Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

So, it's actually more complicated than that if you're looking as a parent. My kid's school seems to do really well with not at risk kids (like top 10 for ELA) and horrendously for at-risk kids. This is awful for those kids and inequitable, but actually the data suggests the school is good for those not at risk. Other schools have a reverse profile. I appreciate that those schools are taking more of the load & are doing it well, but they wouldn't be as good for my kid.

This, this, this!! if you have a higher performing kid, I don’t care about at risk. I care bout overall scores and how many are at least on or above for peer groups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

So, it's actually more complicated than that if you're looking as a parent. My kid's school seems to do really well with not at risk kids (like top 10 for ELA) and horrendously for at-risk kids. This is awful for those kids and inequitable, but actually the data suggests the school is good for those not at risk. Other schools have a reverse profile. I appreciate that those schools are taking more of the load & are doing it well, but they wouldn't be as good for my kid.

Disagree with the interpretation here - this indicates that not at-risk kids at your school do well primarily because of their SES, not that your school's teaching is particularly extraordinary.

DP but would also bet that if you sliced data by caucasion ethnicity, your school suddenly wouldn't stand out as a top 10 anymore.

Can't seem to do this with the Empower dashboard which only allows you to use filters focused on disadvantage rather than advantage (feedback to the person who actually produces the data and was posting here)....

What do you mean by this exactly? You can sort for "white" on the Empower dashboard FWIW. Our school is in the top 10 for white scores.

How? I can only find filters for At risk vs. not, Black, Hispanic, Asian, English learners, students with disabilities

One of these things is not like the others...

?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

So, it's actually more complicated than that if you're looking as a parent. My kid's school seems to do really well with not at risk kids (like top 10 for ELA) and horrendously for at-risk kids. This is awful for those kids and inequitable, but actually the data suggests the school is good for those not at risk. Other schools have a reverse profile. I appreciate that those schools are taking more of the load & are doing it well, but they wouldn't be as good for my kid.

Disagree with the interpretation here - this indicates that not at-risk kids at your school do well primarily because of their SES, not that your school's teaching is particularly extraordinary.

DP but would also bet that if you sliced data by caucasion ethnicity, your school suddenly wouldn't stand out as a top 10 anymore.

Can't seem to do this with the Empower dashboard which only allows you to use filters focused on disadvantage rather than advantage (feedback to the person who actually produces the data and was posting here)....

What do you mean by this exactly? You can sort for "white" on the Empower dashboard FWIW. Our school is in the top 10 for white scores.

How? I can only find filters for At risk vs. not, Black, Hispanic, Asian, English learners, students with disabilities

One of these things is not like the others...

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to compare my school's 3rd grade to all other 3rd grade classes on Empower? Like sort all 3rd grade proficiency levels for ELA to see where we fall?

Not in Empower, but if you use filters on the spreadsheet you can do it.

Is there a way to compare my school's 3rd grade to all other 3rd grade classes on Empower? Like sort all 3rd grade proficiency levels for ELA to see where we fall?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

So, it's actually more complicated than that if you're looking as a parent. My kid's school seems to do really well with not at risk kids (like top 10 for ELA) and horrendously for at-risk kids. This is awful for those kids and inequitable, but actually the data suggests the school is good for those not at risk. Other schools have a reverse profile. I appreciate that those schools are taking more of the load & are doing it well, but they wouldn't be as good for my kid.

Disagree with the interpretation here - this indicates that not at-risk kids at your school do well primarily because of their SES, not that your school's teaching is particularly extraordinary.

DP but would also bet that if you sliced data by caucasion ethnicity, your school suddenly wouldn't stand out as a top 10 anymore.

Can't seem to do this with the Empower dashboard which only allows you to use filters focused on disadvantage rather than advantage (feedback to the person who actually produces the data and was posting here)....

What do you mean by this exactly? You can sort for "white" on the Empower dashboard FWIW. Our school is in the top 10 for white scores.

When you sort by "white/Caucasian" the margins become so thin that the top 10 distinction becomes less meaningful, which I think may have been the point PP was trying to make (though they clearly hadn't looked at the data and were guessing)

Yes, was guessing, but also the point I was making, everything gets so clustered, I'm not sure what an actual statistically meaningful difference is here....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

So, it's actually more complicated than that if you're looking as a parent. My kid's school seems to do really well with not at risk kids (like top 10 for ELA) and horrendously for at-risk kids. This is awful for those kids and inequitable, but actually the data suggests the school is good for those not at risk. Other schools have a reverse profile. I appreciate that those schools are taking more of the load & are doing it well, but they wouldn't be as good for my kid.

