How is it possible that Walt Whitman high school has a score of 4 on greatschools.org??

[Anonymous]

Has anyone been able to provide an explanation as to what went wrong at Whitman? Assuming on average the test takers at Whitman didn’t change their habits from test takers in prior years, why was there such a huge change in score? Can it be that the last group of Whitman test takes were just significantly less prepared (or intellectually capable) than prior Whitman students? Why would that happen? Changes at Whitman perhaps? The effect seems to be a school-wide phenomenon?

I don’t think you can blame the lower scores on the test either. If the low score had something to do with the test, why don’t we see similar effects at other schools?

Also, look at the internals. The Black and Hispanic students at Whitman actually scored slightly higher on average than White and Asian students? In fact, the only reason Whitman scored a 4 instead of a 3 is because it appears the Black and Hispanic students are propping up the score ---- they average 4/10 whereas the White and Asian students average 3/10.

I’m not trying to make excuses for Whitman’s poor scores. Instead, I’m trying to understand what could have gone wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone been able to provide an explanation as to what went wrong at Whitman? Assuming on average the test takers at Whitman didn’t change their habits from test takers in prior years, why was there such a huge change in score? Can it be that the last group of Whitman test takes were just significantly less prepared (or intellectually capable) than prior Whitman students? Why would that happen? Changes at Whitman perhaps? The effect seems to be a school-wide phenomenon?

I don’t think you can blame the lower scores on the test either. If the low score had something to do with the test, why don’t we see similar effects at other schools?

Also, look at the internals. The Black and Hispanic students at Whitman actually scored slightly higher on average than White and Asian students? In fact, the only reason Whitman scored a 4 instead of a 3 is because it appears the Black and Hispanic students are propping up the score ---- they average 4/10 whereas the White and Asian students average 3/10.

I’m not trying to make excuses for Whitman’s poor scores. Instead, I’m trying to understand what could have gone wrong.

No, it does not make sense to blame the test. BCC had a GS score of 7 last year and maintained it this year as Whitman dropped to 4. Other nearby schools did not suffer the same drop Whitman had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone been able to provide an explanation as to what went wrong at Whitman? Assuming on average the test takers at Whitman didn’t change their habits from test takers in prior years, why was there such a huge change in score? Can it be that the last group of Whitman test takes were just significantly less prepared (or intellectually capable) than prior Whitman students? Why would that happen? Changes at Whitman perhaps? The effect seems to be a school-wide phenomenon?

I don’t think you can blame the lower scores on the test either. If the low score had something to do with the test, why don’t we see similar effects at other schools?

Also, look at the internals. The Black and Hispanic students at Whitman actually scored slightly higher on average than White and Asian students? In fact, the only reason Whitman scored a 4 instead of a 3 is because it appears the Black and Hispanic students are propping up the score ---- they average 4/10 whereas the White and Asian students average 3/10.

I’m not trying to make excuses for Whitman’s poor scores. Instead, I’m trying to understand what could have gone wrong.

We know what went wrong. A substantial portion of Whitman students, with the backing of a handful of teachers, blew off the test because it didn't count toward college admissions. Filled in random bubbles, wrote C all the way down, etc.

We know this isn't about lack of ability or preparation, even though that's certainly the charge Whitman folks level at East County folks all the time. It's about culture and attitude. A culture of only doing your best when there is an external award (a trophy, a participation ribbon, a college admissions boost) rather than doing your best for the sake of doing your best. An attitude of dismissal, as if nothing that benefits the school but not the student personally could possibly be worth participating in.

[Anonymous]

I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

So when Whitman scores are low, it's political protest, but when other high school scores are low, it's...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

So when Whitman scores are low, it's political protest, but when other high school scores are low, it's...?

....a culture of not valuing education. Come on, you know how this goes. White kids get the benefit of the doubt. Black kids are too busy birthin' babies in the hallways to take a test. That's how DCUM works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

I am literally agog that you honestly believe we can assume folks are good parents, with strong moral values, because they are high earners. As if there's a causal relationship between being rich and being a good person. It's the Prosperity Gospel incarnate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

So when Whitman scores are low, it's political protest, but when other high school scores are low, it's...?

....a culture of not valuing education. Come on, you know how this goes. White kids get the benefit of the doubt. Black kids are too busy birthin' babies in the hallways to take a test. That's how DCUM works.

+1 BCC has quite a few parents with high paying jobs, yet somehow those kids didn't tank the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

So when Whitman scores are low, it's political protest, but when other high school scores are low, it's...?

The reason this makes potential sense is that there was a precipitous drop in their scores in a one year period. It is hard to imagine that Whitman's teaching changed dramatically in a year or that the abilities of its students changed so suddenly. If this had been a slow, steady decline it would be harder to explain away. But it seems odd to me that Whitman teachers and students would all of a sudden become drastically less able.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

So when Whitman scores are low, it's political protest, but when other high school scores are low, it's...?

