Concerned about buying in WJ cluster because of re-zoning

[Anonymous]

FIXED

So, basically, the black and hispanic kids in Blair (with a 38% rate of low-income students according to GS) are doing worse on their SATs than black and hispanic kids at Whitman (with a 3% rate of low-income students according to GS). Being that Blair's student population has 12 times more low-income students than Whitman, doesn't it say even more about how overrated Whitman is that black kids at Whitman scored an average of 1169 on the SATs compared to 1032 at Blair? Shouldn't they be excelling at a much higher rate? Why is Whitman failing these kids when 97% of the school is classified as not being "low-income"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now you are asking uncomfortable question.

SAT score for Black kids in Blair - 1032
SAT score for Hispanics in Blair - 1037

WJ or Whitman sat score for the same groups are significantly higher. In short, Blair doesn't outperform.

Socioeconomic status matters though. Do you think the black and hispanic kids are richer or poorer than the black and hispanic kids at Blair? That's a rhetorical question, obviously, because Whitman pulls from the richest area in the county.

I don't doubt it, but since Whitman likely has <5% of these groups (0% to 5%), the data isn't meaningful in this instance.

So, basically, the black and hispanic kids in Blair (with a 38% rate of low-income students according to GS) are doing worse on their SATs than black and hispanic kids at Whitman (with a 3% rate of low-income students according to GS). Being that Blair's student population has 12 times more low-income students than Whitman, doesn't it say even more about how overrated Whitman is that black kids at Whitman scored an average of 1169 on the SATs compared to 993 at Einstein and 990 at Wheaton? Shouldn't they be excelling at a much higher rate? Why is Whitman failing these kids when 97% of the school is classified as not being "low-income"?

Because it is a myth that sticking poor kids with rich kids helps them. All it really does is bury their mediocrity in a pool of higher stats. It does affect rich pockets bringing poor problems which they would have other wise not had to deal with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now you are asking uncomfortable question.

SAT score for Black kids in Blair - 1032
SAT score for Hispanics in Blair - 1037

WJ or Whitman sat score for the same groups are significantly higher. In short, Blair doesn't outperform.

Socioeconomic status matters though. Do you think the black and hispanic kids are richer or poorer than the black and hispanic kids at Blair? That's a rhetorical question, obviously, because Whitman pulls from the richest area in the county.

I don't doubt it, but since Whitman likely has <5% of these groups (0% to 5%), the data isn't meaningful in this instance.

So, basically, the black and hispanic kids in Blair (with a 38% rate of low-income students according to GS) are doing worse on their SATs than black and hispanic kids at Whitman (with a 3% rate of low-income students according to GS). Being that Blair's student population has 12 times more low-income students than Whitman, doesn't it say even more about how overrated Whitman is that black kids at Whitman scored an average of 1169 on the SATs compared to 993 at Einstein and 990 at Wheaton? Shouldn't they be excelling at a much higher rate? Why is Whitman failing these kids when 97% of the school is classified as not being "low-income"?

Because it is a myth that sticking poor kids with rich kids helps them. All it really does is bury their mediocrity in a pool of higher stats. It does affect rich pockets bringing poor problems which they would have other wise not had to deal with.

You're making the assumption that most, or all, of the black kids at Whitman are poor. I'm assuming they're mostly well off being that Whitman pulls from mostly SFH areas with very low poverty rates. With that in mind, Whitman is really underserving black kids compared to Blair, where there is 12x more low-income kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FIXED

So, basically, the black and hispanic kids in Blair (with a 38% rate of low-income students according to GS) are doing worse on their SATs than black and hispanic kids at Whitman (with a 3% rate of low-income students according to GS). Being that Blair's student population has 12 times more low-income students than Whitman, doesn't it say even more about how overrated Whitman is that black kids at Whitman scored an average of 1169 on the SATs compared to 1032 at Blair? Shouldn't they be excelling at a much higher rate? Why is Whitman failing these kids when 97% of the school is classified as not being "low-income"?

MCPS Whitman says is <5% BL and 9.6% Hispanic. Evidently the Hispanic kids are doing well there, but there aren't enough AA kids to tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FIXED

So, basically, the black and hispanic kids in Blair (with a 38% rate of low-income students according to GS) are doing worse on their SATs than black and hispanic kids at Whitman (with a 3% rate of low-income students according to GS). Being that Blair's student population has 12 times more low-income students than Whitman, doesn't it say even more about how overrated Whitman is that black kids at Whitman scored an average of 1169 on the SATs compared to 1032 at Blair? Shouldn't they be excelling at a much higher rate? Why is Whitman failing these kids when 97% of the school is classified as not being "low-income"?

MCPS Whitman says is <5% BL and 9.6% Hispanic. Evidently the Hispanic kids are doing well there, but there aren't enough AA kids to tell.

