Where do you consider MCPS high schools on a scale of good-bad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I remember reading the post a while back that showed Blair's SAT average was 50 points higher for the largest common cohort to it and any W in order to isolate for demographic differences and gauge the school's actual value. Some people argued but the magnet responsible which was ridiculous because it's a small program in a large school that's also mostly Asian. These silly posts that are based on outdated notions from 30 years ago are mostly laughable.
I believe these were the SAT scores for the largest cohort common to each of these high-schools

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wootton 1262
Churchill 1257

The data was published by the county here.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2017/1771102HS%20Princ_SAT%20Partic_Perf%20Class%20of%202017.pdf

This makes a lot more sense than just dumping raw data.

The smartest white kids means it’s the best school? I cannot imagine anything more racist and classist than that, considering 90% of Blair kids are from rich liberal families in Takoma Park. I know a few of them myself.

Yup. To me, the best schools are the schools where Black and Hispanic students perform the best. So the top 4 are Poolesville, Whitman, Churchill and BCC. Black and Hispanic students at Blair perform worse than Northwest, Sherwood and Watkins Mill which says a lot about Blair. That’s a lot of inequality in one school and it’s hard to understand how white kids are getting taught so well while Black and Brown kids are not.

Yeah but they have to be a significant number/percentage to mean anything. The percentage of Black and Hispanic students at Whitman and Poolesville is less than 5%. Comparing the scores of 5 ~10 to 200 kids is comparing apples to oranges. That is why the comparison should be with the group that has a significant number/percentage of students on each school.
I mean when you have 5 African diplomatic kids at Whitman, do you think they live in poverty, don't get the support they need?

+1 Some people need to take a data analysis class.

Agree that schools with <5% in URM cohorts that are typically FARMS at the unsegreated schools aren't worth looking at unless you compare the largest common cohort to get an actual comparison.

[Anonymous]

I think their point is that the raw data dumps although facts aren't meaningful. That you need a more nuanced analysis to really understand the value of one school over another.

Again more opinions without data or facts behind it. Classic denial of reality. But unless you understand the issue, you will never be able to solve it. I hope someday you truly open your eyes and see the world as it is.

I can understand when someone has a case of sour grapes - there are many that cannot face reality as we've seen throughout this covid period. It is true that some kids don't have an academic gift. It could be physical or psychological, or it could be something else.

As pointed out by a prior poster, if you have "five black diplomat kids" it has nothing to do with race, but with the parents themselves. It is the parents who motivate and encourage their children to learn and do well in school. But this is the reality that some never want to face. That it is the adults that need to change - not the children.

What chance does a child have of being a doctor if their parent is a hardened criminal, or perhaps homeless, or just doesn't care? What if the teachers write the child off? Or project their own bias to label a child? It is the supportive adults that provide the enrichment and opportunities that are giving their children the best chance at a successful future. Is it always based upon resources? Absolutely not. I know someone who never finished high school who had three children who finished college. I would ask each parent "what's your excuse?"

The school is not daycare so you can work. The classroom is not a place to preach your personal bias. The school is where the next generation learns (or fails to learn) how to make the world a better place.

And yes, that's my opinion without any facts to back it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think their point is that the raw data dumps although facts aren't meaningful. That you need a more nuanced analysis to really understand the value of one school over another.

Again more opinions without data or facts behind it. Classic denial of reality. But unless you understand the issue, you will never be able to solve it. I hope someday you truly open your eyes and see the world as it is.

I can understand when someone has a case of sour grapes - there are many that cannot face reality as we've seen throughout this covid period. It is true that some kids don't have an academic gift. It could be physical or psychological, or it could be something else.

As pointed out by a prior poster, if you have "five black diplomat kids" it has nothing to do with race, but with the parents themselves. It is the parents who motivate and encourage their children to learn and do well in school. But this is the reality that some never want to face. That it is the adults that need to change - not the children.

What chance does a child have of being a doctor if their parent is a hardened criminal, or perhaps homeless, or just doesn't care? What if the teachers write the child off? Or project their own bias to label a child? It is the supportive adults that provide the enrichment and opportunities that are giving their children the best chance at a successful future. Is it always based upon resources? Absolutely not. I know someone who never finished high school who had three children who finished college. I would ask each parent "what's your excuse?"

The school is not daycare so you can work. The classroom is not a place to preach your personal bias. The school is where the next generation learns (or fails to learn) how to make the world a better place.

And yes, that's my opinion without any facts to back it up.

