New reporting dashboard shows that Einstein HS doing very well in a bunch of metrics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/data/LAR-charts/Equity-Accountability-Model-Achievement.html

Maybe I am interpreting this correctly, but Einstein's overall achievement scores are almost as high in literacy as BCC/Rockville /Was and actually had better scores in math. Surprising, but great to know if true. Einstein also does much better across the board with FARMs students and minorities.

This dashboard doesn't really provide information on overall achievement scores, as the "overall" information appears to be only for the "FOCUS" groups.

They used a sample of students in each demographic group.

I know it's really hard to see data that challenge your perception that MCPS sucks outside of Bethesda and Potomac, but try really hard to not just shoot this down.

Actually, I’m trying to see the data for what it is, rather than what you would like it to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Great! Less people trying to crowd me in my little corner of Bethesda!

Not. Everyone knows student cohorts are stronger in wealthy areas. It's not race, it's money.

When you say "student cohorts are stronger", what do you mean, specifically?

I mean that you are not looking at the appropriate data. The Equity Accountability data is about monitoring lower performing students compared to the general population, and check whether they meet the standards in literacy and math, which are exceedingly low. It is valuable data for its purpose, but should not be used to say: "Hey look, the eastern part of MoCo is doing just as well as the western part!" Wrong.

What this data set is not showing is the achievement at the other side of the range. Many more students are excelling in certain high schools in wealthy areas than in less-wealthy areas. There are a lot more AP offerings, and more students are taking them, as well as other rigorous advanced classes.

Obviously there are smart and hard-working students everywhere!!!
But more of them are showing what they can do in wealthy areas, because their upbringing and the school atmosphere contribute to their putting in more effort in academics.
Whether you like this fact (and whether you think that it creates too much pressure and stress on students, for example, or comes with snobbery, entitlement, etc) is besides the point.

It's crucial to read data correctly, people.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Students in wealthy areas work harder?!

As if.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students in wealthy areas work harder?!

As if.

smarter not harder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Students in wealthy areas work harder?!

From which post did you get that impression?

It does appear to me that reading is a critical capability that needs to trained at early stages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students in wealthy areas work harder?!

From which post did you get that impression?

It does appear to me that reading is a critical capability that needs to trained at early stages.

their upbringing and the school atmosphere contribute to their putting in more effort in academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Great! Less people trying to crowd me in my little corner of Bethesda!

Not. Everyone knows student cohorts are stronger in wealthy areas. It's not race, it's money.

When you say "student cohorts are stronger", what do you mean, specifically?

I mean that you are not looking at the appropriate data. The Equity Accountability data is about monitoring lower performing students compared to the general population, and check whether they meet the standards in literacy and math, which are exceedingly low. It is valuable data for its purpose, but should not be used to say: "Hey look, the eastern part of MoCo is doing just as well as the western part!" Wrong.

What this data set is not showing is the achievement at the other side of the range. Many more students are excelling in certain high schools in wealthy areas than in less-wealthy areas. There are a lot more AP offerings, and more students are taking them, as well as other rigorous advanced classes.

Obviously there are smart and hard-working students everywhere!!!
But more of them are showing what they can do in wealthy areas, because their upbringing and the school atmosphere contribute to their putting in more effort in academics.
Whether you like this fact (and whether you think that it creates too much pressure and stress on students, for example, or comes with snobbery, entitlement, etc) is besides the point.

It's crucial to read data correctly, people.

THIS

[Anonymous]

Agreed, That's why I say that losing higher SES families to Woodward won't hold Einstein back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students in wealthy areas work harder?!

From which post did you get that impression?

It does appear to me that reading is a critical capability that needs to trained at early stages.

their upbringing and the school atmosphere contribute to their putting in more effort in academics.

Right? It's a laughable assertion. Now, they may have less other crap in their lives that would afford them to focus exclusively on academics if they wanted to than kids with fewer advantages, but that doesn't mean they do. Or have people not been following the news lately?

[Anonymous]

This dashboard is actually really interesting because it seems to show what folks have said for a while, which is that nonFARMS white and Asian kids are doing well everywhere, but some schools are doing better than others with poor/working class kids, and non-Asian kids of color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing that will shock the posters who claim schools like Rachel Carson and QO are terrible: Both schools score the same or better on every category as schools this forum loves (I used Burning Tree ES and Whitman as comparisons).

