSMA 75.4
TR4 72.0
YY 93.8



Tier Two:
Bridges 42.3
Creative Minds 55.4


Tier Three:
Breakthrough 28.8

How fair is the PMF really? Schools like Bridges and Creative Minds with higher populations of special needs and other schools with higher at-risk don't seem to get the same credit on the PMF as schools with lower populations of SPED or at-risk kids. This isn't just sour grapes (ok, maybe a little). But it is what seems apparent to me in looking at OSSE's averages for PARCC growth for different groups.

PARCC Growth Percentiles, Math, Reading
All Students, 50, 50
Econ Disadvantaged, 47, 47
Special Education, 44, 40
Black, 46, 46
White, 65, 63
https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/2017_Equity_Report_Citywide_District%20of%20Columbia.pdf (page 5)


If a school serving SPED kids has average growth for their students, they'd earn 10.5 points on the growth section of the PMF.
A school serving Black kids with average growth for their students, would earn 14 points.
A school serving White kids with average growth would earn 29.7 points.

The PMF calculator is online and you can enter the numbers yourself and see what I mean. https://www.dcpcsb.org/performance-management-framework-pmf/performance-management-framework-pmf-calculators

This is a really good point. At the same time, these two schools' growth numbers this year are lower than they should be, even taking into account the makeup of their student bodies.

Link to their pmfs? I can't access them.

You can access them using the Sela link earlier in the thread, but replacing the school name in the link.

https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2018-10-29%20Creative%20Minds%20International%20PCS%20PK3-8%20PMF.pdf

https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2018-10-29%20Bridges%20PCS%20PK3-8%20PMF.pdf

My attempts to crack the code for LAMB have been unsuccessful; help me out?

What's to crack? High income kids who test well and have good support at the school. They show up well on the PMF. Less than 10% at-risk, less than 20% black. The white and Hispanic subgroups generally have the highest growth percentiles in DC per the Equity Report. This gives an advantage on the PMF.

If you look at the 16-17 Equity Report for LAMB, you'll see that 44% of all students are meeting or exceeding expectations in math (4+ on PARCC). 11% of economically disadvantaged students are meeting or exceeding expectations. It helps that LAMB has very few of those kids. For PARCC growth (MGP) there are too few economically disadvantaged or black kids for the numbers to be reported.

Seems like a good school with students who perform well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The aggregate reports aren't out, but I just was clicking around to do some research on another thread, and discovered that the 2018 PMF/Tiering are active on the DCPCSB website. The cut off for Tier One was 65% this year

Some "HRCSs"

Tier One:
Basis Upper 97.3
Basis Middle 70.8
DCB 74.7
ITS 74.6
Latin Middle 72.2
Latin Upper 93.4
Lee Montessori 70.1
LAMB 86.0
Mundo Verde 73.3
SSMA 75.4
TR4 72.0
YY 93.8



Tier Two:
Bridges 42.3
Creative Minds 55.4


Tier Three:
Breakthrough 28.8

How fair is the PMF really? Schools like Bridges and Creative Minds with higher populations of special needs and other schools with higher at-risk don't seem to get the same credit on the PMF as schools with lower populations of SPED or at-risk kids. This isn't just sour grapes (ok, maybe a little). But it is what seems apparent to me in looking at OSSE's averages for PARCC growth for different groups.

PARCC Growth Percentiles, Math, Reading
All Students, 50, 50
Econ Disadvantaged, 47, 47
Special Education, 44, 40
Black, 46, 46
White, 65, 63
https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/2017_Equity_Report_Citywide_District%20of%20Columbia.pdf (page 5)


If a school serving SPED kids has average growth for their students, they'd earn 10.5 points on the growth section of the PMF.
A school serving Black kids with average growth for their students, would earn 14 points.
A school serving White kids with average growth would earn 29.7 points.

The PMF calculator is online and you can enter the numbers yourself and see what I mean. https://www.dcpcsb.org/performance-management-framework-pmf/performance-management-framework-pmf-calculators

This is a really good point. At the same time, these two schools' growth numbers this year are lower than they should be, even taking into account the makeup of their student bodies.

Link to their pmfs? I can't access them.

You can access them using the Sela link earlier in the thread, but replacing the school name in the link.

https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2018-10-29%20Creative%20Minds%20International%20PCS%20PK3-8%20PMF.pdf

https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2018-10-29%20Bridges%20PCS%20PK3-8%20PMF.pdf

My attempts to crack the code for LAMB have been unsuccessful; help me out?

What's to crack? High income kids who test well and have good support at the school. They show up well on the PMF. Less than 10% at-risk, less than 20% black. The white and Hispanic subgroups generally have the highest growth percentiles in DC per the Equity Report. This gives an advantage on the PMF.

