Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Large EOTP non-charter High Schools scraping the barrel bottom with math scores in the 0% - 3% range.

Ballou: 5% / 2%
Cardoza: 13% / 4%
Dunbar: 16% / 0%
Eastern: 25% / 0%

Why isn't this the #1 story in the city?

Wow.

And incredibly those are the schools with $100M+ flashy new buildings. What a waste, and what incredible levels of corruption and incompetence.

Poor kids.

Most of the kids are extremely at risk. Are you saying they don’t deserve a new building? This is nothing new. There are extremely at risk kids all over the country that can’t pass a standardized test, particular kids of color. That doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a nice building to be in.

I agree that this should be #1 article in the WP! What is this city doing to educate its most at risk kids? Building shiny buildings is not enough.

The "city" does have schools where at-risk students are doing better; some of them:

Banneker - at-risk ELA 95% (too few math to release - likely because they took Alg 2 in MS)

Thurgood Marshall - Overall 47/26 At-risk 43/23

KIPP College Prep 32/26

McKinley Tech overall 65/31 at-risk 56/18

CHEC overall 34/7 at-risk 31/15

Thanks! Some of these numbers are just hearbreaking. What can we do?

Close down those schools, sell the buildings and the land, use the proceeds to 1) give $30k vouchers per kid so they can go to proper schools, 2) spend $20k per kid in social workers and wrap-around support.

Cheaper and better than what we do today, when locsl politicos simply see schools as a way to give jobs to friends and family.

Anonymous wrote:When do MGP numbers come out? I find it hard to get excited about changes in average test scores since that could just be demographic shifts.

Usually mid-October. Of course, MGP is also impacted by demographic shifts. For example, for math MGP:

All students 50
Black 46
White 65
Special Education 44

Sela is back up, and ahead of MV, DCB, Stokes, Lee, CMI, Two Rivers, and roughly even to LAMB and Two Rivers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When do MGP numbers come out? I find it hard to get excited about changes in average test scores since that could just be demographic shifts.

It's almost always a demographic shift unless a school has a teacher or 2 who can make math or ELA happen no matter who they teach. I've seen it happen.

Not in schools that don't have much attrition / new students joining each year in the upper grades.

Anonymous wrote:When do MGP numbers come out? I find it hard to get excited about changes in average test scores since that could just be demographic shifts.

It's almost always a demographic shift unless a school has a teacher or 2 who can make math or ELA happen no matter who they teach. I've seen it happen.

Anonymous wrote:When do MGP numbers come out? I find it hard to get excited about changes in average test scores since that could just be demographic shifts.

They should come out when the new report cards are published.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:results.osse.dc.gov

Nice dashboard display! Congrats to Brookland Middle, Langley, Noyes, Seaton, Burroughs, West, and many others on their strong performamce!

I'd add congratulations to Langdon too--especially if you look at the 3rd grade tests. Hopefully between the improvements in Langdon and Langley, McKinley MS will accelerate its improvement. Its gains this year were not very inspiring (as someone in their feeder pattern).

Amen. It would be so great to havr a solid middle school, really that is the missing piece of the puzzle. Maybe Langley and Langdon can come together to advocate for it.

TBH it was a good year for the Bloomingdale area. Walker-Jones put on a respectable increase and Garrison nailed it. Only JOW and SSMA had real declines.

Anonymous wrote:I think Scott Pearson, who I am not a fan of, put it well today. Turning around performance for at-risk kids is the work of a generation, not a copule years.

FWIW at-risk students city-wide gained 3% in ELA over last year, and held steady in math. Not nearly enough, but surely better than a backslide.

WaPo: "Citywide passing rates for at-risk students — which means they are homeless or in foster care, their families qualify for public assistance, or they have been held back more than a year in high school — increased 2.7 percentage points in English and remained about the same in math."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/08/19/dc-students-make-steady-gains-english-portion-standardized-exam/

Is Pearson just realizing this? Under his leadership the PCSB is closing schools that are giving at-risk kids a better option than they would otherwise have and replicating schools where at-risk kids under-perform. It's a reflection of the PMF to be sure since the PMF doesn't take consider at-risk status or performance separately from all kids. Still it's an odd statement from Pearson since charters only have a few years to show and prove performance on the PMF and it doesn't matter whether they are doing well (or not) with at-risk kids.

When do MGP numbers come out? I find it hard to get excited about changes in average test scores since that could just be demographic shifts.

Anonymous wrote:results.osse.dc.gov

Nice dashboard display! Congrats to Brookland Middle, Langley, Noyes, Seaton, Burroughs, West, and many others on their strong performamce!

I'd add congratulations to Langdon too--especially if you look at the 3rd grade tests. Hopefully between the improvements in Langdon and Langley, McKinley MS will accelerate its improvement. Its gains this year were not very inspiring (as someone in their feeder pattern).

Comparing scores by grade is much more useful to me than comparing overall scores, particularly if schools go up to different grades. Here are scores and growth from last year for some schools I keep an eye on.

School Grade Math ELA Math Diff ELA Diff
Garrison 3 33 23 +6.30 +9.70
Garrison 4 43 46 +6.90 +28.60
Garrison 5 29 63 +12.30 +54.70
Ross 3 83 92 -0.30 +4.50
Ross 4 78 91 -6.00 -5.00
Ross 5 65 90 -10.00 +15.00
Seaton 3 39 32 +0.40 +11.50
Seaton 4 43 32 +25.50 +4.50
Seaton 5 49 35 +14.50 +10.90
SWW@FS 3 69 54 +21.50 +29.00
SWW@FS 4 46 36 +13.40 -3.50
SWW@FS 5 41 40 -20.90 +4.30
Thomson 3 42 36 -6.40 +3.70
Thomson 4 36 28 +9.20 +15.80
Thomson 5 24 29 +0.70 +5.70
CMI 3 60 39 -3.20 +17.90
CMI 4 70 35 +22.80 -12.20
CMI 5 37 45 +15.80 +23.80
ITS 3 70 63 +0.60 -2.30
ITS 4 74 84 +19.80 +13.20
ITS 5 32 45 -13.70 -9.30

Anonymous wrote:So how do you determine the tiers from this data?

You can't. PARCC proficiency is just one part of the PMF (tiers). Also factored into tier ratings are things like student attendance, median growth percentile, and a few other things. The tier reports usually come out in theh fall -- but before the lottery opens.

Anonymous wrote:So how do you determine the tiers from this data?

You can't - the data feeds into the formulas that are used to determine tiers/stars.

So how do you determine the tiers from this data?

Anonymous wrote:Here's the District's summary: https://dcps.dc.gov/release/number-dc-public-schools-students-ready-college-and-career-grows-fourth-year

The slides are here: https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/release_content/attachments/2019%20PARCC%20Results%20Deck_final.pdf

Not the District summary, just DCPS. I haven't seen the PCSB's summary data yet