New VDOE Rankings of High and Secondary Schools

[Anonymous]

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/state-board-data-funding/accreditation-accountability/school-performance-and-support-framework

High Schools (Overall Framework Score):

TJ 105.1
Langley 95.6
Oakton 94.5
McLean 92.2
Madison 92.2
Chantilly 91.8
Marshall 90.1
Lake Braddock 89.3
West Springfield 88.9
South County 87.2
Robinson 86.1
South Lakes 86.0
Edison 85.9
Centreville 85.2
Hayfield 85.2
Woodson 84.7
Westfield 83.2
Fairfax 80.7
West Potomac 79.3
Herndon 78.2
Lewis 78.0
Mount Vernon 78.0
Falls Church 77.7
Annandale 69.7
Justice 67.8

Middle Schools (Overall Framework Score)

Rocky Run 93.0
Carson 92.6
Longfellow 92.5
Cooper 90.8
Thoreau 90.0
Frost 89.9
Lake Braddock 89.3
South County 89.1
Kilmer 88.2
Liberty 86.3
Twain 86.3
Robinson 86.1
Johnson 85.9
Stone 85.9
Franklin 85.3
Irving 85.3
Hayfield 85.2
Hughes 83.6
Whitman 80.3
Jackson 79.7
Herndon 79.6
Holmes 77.4
Sandburg 77.1
Key 76.3
Glasgow 74.9
Poe 73.5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.doe.virginia.gov/state-board-data-funding/accreditation-accountability/school-performance-and-support-framework

High Schools (Overall Framework Score):

TJ 105.1
Langley 95.6
Oakton 94.5
McLean 92.2
Madison 92.2
Chantilly 91.8
Marshall 90.1
Lake Braddock 89.3
West Springfield 88.9
South County 87.2
Robinson 86.1
South Lakes 86.0
Edison 85.9
Centreville 85.2
Hayfield 85.2
Woodson 84.7
Westfield 83.2
Fairfax 80.7
West Potomac 79.3
Herndon 78.2
Lewis 78.0
Mount Vernon 78.0
Falls Church 77.7
Annandale 69.7
Justice 67.8

Middle Schools (Overall Framework Score)

Rocky Run 93.0
Carson 92.6
Longfellow 92.5
Cooper 90.8
Thoreau 90.0
Frost 89.9
Lake Braddock 89.3
South County 89.1
Kilmer 88.2
Liberty 86.3
Twain 86.3
Robinson 86.1
Johnson 85.9
Stone 85.9
Franklin 85.3
Irving 85.3
Hayfield 85.2
Hughes 83.6
Whitman 80.3
Jackson 79.7
Herndon 79.6
Holmes 77.4
Sandburg 77.1
Key 76.3
Glasgow 74.9
Poe 73.5

But I keep hearing from the school board members that all our schools are of equal quality.

[Anonymous]

No schools in the lowest “Needs intensive support” category below 65 points, but quite a few “off track” between 65-79.

[Anonymous]

Still a flawed methodology that rewards the good fortune of having less ELL and FARMs kids, while penalizing schools required to serve those communities. It's just another GreatSchools score. Would instead like to see details on assessing the more permanent stats of the school itself, like staff quality, state of facilities, and extracurriculars.

[Anonymous]

Let’s be clear: this is some nonsense with numbers and no transparency. The data used is from last year’ using a new accreditation calculation, and no one can tell you what exactly what all the numbers were that resulted in the overall scores posted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still a flawed methodology that rewards the good fortune of having less ELL and FARMs kids, while penalizing schools required to serve those communities. It's just another GreatSchools score. Would instead like to see details on assessing the more permanent stats of the school itself, like staff quality, state of facilities, and extracurriculars.

Edison and Hayfield are punching way above their weight in this methodology though. Edison is 42% FARMS and Hayfield is 34%, so them being in the same categorization as much wealthier schools like Robinson and Woodson is pretty impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still a flawed methodology that rewards the good fortune of having less ELL and FARMs kids, while penalizing schools required to serve those communities. It's just another GreatSchools score. Would instead like to see details on assessing the more permanent stats of the school itself, like staff quality, state of facilities, and extracurriculars.