Just the opposite. Dumping raw data although factual without any analysis is meaningless like the PP suggested. Even the simplest of analysis like looking at how the largest common cohort as a proxy to isolate for SES differences is far more meaningful way to use the raw and factual data.

[Anonymous]

Just the opposite. Dumping raw data although factual without any analysis is meaningless like the PP suggested. Even the simplest of analysis like looking at how the largest common cohort as a proxy to isolate for SES differences is far more meaningful way to use the raw and factual data.

What you call "simplest of analysis like looking at how the largest common cohort" I call "a minimum baseline for successful acceptance into a State University." In other words, it's a minimum baseline to achieve a tangible outcome that is an established success indicator unless your argument is that a college education doesn't matter? But if that's the case, why would you even care about HS rankings since it would be an immaterial or moot point and I would be confused as to what your original argument even was?

"isolate for SES differences"? If by "isolate for socioeconomic differences" you're implying that each and every individual student not meeting this minimum cutoff for State University admission was evaluated under a social and economic screening criteria, such that it was not a "proxy" scenario? If so, I never knew! I'd love to see the results of that analysis so please post the link.. unless this is just another personal opinion unsupported by reality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Just the opposite. Dumping raw data although factual without any analysis is meaningless like the PP suggested. Even the simplest of analysis like looking at how the largest common cohort as a proxy to isolate for SES differences is far more meaningful way to use the raw and factual data.

What you call "simplest of analysis like looking at how the largest common cohort" I call "a minimum baseline for successful acceptance into a State University." In other words, it's a minimum baseline to achieve a tangible outcome that is an established success indicator unless your argument is that a college education doesn't matter? But if that's the case, why would you even care about HS rankings since it would be an immaterial or moot point and I would be confused as to what your original argument even was?

"isolate for SES differences"? If by "isolate for socioeconomic differences" you're implying that each and every individual student not meeting this minimum cutoff for State University admission was evaluated under a social and economic screening criteria, such that it was not a "proxy" scenario? If so, I never knew! I'd love to see the results of that analysis so please post the link.. unless this is just another personal opinion unsupported by reality?

Agree that minimal analysis provides insight beyond the raw data dumps. Anyone can plainly see that the same kid does as well or better at what they're calling a tier 3 school than their so-called tier 1 schools and it underscores how just how meaningless looking at averages is when gauging school performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I remember reading the post a while back that showed Blair's SAT average was 50 points higher for the largest common cohort to it and any W in order to isolate for demographic differences and gauge the school's actual value. Some people argued but the magnet responsible which was ridiculous because it's a small program in a large school that's also mostly Asian. These silly posts that are based on outdated notions from 30 years ago are mostly laughable.
I believe these were the SAT scores for the largest cohort common to each of these high-schools

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wootton 1262
Churchill 1257

The data was published by the county here.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2017/1771102HS%20Princ_SAT%20Partic_Perf%20Class%20of%202017.pdf

This makes a lot more sense than just dumping raw data.

The smartest white kids means it’s the best school? I cannot imagine anything more racist and classist than that, considering 90% of Blair kids are from rich liberal families in Takoma Park. I know a few of them myself.

Yup. To me, the best schools are the schools where Black and Hispanic students perform the best. So the top 4 are Poolesville, Whitman, Churchill and BCC. Black and Hispanic students at Blair perform worse than Northwest, Sherwood and Watkins Mill which says a lot about Blair. That’s a lot of inequality in one school and it’s hard to understand how white kids are getting taught so well while Black and Brown kids are not.

DP.
Can anyone can please enlighten me, why is it that, all of a sudden, 'Black' and 'Hispainic' are capitalized (when referring to race) and 'white' is not? See it a lot in posts here.
I call racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Just the opposite. Dumping raw data although factual without any analysis is meaningless like the PP suggested. Even the simplest of analysis like looking at how the largest common cohort as a proxy to isolate for SES differences is far more meaningful way to use the raw and factual data.

What you call "simplest of analysis like looking at how the largest common cohort" I call "a minimum baseline for successful acceptance into a State University." In other words, it's a minimum baseline to achieve a tangible outcome that is an established success indicator unless your argument is that a college education doesn't matter? But if that's the case, why would you even care about HS rankings since it would be an immaterial or moot point and I would be confused as to what your original argument even was?

