Reply to Latin replication pulled from PCSB agenda

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Latin replication pulled from PCSB agenda"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]the issue with charter and DCPS "percentages" is how to approach the data from Wards 5, 7, and 8 where charters have grown massively and are very disproportionately at-risk.

The picture for charters used by parents who live in Wards 1, 4 and 6 is different. They are what produces a Latin, where there are lacrosse teams and the at-risk kids get the same growth metrics as if they went to Kramer, Anacostia, or Ballou.[/quote]

Where do you get that at-risk kids have same growth metrics at LAtin and at Ballou, etc?  The Washington post article says that Latin at risk kids do better than at-risk kids at DCPS schools.  Are Ballou, Kramer, Anacostia doing better than other DCPS high schools?  I'd be very interested to hear where you are getting that info and how those schools are doing better at growth metrics than general DCPS high schools at large and better than Latin specifically.

Or did the Washington Post article mis-state the facts and Latin at-risk kids really are doing worse than at-risk kids at DCPS by-right schools?  [/quote]

MP. Growth is not measured in HS, only in MS because PARCC is only given to 10th graders.

The report cards use HS PARCC proficiency, graduation rates (total, 4-year and 5-year), SAT scores (but the bar is just whether you are above or below DC average). [/quote]

Growth is measured and reported for high schools. You can see it on the PMF/School Quality Report for Latin. I assume that the data is also available for DCPS high schools but it doesn't seem to be published anywhere online.

https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/2018-10-29%20Washington%20Latin%20PCS%20%E2%80%93%20Upper%20School%20HS%20PMF.pdf

The old equity reports used to break down data by demographic. Unfortunately, on the PMF, you can only see the MGP for all test takers at Latin and not for at-risk kids.
[/quote]

But the growth metric the PCSB uses for high schools isn't consistent with the one they use for MS. OSSE is developing a way to capture growth that will apply to all high schools, but for now, there isn't one across charters and DCPS.

PMF for charter high schools (excerpt from link above).

A student growth percentile (SGP) is calculated for each student,[b] which shows how that student performed in this year’s assessment compared with all students taking the PARCC who had similar performance in the previous years assessment.[/b] For example, if 20 students had a scale score of 700in last year’s PARCC test, a student who did better than 15 of those students in this year’s test would have an SGP of 75, since that student did better than 75% of the students with a similar score on last year’s assessment. Scores from all students taking the PARCC assessment are used to determine an academic peer group and to calculate SGPs. (2)All of the students’ SGP scores for a school are arrayed from high to low and the midpoint, or median, of these scores, becomes the school’s median growth percentile or MGP; the higher the score, the more students are improving compared with students attending public schools in the PARCC consortium of states. (3)DC PCSB calculates a two-year weighted average (by n-size) by averaging the school’s MGP values from two consecutive years. The two-year weighted average is used to mitigate fluctuations in scores year to year. If a school has only one year of MGP data (e.g. it is a new school offering grade 10 for the first time), only one year of MGP data is used.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics