New GS rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

This is EXACTLY what GreatSchools has been doing since it was invented. They are actually trying to do better by fiddling with the algorithm to make it clear which schools are actually serving the populations that they have. So, you don't automatically get a 10 for having a student body that is 90% white/Asian with highly educated, high earning, parents who are supplementing outside of school. Instead you ALSO get scored on how you are serving kids not being tutored extensively.

Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective? If a school is totally failing its poor kids and kids of color, then it is probably also not doing a great job with middle class kids.

[Anonymous]

"Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective?"

It would make more sense to show which schools are showing growth for students at different levels, but that takes longitudinal data that they don't have. Instead, they are falsely implying that schools with poor students that aren't doing as well as the rich students are doing something wrong. This is illogical. What we need to know is if the students are progressing one grade level equivalent each year. If a school is doing a great job on remedial work, it will never show up in this rating. If the school is doing a great job in advanced work, it will never show up in this rating. The only schools that will do well is where they have smart kids in every category.

It's all about choosing the peers, not choosing the educational effectiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

This is EXACTLY what GreatSchools has been doing since it was invented. They are actually trying to do better by fiddling with the algorithm to make it clear which schools are actually serving the populations that they have. So, you don't automatically get a 10 for having a student body that is 90% white/Asian with highly educated, high earning, parents who are supplementing outside of school. Instead you ALSO get scored on how you are serving kids not being tutored extensively.

Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective? If a school is totally failing its poor kids and kids of color, then it is probably also not doing a great job with middle class kids.

Except their algorithm isn't working as intended. It's penalizing schools that have a diverse population and rewarding schools that are homogeneously wealthy (and white). Our ES GS score didn't go up, despite the fact that our SOL scores did across the board. Our white students are performing every bit as well as the ones at the "best" schools and our students of color are outperforming students of color at every other school. Our score is lower simply because we have students of color and students who are ESL and other schools don't. The schools that have NO students of color are rated higher, still. So this algorithm is not any better, and actually makes schools that have genuinely diverse populations look worse on paper. This is particularly true for school who have DACA kids. Like the school is at fault for not making them Harvard-ready within a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

This is EXACTLY what GreatSchools has been doing since it was invented. They are actually trying to do better by fiddling with the algorithm to make it clear which schools are actually serving the populations that they have. So, you don't automatically get a 10 for having a student body that is 90% white/Asian with highly educated, high earning, parents who are supplementing outside of school. Instead you ALSO get scored on how you are serving kids not being tutored extensively.

Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective? If a school is totally failing its poor kids and kids of color, then it is probably also not doing a great job with middle class kids.

Except their algorithm isn't working as intended. It's penalizing schools that have a diverse population and rewarding schools that are homogeneously wealthy (and white). Our ES GS score didn't go up, despite the fact that our SOL scores did across the board. Our white students are performing every bit as well as the ones at the "best" schools and our students of color are outperforming students of color at every other school. Our score is lower simply because we have students of color and students who are ESL and other schools don't. The schools that have NO students of color are rated higher, still. So this algorithm is not any better, and actually makes schools that have genuinely diverse populations look worse on paper. This is particularly true for school who have DACA kids. Like the school is at fault for not making them Harvard-ready within a year.

Look I am the achievement gap poster from a couple pages of go. People have choices why would they want to go to a school that has any kids that are performing poorly regardless of what race they are. People want to be around the kids that perform the best period its human nature.

GS has always been based on socioeconomic status and now its even more so its just reflecting what people want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

This is EXACTLY what GreatSchools has been doing since it was invented. They are actually trying to do better by fiddling with the algorithm to make it clear which schools are actually serving the populations that they have. So, you don't automatically get a 10 for having a student body that is 90% white/Asian with highly educated, high earning, parents who are supplementing outside of school. Instead you ALSO get scored on how you are serving kids not being tutored extensively.

Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective? If a school is totally failing its poor kids and kids of color, then it is probably also not doing a great job with middle class kids.

Except their algorithm isn't working as intended. It's penalizing schools that have a diverse population and rewarding schools that are homogeneously wealthy (and white). Our ES GS score didn't go up, despite the fact that our SOL scores did across the board. Our white students are performing every bit as well as the ones at the "best" schools and our students of color are outperforming students of color at every other school. Our score is lower simply because we have students of color and students who are ESL and other schools don't. The schools that have NO students of color are rated higher, still. So this algorithm is not any better, and actually makes schools that have genuinely diverse populations look worse on paper. This is particularly true for school who have DACA kids. Like the school is at fault for not making them Harvard-ready within a year.

Look I am the achievement gap poster from a couple pages of go. People have choices why would they want to go to a school that has any kids that are performing poorly regardless of what race they are. People want to be around the kids that perform the best period its human nature.

GS has always been based on socioeconomic status and now its even more so its just reflecting what people want.

Right, segregation now segregation forever! I keep forgetting that I live in Virgina. Good thing I have APS to remind me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

This is EXACTLY what GreatSchools has been doing since it was invented. They are actually trying to do better by fiddling with the algorithm to make it clear which schools are actually serving the populations that they have. So, you don't automatically get a 10 for having a student body that is 90% white/Asian with highly educated, high earning, parents who are supplementing outside of school. Instead you ALSO get scored on how you are serving kids not being tutored extensively.

Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective? If a school is totally failing its poor kids and kids of color, then it is probably also not doing a great job with middle class kids.

Except their algorithm isn't working as intended. It's penalizing schools that have a diverse population and rewarding schools that are homogeneously wealthy (and white). Our ES GS score didn't go up, despite the fact that our SOL scores did across the board. Our white students are performing every bit as well as the ones at the "best" schools and our students of color are outperforming students of color at every other school. Our score is lower simply because we have students of color and students who are ESL and other schools don't. The schools that have NO students of color are rated higher, still. So this algorithm is not any better, and actually makes schools that have genuinely diverse populations look worse on paper. This is particularly true for school who have DACA kids. Like the school is at fault for not making them Harvard-ready within a year.

Recipients of DACA are, by definition, those who were physically present in 2012 AND made an application since that time. They have undergone a background check, and are overwhelmingly older than 16.

Find a different boogeyman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

This is EXACTLY what GreatSchools has been doing since it was invented. They are actually trying to do better by fiddling with the algorithm to make it clear which schools are actually serving the populations that they have. So, you don't automatically get a 10 for having a student body that is 90% white/Asian with highly educated, high earning, parents who are supplementing outside of school. Instead you ALSO get scored on how you are serving kids not being tutored extensively.

Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective? If a school is totally failing its poor kids and kids of color, then it is probably also not doing a great job with middle class kids.

Except their algorithm isn't working as intended. It's penalizing schools that have a diverse population and rewarding schools that are homogeneously wealthy (and white). Our ES GS score didn't go up, despite the fact that our SOL scores did across the board. Our white students are performing every bit as well as the ones at the "best" schools and our students of color are outperforming students of color at every other school. Our score is lower simply because we have students of color and students who are ESL and other schools don't. The schools that have NO students of color are rated higher, still. So this algorithm is not any better, and actually makes schools that have genuinely diverse populations look worse on paper. This is particularly true for school who have DACA kids. Like the school is at fault for not making them Harvard-ready within a year.

Recipients of DACA are, by definition, those who were physically present in 2012 AND made an application since that time. They have undergone a background check, and are overwhelmingly older than 16.

Find a different boogeyman.

Sorry, wrong terminology. I meant unaccompanied minors. And there's nothing the schools can do to get therm testing at the same level as kids who've been here living lives of privilege for their entire lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

This is EXACTLY what GreatSchools has been doing since it was invented. They are actually trying to do better by fiddling with the algorithm to make it clear which schools are actually serving the populations that they have. So, you don't automatically get a 10 for having a student body that is 90% white/Asian with highly educated, high earning, parents who are supplementing outside of school. Instead you ALSO get scored on how you are serving kids not being tutored extensively.

Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective? If a school is totally failing its poor kids and kids of color, then it is probably also not doing a great job with middle class kids.

Except their algorithm isn't working as intended. It's penalizing schools that have a diverse population and rewarding schools that are homogeneously wealthy (and white). Our ES GS score didn't go up, despite the fact that our SOL scores did across the board. Our white students are performing every bit as well as the ones at the "best" schools and our students of color are outperforming students of color at every other school. Our score is lower simply because we have students of color and students who are ESL and other schools don't. The schools that have NO students of color are rated higher, still. So this algorithm is not any better, and actually makes schools that have genuinely diverse populations look worse on paper. This is particularly true for school who have DACA kids. Like the school is at fault for not making them Harvard-ready within a year.