"isolate for SES differences"? If by "isolate for socioeconomic differences" you're implying that each and every individual student not meeting this minimum cutoff for State University admission was evaluated under a social and economic screening criteria, such that it was not a "proxy" scenario? If so, I never knew! I'd love to see the results of that analysis so please post the link.. unless this is just another personal opinion unsupported by reality?

Agree that minimal analysis provides insight beyond the raw data dumps. Anyone can plainly see that the same kid does as well or better at what they're calling a tier 3 school than their so-called tier 1 schools and it underscores how just how meaningless looking at averages is when gauging school performance.

Makes sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I remember reading the post a while back that showed Blair's SAT average was 50 points higher for the largest common cohort to it and any W in order to isolate for demographic differences and gauge the school's actual value. Some people argued but the magnet responsible which was ridiculous because it's a small program in a large school that's also mostly Asian. These silly posts that are based on outdated notions from 30 years ago are mostly laughable.
I believe these were the SAT scores for the largest cohort common to each of these high-schools

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wootton 1262
Churchill 1257

The data was published by the county here.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2017/1771102HS%20Princ_SAT%20Partic_Perf%20Class%20of%202017.pdf

This makes a lot more sense than just dumping raw data.

The smartest white kids means it’s the best school? I cannot imagine anything more racist and classist than that, considering 90% of Blair kids are from rich liberal families in Takoma Park. I know a few of them myself.

Yup. To me, the best schools are the schools where Black and Hispanic students perform the best. So the top 4 are Poolesville, Whitman, Churchill and BCC. Black and Hispanic students at Blair perform worse than Northwest, Sherwood and Watkins Mill which says a lot about Blair. That’s a lot of inequality in one school and it’s hard to understand how white kids are getting taught so well while Black and Brown kids are not.

DP.
Can anyone can please enlighten me, why is it that, all of a sudden, 'Black' and 'Hispainic' are capitalized (when referring to race) and 'white' is not? See it a lot in posts here.
I call racism.

Because DCUM is just random people posting stuff. It doesn't follow a style guide. APA recommends capitalizing all three terms.

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I remember reading the post a while back that showed Blair's SAT average was 50 points higher for the largest common cohort to it and any W in order to isolate for demographic differences and gauge the school's actual value. Some people argued but the magnet responsible which was ridiculous because it's a small program in a large school that's also mostly Asian. These silly posts that are based on outdated notions from 30 years ago are mostly laughable.
I believe these were the SAT scores for the largest cohort common to each of these high-schools

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wootton 1262
Churchill 1257

The data was published by the county here.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2017/1771102HS%20Princ_SAT%20Partic_Perf%20Class%20of%202017.pdf

This makes a lot more sense than just dumping raw data.

The smartest white kids means it’s the best school? I cannot imagine anything more racist and classist than that, considering 90% of Blair kids are from rich liberal families in Takoma Park. I know a few of them myself.

Yup. To me, the best schools are the schools where Black and Hispanic students perform the best. So the top 4 are Poolesville, Whitman, Churchill and BCC. Black and Hispanic students at Blair perform worse than Northwest, Sherwood and Watkins Mill which says a lot about Blair. That’s a lot of inequality in one school and it’s hard to understand how white kids are getting taught so well while Black and Brown kids are not.

DP.
Can anyone can please enlighten me, why is it that, all of a sudden, 'Black' and 'Hispainic' are capitalized (when referring to race) and 'white' is not? See it a lot in posts here.
I call racism.

Because DCUM is just random people posting stuff. It doesn't follow a style guide. APA recommends capitalizing all three terms.

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities

The New York Times style guide does not capitalize white.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I remember reading the post a while back that showed Blair's SAT average was 50 points higher for the largest common cohort to it and any W in order to isolate for demographic differences and gauge the school's actual value. Some people argued but the magnet responsible which was ridiculous because it's a small program in a large school that's also mostly Asian. These silly posts that are based on outdated notions from 30 years ago are mostly laughable.
I believe these were the SAT scores for the largest cohort common to each of these high-schools

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wootton 1262
Churchill 1257

The data was published by the county here.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2017/1771102HS%20Princ_SAT%20Partic_Perf%20Class%20of%202017.pdf

This makes a lot more sense than just dumping raw data.

The smartest white kids means it’s the best school? I cannot imagine anything more racist and classist than that, considering 90% of Blair kids are from rich liberal families in Takoma Park. I know a few of them myself.

