High school SAT scores in Northern Virginia (2016)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we all should wait and see what the scores are for each sub-group.

How is it fair to compare a school where the total SAT population is 70% upper income white, 20% upper income asian and 10% black/hispanic (incomes??) to a school where the SAT-taking population is 50% black and hispanic (or more) and 50% (or less) middle income white?

It is not a secret that across the state and across the nation, black and hispanic kids don't score as highly on SAT tests. It is also not a secret that as income rises (even for kids with HHI above 100k) scores rise in direct relation to the HHI. I've seen graphs on this on line. I was surprised there was any effect over a certain income (say 100K). But there is an increasing linear relationship.

So, when people trot out these school-wide averages, I think it is a farce. Since everyone seems to be talking about Wakefield, look at the scores of the white kids at Wakefield... that's meaningful in comparison to other white kids. If the Wakefield ave. SAT scores is comprised of 70% hispanic kids and 30% white kids -- well, gee, surprise, surprise.... it's not going to be anywhere near the average score of Langley where 95% of the test-takers are white/asian kids from households that make 200k or more.

I think we need to be careful about maligning an entire school simply b/c it may have more test-takers who are not high income and who are hispanic or black. You're essentially penalizing schools that encourage their lower students to try the SAT. Some schools have few to none of those students from low-income, non-college-educated parents-households.

Actually, APS has the score breakdowns. The white kids at Wakefield didn't do too badly.

http://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/1970/01/SAT-2016-Table-3.pdf

35 white test takers, out of what originally started out as a class of almost 400, did OK, though not nearly as well as white kids at most area schools.

Slow clap.

[Anonymous]

Dear Alexandria city resident:

TC Williams is a 2
Wakefield is a 4

Sincerely,
Reality

[Anonymous]

1729 is a respectable showing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we all should wait and see what the scores are for each sub-group.

How is it fair to compare a school where the total SAT population is 70% upper income white, 20% upper income asian and 10% black/hispanic (incomes??) to a school where the SAT-taking population is 50% black and hispanic (or more) and 50% (or less) middle income white?

It is not a secret that across the state and across the nation, black and hispanic kids don't score as highly on SAT tests. It is also not a secret that as income rises (even for kids with HHI above 100k) scores rise in direct relation to the HHI. I've seen graphs on this on line. I was surprised there was any effect over a certain income (say 100K). But there is an increasing linear relationship.

So, when people trot out these school-wide averages, I think it is a farce. Since everyone seems to be talking about Wakefield, look at the scores of the white kids at Wakefield... that's meaningful in comparison to other white kids. If the Wakefield ave. SAT scores is comprised of 70% hispanic kids and 30% white kids -- well, gee, surprise, surprise.... it's not going to be anywhere near the average score of Langley where 95% of the test-takers are white/asian kids from households that make 200k or more.

I think we need to be careful about maligning an entire school simply b/c it may have more test-takers who are not high income and who are hispanic or black. You're essentially penalizing schools that encourage their lower students to try the SAT. Some schools have few to none of those students from low-income, non-college-educated parents-households.

Actually, APS has the score breakdowns. The white kids at Wakefield didn't do too badly.

http://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/1970/01/SAT-2016-Table-3.pdf

35 white test takers, out of what originally started out as a class of almost 400, did OK, though not nearly as well as white kids at most area schools.

Wait, there where 400 white students? That doesn't jive with the demographics of the school.

Slow clap.

[Anonymous]

So the white kids at W-L did better than the white kids at Yorktown. Interesting.

[Anonymous]

And the white kids at Wakefield scored only 59 points less than the white kids at Yorktown. Not bad at all.

And I think when the PP above said a class of 400, I think she meant total number of students, not just white students. I'm not sure how many were the graduating class, but only 191 tested.

[Anonymous]

Brain drain from Yorktown to H-B and W-L (IB)?

[Anonymous]

To the poster who thinks the demographics at Wakefield are changing for the better. You better get out and advocate for the SB to consider SES data in the boundary changes. Because otherwise, you are dead wrong. You must live near Penrose/Henry or Oakridge. That is a very, very small part of the Wakefield district. It is far counterbalanced by the rest of the Wakefield district that is being packed with lower income kids on account of the County's housing policies. APAH and VOICE are in cahoots with the developers and limousine liberals among the Arlington Dems to keep those kids out of N. Arlington--where they say they "won't feel comfortable." Look at percentages at Abingdon, Barcroft, Randolph, Drew when you take out Montessori. THAT the future of Wakefield without boundary changes and it's not pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brain drain from Yorktown to H-B and W-L (IB)?

The same could be said for Wakefield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brain drain from Yorktown to H-B and W-L (IB)?

The same could be said for Wakefield.

True.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brain drain from Yorktown to H-B and W-L (IB)?

