GreatSchools rating

[Anonymous]

Sorry if this is a repost. I just found that GreatSchools changed their methodology and it seems like Northern Virginia schools got downgraded across the board. For examlple Oakton, Woodson, Madison and Robinson are all 6 now. I am puzzled at this. Was FCPS overrated or the new ratings are not accurate?

[Anonymous]

New ratings are inacurate.

It is based off achievement gap between esol and everyone else.

So even if 93% of your student body is scoring in the top 90-95% of the state, and your esol population of 7% is scoring above the state average, but say in the 70th percentile, it drops your entire school rating down significantly.

HOWEVER, if you have a school population that is mostly homogenous, all upper class with no measurable ESOL or at risk population, like Langley pyramid schools, you get full credit for no rating of at risk populations and the rating stays high.

So basically, the new scoring calculation significantly penalizes high performing schools with at risk/esol students of about 5-10% of the total school population because of the achievement gap, and rewards schools that have no measurable esol or at risk population because they have no achievement gap. The schools with a greater esol population seem to be ranking about the same as they always have.

It is a flawed methodology.

[Anonymous]

Seems like GSs wants to get paid to raise the scores. Can't get paid if there is nothing to raise. Now there is. I bet the richer neighborhood scores are first to go up. They didn't even lower the others much.

[Anonymous]

People have been wanting to get rid of the reliance on Greatschools for a long time, but house hunters find it invaluable (including us). The change in methodology may have finally succeeded in getting people to stop looking at it, at least locally.

[Anonymous]

"It is based off achievement gap between esol and everyone else.

So even if 93% of your student body is scoring in the top 90-95% of the state, and your esol population of 7% is scoring above the state average, but say in the 70th percentile, it drops your entire school rating down significantly.

HOWEVER, if you have a school population that is mostly homogenous, all upper class with no measurable ESOL or at risk population, like Langley pyramid schools, you get full credit for no rating of at risk populations and the rating stays high.

So basically, the new scoring calculation significantly penalizes high performing schools with at risk/esol students of about 5-10% of the total school population because of the achievement gap, and rewards schools that have no measurable esol or at risk population because they have no achievement gap. The schools with a greater esol population seem to be ranking about the same as they always have.

It is a flawed methodology."

+1
Our schools both dropped from 8s to 5 and 6 from one year to the next - same test scores for the bulk of the student body that's MC; but now the school is penalized for having a majority MC / slightly mixed SES student body effectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"It is based off achievement gap between esol and everyone else.

So even if 93% of your student body is scoring in the top 90-95% of the state, and your esol population of 7% is scoring above the state average, but say in the 70th percentile, it drops your entire school rating down significantly.

HOWEVER, if you have a school population that is mostly homogenous, all upper class with no measurable ESOL or at risk population, like Langley pyramid schools, you get full credit for no rating of at risk populations and the rating stays high.

So basically, the new scoring calculation significantly penalizes high performing schools with at risk/esol students of about 5-10% of the total school population because of the achievement gap, and rewards schools that have no measurable esol or at risk population because they have no achievement gap. The schools with a greater esol population seem to be ranking about the same as they always have.

It is a flawed methodology."

+1
Our schools both dropped from 8s to 5 and 6 from one year to the next - same test scores for the bulk of the student body that's MC; but now the school is penalized for having a majority MC / slightly mixed SES student body effectively.

This. Most of northern VA is upper middle class with pockets of very poor students. Those schools that have poor students will see their scores lowered a lot. Mine went from an 8 to a 5 in a year. Neighbors took much longer to sell their house last spring and the #1 thing people said was that the schools were why they couldn't put in an offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People have been wanting to get rid of the reliance on Greatschools for a long time, but house hunters find it invaluable (including us). The change in methodology may have finally succeeded in getting people to stop looking at it, at least locally.

Wrong conclusion. This is a transient area. This will push people further into more segregated areas. It’s will encourage communities to work harder to block low income housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have been wanting to get rid of the reliance on Greatschools for a long time, but house hunters find it invaluable (including us). The change in methodology may have finally succeeded in getting people to stop looking at it, at least locally.

Wrong conclusion. This is a transient area. This will push people further into more segregated areas. It’s will encourage communities to work harder to block low income housing.

All Fairfax high schools, all Arlington high schools were lowered, some more than others. (I think TC Williams was already pretty low, I don't think it's GS score changed much, and I don't really track Loudoun County, so I don't know if their scores moved.) Seriously -- Greatschools is irrelevant in DC and they're making themselves irrelevant in NoVa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It is based off achievement gap between esol and everyone else.