It's always going to come back SES. Whitman draws from one of the most affluent areas in the county so no real shocker there, but Blair does remarkably well especially since that it doesn't. The fact that it surpasses Whitman for some groups is remarkable.

[Anonymous]

Only a fool would choose Blair over Whitman. Blair only has a 58% college readiness score.

Take the magnet out of Blair and stop propping it up by bussing in kids from other clusters and Blair would drop to the very bottom with Kennedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The SAT averages for a single cohort over 5% really illustrates how these schools stack up.

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

fascinating

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Only using averages is a basic analysis, which only serves to identify which high school draws a higher percentage of rich kids. A better, refined analysis looks at the granular data, and isolates for race and socioeconomic status. When you isolate for race and socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds in these schools.

For example, let's look at FARMS kids SAT performance (page 10):

WJ = 1013
Einstein = 977
Wheaton = 948

White kids SAT performance (page 8):

WJ = 1275
Einstein = 1148
Wheaton = 1173

There is no way to isolate for race + socioeconomic background, but I would wager that the white kids in Wheaton and Einstein generally are less financially well off, and come from families with fewer graduate degrees than their counterparts at WJ. I also think it's safe to assume the FARMS kids at Einstein and Wheaton are less financially well off relative to the FARMS kids at WJ.

Bottom line: If you're worrying this much about your kids' education and are skewering PDFs of 2017 MoCo SAT scores your kids are going to do well whether they're at WJ, Woodward or Einstein. It doesn't really matter that much, aside from misconceptions of the uniformed general public that don't realize that a child's parents socioeconomic status and education level matter much more to a child's future than what school they go to, especially within the same school system.

This was one of the better posts in the thread.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if MCPS high schools are the socioeconomic class warzones depicted in the bile that is this thread. If so, how awful! I'm glad my kid goes to a socioeconomically diverse private. I am also glad that I own in a reasonably priced DCC neighborhood super convenient to DC. The Donald's SALT deduction limit must be killing you guys in the Ws. That and rising rates are not a good combination for high end home values. Especially with new mortgage interest deductions capped at the first 750k on a first lien. Oh yeah, and all those Amazon HQ2 kids coming down the pike might make DCC demographics less dissimilar to your precious school zones before you know it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now you are asking uncomfortable question.

SAT score for Black kids in Blair - 1032
SAT score for Hispanics in Blair - 1037

WJ or Whitman sat score for the same groups are significantly higher. In short, Blair doesn't outperform.

Socioeconomic status matters though. Do you think the black and hispanic kids are richer or poorer than the black and hispanic kids at Blair? That's a rhetorical question, obviously, because Whitman pulls from the richest area in the county.

I don't doubt it, but since Whitman likely has <5% of these groups (0% to 5%), the data isn't meaningful in this instance.

So, basically, the black and hispanic kids in Blair (with a 38% rate of low-income students according to GS) are doing worse on their SATs than black and hispanic kids at Whitman (with a 3% rate of low-income students according to GS). Being that Blair's student population has 12 times more low-income students than Whitman, doesn't it say even more about how overrated Whitman is that black kids at Whitman scored an average of 1169 on the SATs compared to 993 at Einstein and 990 at Wheaton? Shouldn't they be excelling at a much higher rate? Why is Whitman failing these kids when 97% of the school is classified as not being "low-income"?

Because it is a myth that sticking poor kids with rich kids helps them. All it really does is bury their mediocrity in a pool of higher stats. It does affect rich pockets bringing poor problems which they would have other wise not had to deal with.

You're making the assumption that most, or all, of the black kids at Whitman are poor. I'm assuming they're mostly well off being that Whitman pulls from mostly SFH areas with very low poverty rates. With that in mind, Whitman is really underserving black kids compared to Blair, where there is 12x more low-income kids.

There is a lot more than 12x. That is why they have to put carrot programs inside of it to appeal to middle class parents to stay. There are no programs of note at Whitman. Funny how that works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Only using averages is a basic analysis, which only serves to identify which high school draws a higher percentage of rich kids. A better, refined analysis looks at the granular data, and isolates for race and socioeconomic status. When you isolate for race and socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds in these schools.

For example, let's look at FARMS kids SAT performance (page 10):

WJ = 1013
Einstein = 977
Wheaton = 948

White kids SAT performance (page 8):

WJ = 1275
Einstein = 1148
Wheaton = 1173

There is no way to isolate for race + socioeconomic background, but I would wager that the white kids in Wheaton and Einstein generally are less financially well off, and come from families with fewer graduate degrees than their counterparts at WJ. I also think it's safe to assume the FARMS kids at Einstein and Wheaton are less financially well off relative to the FARMS kids at WJ.

Bottom line: If you're worrying this much about your kids' education and are skewering PDFs of 2017 MoCo SAT scores your kids are going to do well whether they're at WJ, Woodward or Einstein. It doesn't really matter that much, aside from misconceptions of the uniformed general public that don't realize that a child's parents socioeconomic status and education level matter much more to a child's future than what school they go to, especially within the same school system.