And the same goes for Wakefield. You know they accept kids from Wakefield at W-L, right? And there are two kids in my south Arlington neighborhood who go to TJHSST. And a whole bunch at HB. If they went to Wakefiled instead, Wakefield scores for non-economically disadvantaged students would be higher.

My point is that there are not enough spots at alternative programs in APS or private schools in the region to absorb the number of non-economically disadvantaged students who are enrolled in ES and MS in south Arlington now. Families who were willing to buy homes in south Arlington are not going to flee en masse when their children hit HS. Our lives are too good here. We have short commutes, nice and safe neighborhoods (with slightly more affordable houses), and a good school system overall. I don't know if you've been hearing that Wakefield will "improve" for years, but the critical mass of non-economically disadvantaged kids is still in ES for the most part, so it stands to reason that the demographics of Wakefield have not changed. Yet. Will it become Yorktown? No. But in ten years it will much more closely resemble W-L.

OP, stop posting this crap all over this message board and other websites (I see you on ArlNow). I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, but surely you can find something better to do with your time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who thinks the demographics at Wakefield are changing for the better. You better get out and advocate for the SB to consider SES data in the boundary changes. Because otherwise, you are dead wrong. You must live near Penrose/Henry or Oakridge. That is a very, very small part of the Wakefield district. It is far counterbalanced by the rest of the Wakefield district that is being packed with lower income kids on account of the County's housing policies. APAH and VOICE are in cahoots with the developers and limousine liberals among the Arlington Dems to keep those kids out of N. Arlington--where they say they "won't feel comfortable." Look at percentages at Abingdon, Barcroft, Randolph, Drew when you take out Montessori. THAT the future of Wakefield without boundary changes and it's not pretty.

I am paying attention. And I also know that many of the low income kids are currently zoned W-L and they are happy to stay at W-L (planning units in Buckingham and along the west Pike). If APS moves all those kids to Wakefield, then yes, they will blow up my theory. But I suspect the won't. Because despite what a bunch of UMC moms who don't want their kids to be moved are trying to sell, the Latino parents are perfectly happy with their kids being bused to W-L and are saying so to those who will listen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who thinks the demographics at Wakefield are changing for the better. You better get out and advocate for the SB to consider SES data in the boundary changes. Because otherwise, you are dead wrong. You must live near Penrose/Henry or Oakridge. That is a very, very small part of the Wakefield district. It is far counterbalanced by the rest of the Wakefield district that is being packed with lower income kids on account of the County's housing policies. APAH and VOICE are in cahoots with the developers and limousine liberals among the Arlington Dems to keep those kids out of N. Arlington--where they say they "won't feel comfortable." Look at percentages at Abingdon, Barcroft, Randolph, Drew when you take out Montessori. THAT the future of Wakefield without boundary changes and it's not pretty.

I'm one of those posters and I live near Randolph. I don't disagree about the politics of Arlington, but I don't live near Penrose and my neighborhood is changing really quickly. I agree with you about current demographics, but I think you aren't understanding that those demographics don't reflect the neighborhoods. People in my neighborhood don't send their kids to Randolph. They go to choice programs. I don't blame them, we will likely do the same or go private through 5th. We have plenty of time to see how things shape up. I think it will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Funny how when you talk to teachers in APS, they have no qualms with any of the south Arlington schools. I trust their judgement more than anonymous posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who thinks the demographics at Wakefield are changing for the better. You better get out and advocate for the SB to consider SES data in the boundary changes. Because otherwise, you are dead wrong. You must live near Penrose/Henry or Oakridge. That is a very, very small part of the Wakefield district. It is far counterbalanced by the rest of the Wakefield district that is being packed with lower income kids on account of the County's housing policies. APAH and VOICE are in cahoots with the developers and limousine liberals among the Arlington Dems to keep those kids out of N. Arlington--where they say they "won't feel comfortable." Look at percentages at Abingdon, Barcroft, Randolph, Drew when you take out Montessori. THAT the future of Wakefield without boundary changes and it's not pretty.

I'm one of those posters and I live near Randolph. I don't disagree about the politics of Arlington, but I don't live near Penrose and my neighborhood is changing really quickly. I agree with you about current demographics, but I think you aren't understanding that those demographics don't reflect the neighborhoods. People in my neighborhood don't send their kids to Randolph. They go to choice programs. I don't blame them, we will likely do the same or go private through 5th. We have plenty of time to see how things shape up. I think it will be fine.

+1. I'm in Alcova Heights. A great neighborhood zoned for a weak elementary school (Barcroft). There are plenty of families that send their kids to Barcroft, but many families send their kids to choice programs to avoid Barcroft. The families who are avoiding Barcroft for elementary are planning to send their kids to TJ for middle school and Wakefield for high school.