Disagree with the interpretation here - this indicates that not at-risk kids at your school do well primarily because of their SES, not that your school's teaching is particularly extraordinary.

DP but would also bet that if you sliced data by caucasion ethnicity, your school suddenly wouldn't stand out as a top 10 anymore.

Can't seem to do this with the Empower dashboard which only allows you to use filters focused on disadvantage rather than advantage (feedback to the person who actually produces the data and was posting here)....

What do you mean by this exactly? You can sort for "white" on the Empower dashboard FWIW. Our school is in the top 10 for white scores.

When you sort by "white/Caucasian" the margins become so thin that the top 10 distinction becomes less meaningful, which I think may have been the point PP was trying to make (though they clearly hadn't looked at the data and were guessing)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

So, it's actually more complicated than that if you're looking as a parent. My kid's school seems to do really well with not at risk kids (like top 10 for ELA) and horrendously for at-risk kids. This is awful for those kids and inequitable, but actually the data suggests the school is good for those not at risk. Other schools have a reverse profile. I appreciate that those schools are taking more of the load & are doing it well, but they wouldn't be as good for my kid.

Disagree with the interpretation here - this indicates that not at-risk kids at your school do well primarily because of their SES, not that your school's teaching is particularly extraordinary.

DP but would also bet that if you sliced data by caucasion ethnicity, your school suddenly wouldn't stand out as a top 10 anymore.

Can't seem to do this with the Empower dashboard which only allows you to use filters focused on disadvantage rather than advantage (feedback to the person who actually produces the data and was posting here)....

What do you mean by this exactly? You can sort for "white" on the Empower dashboard FWIW. Our school is in the top 10 for white scores.

How? I can only find filters for At risk vs. not, Black, Hispanic, Asian, English learners, students with disabilities

Nevermind, just figured out I could scroll for it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

So, it's actually more complicated than that if you're looking as a parent. My kid's school seems to do really well with not at risk kids (like top 10 for ELA) and horrendously for at-risk kids. This is awful for those kids and inequitable, but actually the data suggests the school is good for those not at risk. Other schools have a reverse profile. I appreciate that those schools are taking more of the load & are doing it well, but they wouldn't be as good for my kid.

Disagree with the interpretation here - this indicates that not at-risk kids at your school do well primarily because of their SES, not that your school's teaching is particularly extraordinary.

DP but would also bet that if you sliced data by caucasion ethnicity, your school suddenly wouldn't stand out as a top 10 anymore.

Can't seem to do this with the Empower dashboard which only allows you to use filters focused on disadvantage rather than advantage (feedback to the person who actually produces the data and was posting here)....

What do you mean by this exactly? You can sort for "white" on the Empower dashboard FWIW. Our school is in the top 10 for white scores.

How? I can only find filters for At risk vs. not, Black, Hispanic, Asian, English learners, students with disabilities

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

So, it's actually more complicated than that if you're looking as a parent. My kid's school seems to do really well with not at risk kids (like top 10 for ELA) and horrendously for at-risk kids. This is awful for those kids and inequitable, but actually the data suggests the school is good for those not at risk. Other schools have a reverse profile. I appreciate that those schools are taking more of the load & are doing it well, but they wouldn't be as good for my kid.

Disagree with the interpretation here - this indicates that not at-risk kids at your school do well primarily because of their SES, not that your school's teaching is particularly extraordinary.

DP but would also bet that if you sliced data by caucasion ethnicity, your school suddenly wouldn't stand out as a top 10 anymore.

Can't seem to do this with the Empower dashboard which only allows you to use filters focused on disadvantage rather than advantage (feedback to the person who actually produces the data and was posting here)....

What do you mean by this exactly? You can sort for "white" on the Empower dashboard FWIW. Our school is in the top 10 for white scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the Empower dashboard, neither EW Stokes location is doing well relative to their share of "at risk" (both well below the trend line vs. other schools with similar "at risk" percentages)

Mundo Verde Calle Ocho, also not good when accounting for percent at risk.