This was one of the better posts in the thread.

Not really. It starts out with a "if you isolate for race and socioeconomic status" hypothesis, and ends with "there is no way to isolate for race + socioeconomic background," which means PP has offered nothing more than conjecture to support a hypothesis that he or she finds most appealing. It's neither logical nor likely to persuade anyone on the fence about buying in what might turn out to be the future Woodward district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if MCPS high schools are the socioeconomic class warzones depicted in the bile that is this thread. If so, how awful! I'm glad my kid goes to a socioeconomically diverse private. I am also glad that I own in a reasonably priced DCC neighborhood super convenient to DC. The Donald's SALT deduction limit must be killing you guys in the Ws. That and rising rates are not a good combination for high end home values. Especially with new mortgage interest deductions capped at the first 750k on a first lien. Oh yeah, and all those Amazon HQ2 kids coming down the pike might make DCC demographics less dissimilar to your precious school zones before you know it!

Love to know what private is genuinely diverse in terms of SES. Haven't seen one yet. Very happy with my small close-in house, low mortgage, and BCC HS, which is in fact diverse by all measures. And a great school to boot. Wouldn't want to throw away $40k/kid/yr for private. To each his or her own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Only using averages is a basic analysis, which only serves to identify which high school draws a higher percentage of rich kids. A better, refined analysis looks at the granular data, and isolates for race and socioeconomic status. When you isolate for race and socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds in these schools.

For example, let's look at FARMS kids SAT performance (page 10):

WJ = 1013
Einstein = 977
Wheaton = 948

White kids SAT performance (page 8):

WJ = 1275
Einstein = 1148
Wheaton = 1173

There is no way to isolate for race + socioeconomic background, but I would wager that the white kids in Wheaton and Einstein generally are less financially well off, and come from families with fewer graduate degrees than their counterparts at WJ. I also think it's safe to assume the FARMS kids at Einstein and Wheaton are less financially well off relative to the FARMS kids at WJ.

Bottom line: If you're worrying this much about your kids' education and are skewering PDFs of 2017 MoCo SAT scores your kids are going to do well whether they're at WJ, Woodward or Einstein. It doesn't really matter that much, aside from misconceptions of the uniformed general public that don't realize that a child's parents socioeconomic status and education level matter much more to a child's future than what school they go to, especially within the same school system.

This was one of the better posts in the thread.

Not really. It starts out with a "if you isolate for race and socioeconomic status" hypothesis, and ends with "there is no way to isolate for race + socioeconomic background," which means PP has offered nothing more than conjecture to support a hypothesis that he or she finds most appealing. It's neither logical nor likely to persuade anyone on the fence about buying in what might turn out to be the future Woodward district.

PP here. Should have said "isolates for race or socioeconomic status," which you can currently do by looking at SAT scores by race or FARMS. Can't edit a post once it's in the wind here. Apologies for the typo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if MCPS high schools are the socioeconomic class warzones depicted in the bile that is this thread. If so, how awful! I'm glad my kid goes to a socioeconomically diverse private. I am also glad that I own in a reasonably priced DCC neighborhood super convenient to DC. The Donald's SALT deduction limit must be killing you guys in the Ws. That and rising rates are not a good combination for high end home values. Especially with new mortgage interest deductions capped at the first 750k on a first lien. Oh yeah, and all those Amazon HQ2 kids coming down the pike might make DCC demographics less dissimilar to your precious school zones before you know it!

Is your point that you hope to be as nice as a W area one day so those people will be jealous of you for finally making it after striving for all that time?

#stillnotinvitedtothecooltable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Only using averages is a basic analysis, which only serves to identify which high school draws a higher percentage of rich kids. A better, refined analysis looks at the granular data, and isolates for race and socioeconomic status. When you isolate for race and socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds in these schools.

For example, let's look at FARMS kids SAT performance (page 10):

WJ = 1013
Einstein = 977
Wheaton = 948

White kids SAT performance (page 8):

WJ = 1275
Einstein = 1148
Wheaton = 1173

There is no way to isolate for race + socioeconomic background, but I would wager that the white kids in Wheaton and Einstein generally are less financially well off, and come from families with fewer graduate degrees than their counterparts at WJ. I also think it's safe to assume the FARMS kids at Einstein and Wheaton are less financially well off relative to the FARMS kids at WJ.

Bottom line: If you're worrying this much about your kids' education and are skewering PDFs of 2017 MoCo SAT scores your kids are going to do well whether they're at WJ, Woodward or Einstein. It doesn't really matter that much, aside from misconceptions of the uniformed general public that don't realize that a child's parents socioeconomic status and education level matter much more to a child's future than what school they go to, especially within the same school system.

This was one of the better posts in the thread.

+1