Top 10 Schools in MoCo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Churchill, Whitman, Wootton, all tied for best school.

You must be a Wootton parent

Yes definitely. I'd say WJ, BCC, Poolesville, and QO all are better schools and definitely offer a better high school experience too.

You must recently have joined us from another planet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I feel like a lot of parents use GS ratings. JUst based on test scores, here are the GS ratings top 10 First number is overall GS rating/second number is test score/3rd number is college readiness

1. Churchill- 10/10/10
2. Wootton- 9/9/10
3. Poolesville- 9/8/10
4. WJ- 9/8/10
5 QO- 8/8/8
6 Sherwood-7/8/8
7. BCC- 9/7/10
8. Damascus- 8/7/9
9. Clarksburg 7/7/8
10. Northwest- 8/6/9

RM's ratings are 7/6/8
Blair, Magruder are 6/6/7

Simple averages for standardized state test that GS uses for its ratings only serves to identify which high-schools draw a higher percentage of rich kids. A better, refined analysis looks at the granular data. When you isolate for race which is proxy a for socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds across these schools. For example, when you compare average SAT scores for MCPS schools for a larger demographic common to all these schools the GS narrative falls apart and it becomes clear they're not all that different.

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wooton 1262
Churchill 1257
Wheaton 1173
Einstein 1148

Seems more insightful analysis than the great schools nonsense.

That doesn't make any sense. Great Schools isn't perfect, but it at least looks at scores of tests that are taken by nearly all students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I feel like a lot of parents use GS ratings. JUst based on test scores, here are the GS ratings top 10 First number is overall GS rating/second number is test score/3rd number is college readiness

1. Churchill- 10/10/10
2. Wootton- 9/9/10
3. Poolesville- 9/8/10
4. WJ- 9/8/10
5 QO- 8/8/8
6 Sherwood-7/8/8
7. BCC- 9/7/10
8. Damascus- 8/7/9
9. Clarksburg 7/7/8
10. Northwest- 8/6/9

RM's ratings are 7/6/8
Blair, Magruder are 6/6/7

Simple averages for standardized state test that GS uses for its ratings only serves to identify which high-schools draw a higher percentage of rich kids. A better, refined analysis looks at the granular data. When you isolate for race which is proxy a for socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds across these schools. For example, when you compare average SAT scores for MCPS schools for a larger demographic common to all these schools the GS narrative falls apart and it becomes clear they're not all that different.

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wooton 1262
Churchill 1257
Wheaton 1173
Einstein 1148

Seems more insightful analysis than the great schools nonsense.

That doesn't make any sense. Great Schools isn't perfect, but it at least looks at scores of tests that are taken by nearly all students.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. GS, however, doesn't adjust for socio-economic differences and simply provides a snapshot of a school's relative affluence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I feel like a lot of parents use GS ratings. JUst based on test scores, here are the GS ratings top 10 First number is overall GS rating/second number is test score/3rd number is college readiness

1. Churchill- 10/10/10
2. Wootton- 9/9/10
3. Poolesville- 9/8/10
4. WJ- 9/8/10
5 QO- 8/8/8
6 Sherwood-7/8/8
7. BCC- 9/7/10
8. Damascus- 8/7/9
9. Clarksburg 7/7/8
10. Northwest- 8/6/9

RM's ratings are 7/6/8
Blair, Magruder are 6/6/7

Simple averages for standardized state test that GS uses for its ratings only serves to identify which high-schools draw a higher percentage of rich kids. A better, refined analysis looks at the granular data. When you isolate for race which is proxy a for socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds across these schools. For example, when you compare average SAT scores for MCPS schools for a larger demographic common to all these schools the GS narrative falls apart and it becomes clear they're not all that different.

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wooton 1262
Churchill 1257
Wheaton 1173
Einstein 1148

Seems more insightful analysis than the great schools nonsense.

That doesn't make any sense. Great Schools isn't perfect, but it at least looks at scores of tests that are taken by nearly all students.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. GS, however, doesn't adjust for socio-economic differences and simply provides a snapshot of a school's relative affluence.

