How do greatschools ratings work?

[Anonymous]

Our kids are in elementary school and we are zoned for Twain Middle School. Twain is an AAP center and rated a 7 on greatschools. I thought AAP centers are usually rated higher.

Could someone explain how these ratings work?

[Anonymous]

7 is a value based on a 1-10 scale, with 5 being the state average pass rate on the SOLs.

So a school with a 7 rating has a overall pass rate (all grades, all subjects) better than average. Without the AAP center, Twain's score would be lower, as you suspect. So the AAP center is sort of inflating the Great Schools rating a bit. But, even without the AAP center, Twain would probably be a 5 -- which is right on par with the average pass rates statewide. Is that a bad thing? Well, you decide.

Let's say the average pass rate for Math 7 (which by the way doesn't even include ANY of the AAP kids b/c they all took the SOL for Math 7 in 6th grade).... but let's say the average pass rate in all schools in VA is 85%. So, half of the schools in Va. had fewer than 85% of their students pass the Math 7 SOL and half of the schools in VA had more than 85% of the students pass the Math 7 SOL. A school with a more homogenous (and wealthier) economic base might have 93% of it's students passing the Math 7 SOL. Their Great Schools rating might be a 7 or 8. Does it bother you that your child's school only had 85% of the kids pass Math 7? (this is just an example)

some people would say, "no, it doesn't bother me b/c I know MY kid is going to be learning what s/he needs to learn and will pass his/her SOL." Others would say "I want my kid to be in a school where nearly everyone passes." So, it's a matter of your comfort.

It is NOT correct or accurate to say that a school with a Great Schools rating of "5" is an "average" school. It could be right in the middle of the state for pass rates for all groups of kids (rich, poor, black, white, hispanic, asian, with disabilities, no disabilities, etc.). OR (as in many cases), it has a student population that has divergent pass rates and therefore the cumulative "average" for all kids, and all subjects, = about average (although there are groups that have passrates much higher than the state average and other groups that have pass rates much lower than the state average).

You really have to understand that the average passrate for all groups/all subjects (i.e. the Great Schools rating) is not so much a reflection on the quality of the school or the teaching quality as a whole, but rather it reflects the average economic status of the students (which is largely based on the housing that was built in that district).

If there is a wide range of housing prices (from lower end rentals to higher end single family homes), you will likely see a wide range Socio-economic status among the students, which means you will have wide variability on the pass rates for different groups --- which means the school is going to "average out" toward the middle of the pack.

The GS ratings are based ONLY on the average pass rate for ALL SOL tests compared to a statewide average pass rate for all SOL tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:7 is a value based on a 1-10 scale, with 5 being the state average pass rate on the SOLs.

So a school with a 7 rating has a overall pass rate (all grades, all subjects) better than average. Without the AAP center, Twain's score would be lower, as you suspect. So the AAP center is sort of inflating the Great Schools rating a bit. But, even without the AAP center, Twain would probably be a 5 -- which is right on par with the average pass rates statewide. Is that a bad thing? Well, you decide.

Let's say the average pass rate for Math 7 (which by the way doesn't even include ANY of the AAP kids b/c they all took the SOL for Math 7 in 6th grade).... but let's say the average pass rate in all schools in VA is 85%. So, half of the schools in Va. had fewer than 85% of their students pass the Math 7 SOL and half of the schools in VA had more than 85% of the students pass the Math 7 SOL. A school with a more homogenous (and wealthier) economic base might have 93% of it's students passing the Math 7 SOL. Their Great Schools rating might be a 7 or 8. Does it bother you that your child's school only had 85% of the kids pass Math 7? (this is just an example)

some people would say, "no, it doesn't bother me b/c I know MY kid is going to be learning what s/he needs to learn and will pass his/her SOL." Others would say "I want my kid to be in a school where nearly everyone passes." So, it's a matter of your comfort.

It is NOT correct or accurate to say that a school with a Great Schools rating of "5" is an "average" school. It could be right in the middle of the state for pass rates for all groups of kids (rich, poor, black, white, hispanic, asian, with disabilities, no disabilities, etc.). OR (as in many cases), it has a student population that has divergent pass rates and therefore the cumulative "average" for all kids, and all subjects, = about average (although there are groups that have passrates much higher than the state average and other groups that have pass rates much lower than the state average).

You really have to understand that the average passrate for all groups/all subjects (i.e. the Great Schools rating) is not so much a reflection on the quality of the school or the teaching quality as a whole, but rather it reflects the average economic status of the students (which is largely based on the housing that was built in that district).

If there is a wide range of housing prices (from lower end rentals to higher end single family homes), you will likely see a wide range Socio-economic status among the students, which means you will have wide variability on the pass rates for different groups --- which means the school is going to "average out" toward the middle of the pack.

The GS ratings are based ONLY on the average pass rate for ALL SOL tests compared to a statewide average pass rate for all SOL tests.