Yup. To me, the best schools are the schools where Black and Hispanic students perform the best. So the top 4 are Poolesville, Whitman, Churchill and BCC. Black and Hispanic students at Blair perform worse than Northwest, Sherwood and Watkins Mill which says a lot about Blair. That’s a lot of inequality in one school and it’s hard to understand how white kids are getting taught so well while Black and Brown kids are not.

Yeah but they have to be a significant number/percentage to mean anything. The percentage of Black and Hispanic students at Whitman and Poolesville is less than 5%. Comparing the scores of 5 ~10 to 200 kids is comparing apples to oranges. That is why the comparison should be with the group that has a significant number/percentage of students on each school.
I mean when you have 5 African diplomatic kids at Whitman, do you think they live in poverty, don't get the support they need?

So please explain the difference between the performance of Black students at BCC vs Blair.

BCC is 15% Black and Blair is 24% Black. Nearly all of the Black students at BCC live in Silver Spring and would be assigned to Blair if they lived literally in the next apartment building over. So why is it that those Black kids at BCC are doing significantly better than kids one block away?

You want to trumpet Blair as a success because the White kids perform better on average than the White kids at Whitman, but why can’t they reach the Black kids? Why does a Black kid who lives across the street and goes to a different school that still has a good number of Black kids from the same neighborhood have substantially better educational outcomes?

I doubt that you can answer that, but the answer is obviously racism and that’s something that these Liberal white Takoma Park folks in their million dollar houses that think they’re so open minded sending their kids to public school need to come to terms with. Their school is privileging their kids and not teaching Black and Brown kids who are unlucky to live in the wrong block. That’s it.

To borrow a phrase, “The greatness of a [school] shall be judged by how it treats its weakest member” and by that metric Blair fails and fails quite horribly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think their point is that the raw data dumps although facts aren't meaningful. That you need a more nuanced analysis to really understand the value of one school over another.

Again more opinions without data or facts behind it. Classic denial of reality. But unless you understand the issue, you will never be able to solve it. I hope someday you truly open your eyes and see the world as it is.

I can understand when someone has a case of sour grapes - there are many that cannot face reality as we've seen throughout this covid period. It is true that some kids don't have an academic gift. It could be physical or psychological, or it could be something else.

As pointed out by a prior poster, if you have "five black diplomat kids" it has nothing to do with race, but with the parents themselves. It is the parents who motivate and encourage their children to learn and do well in school. But this is the reality that some never want to face. That it is the adults that need to change - not the children.

What chance does a child have of being a doctor if their parent is a hardened criminal, or perhaps homeless, or just doesn't care? What if the teachers write the child off? Or project their own bias to label a child? It is the supportive adults that provide the enrichment and opportunities that are giving their children the best chance at a successful future. Is it always based upon resources? Absolutely not. I know someone who never finished high school who had three children who finished college. I would ask each parent "what's your excuse?"

The school is not daycare so you can work. The classroom is not a place to preach your personal bias. The school is where the next generation learns (or fails to learn) how to make the world a better place.

And yes, that's my opinion without any facts to back it up.

Very, very good points being made here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think their point is that the raw data dumps although facts aren't meaningful. That you need a more nuanced analysis to really understand the value of one school over another.

Again more opinions without data or facts behind it. Classic denial of reality. But unless you understand the issue, you will never be able to solve it. I hope someday you truly open your eyes and see the world as it is.

I can understand when someone has a case of sour grapes - there are many that cannot face reality as we've seen throughout this covid period. It is true that some kids don't have an academic gift. It could be physical or psychological, or it could be something else.

As pointed out by a prior poster, if you have "five black diplomat kids" it has nothing to do with race, but with the parents themselves. It is the parents who motivate and encourage their children to learn and do well in school. But this is the reality that some never want to face. That it is the adults that need to change - not the children.

What chance does a child have of being a doctor if their parent is a hardened criminal, or perhaps homeless, or just doesn't care? What if the teachers write the child off? Or project their own bias to label a child? It is the supportive adults that provide the enrichment and opportunities that are giving their children the best chance at a successful future. Is it always based upon resources? Absolutely not. I know someone who never finished high school who had three children who finished college. I would ask each parent "what's your excuse?"

The school is not daycare so you can work. The classroom is not a place to preach your personal bias. The school is where the next generation learns (or fails to learn) how to make the world a better place.

And yes, that's my opinion without any facts to back it up.

Very, very good points being made here.

Having grown up lower income to immigrant parents who don't speak English, and now being UMC myself, I can tell you that it is *A LOT * easier to pay attention to your kid's education when you have money and can speak the language.

