Where do you consider MCPS high schools on a scale of good-bad

[Anonymous]

Sounds like if people are honest most folks are looking for the sweet spot of 20-40% FARMS

any lower and you get a distorted rich person view of the world and any higher the school begins to have serious issues

[Anonymous]

Our 3 kids did great attending Einstein IB program. 2- teacher family here so we knew the best place to send our kids to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like if people are honest most folks are looking for the sweet spot of 20-40% FARMS

any lower and you get a distorted rich person view of the world and any higher the school begins to have serious issues

I think more like 20-30%, maybe up to 35.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs can say what you want, no one is moving to a SV neighborhood so their kid can experience diversity, even though it’ll be (arguably) the nicest school in the county (bc it’s the newest).

People don’t like diversity or low income. But they like to pretend they do, then make an excuse about how they ended up in a good neighborhood “Well my parents bought this house in the 90’s and we wanted to save for a family soooo...”

???

Our household is in the top 2% of income earners, we have very healthy savings/investments, and we have chosen to stay in the Blair district primarily because we love this area's diversity. We are also very happy with the school options our kids have had.

Is this a joke? Blair’s has a magnet program. Completely different than moving to an SVHS neighborhood.

Are you sending your kid to Claire?

Why is that a joke? We are high earners and in the Blair district as well. We could really live anywhere, but plan to send our kids there too for many reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ why by graduation rates, which is also a reflection of SES.

A lot of things are based on SES. Better by graduation rates rather than basing it off of nothing as what the other previous posters have been doing. High graduation rates mean that there is a good number of kids who care about well, graduating.. which isn't a high bar in my opinion even so for kids from low SES. Schools that have low graduation rates (lower than the state average) would concern me big time.

So... do you think that by going to a different school your own child’s SES is going to change?

Is this a serious question? Please for the love of God, say no.

It was a sarcastic question. I’m so sick of arguments I read on here that going to school with anything more than 20% poor kids is somehow going to turn your otherwise upper middle class child into a poor dropout. It’s not true.

Similarly, choosing to take the metro rather than drive will not turn you into a homeless person, despite statistics that show homeless people are much more likely to take the metro than drive cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ why by graduation rates, which is also a reflection of SES.

A lot of things are based on SES. Better by graduation rates rather than basing it off of nothing as what the other previous posters have been doing. High graduation rates mean that there is a good number of kids who care about well, graduating.. which isn't a high bar in my opinion even so for kids from low SES. Schools that have low graduation rates (lower than the state average) would concern me big time.

So... do you think that by going to a different school your own child’s SES is going to change?

Is this a serious question? Please for the love of God, say no.

It was a sarcastic question. I’m so sick of arguments I read on here that going to school with anything more than 20% poor kids is somehow going to turn your otherwise upper middle class child into a poor dropout. It’s not true.

Similarly, choosing to take the metro rather than drive will not turn you into a homeless person, despite statistics that show homeless people are much more likely to take the metro than drive cars.

Obviously people aren't saying it will turn you into a poor person or a dropout. The issue with too high FARMs or too wealthy schools is that schools with those extremes have issues that go along with that income level. Of course, a good student at a high FARMs rate could do equally as well at that school as the person could at a school with lower FARMs. But it's the desire to avoid certain types of issues around income level that some people want to avoid.

Too high FARMs rate will mean that more resources will be utilized for these kids, which means less resources and attention for your higher achieving child. Schools with lots of wealth have their own issues that some parents would rather avoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs can say what you want, no one is moving to a SV neighborhood so their kid can experience diversity, even though it’ll be (arguably) the nicest school in the county (bc it’s the newest).

People don’t like diversity or low income. But they like to pretend they do, then make an excuse about how they ended up in a good neighborhood “Well my parents bought this house in the 90’s and we wanted to save for a family soooo...”

???

Our household is in the top 2% of income earners, we have very healthy savings/investments, and we have chosen to stay in the Blair district primarily because we love this area's diversity. We are also very happy with the school options our kids have had.

