GreatSchools rating

[Anonymous]

all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

A school can’t/ isn’t able to care more about a child than their own parent. It’s not a school problem, it’s a family/community problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

A school can’t/ isn’t able to care more about a child than their own parent. It’s not a school problem, it’s a family/community problem.

and that's racist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

While the achievement gap is an issue, you don't see white people scrambling to be at TJ just because many Asians are over achievers. I'd rather see the growth in students rather than a measure of the gap. It doesn't seem like Great Schools is measuring growth or even achievement at all. Just a gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

The new methodology is highly flawed and unhelpful for parents and schools. The scores don't reflect reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

No.

They are double counting the ESOL kids.

Their scores are already averaged in on the test score.then they get averaged in a second time with the diversity score.

Unless you are a homogenous school like Langley with no measurable ESOL or poor population. Then you get bonus points on your diversity scale for not having any "poors"

It is a flawed system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

No.

They are double counting the ESOL kids.

Their scores are already averaged in on the test score.then they get averaged in a second time with the diversity score.

Unless you are a homogenous school like Langley with no measurable ESOL or poor population. Then you get bonus points on your diversity scale for not having any "poors"

It is a flawed system.

And the minority kids in those wealthier schools ARE performing well. They are above the state average for their demographic, sometimes significantly above the state average. They are scoring in the 80 to upper 80 range. That is not "poor" performance, especially if it is a demographic that usually performs below the state average. That is not "poor" performance, even if the other demographics are performing in the 90 to 99 point range.

Our pyramid who got a bump to the top because our achievement gap is very tiny but I still think it is a flawed way to calculate the score. GS could recognize the gap with out penalizing schools for having ESOL kids who "only" perform10 to 20 points higher than the state average for ESOL students.

[Anonymous]

Some of these schools that got low liversity scores and had their overal scores tanked have some of the highest scores for ESOL students in the state. They should not be penalized for this achievement, even if their rich white kids and Asian kids are scoring at the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

A school can’t/ isn’t able to care more about a child than their own parent. It’s not a school problem, it’s a family/community problem.

and that's racist

Honesty and facts are unconcerned about political correctness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

No. There is a significant difference in where kids are when the start HS. You cannot equate schools that have kids coming from Latin American countries who have limited formal education/no English skills vs. schools that kids from American backgrounds with English skills and formal ES/MS but a lot of home distractions and lack of parental involvement vs. schools that have "minority" kids who come from well-off families/educated parents.

The problem with these so-called achievement gaps is that not all minority students are the same raw material when it comes to the HSs taking them and providing and eduation. Not all "low income" kids are the same. Yes, schools have an obligation to educate their students, but it is ridiculous to judge a school on how many poor/minority kids they were able to pass through the SOLs when it isn't even realistic for kids who literally arrived in this country in the last couple of years and have no MS/ES education. Kids from that background aren't going to suddenly pass their World History SOL or Algebra SOL. It's not a legitimate measure in some circumstances.

[Anonymous]

I suggest we wizened pax ignore Great Schools as much as possible.

Let's put our acumen into encouraging better academics in our public schools. Specifically, let's pay our teachers for their hard work. Without them, our schools' academics would be for naught. Let's pay them too. Forget the building and after school: let's pay those who want our public schools to be able to compete with their acquired knowledge. Similarly, let's loose the dead wood. Teacher pension costs are dependent on us all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found their new scoring system very confusing and inaccurate. I double checked my suspicion with our old neighborhood in California, and it confirmed my suspicion of blatant bias in their new scoring system. We moved from a 95% hispanic neighborhood with very low school performance scores to VA, and ALL of those schools on GS site are scoring 9s. I guess they score equally poor and uneducated higher than a more diverse community like NOVA.

Me too. The HS we moved from in another state is a GS9. However, they have state test pass rates below 50%, low AP participation, even lower AP pass rates, an average ACT of 19. Meanwhile Wakefield (to pick a good example of a DCUM reviled school) has better scores in all these areas and gets a 2. Two main differences account for this as far as I can tell: the former school is the best one in its district, whereas wakefield is the lowest in its district. AND, there is more poverty in Wakefield. Honestly Wakefield is probably a better school, but nobody will see it that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found their new scoring system very confusing and inaccurate. I double checked my suspicion with our old neighborhood in California, and it confirmed my suspicion of blatant bias in their new scoring system. We moved from a 95% hispanic neighborhood with very low school performance scores to VA, and ALL of those schools on GS site are scoring 9s. I guess they score equally poor and uneducated higher than a more diverse community like NOVA.

Me too. The HS we moved from in another state is a GS9. However, they have state test pass rates below 50%, low AP participation, even lower AP pass rates, an average ACT of 19. Meanwhile Wakefield (to pick a good example of a DCUM reviled school) has better scores in all these areas and gets a 2. Two main differences account for this as far as I can tell: the former school is the best one in its district, whereas wakefield is the lowest in its district. AND, there is more poverty in Wakefield. Honestly Wakefield is probably a better school, but nobody will see it that way.

man yall are dense the ranking is against other schools in the area idiots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found their new scoring system very confusing and inaccurate. I double checked my suspicion with our old neighborhood in California, and it confirmed my suspicion of blatant bias in their new scoring system. We moved from a 95% hispanic neighborhood with very low school performance scores to VA, and ALL of those schools on GS site are scoring 9s. I guess they score equally poor and uneducated higher than a more diverse community like NOVA.

Me too. The HS we moved from in another state is a GS9. However, they have state test pass rates below 50%, low AP participation, even lower AP pass rates, an average ACT of 19. Meanwhile Wakefield (to pick a good example of a DCUM reviled school) has better scores in all these areas and gets a 2. Two main differences account for this as far as I can tell: the former school is the best one in its district, whereas wakefield is the lowest in its district. AND, there is more poverty in Wakefield. Honestly Wakefield is probably a better school, but nobody will see it that way.

man yall are dense the ranking is against other schools in the area idiots

well obviously, but it is worth recalling that even Wakefield is by national standards a good school.

[Anonymous]

Of course Wakefield is good. No one truly believes it’s a bad school.