I am not saying QO is terrible. But "achieving same or better on every category" using the report provided in the OP?

You do understand that this report is designed not to look at the overall "performance" of a school, but rather how "each group" is doing?

Even if you have a school A, in which all groups are doing better than those same groups in school B, it does not mean school A is doing better (just for performance purposes) than B.

DP..."you're only as strong as your weakest link".

IMO, a "good" school is one where low income students do well. A school with a high score that is full of wealthy kids tells you nothing about the teachers, admin, etc.., whereas a school where the lower income kids do well should tell you how great the teachers/admin are and the school environment in terms of fostering learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing that will shock the posters who claim schools like Rachel Carson and QO are terrible: Both schools score the same or better on every category as schools this forum loves (I used Burning Tree ES and Whitman as comparisons).

I am not saying QO is terrible. But "achieving same or better on every category" using the report provided in the OP?

You do understand that this report is designed not to look at the overall "performance" of a school, but rather how "each group" is doing?

Even if you have a school A, in which all groups are doing better than those same groups in school B, it does not mean school A is doing better (just for performance purposes) than B.

DP..."you're only as strong as your weakest link".

IMO, a "good" school is one where low income students do well. A school with a high score that is full of wealthy kids tells you nothing about the teachers, admin, etc.., whereas a school where the lower income kids do well should tell you how great the teachers/admin are and the school environment in terms of fostering learning.

If you want to define a "good" school, that is fine.

The previous poster was clearly talking about performance data. I was simply showing him that the report quoted in OP does not provide the overall performance data. You can have a school in which all subgroups perform better, but overall it does not.

Whether that performance data (score) means anything - I don't want to be dragged into that for now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing that will shock the posters who claim schools like Rachel Carson and QO are terrible: Both schools score the same or better on every category as schools this forum loves (I used Burning Tree ES and Whitman as comparisons).

I am not saying QO is terrible. But "achieving same or better on every category" using the report provided in the OP?

You do understand that this report is designed not to look at the overall "performance" of a school, but rather how "each group" is doing?

Even if you have a school A, in which all groups are doing better than those same groups in school B, it does not mean school A is doing better (just for performance purposes) than B.

DP..."you're only as strong as your weakest link".

IMO, a "good" school is one where low income students do well. A school with a high score that is full of wealthy kids tells you nothing about the teachers, admin, etc.., whereas a school where the lower income kids do well should tell you how great the teachers/admin are and the school environment in terms of fostering learning.

If you want to define a "good" school, that is fine.

The previous poster was clearly talking about performance data. I was simply showing him that the report quoted in OP does not provide the overall performance data. You can have a school in which all subgroups perform better, but overall it does not.

Whether that performance data (score) means anything - I don't want to be dragged into that for now.

How is it possible for "each subgroup to perform better but not overall" compared to another school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/data/LAR-charts/Equity-Accountability-Model-Achievement.html

Maybe I am interpreting this correctly, but Einstein's overall achievement scores are almost as high in literacy as BCC/Rockville /Was and actually had better scores in math. Surprising, but great to know if true. Einstein also does much better across the board with FARMs students and minorities.

achieving literacy is a very low bar to compare. How about breathing, I am sure everyone is good at that.

+1
I do not know what is more shameful, Mcps touting this as an achievement or parents buying this BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to define a "good" school, that is fine.

The previous poster was clearly talking about performance data. I was simply showing him that the report quoted in OP does not provide the overall performance data. You can have a school in which all subgroups perform better, but overall it does not.

Whether that performance data (score) means anything - I don't want to be dragged into that for now.

How is it possible for "each subgroup to perform better but not overall" compared to another school?

See, that's the problem. Many people are mislead by those type of reports.

Let me give you an example: pet school A and school B, dogs and cats go to these schools.

In school A, cats get an average score of 90, dogs get an average score of 20.
In school B, cats get an average score of 100, dogs get an average score of 30.

Do you think school B must out-perform school A?

Not true. The answer: school A has 100 cats and 1 dog. School B has 100 dogs and 1 cat. Now you can see which school has higher performing animals?