Ok, you have the blacks that are performing well versus the blacks at other schools but still not well versus the whites. That obviously means your school is not as good as the schools with only the high performing whites. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Do you think a school should get high marks simply bc it has blacks, even if those blacks are inferior students to the whites?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

This is EXACTLY what GreatSchools has been doing since it was invented. They are actually trying to do better by fiddling with the algorithm to make it clear which schools are actually serving the populations that they have. So, you don't automatically get a 10 for having a student body that is 90% white/Asian with highly educated, high earning, parents who are supplementing outside of school. Instead you ALSO get scored on how you are serving kids not being tutored extensively.

Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective? If a school is totally failing its poor kids and kids of color, then it is probably also not doing a great job with middle class kids.

Except their algorithm isn't working as intended. It's penalizing schools that have a diverse population and rewarding schools that are homogeneously wealthy (and white). Our ES GS score didn't go up, despite the fact that our SOL scores did across the board. Our white students are performing every bit as well as the ones at the "best" schools and our students of color are outperforming students of color at every other school. Our score is lower simply because we have students of color and students who are ESL and other schools don't. The schools that have NO students of color are rated higher, still. So this algorithm is not any better, and actually makes schools that have genuinely diverse populations look worse on paper. This is particularly true for school who have DACA kids. Like the school is at fault for not making them Harvard-ready within a year.

Ok, you have the blacks that are performing well versus the blacks at other schools but still not well versus the whites. That obviously means your school is not as good as the schools with only the high performing whites. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Do you think a school should get high marks simply bc it has blacks, even if those blacks are inferior students to the whites?

You sound a bit clueless. Last month, the GS scores were based on test scores alone. That means, by lowering scores, GS is now penalizing high scoring schools. Test scores haven't changed, only GS scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective?"

It would make more sense to show which schools are showing growth for students at different levels, but that takes longitudinal data that they don't have. Instead, they are falsely implying that schools with poor students that aren't doing as well as the rich students are doing something wrong. This is illogical. What we need to know is if the students are progressing one grade level equivalent each year. If a school is doing a great job on remedial work, it will never show up in this rating. If the school is doing a great job in advanced work, it will never show up in this rating. The only schools that will do well is where they have smart kids in every category.

It's all about choosing the peers, not choosing the educational effectiveness.

Right. Parents dont want their kids to go to school with the poors. The poors have “poor” habits like indolence, propensity for violence and criminality, lack of intellectual curiousity. Parents dont want to expose their kids to the poors and their poor habits. In fact, the poors themselves dont want to go to school with the other poors bc they know first hand how destructive the poors are - the live right next to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

This is EXACTLY what GreatSchools has been doing since it was invented. They are actually trying to do better by fiddling with the algorithm to make it clear which schools are actually serving the populations that they have. So, you don't automatically get a 10 for having a student body that is 90% white/Asian with highly educated, high earning, parents who are supplementing outside of school. Instead you ALSO get scored on how you are serving kids not being tutored extensively.

Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective? If a school is totally failing its poor kids and kids of color, then it is probably also not doing a great job with middle class kids.

Except their algorithm isn't working as intended. It's penalizing schools that have a diverse population and rewarding schools that are homogeneously wealthy (and white). Our ES GS score didn't go up, despite the fact that our SOL scores did across the board. Our white students are performing every bit as well as the ones at the "best" schools and our students of color are outperforming students of color at every other school. Our score is lower simply because we have students of color and students who are ESL and other schools don't. The schools that have NO students of color are rated higher, still. So this algorithm is not any better, and actually makes schools that have genuinely diverse populations look worse on paper. This is particularly true for school who have DACA kids. Like the school is at fault for not making them Harvard-ready within a year.

Ok, you have the blacks that are performing well versus the blacks at other schools but still not well versus the whites. That obviously means your school is not as good as the schools with only the high performing whites. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Do you think a school should get high marks simply bc it has blacks, even if those blacks are inferior students to the whites?

You sound a bit clueless. Last month, the GS scores were based on test scores alone. That means, by lowering scores, GS is now penalizing high scoring schools. Test scores haven't changed, only GS scores.