So even if 93% of your student body is scoring in the top 90-95% of the state, and your esol population of 7% is scoring above the state average, but say in the 70th percentile, it drops your entire school rating down significantly.

HOWEVER, if you have a school population that is mostly homogenous, all upper class with no measurable ESOL or at risk population, like Langley pyramid schools, you get full credit for no rating of at risk populations and the rating stays high.

So basically, the new scoring calculation significantly penalizes high performing schools with at risk/esol students of about 5-10% of the total school population because of the achievement gap, and rewards schools that have no measurable esol or at risk population because they have no achievement gap. The schools with a greater esol population seem to be ranking about the same as they always have.

It is a flawed methodology."

+1
Our schools both dropped from 8s to 5 and 6 from one year to the next - same test scores for the bulk of the student body that's MC; but now the school is penalized for having a majority MC / slightly mixed SES student body effectively.

This. Most of northern VA is upper middle class with pockets of very poor students. Those schools that have poor students will see their scores lowered a lot. Mine went from an 8 to a 5 in a year. Neighbors took much longer to sell their house last spring and the #1 thing people said was that the schools were why they couldn't put in an offer.

Yorktown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have been wanting to get rid of the reliance on Greatschools for a long time, but house hunters find it invaluable (including us). The change in methodology may have finally succeeded in getting people to stop looking at it, at least locally.

Wrong conclusion. This is a transient area. This will push people further into more segregated areas. It’s will encourage communities to work harder to block low income housing.

All Fairfax high schools, all Arlington high schools were lowered, some more than others. (I think TC Williams was already pretty low, I don't think it's GS score changed much, and I don't really track Loudoun County, so I don't know if their scores moved.) Seriously -- Greatschools is irrelevant in DC and they're making themselves irrelevant in NoVa.

I hope you are correct, but it just doesn’t follow national trends. I don’t think nova is an exception. In fact I think the type A, debate team, model UN, SGA officer, striver atmosphere in DC makes us much more susceptible to these patterns. Schools are more segregated than ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have been wanting to get rid of the reliance on Greatschools for a long time, but house hunters find it invaluable (including us). The change in methodology may have finally succeeded in getting people to stop looking at it, at least locally.

Wrong conclusion. This is a transient area. This will push people further into more segregated areas. It’s will encourage communities to work harder to block low income housing.

All Fairfax high schools, all Arlington high schools were lowered, some more than others. (I think TC Williams was already pretty low, I don't think it's GS score changed much, and I don't really track Loudoun County, so I don't know if their scores moved.) Seriously -- Greatschools is irrelevant in DC and they're making themselves irrelevant in NoVa.

I hope you are correct, but it just doesn’t follow national trends. I don’t think nova is an exception. In fact I think the type A, debate team, model UN, SGA officer, striver atmosphere in DC makes us much more susceptible to these patterns. Schools are more segregated than ever.

Neighborhoods are more segregated than ever too. I just spent Christmas in the midwest and was shocked at how integrated the malls, restaurants and neighborhoods were. I don't have one single black person in my FFX neighborhood. My company is 15% black, but none of those coworkers live in VA. My Indian coworkers all live in Ashburn, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is a flawed methodology.

Just using test scores that mostly reflect parental income and education is a good methodology?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is a flawed methodology.

Just using test scores that mostly reflect parental income and education is a good methodology?

Yes. And I think test scores are more a reflection of parental involvement, than income/education. Many lower income parents are very involved in their kid's educations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New ratings are inacurate.

It is based off achievement gap between esol and everyone else.
.

That is what they call equity rating, it is not the only rating they use.

https://www.greatschools.org/gk/ratings/

See for example Woodson. It gets an equity rating of 4, but an academic rating of 8, and a total rating of 6.

Basically by adding an equity rating, it is implicitly adjusting for the fact that Woodson gets great test scores only for certain populations.

It is correct that this does disfavor as much all high SES schools, though they may well also get high test scores only because of their demographic mix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New ratings are inacurate.

It is based off achievement gap between esol and everyone else.
.

That is what they call equity rating, it is not the only rating they use.

https://www.greatschools.org/gk/ratings/

See for example Woodson. It gets an equity rating of 4, but an academic rating of 8, and a total rating of 6.

Basically by adding an equity rating, it is implicitly adjusting for the fact that Woodson gets great test scores only for certain populations.

It is correct that this does disfavor as much all high SES schools, though they may well also get high test scores only because of their demographic mix.

It is actually counting the "equity" score twice, since the academic score also reflects the equity score. It's flawed.