To the Eliot Hine debate earlier, Eliot Hine is slightly above the trend line (performing slightly better than expected) when accounting for their overall share of "at risk"

This is really the way to review the data.

So, it's actually more complicated than that if you're looking as a parent. My kid's school seems to do really well with not at risk kids (like top 10 for ELA) and horrendously for at-risk kids. This is awful for those kids and inequitable, but actually the data suggests the school is good for those not at risk. Other schools have a reverse profile. I appreciate that those schools are taking more of the load & are doing it well, but they wouldn't be as good for my kid.

Disagree with the interpretation here - this indicates that not at-risk kids at your school do well primarily because of their SES, not that your school's teaching is particularly extraordinary.

That read doesn't make sense because I'm comparing it to how other schools do with "not at risk" kids. Apples to apples comparison. My school actually has a more mixed economic population/a fair number of at risk kids too, so it's not like these kids are among the wealthiest in DC (in fact they are definitely not).

Also, keep in mind there very much are schools with the opposite profile. Comparatively well with at risk kids; comparatively poorly with non-at risk kids. Likely at least in part due to their choice of focus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I do a FERPA request for my kid’s score?

I suppose, if you want to be extra. Is there a reason you need it right away?

Yes because it tells me how my kid is doing in math and whether he needs tutoring. Also the schools have this data and make placement decisions based on it, so parents ought to have access to it at the same time. This is my kids data.

You have plenty of other assessments that tell you how your child is doing in math. We don't use this data in anyway for placement. Relax

Our school absolutely uses PARCC for placement. They told me that. And it’s just wrong not to give the data to parents. PARCC is a huge use of resources for DCPS and takes up weeks of the school year.

I really doubt that schools are making placement plans today based on PARCC when school starts on Monday. I'm also not sure who you want taking time out of their day during the busiest point of the school year to individually package and mail out data.

Our middle school uses PARCC as a factor in math placement.

+1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I do a FERPA request for my kid’s score?

I suppose, if you want to be extra. Is there a reason you need it right away?

Yes because it tells me how my kid is doing in math and whether he needs tutoring. Also the schools have this data and make placement decisions based on it, so parents ought to have access to it at the same time. This is my kids data.

You have plenty of other assessments that tell you how your child is doing in math. We don't use this data in anyway for placement. Relax

Our school absolutely uses PARCC for placement. They told me that. And it’s just wrong not to give the data to parents. PARCC is a huge use of resources for DCPS and takes up weeks of the school year.

I really doubt that schools are making placement plans today based on PARCC when school starts on Monday. I'm also not sure who you want taking time out of their day during the busiest point of the school year to individually package and mail out data.

I have no compunctions in saying that I think parents should have access to the results at a reasonably early and transparent date, instead of the school-level free for all. The point of testing is to identify strengths and weaknesses and I want to know before the school starts. And yes, placements can be adjusted based on PARCC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I do a FERPA request for my kid’s score?

I suppose, if you want to be extra. Is there a reason you need it right away?

Yes because it tells me how my kid is doing in math and whether he needs tutoring. Also the schools have this data and make placement decisions based on it, so parents ought to have access to it at the same time. This is my kids data.

You have plenty of other assessments that tell you how your child is doing in math. We don't use this data in anyway for placement. Relax

Our school absolutely uses PARCC for placement. They told me that. And it’s just wrong not to give the data to parents. PARCC is a huge use of resources for DCPS and takes up weeks of the school year.

DC has announced that individual student score reports will go to schools and are expected to be distributed by schools to families in mid-September.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I do a FERPA request for my kid’s score?

I suppose, if you want to be extra. Is there a reason you need it right away?

Yes because it tells me how my kid is doing in math and whether he needs tutoring. Also the schools have this data and make placement decisions based on it, so parents ought to have access to it at the same time. This is my kids data.

You have plenty of other assessments that tell you how your child is doing in math. We don't use this data in anyway for placement. Relax

Our school absolutely uses PARCC for placement. They told me that. And it’s just wrong not to give the data to parents. PARCC is a huge use of resources for DCPS and takes up weeks of the school year.

I really doubt that schools are making placement plans today based on PARCC when school starts on Monday. I'm also not sure who you want taking time out of their day during the busiest point of the school year to individually package and mail out data.

Our middle school uses PARCC as a factor in math placement.