Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The school and class size numbers are from last school year (2017-2018).
The whole report card is 2017-18 data. They aren't going to post this year's school size and demographics along with last year's test score results. That would be even more confusing.
Our school size is waaaay off from past AND current year data. And the number of kids in each grade does not add up to the total displayed. Even if you add in Kindergarten, which was omitted entirely.
How can a person have confidence in these numbers?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The school and class size numbers are from last school year (2017-2018).
The whole report card is 2017-18 data. They aren't going to post this year's school size and demographics along with last year's test score results. That would be even more confusing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
I also agree with what some of the critics were saying before this ever came out: it feels icky. What is a school that is a one star supposed to do? How do they improve, and how does labeling them in this way help them improve? The nuance between 4 & 5 is minor compared to that, to me.
The acting chancellor said that the lowest DCPS schools would be redesigned and parents would be partners in the process.
OSSE is investing $11M in the lowest 5% of school. Two of the lowest 5% are charters that were recommended for closure, FWIW.
Anonymous wrote:The school and class size numbers are from last school year (2017-2018).
Anonymous wrote:With all the errors people have found, how can we know if the testing data is correct?
Anonymous wrote: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.
I also agree with what some of the critics were saying before this ever came out: it feels icky. What is a school that is a one star supposed to do? How do they improve, and how does labeling them in this way help them improve? The nuance between 4 & 5 is minor compared to that, to me.
Anonymous wrote:Deal feeders, at risk %
Janney 5, 0%
Hearst 4, 8%
Murch 4, 5%
Lafayette 4, 3%
Shepherd 4, 15%
Bancroft, 31%
Anonymous wrote:Strong High schools
SWW - 5
Ellington - 4
McKinley Tech - 4
Banneker - 5
Washington Leadership Academy - 5
Capital City HS - 4
Anonymous wrote: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.
Based on what? Your gut?
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.