In addition, I'm also more interested in how well a student could perform at a particular school as opposed to how well the average student performs on a state-mandated minimal competency test. It does little to predict how well a child could do at one place or another. Any school with 2000 to 3000 students has a sufficiently sized peer group for any level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I feel like a lot of parents use GS ratings. JUst based on test scores, here are the GS ratings top 10 First number is overall GS rating/second number is test score/3rd number is college readiness

1. Churchill- 10/10/10
2. Wootton- 9/9/10
3. Poolesville- 9/8/10
4. WJ- 9/8/10
5 QO- 8/8/8
6 Sherwood-7/8/8
7. BCC- 9/7/10
8. Damascus- 8/7/9
9. Clarksburg 7/7/8
10. Northwest- 8/6/9

RM's ratings are 7/6/8
Blair, Magruder are 6/6/7

Simple averages for standardized state test that GS uses for its ratings only serves to identify which high-schools draw a higher percentage of rich kids. A better, refined analysis looks at the granular data. When you isolate for race which is proxy a for socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds across these schools. For example, when you compare average SAT scores for MCPS schools for a larger demographic common to all these schools the GS narrative falls apart and it becomes clear they're not all that different.

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wooton 1262
Churchill 1257
Wheaton 1173
Einstein 1148

Seems more insightful analysis than the great schools nonsense.

That doesn't make any sense. Great Schools isn't perfect, but it at least looks at scores of tests that are taken by nearly all students.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. GS, however, doesn't adjust for socio-economic differences and simply provides a snapshot of a school's relative affluence.

In addition, I'm also more interested in how well a student could perform at a particular school as opposed to how well the average student performs on a state-mandated minimal competency test. It does little to predict how well a child could do at one place or another. Any school with 2000 to 3000 students has a sufficiently sized peer group for any level.

But how can one assess the quality of a school based on SAT averages when the biggest driver of SAT scores is practice tests and prepping; none of which is related to the school but everything to do with $$$.

[Anonymous]

That’s an awfully big assumption without evidence to support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I feel like a lot of parents use GS ratings. JUst based on test scores, here are the GS ratings top 10 First number is overall GS rating/second number is test score/3rd number is college readiness

1. Churchill- 10/10/10
2. Wootton- 9/9/10
3. Poolesville- 9/8/10
4. WJ- 9/8/10
5 QO- 8/8/8
6 Sherwood-7/8/8
7. BCC- 9/7/10
8. Damascus- 8/7/9
9. Clarksburg 7/7/8
10. Northwest- 8/6/9

RM's ratings are 7/6/8
Blair, Magruder are 6/6/7

Simple averages for standardized state test that GS uses for its ratings only serves to identify which high-schools draw a higher percentage of rich kids. A better, refined analysis looks at the granular data. When you isolate for race which is proxy a for socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds across these schools. For example, when you compare average SAT scores for MCPS schools for a larger demographic common to all these schools the GS narrative falls apart and it becomes clear they're not all that different.

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wooton 1262
Churchill 1257
Wheaton 1173
Einstein 1148

Seems more insightful analysis than the great schools nonsense.

That doesn't make any sense. Great Schools isn't perfect, but it at least looks at scores of tests that are taken by nearly all students.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. GS, however, doesn't adjust for socio-economic differences and simply provides a snapshot of a school's relative affluence.

In addition, I'm also more interested in how well a student could perform at a particular school as opposed to how well the average student performs on a state-mandated minimal competency test. It does little to predict how well a child could do at one place or another. Any school with 2000 to 3000 students has a sufficiently sized peer group for any level.

But how can one assess the quality of a school based on SAT averages when the biggest driver of SAT scores is practice tests and prepping; none of which is related to the school but everything to do with $$$.

