Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

Maybe you understand this, but just to clarify, it doesn’t mean the white kids’ score are objectively very low. It just means that they are lower compared to other white kids across the district. The other population groups far exceed the scores for their relevant populations. And scores are just one factor in the mix.

This is important!

Agreed this is important. Taking CMI, for example, to pick on just one school that's been mentioned--it doesn't mean that the white kids at the school are doing horribly. It just means that they aren't doing as well as expected, relative to their counterparts at other schools.

Anonymous wrote:

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

Maybe you understand this, but just to clarify, it doesn’t mean the white kids’ score are objectively very low. It just means that they are lower compared to other white kids across the district. The other population groups far exceed the scores for their relevant populations. And scores are just one factor in the mix.

This is important!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

White schools at both schools are much lower than white students’ scores across the District. Once would assume that is related to bilingual learning but who knows. So the number reflected for white students as part of the group score is low because it’s relying on that comparison.

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

I'm all for making sure that underperforming demographics are doing well especially on PARCC growth, but, this seems like it's way out of whack.

Well, that's the metric that the star measures. If you want to know more about how the rich kids do on PARCC, you can still find that on PARCC. But the decision was made to base the stars on the performance of the at-risk kids, apparently.

Date for my WOTP school on bullying, violence, and school safety is fake usual nonsense; how do we know any of this date is correct? Where are they getting it from? We know for a fact that schools are discouraged from reporting incidents as it marks down the principals IMPACT scores!!!

DCPS central office takes data reported from the school and reports on this annually to OSSE, which provides it to the federal government. The report card data is pulling from those reports.

It may be inaccurate (garbage in/garbage out) but it isn't new. This is just the first time that it's been exposed in this way to the public together with academic achievement data.

Some of it could be easily fact checked with a baseline level of effort. For example our elementary school lists an IB program, AP classes and dual college enrollment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

White schools at both schools are much lower than white students’ scores across the District. Once would assume that is related to bilingual learning but who knows. So the number reflected for white students as part of the group score is low because it’s relying on that comparison.

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

I'm all for making sure that underperforming demographics are doing well especially on PARCC growth, but, this seems like it's way out of whack.

Well, that's the metric that the star measures. If you want to know more about how the rich kids do on PARCC, you can still find that on PARCC. But the decision was made to base the stars on the performance of the at-risk kids, apparently.

Date for my WOTP school on bullying, violence, and school safety is fake usual nonsense; how do we know any of this date is correct? Where are they getting it from? We know for a fact that schools are discouraged from reporting incidents as it marks down the principals IMPACT scores!!!

DCPS central office takes data reported from the school and reports on this annually to OSSE, which provides it to the federal government. The report card data is pulling from those reports.

It may be inaccurate (garbage in/garbage out) but it isn't new. This is just the first time that it's been exposed in this way to the public together with academic achievement data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

White schools at both schools are much lower than white students’ scores across the District. Once would assume that is related to bilingual learning but who knows. So the number reflected for white students as part of the group score is low because it’s relying on that comparison.

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

I'm all for making sure that underperforming demographics are doing well especially on PARCC growth, but, this seems like it's way out of whack.

Well, that's the metric that the star measures. If you want to know more about how the rich kids do on PARCC, you can still find that on PARCC. But the decision was made to base the stars on the performance of the at-risk kids, apparently.

Date for my WOTP school on bullying, violence, and school safety is fake usual nonsense; how do we know any of this date is correct? Where are they getting it from? We know for a fact that schools are discouraged from reporting incidents as it marks down the principals IMPACT scores!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

White schools at both schools are much lower than white students’ scores across the District. Once would assume that is related to bilingual learning but who knows. So the number reflected for white students as part of the group score is low because it’s relying on that comparison.

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

I'm all for making sure that underperforming demographics are doing well especially on PARCC growth, but, this seems like it's way out of whack.

Well, that's the metric that the star measures. If you want to know more about how the rich kids do on PARCC, you can still find that on PARCC. But the decision was made to base the stars on the performance of the at-risk kids, apparently.

