Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Curious how all the parents who defended 2.0 and made fun of me for suggesting we needed to kick it old school with vocabulary and grammar feel about the scores? You know who you are: all the people who said, "my kindergartener is thriving! We love our school! Stop complaining and give it a chance!"
Both things can be true. I'm one of the parents who said my child was thriving, and the test scores demonstrate that she is. 5s all around on PARCC since she started taking it, high MAPs, etc.
So it worked for my kid. It clearly did not work for others, and that's an issue, but I wouldn't assume the other parents were speaking in bad faith.
Did you supplement? Is your kid a bookworm?
Anonymous wrote:Shocked about Oakland terrace. ?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Curious how all the parents who defended 2.0 and made fun of me for suggesting we needed to kick it old school with vocabulary and grammar feel about the scores? You know who you are: all the people who said, "my kindergartener is thriving! We love our school! Stop complaining and give it a chance!"
Both things can be true. I'm one of the parents who said my child was thriving, and the test scores demonstrate that she is. 5s all around on PARCC since she started taking it, high MAPs, etc.
So it worked for my kid. It clearly did not work for others, and that's an issue, but I wouldn't assume the other parents were speaking in bad faith.
Anonymous wrote:Curious how all the parents who defended 2.0 and made fun of me for suggesting we needed to kick it old school with vocabulary and grammar feel about the scores? You know who you are: all the people who said, "my kindergartener is thriving! We love our school! Stop complaining and give it a chance!"
Anonymous wrote:Shocked about Oakland terrace. ?
Anonymous wrote:Shocked about Oakland terrace. ?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm not impressed by the bell curve either because what it takes to get a 3, 4, or 5 is terrifyingly low.
Its measuring grade level proficiency not performance or academic achievement. A school with a 4 and a 66% means that 44% of the school is not measuring in at grade level proficiency. A 3 requires just over half of your school passing which conversely means that almost half of the rest of school is failing.
Sounds like someone had that 2.0 math in school.
Anonymous wrote:Looked at Poolesville HS, since it is supposed to have three test-in magnet programs, and one non-magnet program for local students who do not qualify for the Science, Humanities and GE programs.
It is a rural community with lower numbers of Hispanic population than Gaithersburg. There are more White rural students. Interesting to see the performance of White students in ELA. Majority of Asians are either bussed to the school or are high achieving and their families moved to poolesville for the magnet HS. Special Ed students typically are in non-magnet programs, though there are some twice gifted students in the magnet programs as well. Most Hispanic students are those who are in magnet programs and are high achieving.
PERCENT PROFICIENT
-- ---- ---- ---- -- MATH -- -- ELA
Asian-- ---- ---- ---- ---- --97.6 % -- -- 92.9 %
Black or African American-- ---- 70 % -- -- 52.2 %
Hispanic/Latino of any race -- -- 75 % -- -- 72.7 %
White-- ---- ---- ---- -- 81.9 % -- -- 54 %
Two or more races-- ---- -- 88.9 % -- -- 65 %
Special Education-- ---- -- 37.5 % -- -- 22.2 %
All Students-- ---- ---- -- 85.4 % -- -- 66.3 %
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Only 2 MS with a 5? that's sad. Not even all of the W MS got a 5. What is up with the MS?
Which MS? Can't get into the darn report.
Try this:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/See-how-MCPS-schools-ranked-by-cluster.pdf
It's actually 3 MS, and of course, all in wealthy clusters:
North Bethesda
Hoover
Pyle
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I just heard on NPR that 25% of Montgomery County schools scored 5 stars. Five stars start at 75% and above. Seems like a pretty weak showing.
Maybe it is harder to be proficient on PARCC when your curriculum does not actually align with the Common Core?
The Curriculum isn't true Common Core. The issue is the Curriculum 2.0, which has no text books, no math facts (just strategies), no vocabulary, no spelling and no grammar. Most kids who are doing well on PARCC are probably either just that smart or supplemented at home.
I do have to say that they are working on all of these things you listed this year in our ES, despite the delay in better curriculum.
Anonymous wrote:I'm not impressed by the bell curve either because what it takes to get a 3, 4, or 5 is terrifyingly low.
Its measuring grade level proficiency not performance or academic achievement. A school with a 4 and a 66% means that 44% of the school is not measuring in at grade level proficiency. A 3 requires just over half of your school passing which conversely means that almost half of the rest of school is failing.