+1
1) Average SAT scores only include a fraction of the students (typically 50-60%)
2) No one is adjusting for socio economic differences for SAT scores (at least Great Schools has an Equity measure)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I feel like a lot of parents use GS ratings. JUst based on test scores, here are the GS ratings top 10 First number is overall GS rating/second number is test score/3rd number is college readiness

1. Churchill- 10/10/10
2. Wootton- 9/9/10
3. Poolesville- 9/8/10
4. WJ- 9/8/10
5 QO- 8/8/8
6 Sherwood-7/8/8
7. BCC- 9/7/10
8. Damascus- 8/7/9
9. Clarksburg 7/7/8
10. Northwest- 8/6/9

RM's ratings are 7/6/8
Blair, Magruder are 6/6/7

Simple averages for standardized state test that GS uses for its ratings only serves to identify which high-schools draw a higher percentage of rich kids. A better, refined analysis looks at the granular data. When you isolate for race which is proxy a for socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds across these schools. For example, when you compare average SAT scores for MCPS schools for a larger demographic common to all these schools the GS narrative falls apart and it becomes clear they're not all that different.

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wooton 1262
Churchill 1257
Wheaton 1173
Einstein 1148

Seems more insightful analysis than the great schools nonsense.

That doesn't make any sense. Great Schools isn't perfect, but it at least looks at scores of tests that are taken by nearly all students.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. GS, however, doesn't adjust for socio-economic differences and simply provides a snapshot of a school's relative affluence.

agree - this is too sensible and does nothing to artificially inflate real estate prices

In addition, I'm also more interested in how well a student could perform at a particular school as opposed to how well the average student performs on a state-mandated minimal competency test. It does little to predict how well a child could do at one place or another. Any school with 2000 to 3000 students has a sufficiently sized peer group for any level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I feel like a lot of parents use GS ratings. JUst based on test scores, here are the GS ratings top 10 First number is overall GS rating/second number is test score/3rd number is college readiness

1. Churchill- 10/10/10
2. Wootton- 9/9/10
3. Poolesville- 9/8/10
4. WJ- 9/8/10
5 QO- 8/8/8
6 Sherwood-7/8/8
7. BCC- 9/7/10
8. Damascus- 8/7/9
9. Clarksburg 7/7/8
10. Northwest- 8/6/9

RM's ratings are 7/6/8
Blair, Magruder are 6/6/7

Simple averages for standardized state test that GS uses for its ratings only serves to identify which high-schools draw a higher percentage of rich kids. A better, refined analysis looks at the granular data. When you isolate for race which is proxy a for socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds across these schools. For example, when you compare average SAT scores for MCPS schools for a larger demographic common to all these schools the GS narrative falls apart and it becomes clear they're not all that different.

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wooton 1262
Churchill 1257
Wheaton 1173
Einstein 1148

I'm not sure if avg SAT scores are a good indicator of school quality. SAT scores are more of an indicator of how much prepping the kids are doing outside of school.

Isolating for demographic differences on a national test like the SAT seems like a better indicator of a school's academic prowess than an average for a state-mandated test that measures minimal competency

An average score for a state mandated test to measure minimal competency used by Great schools in order to rank them by affluence isn’t helpful. You’re on the right track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I feel like a lot of parents use GS ratings. JUst based on test scores, here are the GS ratings top 10 First number is overall GS rating/second number is test score/3rd number is college readiness

1. Churchill- 10/10/10
2. Wootton- 9/9/10
3. Poolesville- 9/8/10
4. WJ- 9/8/10
5 QO- 8/8/8
6 Sherwood-7/8/8
7. BCC- 9/7/10
8. Damascus- 8/7/9
9. Clarksburg 7/7/8
10. Northwest- 8/6/9

RM's ratings are 7/6/8
Blair, Magruder are 6/6/7

Simple averages for standardized state test that GS uses for its ratings only serves to identify which high-schools draw a higher percentage of rich kids. A better, refined analysis looks at the granular data. When you isolate for race which is proxy a for socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds across these schools. For example, when you compare average SAT scores for MCPS schools for a larger demographic common to all these schools the GS narrative falls apart and it becomes clear they're not all that different.

