Reply to MD 2022-2023 MCAP Results: Only 14% proficient ELA, 13 proficient math at state-level; MCPS 13.5% ELA, 13.7% math

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "MD 2022-2023 MCAP Results: Only 14% proficient ELA, 13 proficient math at state-level; MCPS 13.5% ELA, 13.7% math"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The numbers don’t make sense. How if it possible that 14.4 percent are proficient in ELA overall, but 24 percent of economically disadvantaged and 53 percent of more affluent students for the same? How does that add up to 14.4 percent?? It doesn’t.[/quote]

[img]https://media.tenor.com/EaNAYeI91vgAAAAC/frankt.gif[/img]

Ok. Clearly your math proficiency also isn't up to par. Did you miss the coursework on statistics and percentages?

The economically advantaged group is a SUBSET of the overall Maryland student population.

The blended rate of ALL MD students is 14.4% ELA proficiency. However, if you EXTRACT only the "economically-advantaged" students, THAT group has a 53% ELA proficiency.

They are distinct data points and you're not supposed to add them up to equal 100%....

[img]https://media.tenor.com/3m_dNMNmzdIAAAAC/omg-lord.gif[/img][/quote]

Oh my goodness!!!! Before you start being condescending it would help if you know what you are talking about. I interpret data for a living and this data, as presented is incomprehensible. I never suggested that the numbers needed to add up to 100 but if you had any clue about stats you’d see that they don’t MAKE SENSE.

Perhaps there is another category between economically disadvantaged and and economically advantaged, but how is it possible that both economically disadvantaged and economically advantaged kids have proficiency rates that are HIGHER than the overall average? If that’s actually true then it’s great news for the economically disadvantaged group which would typically have a lower rate of achievement than the general population. There is zero chance that this is the case.

If you click the link you’ll see that there are graphics included which fail to identify what the economic numbers refer to. I assume it’s a different metric than the 14.4 percent, but the reporter obviously doesn’t understand stats (just like you) and has conflated the two. Perhaps instead of the percentage provident it’s the number both proficient and approaching proficiency?

It’s a terrible article that doesn’t make sense in multiple places. Unfortunately many reporters misstate statistics so this isn’t uncommon, but this is a particularly egregious example. (As is the fact that you got the data so wrong and were so sanctimonious in making your error). Clearly most of DCUM is willing to accept any numbers without questioning.[/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