If you look at the 16-17 Equity Report for LAMB, you'll see that 44% of all students are meeting or exceeding expectations in math (4+ on PARCC). 11% of economically disadvantaged students are meeting or exceeding expectations. It helps that LAMB has very few of those kids. For PARCC growth (MGP) there are too few economically disadvantaged or black kids for the numbers to be reported.

Seems like a good school with students who perform well.

As discussed above, students have a growth percentile calculated against similarly scoring students, not all kids in their age group. So there is no inherent advantage in having any specific group at the school in terms of the growth score. There is, of course, for overall testing levels, which is 35% of the PMF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The aggregate reports aren't out, but I just was clicking around to do some research on another thread, and discovered that the 2018 PMF/Tiering are active on the DCPCSB website. The cut off for Tier One was 65% this year

Some "HRCSs"

Tier One:
Basis Upper 97.3
Basis Middle 70.8
DCB 74.7
ITS 74.6
Latin Middle 72.2
Latin Upper 93.4
Lee Montessori 70.1
LAMB 86.0
Mundo Verde 73.3
SSMA 75.4
TR4 72.0
YY 93.8



Tier Two:
Bridges 42.3
Creative Minds 55.4


Tier Three:
Breakthrough 28.8

How fair is the PMF really? Schools like Bridges and Creative Minds with higher populations of special needs and other schools with higher at-risk don't seem to get the same credit on the PMF as schools with lower populations of SPED or at-risk kids. This isn't just sour grapes (ok, maybe a little). But it is what seems apparent to me in looking at OSSE's averages for PARCC growth for different groups.

PARCC Growth Percentiles, Math, Reading
All Students, 50, 50
Econ Disadvantaged, 47, 47
Special Education, 44, 40
Black, 46, 46
White, 65, 63
https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/2017_Equity_Report_Citywide_District%20of%20Columbia.pdf (page 5)


If a school serving SPED kids has average growth for their students, they'd earn 10.5 points on the growth section of the PMF.
A school serving Black kids with average growth for their students, would earn 14 points.
A school serving White kids with average growth would earn 29.7 points.

The PMF calculator is online and you can enter the numbers yourself and see what I mean. https://www.dcpcsb.org/performance-management-framework-pmf/performance-management-framework-pmf-calculators

This is a really good point. At the same time, these two schools' growth numbers this year are lower than they should be, even taking into account the makeup of their student bodies.

Link to their pmfs? I can't access them.

You can access them using the Sela link earlier in the thread, but replacing the school name in the link.

https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2018-10-29%20Creative%20Minds%20International%20PCS%20PK3-8%20PMF.pdf

https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2018-10-29%20Bridges%20PCS%20PK3-8%20PMF.pdf

My attempts to crack the code for LAMB have been unsuccessful; help me out?

What's to crack? High income kids who test well and have good support at the school. They show up well on the PMF. Less than 10% at-risk, less than 20% black. The white and Hispanic subgroups generally have the highest growth percentiles in DC per the Equity Report. This gives an advantage on the PMF.

If you look at the 16-17 Equity Report for LAMB, you'll see that 44% of all students are meeting or exceeding expectations in math (4+ on PARCC). 11% of economically disadvantaged students are meeting or exceeding expectations. It helps that LAMB has very few of those kids. For PARCC growth (MGP) there are too few economically disadvantaged or black kids for the numbers to be reported.

Seems like a good school with students who perform well.

You think that only about half of non-disadvantaged kids scoring 4 or higher is good?? That sounds pretty bad to me. It should be much higher. Also, 11% of disadvantaged kids scoring 4+ is pretty bad for that group too.

[Anonymous]

I thought the poster just wanted to know how to enter LAMB into the url to get the PMF. I think they are all available publicly now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You think that only about half of non-disadvantaged kids scoring 4 or higher is good?? That sounds pretty bad to me. It should be much higher. Also, 11% of disadvantaged kids scoring 4+ is pretty bad for that group too.

I think it's good for the PMF score - and apparently so do the people who crafted the PMF. Certainly not good for disadvantaged kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the poster just wanted to know how to enter LAMB into the url to get the PMF. I think they are all available publicly now.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As discussed above, students have a growth percentile calculated against similarly scoring students, not all kids in their age group. So there is no inherent advantage in having any specific group at the school in terms of the growth score. There is, of course, for overall testing levels, which is 35% of the PMF.

Of course there is an inherent advantage. Read the Equity Report. White students in the district have an average growth score of 65. Black students have average growth of 46. This disparity in growth remains true even in "high performing" schools.