They improved the methodology somthe scores more accurately reflect the academic quality of the student body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

This is EXACTLY what GreatSchools has been doing since it was invented. They are actually trying to do better by fiddling with the algorithm to make it clear which schools are actually serving the populations that they have. So, you don't automatically get a 10 for having a student body that is 90% white/Asian with highly educated, high earning, parents who are supplementing outside of school. Instead you ALSO get scored on how you are serving kids not being tutored extensively.

Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective? If a school is totally failing its poor kids and kids of color, then it is probably also not doing a great job with middle class kids.

Except their algorithm isn't working as intended. It's penalizing schools that have a diverse population and rewarding schools that are homogeneously wealthy (and white). Our ES GS score didn't go up, despite the fact that our SOL scores did across the board. Our white students are performing every bit as well as the ones at the "best" schools and our students of color are outperforming students of color at every other school. Our score is lower simply because we have students of color and students who are ESL and other schools don't. The schools that have NO students of color are rated higher, still. So this algorithm is not any better, and actually makes schools that have genuinely diverse populations look worse on paper. This is particularly true for school who have DACA kids. Like the school is at fault for not making them Harvard-ready within a year.

Ok, you have the blacks that are performing well versus the blacks at other schools but still not well versus the whites. That obviously means your school is not as good as the schools with only the high performing whites. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Do you think a school should get high marks simply bc it has blacks, even if those blacks are inferior students to the whites?

You sound a bit clueless. Last month, the GS scores were based on test scores alone. That means, by lowering scores, GS is now penalizing high scoring schools. Test scores haven't changed, only GS scores.

They improved the methodology somthe scores more accurately reflect the academic quality of the student body.

That's what they said they did. This thread is about why they're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

This is EXACTLY what GreatSchools has been doing since it was invented. They are actually trying to do better by fiddling with the algorithm to make it clear which schools are actually serving the populations that they have. So, you don't automatically get a 10 for having a student body that is 90% white/Asian with highly educated, high earning, parents who are supplementing outside of school. Instead you ALSO get scored on how you are serving kids not being tutored extensively.

Isn't that what we want? To know which schools are actually effective? If a school is totally failing its poor kids and kids of color, then it is probably also not doing a great job with middle class kids.

Except their algorithm isn't working as intended. It's penalizing schools that have a diverse population and rewarding schools that are homogeneously wealthy (and white). Our ES GS score didn't go up, despite the fact that our SOL scores did across the board. Our white students are performing every bit as well as the ones at the "best" schools and our students of color are outperforming students of color at every other school. Our score is lower simply because we have students of color and students who are ESL and other schools don't. The schools that have NO students of color are rated higher, still. So this algorithm is not any better, and actually makes schools that have genuinely diverse populations look worse on paper. This is particularly true for school who have DACA kids. Like the school is at fault for not making them Harvard-ready within a year.

Ok, you have the blacks that are performing well versus the blacks at other schools but still not well versus the whites. That obviously means your school is not as good as the schools with only the high performing whites. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Do you think a school should get high marks simply bc it has blacks, even if those blacks are inferior students to the whites?

You sound a bit clueless. Last month, the GS scores were based on test scores alone. That means, by lowering scores, GS is now penalizing high scoring schools. Test scores haven't changed, only GS scores.

They improved the methodology somthe scores more accurately reflect the academic quality of the student body.

That's what they said they did. This thread is about why they're wrong.

And you think they are wrong bc a school should get points for enrolling blacks, even if those blacks drag down the school’s average test score. Parents want their kids to go to school with the best students, regardless of race. Period.

[Anonymous]

If there are Asian and white kids doing very well compared to the state and the other kids are doing just good, does great schools show an achievement gap? Perhaps all the students are doing well, but they just have a lot of TJ bound students.

[Anonymous]

6:54 No one is complaining about black students. You are the only one who keeps talking about black students in a negative way

Lots of posters are concerned that hispanic ESL kids are weighted too highly for their percentage of the school population in this new formula.

The new GS is rating each population group equally, even if proportionally they are very different.

So a school might be 70% white (GS 9), 20% asian (GS 9), 7% hispanic (GS 3), 3% AA (GS 8 but not included in the ranking because they are less than 5% of the population).

GS does the lazy math and weights each of the three groups equally instead of proportionally:

9+9+3=21/3= GS rating is now a 7 even though 93% of the students are testing at the top level of the state. Everyone except for the hispanic , ESL kids.

Instead they should do a proportional representation to give a more accurate picture:

7% of your school population should not be weighted for 33.3% of your school score.