Looking to move for a better public school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow... Defensive parents. Reminds me of DCUM Einstein parents...

OP - you have enough here to do your own research about RM. I don't think it's what you are looking for but maybe it is. Apparently, it's good enough for many families as you can see here.

I am not sure why you would think that:

So what are "good" not too crowded, diverse areas that won't see significant change over the next 5 years? Tall order I know..

RM is certainly diverse and won't see significant change in the next 5 years. We gave plenty of evidence that it is "good." I am not sure what others consider good, but diversity is certainly there. Wootton may be on paper better, but it isn't diverse.

I'd take RM over Wootton any day.

sure you would.

I definitely would. Why would you question me on this? My child isn't cut out for Wootton. She is a bit slower than average and there is no way I want her in that pressure cooker. As we can't afford either RM or Wootton areas - it doesn't really matter though.

Put yourself in OP's position, with OP's kid, would you still pick RM over Wootton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow... Defensive parents. Reminds me of DCUM Einstein parents...

OP - you have enough here to do your own research about RM. I don't think it's what you are looking for but maybe it is. Apparently, it's good enough for many families as you can see here.

I am not sure why you would think that:

So what are "good" not too crowded, diverse areas that won't see significant change over the next 5 years? Tall order I know..

RM is certainly diverse and won't see significant change in the next 5 years. We gave plenty of evidence that it is "good." I am not sure what others consider good, but diversity is certainly there. Wootton may be on paper better, but it isn't diverse.

I'd take RM over Wootton any day.

sure you would.

I definitely would. Why would you question me on this? My child isn't cut out for Wootton. She is a bit slower than average and there is no way I want her in that pressure cooker. As we can't afford either RM or Wootton areas - it doesn't really matter though.

Put yourself in OP's position, with OP's kid, would you still pick RM over Wootton?

that can only be answered by OP. She knows her kids and desires better than I. I think both are perfectly fine - it just depends what works for her. Does she want a mainly white/asian school with higher scores? or does she want a more diverse school that is also good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow... Defensive parents. Reminds me of DCUM Einstein parents...

OP - you have enough here to do your own research about RM. I don't think it's what you are looking for but maybe it is. Apparently, it's good enough for many families as you can see here.

I am not sure why you would think that:

So what are "good" not too crowded, diverse areas that won't see significant change over the next 5 years? Tall order I know..

RM is certainly diverse and won't see significant change in the next 5 years. We gave plenty of evidence that it is "good." I am not sure what others consider good, but diversity is certainly there. Wootton may be on paper better, but it isn't diverse.

I'd take RM over Wootton any day.

NP.. my child is "bright". Went to HGC. Yes, I would still choose RM over Wootton. We looked at Wootton cluster. Chose RM. I feel that RM has better choices for different kids (I have more than one). IB if they want that route; or AP/honors, or "regular". I also feel the social diversity is important in their educational experience.

sure you would.

I definitely would. Why would you question me on this? My child isn't cut out for Wootton. She is a bit slower than average and there is no way I want her in that pressure cooker. As we can't afford either RM or Wootton areas - it doesn't really matter though.

Put yourself in OP's position, with OP's kid, would you still pick RM over Wootton?

[Anonymous]

OP already made it clear that she is looking for a high performing school, less concerned about diversity.

[Anonymous]

We choose RM over W schools and are quite happy with our kids experience (currently in 9th and 11th grade). One is a high achiever and despite not being interested in the IB magnet, still has a nice group of school focused friends...and a good number of friends in the magnet too since so many JW kids get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP already made it clear that she is looking for a high performing school, less concerned about diversity.

her first post said she wanted a "good", diverse school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP already made it clear that she is looking for a high performing school, less concerned about diversity.

her first post said she wanted a "good", diverse school.

but honestly it doesn't matter - OP is going to make her own decision. Not sure why this has turned into a pissing match about RM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow... Defensive parents. Reminds me of DCUM Einstein parents...

OP - you have enough here to do your own research about RM. I don't think it's what you are looking for but maybe it is. Apparently, it's good enough for many families as you can see here.

I am not sure why you would think that:

So what are "good" not too crowded, diverse areas that won't see significant change over the next 5 years? Tall order I know..

