Gang Activity in Montgomery County Shcools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


What would you call someone who makes more money, hence a better job, lives in a nicer area, has more successful kids and with higher test scores? Sounds like they did it better to me. This is when you fire back about how you are happy with what you have and you don’t want that type of success anyway. Or maybe like the previous poster who gloats about her and her husband looking better when the went to school with a bunch of average kids. Maybe some kids don’t have be surround with mediocrity to stand out?

I would call such a person "somebody who makes more money". But I wouldn't conflate having money with worth, though many people do.

At some point one has to look around and accept that one gets in where they fit in. There are A reading groups and B reading groups, the B group is simply not as good at reading and being the best reader in the B group is not as impressive as simply being in the A group. When you are surrounded by poor illegals with little academic or life prospects that is life’s equivalent of the D group. You may be happy and thriving but you should consider that you fucked up along the way. They are there in that space because it was the easiest option for them locally with few options, you are there because it was also an easier option for you as well. You can talk about how interesting you find the books in the D group and you wouldn’t have it any other way but nobody believes you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And test scores do not tell the whole story about schools. I wish people would stop pretending they do. It's so annoying to pick up one of those magazines named after a city, look at the article that says something like, "We rank all the high schools! Is yours in the top five?" And then look at the methodology they used only to find that it's just a ranking of test scores. Nothing more.

I am all ears to learn about a better metric than test scores.

You know what, lady? Seriously just send your kid to Whitman and be happy and stop antagonizing all the people you don't believe could possibly be happy with their schools. May your children be kinder (but with such high test scores, of course).

I am not a lady and I am in the Richard Montgomery cluster. Now that we cleared that up, what metric is better than test scores?

[Anonymous]

You must go to Whitman because your post makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And test scores do not tell the whole story about schools. I wish people would stop pretending they do. It's so annoying to pick up one of those magazines named after a city, look at the article that says something like, "We rank all the high schools! Is yours in the top five?" And then look at the methodology they used only to find that it's just a ranking of test scores. Nothing more.

I am all ears to learn about a better metric than test scores.

You know what, lady? Seriously just send your kid to Whitman and be happy and stop antagonizing all the people you don't believe could possibly be happy with their schools. May your children be kinder (but with such high test scores, of course).

I am not a lady and I am in the Richard Montgomery cluster. Now that we cleared that up, what metric is better than test scores?

Best metric is the success and happiness of these students when they are adults. I know a dog walker who graduated from Harvard and thousands of dollars later is still trying to find herself. She went to churchill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And test scores do not tell the whole story about schools. I wish people would stop pretending they do. It's so annoying to pick up one of those magazines named after a city, look at the article that says something like, "We rank all the high schools! Is yours in the top five?" And then look at the methodology they used only to find that it's just a ranking of test scores. Nothing more.

I am all ears to learn about a better metric than test scores.

You know what, lady? Seriously just send your kid to Whitman and be happy and stop antagonizing all the people you don't believe could possibly be happy with their schools. May your children be kinder (but with such high test scores, of course).

I am not a lady and I am in the Richard Montgomery cluster. Now that we cleared that up, what metric is better than test scores?

Best metric is the success and happiness of these students when they are adults. I know a dog walker who graduated from Harvard and thousands of dollars later is still trying to find herself. She went to churchill.

I know a dog walker who went to Springbrook, then to UMD and then to law school and is still trying to find herself. Happens to kids who go to all strata of schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And test scores do not tell the whole story about schools. I wish people would stop pretending they do. It's so annoying to pick up one of those magazines named after a city, look at the article that says something like, "We rank all the high schools! Is yours in the top five?" And then look at the methodology they used only to find that it's just a ranking of test scores. Nothing more.

I am all ears to learn about a better metric than test scores.

You know what, lady? Seriously just send your kid to Whitman and be happy and stop antagonizing all the people you don't believe could possibly be happy with their schools. May your children be kinder (but with such high test scores, of course).

I am not a lady and I am in the Richard Montgomery cluster. Now that we cleared that up, what metric is better than test scores?

New poster here

Academic achievements.
Able to educate a diverse student body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


What would you call someone who makes more money, hence a better job, lives in a nicer area, has more successful kids and with higher test scores? Sounds like they did it better to me. This is when you fire back about how you are happy with what you have and you don’t want that type of success anyway. Or maybe like the previous poster who gloats about her and her husband looking better when the went to school with a bunch of average kids. Maybe some kids don’t have be surround with mediocrity to stand out?

I would call such a person "somebody who makes more money". But I wouldn't conflate having money with worth, though many people do.

At some point one has to look around and accept that one gets in where they fit in. There are A reading groups and B reading groups, the B group is simply not as good at reading and being the best reader in the B group is not as impressive as simply being in the A group. When you are surrounded by poor illegals with little academic or life prospects that is life’s equivalent of the D group. You may be happy and thriving but you should consider that you fucked up along the way. They are there in that space because it was the easiest option for them locally with few options, you are there because it was also an easier option for you as well. You can talk about how interesting you find the books in the D group and you wouldn’t have it any other way but nobody believes you.