Edison and Hayfield are punching way above their weight in this methodology though. Edison is 42% FARMS and Hayfield is 34%, so them being in the same categorization as much wealthier schools like Robinson and Woodson is pretty impressive.

LOL. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still a flawed methodology that rewards the good fortune of having less ELL and FARMs kids, while penalizing schools required to serve those communities. It's just another GreatSchools score. Would instead like to see details on assessing the more permanent stats of the school itself, like staff quality, state of facilities, and extracurriculars.

+1

[Anonymous]

The Langley parents are now arguing on the FairFACTS page that they can’t be moved to Herndon because Herndon is in the “off track” category.

In fact, the opposite will happen because redistricting some Langley kids there will push Herndon into the “on track” category (above 80).

When that happens they can think Youngkin for further incentivizing the School Board to game the numbers with these new ratings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Langley parents are now arguing on the FairFACTS page that they can’t be moved to Herndon because Herndon is in the “off track” category.

In fact, the opposite will happen because redistricting some Langley kids there will push Herndon into the “on track” category (above 80).

When that happens they can think Youngkin for further incentivizing the School Board to game the numbers with these new ratings.

First, to clarify, it’s one parent, not “The Langley parents”.

Second, the main point from that poster is that there is a clear discrepancy in the scores between the schools. I don’t buy your claim that Youngkin is a contributing factor to the comprehensive review, which has been on the school board’s agenda since pre-covid times.

Not sure you’re going to be able to pass the upcoming redistricting off on Youngkin, despite your desire to tie him to an unpopular boundary sturdy.

The school board will own this one.

[Anonymous]

Nah, Youngkin and his VDOE should have studied up more on the law of unintended consequences before coming up with these state-developed school rankings. Oops!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nah, Youngkin and his VDOE should have studied up more on the law of unintended consequences before coming up with these state-developed school rankings. Oops!

It’s a little cringe that you are trying so hard on this. No one actually believes that Youngkin will take any hit whatsoever for the boundary moves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still a flawed methodology that rewards the good fortune of having less ELL and FARMs kids, while penalizing schools required to serve those communities. It's just another GreatSchools score. Would instead like to see details on assessing the more permanent stats of the school itself, like staff quality, state of facilities, and extracurriculars.

Edison and Hayfield are punching way above their weight in this methodology though. Edison is 42% FARMS and Hayfield is 34%, so them being in the same categorization as much wealthier schools like Robinson and Woodson is pretty impressive.

I agree with you on this point, both are certainly hitting higher. That said, the schools in the lower range do have higher ELL and FARM populations. But the schools themselves can only do the best they can with who is enrolling and matriculating up in the pyramid. I don’t really have much of a point here other than to say that this data shows what one would expect. And that the schools on the bottom side are not bad schools with bad or ineffective teachers, they are just schools whose populations require different ways of dealing and instructing students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah, Youngkin and his VDOE should have studied up more on the law of unintended consequences before coming up with these state-developed school rankings. Oops!

It’s a little cringe that you are trying so hard on this. No one actually believes that Youngkin will take any hit whatsoever for the boundary moves.

It’s not so much that Youngkin will take a hit as that he’s given the School Board one more incentive to change the boundaries, to the detriment of some of his own supporters. Try and keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah, Youngkin and his VDOE should have studied up more on the law of unintended consequences before coming up with these state-developed school rankings. Oops!

It’s a little cringe that you are trying so hard on this. No one actually believes that Youngkin will take any hit whatsoever for the boundary moves.

It’s not so much that Youngkin will take a hit as that he’s given the School Board one more incentive to change the boundaries, to the detriment of some of his own supporters. Try and keep up.

None of the schools are in the lowest category - I don’t even think any of the elementary schools are in the lowest category and in danger of maybe losing accreditation. FCPS will just keep on going until and unless a high school loses full accreditation. The much maligned Lewis is just 2 points off from the 80s which would put it in the safe zone anyway.