But going back to the comparison: you are comparing apples and oranges.

A handful of kids from a high SES background compared to a large number where most of the kids come from lower SES background is not a good or fair comparison.

It would be like comparing white, wealthy Bethesda kids to the poor white kids in WV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think their point is that the raw data dumps although facts aren't meaningful. That you need a more nuanced analysis to really understand the value of one school over another.

Again more opinions without data or facts behind it. Classic denial of reality. But unless you understand the issue, you will never be able to solve it. I hope someday you truly open your eyes and see the world as it is.

I can understand when someone has a case of sour grapes - there are many that cannot face reality as we've seen throughout this covid period. It is true that some kids don't have an academic gift. It could be physical or psychological, or it could be something else.

As pointed out by a prior poster, if you have "five black diplomat kids" it has nothing to do with race, but with the parents themselves. It is the parents who motivate and encourage their children to learn and do well in school. But this is the reality that some never want to face. That it is the adults that need to change - not the children.

What chance does a child have of being a doctor if their parent is a hardened criminal, or perhaps homeless, or just doesn't care? What if the teachers write the child off? Or project their own bias to label a child? It is the supportive adults that provide the enrichment and opportunities that are giving their children the best chance at a successful future. Is it always based upon resources? Absolutely not. I know someone who never finished high school who had three children who finished college. I would ask each parent "what's your excuse?"

The school is not daycare so you can work. The classroom is not a place to preach your personal bias. The school is where the next generation learns (or fails to learn) how to make the world a better place.

And yes, that's my opinion without any facts to back it up.

Very, very good points being made here.

Having grown up lower income to immigrant parents who don't speak English, and now being UMC myself, I can tell you that it is *A LOT * easier to pay attention to your kid's education when you have money and can speak the language.

But going back to the comparison: you are comparing apples and oranges.

A handful of kids from a high SES background compared to a large number where most of the kids come from lower SES background is not a good or fair comparison.

It would be like comparing white, wealthy Bethesda kids to the poor white kids in WV.

Okay. Would you mind comparing how one set of Black kids in Silver Spring that go to BCC do appreciably better on average than another set of Black kids in Silver Spring that go to Blair? What’s your explanation for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I remember reading the post a while back that showed Blair's SAT average was 50 points higher for the largest common cohort to it and any W in order to isolate for demographic differences and gauge the school's actual value. Some people argued but the magnet responsible which was ridiculous because it's a small program in a large school that's also mostly Asian. These silly posts that are based on outdated notions from 30 years ago are mostly laughable.
I believe these were the SAT scores for the largest cohort common to each of these high-schools

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wootton 1262
Churchill 1257

The data was published by the county here.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2017/1771102HS%20Princ_SAT%20Partic_Perf%20Class%20of%202017.pdf

This makes a lot more sense than just dumping raw data.

The smartest white kids means it’s the best school? I cannot imagine anything more racist and classist than that, considering 90% of Blair kids are from rich liberal families in Takoma Park. I know a few of them myself.

Yup. To me, the best schools are the schools where Black and Hispanic students perform the best. So the top 4 are Poolesville, Whitman, Churchill and BCC. Black and Hispanic students at Blair perform worse than Northwest, Sherwood and Watkins Mill which says a lot about Blair. That’s a lot of inequality in one school and it’s hard to understand how white kids are getting taught so well while Black and Brown kids are not.

Yeah but they have to be a significant number/percentage to mean anything. The percentage of Black and Hispanic students at Whitman and Poolesville is less than 5%. Comparing the scores of 5 ~10 to 200 kids is comparing apples to oranges. That is why the comparison should be with the group that has a significant number/percentage of students on each school.
I mean when you have 5 African diplomatic kids at Whitman, do you think they live in poverty, don't get the support they need?

So please explain the difference between the performance of Black students at BCC vs Blair.

BCC is 15% Black and Blair is 24% Black. Nearly all of the Black students at BCC live in Silver Spring and would be assigned to Blair if they lived literally in the next apartment building over. So why is it that those Black kids at BCC are doing significantly better than kids one block away?

You want to trumpet Blair as a success because the White kids perform better on average than the White kids at Whitman, but why can’t they reach the Black kids? Why does a Black kid who lives across the street and goes to a different school that still has a good number of Black kids from the same neighborhood have substantially better educational outcomes?

I doubt that you can answer that, but the answer is obviously racism and that’s something that these Liberal white Takoma Park folks in their million dollar houses that think they’re so open minded sending their kids to public school need to come to terms with. Their school is privileging their kids and not teaching Black and Brown kids who are unlucky to live in the wrong block. That’s it.