Not the OP, but just wanted to say this is a great explanation. In particular, the section I've bolded seems to be poorly understood in many of the discussions here.

[Anonymous]

7 and higher are very good. I think all 9s is the highest not including tj.

[Anonymous]

So if a school was 25% very high achieving vs a school that was 90% passing, the 90% school would be rated higher?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if a school was 25% very high achieving vs a school that was 90% passing, the 90% school would be rated higher?

It depends on how many of the first school's students in the not "very high achieving" group passed the SOLs. But, if you mean one school had 25% who passed the SOLs and the rest didn't vs. a school where 90% passed, then yes, the second school would be rated higher.

If you want to see the breakdowns by group or subject matter, you have to click DIRECTLY on the numeric rating circle on the Great Schools website. (The colored circle with the 1-10 rating). That will give you the option to see the ranking for each subgroup compared to the state average. So, if the economically disadvantaged kids are doing really poorly (2 out of 10), but the "not economically disadvant." kids are doing really well (8 out of 10), you know that the school as a whole might be rated in the middle (like a 6 out of 10 --- depending on how much of the student population is econ. disadv. vs. not econ. disadv.).

You see the effect of each group's size in schools like Herndon, South Lakes, Hayfield, and Wakefield (which all have high performing groups and lower performing groups --- making their cumulative ranking somewhere in the middle -- and thus they get the label of being a "bad" school compared to the schools which have little or no economic diversity like Langley and McLean and Oakton and Yorktown.

The non-econ. disadvantaged kids at the first set of schools are often doing as well as the kids at the second set of schools.... but the cumultive rating/ranking of the first set of schools is lower b/c they have a mixed population.

Check out Twain's subgroup ratings.... White and Asian kids are passing at a rate "9 out of 10" -- which is tops in comparison to the state average pass rate.... but there are other kids who aren't doing so well.

It's all about the housing in the area. Lower-cost housing appeals to people with lower incomes (often b/c of lower education or lack of language skills)... which means the kids of those people have fewer advantages/enrichment and less access to academic help at home. And they might have less stability in their living arrangements, food instability, less supervision, and less savory neighbors (i.e. criminal enterprises flourish where people see fewer legitimate opportunities for income). I'm not saying this in direct reference to Twain -- I'm just saying that any area with lower-cost housing (relative to the general area) is going to have kids who don't do as well as kids from families where the household income is $150K+. The school rating is usually a reflection of the proportion of well-off kids vs. eonomically disadvantaged kids.

How does that affect you or your kids? That's where the administration and community involvement come into play. You have to decide whether it's worth the money to buy into an area where the classmates are all higher income or whether you are o.k. with classmates being mixed income. Ultimately, when you buy (or rent), you are paying for your neighbors and your kids' classmates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7 is a value based on a 1-10 scale, with 5 being the state average pass rate on the SOLs.

So a school with a 7 rating has a overall pass rate (all grades, all subjects) better than average. Without the AAP center, Twain's score would be lower, as you suspect. So the AAP center is sort of inflating the Great Schools rating a bit. But, even without the AAP center, Twain would probably be a 5 -- which is right on par with the average pass rates statewide. Is that a bad thing? Well, you decide.

Let's say the average pass rate for Math 7 (which by the way doesn't even include ANY of the AAP kids b/c they all took the SOL for Math 7 in 6th grade).... but let's say the average pass rate in all schools in VA is 85%. So, half of the schools in Va. had fewer than 85% of their students pass the Math 7 SOL and half of the schools in VA had more than 85% of the students pass the Math 7 SOL. A school with a more homogenous (and wealthier) economic base might have 93% of it's students passing the Math 7 SOL. Their Great Schools rating might be a 7 or 8. Does it bother you that your child's school only had 85% of the kids pass Math 7? (this is just an example)

some people would say, "no, it doesn't bother me b/c I know MY kid is going to be learning what s/he needs to learn and will pass his/her SOL." Others would say "I want my kid to be in a school where nearly everyone passes." So, it's a matter of your comfort.

It is NOT correct or accurate to say that a school with a Great Schools rating of "5" is an "average" school. It could be right in the middle of the state for pass rates for all groups of kids (rich, poor, black, white, hispanic, asian, with disabilities, no disabilities, etc.). OR (as in many cases), it has a student population that has divergent pass rates and therefore the cumulative "average" for all kids, and all subjects, = about average (although there are groups that have passrates much higher than the state average and other groups that have pass rates much lower than the state average).

You really have to understand that the average passrate for all groups/all subjects (i.e. the Great Schools rating) is not so much a reflection on the quality of the school or the teaching quality as a whole, but rather it reflects the average economic status of the students (which is largely based on the housing that was built in that district).

If there is a wide range of housing prices (from lower end rentals to higher end single family homes), you will likely see a wide range Socio-economic status among the students, which means you will have wide variability on the pass rates for different groups --- which means the school is going to "average out" toward the middle of the pack.

