Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The data also relies on all different tests and all different proficiency metrics and then compares them across all states as though they are equivalent. We all know that when PARCC was widely used, DC set the proficiency mark as a 4, whereas most states set it as a 3. This, comparatively, makes DC look far less proficient, but is completely misleading. This data has way too many problems to be useful.
Why does DC make themselves look bad?
What is bad about having high standards for your students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The data also relies on all different tests and all different proficiency metrics and then compares them across all states as though they are equivalent. We all know that when PARCC was widely used, DC set the proficiency mark as a 4, whereas most states set it as a 3. This, comparatively, makes DC look far less proficient, but is completely misleading. This data has way too many problems to be useful.
Why does DC make themselves look bad?
What is bad about having high standards for your students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The data also relies on all different tests and all different proficiency metrics and then compares them across all states as though they are equivalent. We all know that when PARCC was widely used, DC set the proficiency mark as a 4, whereas most states set it as a 3. This, comparatively, makes DC look far less proficient, but is completely misleading. This data has way too many problems to be useful.
Why does DC make themselves look bad?