Is this a joke? Blair’s has a magnet program. Completely different than moving to an SVHS neighborhood.

Are you sending your kid to Claire?

Why is that a joke? We are high earners and in the Blair district as well. We could really live anywhere, but plan to send our kids there too for many reasons.

It must really shock some people to realize that some high income earners purposefully choose school clusters like Blair or RM because of the programs in those schools and the diversity. It's just so inconceivable for some folks I guess.

[Anonymous]

Public schools are a disaster everywhere.

Fortunately MC has the most convenient access to the best and most privates of any jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

If you want to base your ratings on something, at least do it by graduation rates. You can come up with your own tiers from here.

1. Walt Whitman High (97.9 percent)
2. Thomas S. Wootton High (97.8 percent)
3. Winston Churchill High (97.4 percent)
4. Poolesville High (96.2 percent)
5. Walter Johnson High (95.8 percent)
6. Quince Orchard High (95.6 percent)
7. Northwest High (94.95 percent)
8. Bethesda-Chevy Chase High (94.42 percent)
9. Damascus High (93.98 percent)
10. Sherwood High (93.89 percent)
11. Richard Montgomery High (92.24 percent)
12. Clarksburg High (91.52 percent)
13. Paint Branch High (90.55 percent)
14. James Hubert Blake High (90.21 percent)
15. Montgomery Blair High (86.21 percent)
16. Col. Zadok Magruder High (89.59 percent)
17. Springbrook High (87.83 percent)
18. Seneca Valley High (86.21 percent)
19. Rockville High (86.02 percent)
20. Watkins Mill High (84.5 percent)
21. Albert Einstein High (81.93 percent)
22. John F. Kennedy High (81.22 percent)
23. Northwood High (79.36 percent)
24. Gaithersburg High (77.39 percent)
25. Wheaton High (77.36 percent)

Interesting ranking. I'm surprised that Wheaton is at the bottom below Kennedy and Gaithersburg. I guess the Wheaton booster needs to re-evaluate her recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Interesting ranking. I'm surprised that Wheaton is at the bottom below Kennedy and Gaithersburg. I guess the Wheaton booster needs to re-evaluate her recommendations.

If their kids are doing great at Wheaton, why would they need to re-evaluate it? Didn't Wheaton recently win a science competition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Interesting ranking. I'm surprised that Wheaton is at the bottom below Kennedy and Gaithersburg. I guess the Wheaton booster needs to re-evaluate her recommendations.

If their kids are doing great at Wheaton, why would they need to re-evaluate it? Didn't Wheaton recently win a science competition?

[Anonymous]

I really don’t understand why people care so much abt putting down schools their kids don’t go to. How can opinions on the other schools be anything other than conjecture if your family has no experience with the schools? Why do any of you care if someone else is happy at Blair, Wheaton or RM? Kids doing well at those schools have zero impact on how your kids do at their schools

[Anonymous]

The Ws (excluding WJ) are best, followed by BCC. Fin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Ws (excluding WJ) are best, followed by BCC. Fin.

in your head yes. By objective metrics such as Niche rankings or Great Schools, you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a few more added.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great schools rankings are as follows

Churchill-10
BCC-9
Poolesville-9
WJ-9
Wootton-9
Damascus-8
Quince Orchard-8
Whitman-8
Clarksburg-7
Northwest-7
Sherwood-7
Magruder-6
Montgomery Blair-6
Paint Branch-5
Rockville-5
Seneca Valley-4
Springbrook-4
Watkins Mill-4
Wheaton-4

GreatSchools rankings are meaningless drivel. This is a simple average that merely reflects an areas SES and has nothing to do with educational outcomes. It also fails to capture the racist nonsense and bullying that are ubiquitous at schools like Churchill.

Great Schools has a test scores component and an equity component that looks at performance by subgroup. It has flaws like any ranking system, but it's not accurate that it simply reflects an area's SES. But no ranking captures bullying...there's no way anyone would be able to measure that objectively across schools.