Anonymous wrote:

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

Maybe you understand this, but just to clarify, it doesn’t mean the the white kids’ score are objectively very low. It just means that they are lower compared to other white kids across the district. The other population groups far exceed the scores for their relevant populations. And scores are just one factor in the mix.

I do wonder if the scores take into account bilingual programs. Learning and performance isn’t apples to apples with traditional schools.

The STAR ratings do not level or weight for bilingual programs. By law, the bulk of the score must be achievement and growth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Found a 2 page document that explains how scores are computed !!

https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/page_content/attachments/STAR%20At-A-Glance_1Pager_2018.pdf

Clear as mud.

I understand the idea, but look at the breakdown for any one school and you'll be immediately confused.

Here is Mundo Verde:

https://storage.googleapis.com/osse-essa-pdfs/171-3065_EN.pdf

Scroll down to Star and you'll see that All Students, 73.56, has no relationship with the scores of any of the demographics listed below, all of which are lower than that. How is it therefore a combined score?

This two pager is rolling together achievement and growth in teh right hand column, and doesn't also show the 3+ PARCC vs the 4+ PARCC. Does it make any more sense if you look at the more detailed report card for MV online? https://dcschoolreportcard.org/schools/171-3065/performance-summary

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

Maybe you understand this, but just to clarify, it doesn’t mean the the white kids’ score are objectively very low. It just means that they are lower compared to other white kids across the district. The other population groups far exceed the scores for their relevant populations. And scores are just one factor in the mix.

I do wonder if the scores take into account bilingual programs. Learning and performance isn’t apples to apples with traditional schools.

Anonymous wrote:Found a 2 page document that explains how scores are computed !!

https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/page_content/attachments/STAR%20At-A-Glance_1Pager_2018.pdf

Clear as mud.

I understand the idea, but look at the breakdown for any one school and you'll be immediately confused.

Here is Mundo Verde:

https://storage.googleapis.com/osse-essa-pdfs/171-3065_EN.pdf

Scroll down to Star and you'll see that All Students, 73.56, has no relationship with the scores of any of the demographics listed below, all of which are lower than that. How is it therefore a combined score?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Found a 2 page document that explains how scores are computed !!

https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/page_content/attachments/STAR%20At-A-Glance_1Pager_2018.pdf

That's too general. Need to see a bar chart for each school showing all the details together.

Too general for you - for me it's as much data as i can consume.

However, the raw data is all supposed to be exportable by end of today. Maybe you can generate your own from that?

Anonymous wrote:Found a 2 page document that explains how scores are computed !!

https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/page_content/attachments/STAR%20At-A-Glance_1Pager_2018.pdf

Excerpt:

The STAR Framework first measures a school’s performance for all students in each of the applicable metrics. Schools earn points based on their students’ performance compared to students across the city.

To ensure that schools are publicly accountable for educating DC’s most vulnerable students, the STAR Framework then measures performance for:

• Students with Disabilities
• Students who are at-risk
• English Learners
• Each Racial/Ethnic group

Schools earn points based on how students in each of these groups perform relative to similar students.

The overall score and rating is calculated by combining the school’s overall performance of all students and the performance of each student group. Once all of these points are totaled, the school receives a rating from 1 to 5 stars.

Anonymous wrote:Found a 2 page document that explains how scores are computed !!

https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/page_content/attachments/STAR%20At-A-Glance_1Pager_2018.pdf

That's too general. Need to see a bar chart for each school showing all the details together.

Found a 2 page document that explains how scores are computed !!

https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/page_content/attachments/STAR%20At-A-Glance_1Pager_2018.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

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.

White schools at both schools are much lower than white students’ scores across the District. Once would assume that is related to bilingual learning but who knows. So the number reflected for white students as part of the group score is low because it’s relying on that comparison.

So, the way this is weighed, white kids scoring quite a bit lower than expected/average on PARCC does pretty much nothing to the ranking of the school. Yu Ying getting a score in the 90's with a white kid score of 41. Even though it is 30% white.

I'm all for making sure that underperforming demographics are doing well especially on PARCC growth, but, this seems like it's way out of whack.