Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think actually there has been quite a lot of discussion of growth scores on here.

Thing that bothers me is when I see PARCC a bit over valued. I wish we had other metrics as well aside from things like attendance, re-enrollment. We're really putting a lot of weight on this one metric.

Such as?

I'm honestly not sure, I was hoping one of the education wonks had an idea.

At the least, I think the scores should be broken down by not only growth but things like number of at-risk and FARM students, so that the raw PARCC score is used in conjunction with these factors. It's like someone said - we're just going to end up with a list that tracks perfectly with the socioeconomic background of the students.

I have a friend whose heart is set on one particular school, and because of PARCC won't consider even any charter schools. I've had a hard time explaining why I think this is misguided.

Wonder what school your friend is looking for? I wonder if your friend, that’s only into PARCC, will apply to Bannker when the time comes (if it had the same demographics as today).

No because....Wilson...

Wilson PARCC scores are atrocious, Banneker’s are amazing. What’s your point?

You are smoking something.

Wilson general scores are higher than Banneker's, even if the latter is a selective school that kicks out a third of its male students before graduation.

Not true and then they had the audacity to blame low scores on students not taking it seriously!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it going to be bad optics when a ton of tier 1 charters get three stars?

Or when some of the WOTP schools "only" get 4 stars.....

Not going to happen.

It's going to happen but not to many. The OSSE star system is linked to a lot of metrics. I think we'll find that the highest performing schools are in the 4s and 5s, and we will all need to adjust our perception of 4-star schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think actually there has been quite a lot of discussion of growth scores on here.

Thing that bothers me is when I see PARCC a bit over valued. I wish we had other metrics as well aside from things like attendance, re-enrollment. We're really putting a lot of weight on this one metric.

Such as?

I'm honestly not sure, I was hoping one of the education wonks had an idea.

At the least, I think the scores should be broken down by not only growth but things like number of at-risk and FARM students, so that the raw PARCC score is used in conjunction with these factors. It's like someone said - we're just going to end up with a list that tracks perfectly with the socioeconomic background of the students.

I have a friend whose heart is set on one particular school, and because of PARCC won't consider even any charter schools. I've had a hard time explaining why I think this is misguided.

Wonder what school your friend is looking for? I wonder if your friend, that’s only into PARCC, will apply to Bannker when the time comes (if it had the same demographics as today).

No because....Wilson...

Wilson PARCC scores are atrocious, Banneker’s are amazing. What’s your point?

You are smoking something.

Wilson general scores are higher than Banneker's, even if the latter is a selective school that kicks out a third of its male students before graduation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it going to be bad optics when a ton of tier 1 charters get three stars?

Or when some of the WOTP schools "only" get 4 stars.....

Not going to happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS teacher here.
Currently the IMPACT system bonus structure is decided based on the old OSSE ratings (priority, rising, reward).
If this system replaces those ratings- are the impact bonuses out the window?

The bonuses are higher in the lower performing schools correct if you are ranked high correct?

Those bonuses need to go! Some teachers have been raking in over the odds for years, some working in schools low performing but with dysfunctional management don't get anything and teachers who work with low performing students in tier I schools work with the same population and get nothing either. It pits teachers against each other and discourages collaboration. Also, the money has run dry, so as a result more teachers get labeled ineffective because graded on a curve. Everyone should get a good salary and then can apply to a fund for bonus, on your own terms show how you have gone above and beyond. Stop giving it to the same teachers year after year ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS teacher here.
Currently the IMPACT system bonus structure is decided based on the old OSSE ratings (priority, rising, reward).
If this system replaces those ratings- are the impact bonuses out the window?

The bonuses are higher in the lower performing schools correct if you are ranked high correct?

yes, they are higher.
but if stars are replacing the current system- will 1 star schools get the bonus?

Anonymous wrote:DCPS teacher here.
Currently the IMPACT system bonus structure is decided based on the old OSSE ratings (priority, rising, reward).
If this system replaces those ratings- are the impact bonuses out the window?

The bonuses are higher in the lower performing schools correct if you are ranked high correct?

DCPS teacher here.
Currently the IMPACT system bonus structure is decided based on the old OSSE ratings (priority, rising, reward).
If this system replaces those ratings- are the impact bonuses out the window?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it going to be bad optics when a ton of tier 1 charters get three stars?

Or when some of the WOTP schools "only" get 4 stars.....

oh the ballistics. 30 page DCUM threads within 30 minutes of release.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it going to be bad optics when a ton of tier 1 charters get three stars?

Or when some of the WOTP schools "only" get 4 stars.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it going to be bad optics when a ton of tier 1 charters get three stars?

Have youncrunched the numbers? Why are you sure the results will turn out this way?

Not the poster but it seems to me that when OSSE decided to go with 5 stars, it meant that we should expect Tier 1 charters to be split over the top two categories (4 and 5 star) at best. At worst, we'll see some three star Tier 1 schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it going to be bad optics when a ton of tier 1 charters get three stars?

Have youncrunched the numbers? Why are you sure the results will turn out this way?

Because their proficiency numbers are so low in general.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think actually there has been quite a lot of discussion of growth scores on here.

Thing that bothers me is when I see PARCC a bit over valued. I wish we had other metrics as well aside from things like attendance, re-enrollment. We're really putting a lot of weight on this one metric.

Such as?

I'm honestly not sure, I was hoping one of the education wonks had an idea.

At the least, I think the scores should be broken down by not only growth but things like number of at-risk and FARM students, so that the raw PARCC score is used in conjunction with these factors. It's like someone said - we're just going to end up with a list that tracks perfectly with the socioeconomic background of the students.

I have a friend whose heart is set on one particular school, and because of PARCC won't consider even any charter schools. I've had a hard time explaining why I think this is misguided.

What if you could see things like:

“School A is really good at teaching kids with special needs, but only average at teaching ELL students.”
“School B has really high growth at bringing kids from way behind grade to grade level.”
“School C has really high growth with students who are starting the year at or above grade level.”

Read the detailed document. Performance of subgroups is a factor in the STAR report card formula. For example, SN students perform on PARCC is weighted 2x more than ELLs or economically disadvantaged students. It is a more complex formula than the way DCPS and charters are scored now.

Then the work is already done. Just delete the overall star part and the reliance on proficiency scores. Let people see what really matters to them.
We don't need the stigma of a low star school if it actually works really well for their kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think actually there has been quite a lot of discussion of growth scores on here.

Thing that bothers me is when I see PARCC a bit over valued. I wish we had other metrics as well aside from things like attendance, re-enrollment. We're really putting a lot of weight on this one metric.

Such as?

I'm honestly not sure, I was hoping one of the education wonks had an idea.

At the least, I think the scores should be broken down by not only growth but things like number of at-risk and FARM students, so that the raw PARCC score is used in conjunction with these factors. It's like someone said - we're just going to end up with a list that tracks perfectly with the socioeconomic background of the students.

I have a friend whose heart is set on one particular school, and because of PARCC won't consider even any charter schools. I've had a hard time explaining why I think this is misguided.

What if you could see things like:

“School A is really good at teaching kids with special needs, but only average at teaching ELL students.”
“School B has really high growth at bringing kids from way behind grade to grade level.”
“School C has really high growth with students who are starting the year at or above grade level.”

Read the detailed document. Performance of subgroups is a factor in the STAR report card formula. For example, SN students perform on PARCC is weighted 2x more than ELLs or economically disadvantaged students. It is a more complex formula than the way DCPS and charters are scored now.