The reason this makes potential sense is that there was a precipitous drop in their scores in a one year period. It is hard to imagine that Whitman's teaching changed dramatically in a year or that the abilities of its students changed so suddenly. If this had been a slow, steady decline it would be harder to explain away. But it seems odd to me that Whitman teachers and students would all of a sudden become drastically less able.

It seems odd to me that the children of intelligent parents, with high-paying jobs and advanced degrees, who have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality, purposely tanked the test at Whitman, but did not purposely tank the tests at the other high schools where all of those things are true as well (as far as anybody knows). Why no political protest at B-CC, for example? Or Wootton, or Walter Johnson, or Churchill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

So when Whitman scores are low, it's political protest, but when other high school scores are low, it's...?

....a culture of not valuing education. Come on, you know how this goes. White kids get the benefit of the doubt. Black kids are too busy birthin' babies in the hallways to take a test. That's how DCUM works.

+1 BCC has quite a few parents with high paying jobs, yet somehow those kids didn't tank the test.

I'm not talking about any other school. What I'm saying is that the students purposely failed the test -- it was a collective decision to do it. And of course being in a high-paying job or having an advanced degree does not make you a good person, and that wasn't stated anywhere in my post. What I'm saying is there is likely a high number of parents at Whitman who are teaching their kids to think critically and question the status quo. And once again, I'm just talking about Whitman, not comparing scores to anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

So when Whitman scores are low, it's political protest, but when other high school scores are low, it's...?

The reason this makes potential sense is that there was a precipitous drop in their scores in a one year period. It is hard to imagine that Whitman's teaching changed dramatically in a year or that the abilities of its students changed so suddenly. If this had been a slow, steady decline it would be harder to explain away. But it seems odd to me that Whitman teachers and students would all of a sudden become drastically less able.

It seems odd to me that the children of intelligent parents, with high-paying jobs and advanced degrees, who have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality, purposely tanked the test at Whitman, but did not purposely tank the tests at the other high schools where all of those things are true as well (as far as anybody knows). Why no political protest at B-CC, for example? Or Wootton, or Walter Johnson, or Churchill?

Not sure, but it is entirely possible a relatively small number of students decided to organize a campaign that was followed by more. Lots of times high school students will follow what popular kids do. For whatever reason, maybe the same effort wasn't made at other schools. Maybe it will happen this year at other schools.

More fundamentally, you asked a reasonable question, but you offered no proposed answer of your own. Why do you think scores dropped so precipitously in one year?

[Anonymous]

Interestingly, this "protest" at Whitman didn't seem to include Black, Latinx, and Asian kids. Maybe because those kids are less accustomed to being pandered to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironic part is Whittman and Churchill are lower rated than some Bronx public schools. Look it up. Move to the Bronx if you want good schools.

Why is that ironic. Bronx Science is one of the top public schools in the country and has been for some time. It certainly blows Whitman, Churchill and Blair out of the water.

No it does not blow Blair out of the water. Blair beats Bronx Science (which is a full Magnet) every year in every STEM competition.

That is correct.
This year Intel/Regeneron scholars
Blair = 9 scholars
Bronx = 7 scholars

https://student.societyforscience.org/regeneronsts-scholars-2017

DP.. but you are comparing whole school magnet vs 100 students/per grade magnet.

Even more impressive.
A 100 students/per grade magnet is beating a whole school magnet. In fact, it's beating all the full time magnet schools in the nation.
Wow!

PP here.. yes, that was my point. And it's the same argument when people compare TJ to Blair magnet -- whole school magnet vs 100 kids/grade. Not a fair or accurate comparison. Maybe take the top 100 performing students in Bronx HS and TJ and compare to Blair. That would be more fair and accurate.

NP here. The whole school of Bronx had 7. They are all in there top 100 students, I would assume/bet. If Blair beat the whole school, it beat the top 100 of that school as well. Is this so hard to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

So when Whitman scores are low, it's political protest, but when other high school scores are low, it's...?

The reason this makes potential sense is that there was a precipitous drop in their scores in a one year period. It is hard to imagine that Whitman's teaching changed dramatically in a year or that the abilities of its students changed so suddenly. If this had been a slow, steady decline it would be harder to explain away. But it seems odd to me that Whitman teachers and students would all of a sudden become drastically less able.

It seems odd to me that the children of intelligent parents, with high-paying jobs and advanced degrees, who have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality, purposely tanked the test at Whitman, but did not purposely tank the tests at the other high schools where all of those things are true as well (as far as anybody knows). Why no political protest at B-CC, for example? Or Wootton, or Walter Johnson, or Churchill?

Not sure, but it is entirely possible a relatively small number of students decided to organize a campaign that was followed by more. Lots of times high school students will follow what popular kids do. For whatever reason, maybe the same effort wasn't made at other schools. Maybe it will happen this year at other schools.

More fundamentally, you asked a reasonable question, but you offered no proposed answer of your own. Why do you think scores dropped so precipitously in one year?

I have no idea. My kid goes to one of the high schools where, when the students don't do well on the standardized tests, it's obviously because the parents haven't instilled a culture of learning.