RM is certainly diverse and won't see significant change in the next 5 years. We gave plenty of evidence that it is "good." I am not sure what others consider good, but diversity is certainly there. Wootton may be on paper better, but it isn't diverse.

I'd take RM over Wootton any day.

sure you would.

Not PP, but we did. I specifically wanted DC in CGES-JW-RM cluster.

[Anonymous]

Yes - OP here. Looking for better performing school vs demographics!

From her earlier post. Not sure OP is still around thou.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes - OP here. Looking for better performing school vs demographics!

From her earlier post. Not sure OP is still around thou.

RM is a better performing school. Certainly better than what she's got.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes - OP here. Looking for better performing school vs demographics!

From her earlier post. Not sure OP is still around thou.

RM is a better performing school. Certainly better than what she's got.

Only OP can asnwer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes - OP here. Looking for better performing school vs demographics!

From her earlier post. Not sure OP is still around thou.

RM is a better performing school. Certainly better than what she's got.

Only OP can asnwer

Yes I already said that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow... Defensive parents. Reminds me of DCUM Einstein parents...

OP - you have enough here to do your own research about RM. I don't think it's what you are looking for but maybe it is. Apparently, it's good enough for many families as you can see here.

When people make disparaging comments about W cluster schools (kids cheating, lots of drugs, entitled, etc...), we get W parents saying how such comments are stereotyping and wrong, and they get defensive.

When people make disparaging comments about non W cluster schools, we get non W parents saying how such comments are stereotyping and wrong, and they get defensive.

See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would not be as easy to calculate as you think. Only 75% of the students at RM actually took the SAT. Only median numbers are reported for SAT scores among magnets, whereas the aggregate school data is reported as "average"--I could not find out whether this is median or mean. Very little data is given about the standard deviation or the distribution. You can create whatever array of possible scenarios that would fit these data.

Good data point - that 75% includes magnet kids. Assuming 100% magnet kids took the SAT, that means only about 50% of non magnet kids took the SAT, right?

478 seniors. The 2016 class had 114 enrolled students, though perhaps some left the program. Lets round it to 110. Then we have

0.75 * 478 = 359 students took the SAT
110 magnet students took the exam
359 - 110 = 249 non-magnets took the exam
478 - 110 = 368 total non-magnets in the 2016 class
249 / 368 = 67.7% of non-magnet students took the exam.

interesting analysis... it made me look up. according to the report below, the number is 387 (pretty close to your 359 number, page 8 of the report), page 10 shows mean score of 1779.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

also according to the IB profile (as pp suggested), RMIB mean SAT score is 2240 (http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/rmhs/ib/IB%202015-16%20Profile.pdf)

which means non-IB kids' mean score is 1596, which according to page 10 of the report, slightly below MCPS avg but not by far. I think almost 650 difference between magnet and non-magnet is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would not be as easy to calculate as you think. Only 75% of the students at RM actually took the SAT. Only median numbers are reported for SAT scores among magnets, whereas the aggregate school data is reported as "average"--I could not find out whether this is median or mean. Very little data is given about the standard deviation or the distribution. You can create whatever array of possible scenarios that would fit these data.

Good data point - that 75% includes magnet kids. Assuming 100% magnet kids took the SAT, that means only about 50% of non magnet kids took the SAT, right?

478 seniors. The 2016 class had 114 enrolled students, though perhaps some left the program. Lets round it to 110. Then we have

0.75 * 478 = 359 students took the SAT
110 magnet students took the exam
359 - 110 = 249 non-magnets took the exam
478 - 110 = 368 total non-magnets in the 2016 class
249 / 368 = 67.7% of non-magnet students took the exam.

interesting analysis... it made me look up. according to the report below, the number is 387 (pretty close to your 359 number, page 8 of the report), page 10 shows mean score of 1779.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

also according to the IB profile (as pp suggested), RMIB mean SAT score is 2240 (http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/rmhs/ib/IB%202015-16%20Profile.pdf)

which means non-IB kids' mean score is 1596, which according to page 10 of the report, slightly below MCPS avg but not by far. I think almost 650 difference between magnet and non-magnet is crazy.

But you are also forgetting that a significant number of the RMIB magnet kids are inbound RM cluster kids. So, if RM didn't have the IB, the mean SAT score for that student body would be higher than MCPS average.