Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love data and numbers, and I would say these reports are too complicated to be useful. And there is no easily accessible information about what each metric actually is (i.e., how it is computed) in a school's profile. And they put a possible range of scores and then have data points for a school that are outside that.

I think this could have been a useful exercise but ultimately wasn't because it is so poorly documented.

Yep, totally agree.

Anonymous wrote:A few (I'm not interested in ES)

Deal 5 star
Wilson 4 star
Hardy 5 star
Jefferson 3 star
Hobson 3 star
Latin 5 star
BASIS 5 star
DCI 4 star
CMI 3 star

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Deal feeders, at risk %

Janney 5, 0% 88.43, 70.10
Hearst 4, 8% 77.32, 60.95
Murch 4, 5% 79.85, 58.63
Lafayette 4, 3% 78.00, 69.25
Shepherd 4, 15% 71.61, 76.25
Bancroft 4, 31% 80.16, < 10 AA students

PP here. I was interested in how AA students perform at these schools. I've added the Star Framework score for all students, followed by score for black students, for each school.

Overall, it looks like Shepherd has the best score for AA students. However, they don't offer breakdowns for "at-risk" etc. within subgroups, and so it's unclear whether the higher score at Shepherd is attributable to something about instruction, demographic factors, or a combination.

I did this quickly, but hopefully no errors.

Oh, and forgot to add, it's curious why the score for AA students at Shepherd is actually higher than the score for all students--this is the only Deal feeder where that is true. I need to read a fuller description of how these scores were calculated.

Um why do you find that curious? Do you know anything about Shepherd and the families that live in that neighborhood, or do you just assume that all AAs underperform compared to whites?

PP here. I'm black, IB for Shepherd, and was actively involved while my kid attended for several years, so I'm familiar with the student body. The reason I said it's "curious" is because Shepherd is actually 57% OOB, 15% at-risk, and 2% homeless--so it's a very mixed, SES-diverse student body.

This data point would suggest to me that there's something about the instruction at Shepherd that's leading to higher ratings among the black students relative to any other Deal feeder, but I'm interested to hear other possible explanations too.

Ok sorry, you never know around here Don't you think it's a big part that AA students at Shepherd are from high SES families that value education?

I think that's part of it but not the whole answer, because Shepherd has a lot of kids from struggling families too, a much higher percentage than most other Deal feeders. And yet, Shepherd's AA scores were highest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm looking at KIPP and DC Prep as LEAs.

KIPP - Most of their elementaries are 4s, some are 3s. All MS + HS are 3s.

DC Prep - Half of the ES are 3s and half are 4s. The MS are 5.

That's inaccurate: All DC Prep Campuses are 4's

Anonymous wrote:I'm looking at KIPP and DC Prep as LEAs.

KIPP - Most of their elementaries are 4s, some are 3s. All MS + HS are 3s.

DC Prep - Half of the ES are 3s and half are 4s. The MS are 5.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love data and numbers, and I would say these reports are too complicated to be useful. And there is no easily accessible information about what each metric actually is (i.e., how it is computed) in a school's profile. And they put a possible range of scores and then have data points for a school that are outside that.

I think this could have been a useful exercise but ultimately wasn't because it is so poorly documented.

Yep, totally agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overall comment - there is a lot of data here.

Forget the stars, you can definitely dig in and see how different students are doing on a range of measures.

I like these. They seem helpful.

-parent, no OSSE affiliation

Agreed- this is the best thing I have ever seen out of OSSE.

Is it? It lists Janney as Title I, and a lot of schools have no Kindergarten kids at all.

Eaton is also listed as Title 1 and it says before and aftercare are free. Someone messed up some pretty basic facts on these.

Anonymous wrote:I love data and numbers, and I would say these reports are too complicated to be useful. And there is no easily accessible information about what each metric actually is (i.e., how it is computed) in a school's profile. And they put a possible range of scores and then have data points for a school that are outside that.

I think this could have been a useful exercise but ultimately wasn't because it is so poorly documented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Deal feeders, at risk %

Janney 5, 0% 88.43, 70.10
Hearst 4, 8% 77.32, 60.95
Murch 4, 5% 79.85, 58.63
Lafayette 4, 3% 78.00, 69.25
Shepherd 4, 15% 71.61, 76.25
Bancroft 4, 31% 80.16, < 10 AA students

PP here. I was interested in how AA students perform at these schools. I've added the Star Framework score for all students, followed by score for black students, for each school.

Overall, it looks like Shepherd has the best score for AA students. However, they don't offer breakdowns for "at-risk" etc. within subgroups, and so it's unclear whether the higher score at Shepherd is attributable to something about instruction, demographic factors, or a combination.

I did this quickly, but hopefully no errors.

Oh, and forgot to add, it's curious why the score for AA students at Shepherd is actually higher than the score for all students--this is the only Deal feeder where that is true. I need to read a fuller description of how these scores were calculated.

Um why do you find that curious? Do you know anything about Shepherd and the families that live in that neighborhood, or do you just assume that all AAs underperform compared to whites?

PP here. I'm black, IB for Shepherd, and was actively involved while my kid attended for several years, so I'm familiar with the student body. The reason I said it's "curious" is because Shepherd is actually 57% OOB, 15% at-risk, and 2% homeless--so it's a very mixed, SES-diverse student body.

This data point would suggest to me that there's something about the instruction at Shepherd that's leading to higher ratings among the black students relative to any other Deal feeder, but I'm interested to hear other possible explanations too.

Ok sorry, you never know around here Don't you think it's a big part that AA students at Shepherd are from high SES families that value education?

White schools at both schools are much lower than white students’ scores across the District.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two Ward 5 elementary schools rank the same (3) as the nearby popular charters that siphon off their IB students.

Maybe this will system will help neighborhood schools?

It should, and it should push the charters to do better. Name the schools?

Langdon got 4 stars but I have my doubts. It seems like a lot of this data is just not correct.

Yes. LAMB, Yu Ying also showing very low numbers for white students. I am trying to understand this metric better. Disabled students showing very high numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two Ward 5 elementary schools rank the same (3) as the nearby popular charters that siphon off their IB students.

Maybe this will system will help neighborhood schools?

It should, and it should push the charters to do better. Name the schools?

Langdon got 4 stars but I have my doubts. It seems like a lot of this data is just not correct.