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wooton 1262
Churchill 1257
Wheaton 1173
Einstein 1148

Seems more insightful analysis than the great schools nonsense.

That doesn't make any sense. Great Schools isn't perfect, but it at least looks at scores of tests that are taken by nearly all students.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. GS, however, doesn't adjust for socio-economic differences and simply provides a snapshot of a school's relative affluence.

In addition, I'm also more interested in how well a student could perform at a particular school as opposed to how well the average student performs on a state-mandated minimal competency test. It does little to predict how well a child could do at one place or another. Any school with 2000 to 3000 students has a sufficiently sized peer group for any level.

But how can one assess the quality of a school based on SAT averages when the biggest driver of SAT scores is practice tests and prepping; none of which is related to the school but everything to do with $$$.

+1
1) Average SAT scores only include a fraction of the students (typically 50-60%)
2) No one is adjusting for socio economic differences for SAT scores (at least Great Schools has an Equity measure)

That's irrelevant. Sampling, especially on that scale, is a proven statistically sound practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That's irrelevant. Sampling, especially on that scale, is a proven statistically sound practice.

The SAT scores posted on the at-a-glance pages are not a statistical sample. They represent the students at that school who took the SAT test.

[Anonymous]

Frankly, I do not give a rat's ass about the ranking. Does my kid have a good shot of getting stellar grades, great SAT and AP scores, learning the material, filling content gaps, having excellent EC activities at the end of 4 years? Is he willing to work hard and not depend on MCPS to spoon feed him? Am I willing to support him? Why would I care what the school rating of any other MCPS school is? Why do I care where Joe Shmoe goes? My student is a rising 9th grader in PHS SMACS program - so should he take it easy because by being in PHS he will automagically succeed?

None of the public and private schools in DMV is of the same caliber as Stuyvesant. We should try and concentrate on what is important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Frankly, I do not give a rat's ass about the ranking. Does my kid have a good shot of getting stellar grades, great SAT and AP scores, learning the material, filling content gaps, having excellent EC activities at the end of 4 years? Is he willing to work hard and not depend on MCPS to spoon feed him? Am I willing to support him? Why would I care what the school rating of any other MCPS school is? Why do I care where Joe Shmoe goes? My student is a rising 9th grader in PHS SMACS program - so should he take it easy because by being in PHS he will automagically succeed?

None of the public and private schools in DMV is of the same caliber as Stuyvesant. We should try and concentrate on what is important.

And how would you assess a school if you want to know about these things? I get that rankings only tell so much but wouldn't one want to know which schools are at the bottom and why they have such low graduation rates for instance? You can't ignore it entirely if you're looking to find a place where your kids will excel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's irrelevant. Sampling, especially on that scale, is a proven statistically sound practice.

The SAT scores posted on the at-a-glance pages are not a statistical sample. They represent the students at that school who took the SAT test.

+1 It’s not a random sample of the student body. It’s a measure of the average score of those students who chose to take a test for students who are college bound.

[Anonymous]

And how would you assess a school if you want to know about these things? I get that rankings only tell so much but wouldn't one want to know which schools are at the bottom and why they have such low graduation rates for instance? You can't ignore it entirely if you're looking to find a place where your kids will excel.

+1 I truly do not understand the poster who wants to claim that their low performing school is perfectly fine because a UMC white kid gets a 3 on an AP test and did fine on the SAT after taking the same prep course that a kid in a higher performing school took. If your bar is that low for a school, then sure you will be fine but very other non-delusional parents would view things this way.

The reasons why the kids are performing so far below grade level and not graduating is not really the point. Parents care about how it impacts their child's education. They don't see their own kid as pawn in a system to just bump up scores.

It makes a difference if 30,40, or 50% of your child's classmates are testing 2-3 years below grade level. Would you want your 5th grader in a school where half his class is made up of 2nd and 3rd graders? No, of course not but this is the situation in many MCPS schools.