Wow!

[Anonymous]

The curriculum is the same so the A group and D group poster makes no sense. (and for other reasons that post is ridiculous),

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


What would you call someone who makes more money, hence a better job, lives in a nicer area, has more successful kids and with higher test scores? Sounds like they did it better to me. This is when you fire back about how you are happy with what you have and you don’t want that type of success anyway. Or maybe like the previous poster who gloats about her and her husband looking better when the went to school with a bunch of average kids. Maybe some kids don’t have be surround with mediocrity to stand out?

I would call such a person "somebody who makes more money". But I wouldn't conflate having money with worth, though many people do.

At some point one has to look around and accept that one gets in where they fit in. There are A reading groups and B reading groups, the B group is simply not as good at reading and being the best reader in the B group is not as impressive as simply being in the A group. When you are surrounded by poor illegals with little academic or life prospects that is life’s equivalent of the D group. You may be happy and thriving but you should consider that you fucked up along the way. They are there in that space because it was the easiest option for them locally with few options, you are there because it was also an easier option for you as well. You can talk about how interesting you find the books in the D group and you wouldn’t have it any other way but nobody believes you.

Wow!

The curriculum is actually the same. There are not different books based on where you live in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And test scores do not tell the whole story about schools. I wish people would stop pretending they do. It's so annoying to pick up one of those magazines named after a city, look at the article that says something like, "We rank all the high schools! Is yours in the top five?" And then look at the methodology they used only to find that it's just a ranking of test scores. Nothing more.

I am all ears to learn about a better metric than test scores.

You know what, lady? Seriously just send your kid to Whitman and be happy and stop antagonizing all the people you don't believe could possibly be happy with their schools. May your children be kinder (but with such high test scores, of course).

I am not a lady and I am in the Richard Montgomery cluster. Now that we cleared that up, what metric is better than test scores?

New poster here

Academic achievements.
Able to educate a diverse student body.

I genuinely think the best metric of a school's quality is how they do with the most disadvantaged kids. Coincidentally, it seems that sites like GreatSchools are starting to agree, and to look not just at average test scores, but how a school does with kids who are probably not getting extensive tutoring outside of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And test scores do not tell the whole story about schools. I wish people would stop pretending they do. It's so annoying to pick up one of those magazines named after a city, look at the article that says something like, "We rank all the high schools! Is yours in the top five?" And then look at the methodology they used only to find that it's just a ranking of test scores. Nothing more.

I am all ears to learn about a better metric than test scores.

You know what, lady? Seriously just send your kid to Whitman and be happy and stop antagonizing all the people you don't believe could possibly be happy with their schools. May your children be kinder (but with such high test scores, of course).

I am not a lady and I am in the Richard Montgomery cluster. Now that we cleared that up, what metric is better than test scores?

New poster here

Academic achievements.
Able to educate a diverse student body.

I genuinely think the best metric of a school's quality is how they do with the most disadvantaged kids. Coincidentally, it seems that sites like GreatSchools are starting to agree, and to look not just at average test scores, but how a school does with kids who are probably not getting extensive tutoring outside of school.

Yes, how well you educate an ethnically, and economically diverse student body. I'm not saying there is a magic metric you can find for this, but there are indicators such as how much a student improves. Great Schools does seem to have evolved beyond test scores, which is good. Schools are a lot more complex than just straight test scores. They also look at diversity as a plus. For some intangibles though, I'm not sure how a large site like Great Schools can get a true picture of a school. At a certain point, you have to have faith. We need to visit schools and talk to the teachers and get involved. Not everything can be measured with numbers.

And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And test scores do not tell the whole story about schools. I wish people would stop pretending they do. It's so annoying to pick up one of those magazines named after a city, look at the article that says something like, "We rank all the high schools! Is yours in the top five?" And then look at the methodology they used only to find that it's just a ranking of test scores. Nothing more.

I am all ears to learn about a better metric than test scores.

You know what, lady? Seriously just send your kid to Whitman and be happy and stop antagonizing all the people you don't believe could possibly be happy with their schools. May your children be kinder (but with such high test scores, of course).

I am not a lady and I am in the Richard Montgomery cluster. Now that we cleared that up, what metric is better than test scores?

New poster here

Academic achievements.
Able to educate a diverse student body.

I genuinely think the best metric of a school's quality is how they do with the most disadvantaged kids. Coincidentally, it seems that sites like GreatSchools are starting to agree, and to look not just at average test scores, but how a school does with kids who are probably not getting extensive tutoring outside of school.

So we are talking about weighing more the test scores of disadvantaged kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Let's just say children from average middle class families like mine and possibly yours would likely do well for themselves at Blair, assuming they are OK with a large, somewhat impersonal school and are ready to work hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Let's just say children from average middle class families like mine and possibly yours would likely do well for themselves at Blair, assuming they are OK with a large, somewhat impersonal school and are ready to work hard.

....which is true of Whitman as well.