The GS ratings are based ONLY on the average pass rate for ALL SOL tests compared to a statewide average pass rate for all SOL tests.

Not the OP, but just wanted to say this is a great explanation. In particular, the section I've bolded seems to be poorly understood in many of the discussions here.

I think 22:24 provided a great explanation as well, but the part that you bolded does reinforce the notion that test scores are correlated with income levels. There may be a very strong correlation, but perhaps it's not a great idea to assume there's always a direct correlation. That can lead to the so-called "tyranny of low expectations," which is precisely what so many recent educational initiatives have been designed to address. Particularly at the elementary school level, if you comb through SOL data, you'll find some high-FARMS schools that do very well on SOLs. Ironically, that often leads to complaints that those schools are "teaching to the test" (duh) or may have found a way to fudge their numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if a school was 25% very high achieving vs a school that was 90% passing, the 90% school would be rated higher?

It depends on how many of the first school's students in the not "very high achieving" group passed the SOLs. But, if you mean one school had 25% who passed the SOLs and the rest didn't vs. a school where 90% passed, then yes, the second school would be rated higher.

If you want to see the breakdowns by group or subject matter, you have to click DIRECTLY on the numeric rating circle on the Great Schools website. (The colored circle with the 1-10 rating). That will give you the option to see the ranking for each subgroup compared to the state average. So, if the economically disadvantaged kids are doing really poorly (2 out of 10), but the "not economically disadvant." kids are doing really well (8 out of 10), you know that the school as a whole might be rated in the middle (like a 6 out of 10 --- depending on how much of the student population is econ. disadv. vs. not econ. disadv.).

You see the effect of each group's size in schools like Herndon, South Lakes, Hayfield, and Wakefield (which all have high performing groups and lower performing groups --- making their cumulative ranking somewhere in the middle -- and thus they get the label of being a "bad" school compared to the schools which have little or no economic diversity like Langley and McLean and Oakton and Yorktown.

The non-econ. disadvantaged kids at the first set of schools are often doing as well as the kids at the second set of schools.... but the cumultive rating/ranking of the first set of schools is lower b/c they have a mixed population.

Check out Twain's subgroup ratings.... White and Asian kids are passing at a rate "9 out of 10" -- which is tops in comparison to the state average pass rate.... but there are other kids who aren't doing so well.

It's all about the housing in the area. Lower-cost housing appeals to people with lower incomes (often b/c of lower education or lack of language skills)... which means the kids of those people have fewer advantages/enrichment and less access to academic help at home. And they might have less stability in their living arrangements, food instability, less supervision, and less savory neighbors (i.e. criminal enterprises flourish where people see fewer legitimate opportunities for income). I'm not saying this in direct reference to Twain -- I'm just saying that any area with lower-cost housing (relative to the general area) is going to have kids who don't do as well as kids from families where the household income is $150K+. The school rating is usually a reflection of the proportion of well-off kids vs. eonomically disadvantaged kids.

How does that affect you or your kids? That's where the administration and community involvement come into play. You have to decide whether it's worth the money to buy into an area where the classmates are all higher income or whether you are o.k. with classmates being mixed income. Ultimately, when you buy (or rent), you are paying for your neighbors and your kids' classmates.

Thank you so much. I had no idea you could click on the number.

Just to clarify, if one school has more top students scoring higher but not as many total students passing, it would be rated lower than a school that has a 90% pass rate.

My kids are still in elementary school but DH and I discuss moving for better schools constantly. We probably talk about this at least once a week. I moved around a lot when I was a kid so I prefer to move sooner than later. DH always argues that our kids will do fine and the school pyramid we are in is fine. Our school pyramid just has a high percentage of Hispanics who are in ESL.

[Anonymous]

I just wanted to add that we know many well educated Hispanic professionals and by no way was trying to insult Hispanics. I didn't want my thread to go downhill.

[Anonymous]

"Just to clarify, if one school has more top students scoring higher but not as many total students passing, it would be rated lower than a school that has a 90% pass rate."

To the PP -- basically yes. The ranking is based on how many kids pass without regard to how far above the state average the "top students" scored or how far below the state average the lower students scored.

If the school had 25 kids pass the math test with perfect scores (600) and 50 kids pass at the cutoff for "passing" (i.e. 400) and 25 kids fail (doesn't matter if their average scores were 399 or 100 for this example).... then the pass rate for this school is 75%. It doesn't matter what the actual scores were. The pass rate is not weighted by the actual scores. The Great Schools ranking is just comparing the pass rate of 75% with the state average for that grade/subject.

If another school has 90% of the kids passing with a 400, and 10% failing (again, it doesn't matter if they failed with a score of 399 or 50)--- that school would have an average pass rate of 90%. It would rank MUCH higher on Great Schools compared to the preceding school where 25% were really high, 50% were med. and 25% were low. It's really all about the percentage of kids that failed and comparing that to schools around the state.