To borrow a phrase, “The greatness of a [school] shall be judged by how it treats its weakest member” and by that metric Blair fails and fails quite horribly.

Did you take any data analysis class in school? Probably not.
Blair 2017 Black graduates score is 1032
BCC 2017 Black graduates score is 1113

Blair
# of Black graduates 200
# took the SAT 146---->73%

BCC
# of Black graduates 68
# took the SAT 36

Blair graduates who too the SAT is 4 times more than BCC graduates, while BCC score is only 81 points more.
Blacks at BCC are not doing better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I remember reading the post a while back that showed Blair's SAT average was 50 points higher for the largest common cohort to it and any W in order to isolate for demographic differences and gauge the school's actual value. Some people argued but the magnet responsible which was ridiculous because it's a small program in a large school that's also mostly Asian. These silly posts that are based on outdated notions from 30 years ago are mostly laughable.
I believe these were the SAT scores for the largest cohort common to each of these high-schools

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wootton 1262
Churchill 1257

The data was published by the county here.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2017/1771102HS%20Princ_SAT%20Partic_Perf%20Class%20of%202017.pdf

This makes a lot more sense than just dumping raw data.

The smartest white kids means it’s the best school? I cannot imagine anything more racist and classist than that, considering 90% of Blair kids are from rich liberal families in Takoma Park. I know a few of them myself.

Yup. To me, the best schools are the schools where Black and Hispanic students perform the best. So the top 4 are Poolesville, Whitman, Churchill and BCC. Black and Hispanic students at Blair perform worse than Northwest, Sherwood and Watkins Mill which says a lot about Blair. That’s a lot of inequality in one school and it’s hard to understand how white kids are getting taught so well while Black and Brown kids are not.

Yeah but they have to be a significant number/percentage to mean anything. The percentage of Black and Hispanic students at Whitman and Poolesville is less than 5%. Comparing the scores of 5 ~10 to 200 kids is comparing apples to oranges. That is why the comparison should be with the group that has a significant number/percentage of students on each school.
I mean when you have 5 African diplomatic kids at Whitman, do you think they live in poverty, don't get the support they need?

So please explain the difference between the performance of Black students at BCC vs Blair.

BCC is 15% Black and Blair is 24% Black. Nearly all of the Black students at BCC live in Silver Spring and would be assigned to Blair if they lived literally in the next apartment building over. So why is it that those Black kids at BCC are doing significantly better than kids one block away?

You want to trumpet Blair as a success because the White kids perform better on average than the White kids at Whitman, but why can’t they reach the Black kids? Why does a Black kid who lives across the street and goes to a different school that still has a good number of Black kids from the same neighborhood have substantially better educational outcomes?

I doubt that you can answer that, but the answer is obviously racism and that’s something that these Liberal white Takoma Park folks in their million dollar houses that think they’re so open minded sending their kids to public school need to come to terms with. Their school is privileging their kids and not teaching Black and Brown kids who are unlucky to live in the wrong block. That’s it.

To borrow a phrase, “The greatness of a [school] shall be judged by how it treats its weakest member” and by that metric Blair fails and fails quite horribly.

So let me get this right, according to you, the black kids at BCC are all poor and live in apartment buildings? They aren't the kids of lawyers, business people, and feds - many of the people who are relatively affluent who live in Silver Spring but still go to BCC (that really gets stuck in your craw, doesn't it?). The black kids at BCC - you're trying to tell me - are the same socio-economic background as the black kids who live on Maple Avenue and on the eastern side of University Blvd and in the apartment buildings on Piney Branch and Flower Avenue? Get the hell out with your nonsense racism. News Flash: Black kids can be the kids of the same types of successful professionals who are white and go to Rosemary Hills - BCC.

Imagine that just because the black kids at BCC are black, doesn't mean they are poor. And so, their parents have the time, resources, and perhaps education, to fully support their children's academics.

Not all of the kids at Blair who are black are poor - to the contrary. But the streets I flagged below include some economically disadvantaged neighborhoods where kids may not have the resources to do well academically - or may be working after school to help pay for family expenses. It's not an apple to apple comparison any more than comparing a wealthy white kid from Potomac is to comparing a white child who lives in a poorer neighborhood in the county.

Lastly, why are you so invested in tearing down Blair? It's crazy how many posters resent Blair's success. Get a grip.