Anonymous wrote:The accountability score is strange. If scores are good, but there is no growth from the previous year, the accountability score is low…

Anonymous wrote:The Science CAPE is weird - my kid said he was unprepared for it/teachers didn't prep them for it.

I can't remember and I don't have the paper any more but it was something like he got like a 4 (is that right?) compared to the 5s he got on the other parts but then his relative-to-other kids score was like 95%??? or something like that....which told me that like nobody got a good score on the Science CAPE.

Sorry my memory on this is shaky.

Anonymous wrote:Given that it's a sort of random formula, it is really interesting how much the Hill/Hill-adjacent ES accountability scores track popular wisdom with a few notable exceptions:

JO Wilson 98!!! (WOW)
Brent 86
SWS 84
Ludlow-Taylor 73
Payne 70 (tracking perceived rise)
Maury 65 (surprisingly low)
Chisholm 57
CHML 50
Watkins 32 (tracking perceived decline)
Van Ness 31
TR4 14 (ouch)
Miner 12
Amidon 12
TRY 4 (death spiral?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've looked at a handful of schools, and the science scores are across the board lower than ELA or math. I know it's a new test--and I know I've only looked at a few schools, but it does also say that on math and ELA, a 4 is "meets grade-level expectations," but for science, it's a 3.

I wonder if the science test needs to be redesigned to better reflect the curricula schools are teaching.

Here are some of the science results for middle schools:

percent proficient:

BASIS: 64%
Latin, Anna Cooper: 54%
Latin, original: 38%
Deal: 35%
ITDS: 24%
Hardy: 21%
Francis: 10 %
SH: 6%
EH:7%

The problem isn't the test. It's DCPS.

You've missed my point, which was about the test. Even BASIS did much worse on science than on math or ELA.

That's not true, BASIS math profiency is 68%, so very comparable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've looked at a handful of schools, and the science scores are across the board lower than ELA or math. I know it's a new test--and I know I've only looked at a few schools, but it does also say that on math and ELA, a 4 is "meets grade-level expectations," but for science, it's a 3.

I wonder if the science test needs to be redesigned to better reflect the curricula schools are teaching.

I think science only goes up to 4, there's no 5. Which is weird and makes comparison across subjects more difficult.

FWIW my kid got 4s on math and ELA, despite having gotten 5s on PARCC all prior years. Yet somehow she got a perfect score on the science CAPE. It's a mystery.

There are so many things that go into these numbers, and some of it can be traced back to No Child Left Behind which IMO started this obsession with ELA and Math test scores - taking time/focus/funding away from other subject instructions. A few years ago I know DCPS got in trouble bc across the board they were not providing as much science instruction as they were supposed to, in order to focus on math and ELA. Not to mention, many schools have two teachers in the room when they are teaching math/ELA, and/or have intervention groups, push-in/pull-out support, etc. In many elementary schools until recently science was considered a 'special' so not even taught every day.
So while big picture, yes - you can blame DCPS or whoever you want for poor science instruction/test scores, but as somebody who has worked in schools in DC, the teachers get mixed signals about what content and schedules to prioritize. All that to say I can see the flip side. As is discussed on here all the time, math and ELA skills are essential for being successful in all of the subjects, so I see why they spend a lot of time on those two.