Reply to I just scooped the DCPCSB

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "I just scooped the DCPCSB - 2018 tiers"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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[/quote]

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

[/quote]

I don't know the ins and outs of how it works.  But the focus on growth, as opposed to final outcomes, is intended to do EXACTLY what you want it to- focus on how an actual school impacts the kids attending, no matter who they are.  The idea is to level the assessment playing field so that if you have a bunch of already smart kids getting 80s on the test, you don't score as well as a school which saw a kid go from 40 to 60.

So I while I don't know exactly how the scoring works, I have confidence that the issue you are worried about has been addressed and "baked in" to the PMF.  That's exactly why they make growth such a big component of the overall score.
 
[/quote]

Okay, I looked a bit more and now see what you are talking about.  The fact that the different groups have different growth percentiles doesn't say anything about those groups per se.  But it does show how white students, who in DC are almost entirely middle/high income, grow in school performance at a faster rate than the average black student in DC, who, on average, are significantly lower income.  This is the achievement gap, playing out over time as the two groups grow further apart.  So focusing on schools which are better able to actually show growth among lower income students, is an appropriate focus for the PMF.  I do wonder if they do an "in-group" growth percentile analysis?  This has to be in education statistics literature somewhere.

It's a very interesting point, thanks for noticing that![/quote]

This is a concept getting at a way to analyze this:

https://community.nwea.org/docs/DOC-1630

Looks like the key is to not just analyze against a norm group solely by grade, but also by student characteristics (race, income, SPED).  Would have to dive in deeper into how the MGP is calculated to understand if they already do some version of this.[/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