Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

I’m not finding these scores particularly transparent or useful. My guess is that they pretty arbitrarily give big penalties or premiums for things that don’t make a huge difference. Our MS seems to score way too low and I’m guessing that’s because we have just enough high SES students to skew the PARCC average but not enough to bring up the overall score.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also so many of these schools have 40%+ kids including preschoolers as chronically absentee. We have a b@tts in seats problem.

PreK kids are more likely to get sick. Our PK4 kiddo has been out sick 6 days already since start of the school year. I guarantee he will be out 4 more by June.

10 absences in a school year = "Chronically Absent"

No accurate-- 10% of school days out = Chronically Absent

Anonymous wrote:Also so many of these schools have 40%+ kids including preschoolers as chronically absentee. We have a b@tts in seats problem.

PreK kids are more likely to get sick. Our PK4 kiddo has been out sick 6 days already since start of the school year. I guarantee he will be out 4 more by June.

10 absences in a school year = "Chronically Absent"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

Yes.

UMC parents have zero excuse for no being on top of things from the jump. The schools are shady, lack transparency, and generally unreliable. That isn’t new despite the faux social contract of “you just send the kids to school well-rested/fed and we’ll do the rest and alert you to any red flags in.” It’s not fair or right, but YOU are the only one capable to ensuring that your kids are where they need to be in terms of ELA and math, just to start.

That UMC types “discover” that their 3rd/4th grader hasn’t mastered grade-level math is beyond me…but I’ve come to expect it, sadly.

Some of us have jobs to do and lives to live. Offensive.

And, some of us have kids that do really well on those MAP tests from K-2 (and suddenly tank in 3rd) and have teachers telling us in 1st grade not to worry that kids will suddenly click with reading after we raise concerns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Agree! This data is useful- I am reading through . Also, MGP accounts for this cynical argument-- it measures kids in score cohorts so if students are dropping from 5s to 4s or vice versa it accounts for that. And Walls being at the top even more invalidates this inaccurate and cynical argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Ding ding ding!

Sometimes the cynicism isn’t justified. It’s ok to accept that OSSE generated useful data and isn’t just finding a way to stick it to high SES schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

This!

Then why is it that many low-PARCC-score DCPS schools have good summative scores, and others with equally low PARCC scores have bad summative scores?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

This!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

Yes.

UMC parents have zero excuse for no being on top of things from the jump. The schools are shady, lack transparency, and generally unreliable. That isn’t new despite the faux social contract of “you just send the kids to school well-rested/fed and we’ll do the rest and alert you to any red flags in.” It’s not fair or right, but YOU are the only one capable to ensuring that your kids are where they need to be in terms of ELA and math, just to start.

That UMC types “discover” that their 3rd/4th grader hasn’t mastered grade-level math is beyond me…but I’ve come to expect it, sadly.

Some of us have jobs to do and lives to live. Offensive.

NP here but seriously? You're offended that PP is incredulous that you don't notice your 4th grader can't add in their head? Again, PP said UMC -- so you don't have the excuse that you're working 3 jobs to put food on the table. Aren't you talking to your kids?

Anonymous wrote:Is there a spreadsheet with each school's overall score available?

https://osse.dc.gov/page/dc-school-report-card-resource-library

Middle of the page.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

Yes.

UMC parents have zero excuse for no being on top of things from the jump. The schools are shady, lack transparency, and generally unreliable. That isn’t new despite the faux social contract of “you just send the kids to school well-rested/fed and we’ll do the rest and alert you to any red flags in.” It’s not fair or right, but YOU are the only one capable to ensuring that your kids are where they need to be in terms of ELA and math, just to start.

That UMC types “discover” that their 3rd/4th grader hasn’t mastered grade-level math is beyond me…but I’ve come to expect it, sadly.

Some of us have jobs to do and lives to live. Offensive.

Is there a spreadsheet with each school's overall score available?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters up for review this year:
DCI: 57.3
Harmony: 56.3
Lee Brookland: 41.2 (East End not listed)
DCB: 86.2
EL Haynes: 47.3 elementary, 64.5 middle, 34.5 high
Two Rivers: 48.2 4th, 26.0 Young, 40.7 middle.
Meridian: 43.9
Perry St: 45
Roots: 72.6
Seems like pretty much okay, assuming Two Rivers turns things around.

Charters up for review next year-- clearly some are in trouble.
Capital Village 12.9 (ouch!)
Girls Global 27.3
Social Justice 28.7
Truth 70.6
Washington Global 66.4
Bridges 41.7
Hope Community 17.6-- ouch!
Howard 37
Bethune 22.2
Cap City 50.1 high, 51.5 lower, 51.5 middle
Paul: 42.6 high, 57.4 middle
IDEA: 12.0-- ouch!

Truth, Global and Cap City not in trouble as far as this data shows.

Washington Global is ok, Girls Global looks iffy.

Sorry I meant Washington Global

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

I think that assertion requires some support. This isn’t a matter of pure mathematics. We can understand that you can’t improve on 5 and there is less room to grow from a 4. But I’d posit that it could very well be easier to maintain kids at 4/5 that it is to raise a kid from a 1/2 upwards. The kid with 4/5 would seem not have many accumulated academic deficits and so are primed to continue into new learning. But the 1/2s have cumulative deficits that (if not remediated, especially in math) compound year over year leaving them further from grade level standards from one
year to the next. So this seems like more of an empirical question rather than one that we can just reason out with confidence.

Any who cares is the ratings don’t credit already high-performing schools? Those high performing schools are full and highly-desired. And those are the metrics that UMC parents value, not OSSE reports.

But parents that don’t have access to such school may appreciate data on which schools appear better able to drive student improvement from lower levels. Clearly, some schools do better on this score than others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with larger percentage of higher performing kids get dinged big time because when you are high, there is not much room to go higher and much more difficult than going from 1 to 2. Much easier to improve and get higher scores when majority if your kids are at the bottom,

Also bar is damn low because the baseline should be at least on grade level and 4 and 5, not 3.

Yes - they get dinged on this one indicator but don’t suffer from it. Most UMC parents will still opt to send their kids to such high performing schools and the same schools will trend to attract and retain more experienced teachers. Those parents aren’t sending their kids to a low-performing school that happens to do well by OSSE’s ratings (and, of course, no one should expect them too).

Yes - it’s mathematically easier to improve from a a low base but, in practice, we don’t do too well improving kids’ academic performance (as measured by grade-level std) from one year to the next. In fact, it may indeed be easier to maintain kids at 4/5, than to raise 1/2s to a 3 or higher.

No it’s much easier to go up 1 point from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then 4-5, way, way easier.

And when you are at 5, there is no more room to go up. No growth.

The reality is that OSSE picks and chooses the criteria to make their poorly performing school look better to hide just how awful the kids are performing with their social promotion.

You can make whatever rating you want to try to show yourself in the best light but reality comes all to fast when your kid gets to 3rd grade and up and you see families leave year after year and finally understand why.

Yes.

UMC parents have zero excuse for no being on top of things from the jump. The schools are shady, lack transparency, and generally unreliable. That isn’t new despite the faux social contract of “you just send the kids to school well-rested/fed and we’ll do the rest and alert you to any red flags in.” It’s not fair or right, but YOU are the only one capable to ensuring that your kids are where they need to be in terms of ELA and math, just to start.

That UMC types “discover” that their 3rd/4th grader hasn’t mastered grade-level math is beyond me…but I’ve come to expect it, sadly.