Looking to move for a better public school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Olney/Brookeville.

Seconded.

Totally lacks diversity if you want you Hispanic children to grow up around all white people...who also btw, live in Olney to get away from Hispanic kids, much like yours.

The irony is that folks who move to get away from Brown folks are not going to take the time to figure out that OP is, as she believes, "one of the good ones." Racists be racist.

[Anonymous]

That would not be as easy to calculate as you think. Only 75% of the students at RM actually took the SAT. Only median numbers are reported for SAT scores among magnets, whereas the aggregate school data is reported as "average"--I could not find out whether this is median or mean. Very little data is given about the standard deviation or the distribution. You can create whatever array of possible scenarios that would fit these data.

Good data point - that 75% includes magnet kids. Assuming 100% magnet kids took the SAT, that means only about 50% of non magnet kids took the SAT, right?

[Anonymous]

As previously posted, there is a subset of the magnet (about 25%) that are RM neighborhood kids as well as being in the magnet. When you look at BCC scores do you try to skim off the IB kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That would not be as easy to calculate as you think. Only 75% of the students at RM actually took the SAT. Only median numbers are reported for SAT scores among magnets, whereas the aggregate school data is reported as "average"--I could not find out whether this is median or mean. Very little data is given about the standard deviation or the distribution. You can create whatever array of possible scenarios that would fit these data.

Good data point - that 75% includes magnet kids. Assuming 100% magnet kids took the SAT, that means only about 50% of non magnet kids took the SAT, right?

478 seniors. The 2016 class had 114 enrolled students, though perhaps some left the program. Lets round it to 110. Then we have

0.75 * 478 = 359 students took the SAT
110 magnet students took the exam
359 - 110 = 249 non-magnets took the exam
478 - 110 = 368 total non-magnets in the 2016 class
249 / 368 = 67.7% of non-magnet students took the exam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would not be as easy to calculate as you think. Only 75% of the students at RM actually took the SAT. Only median numbers are reported for SAT scores among magnets, whereas the aggregate school data is reported as "average"--I could not find out whether this is median or mean. Very little data is given about the standard deviation or the distribution. You can create whatever array of possible scenarios that would fit these data.

Good data point - that 75% includes magnet kids. Assuming 100% magnet kids took the SAT, that means only about 50% of non magnet kids took the SAT, right?

478 seniors. The 2016 class had 114 enrolled students, though perhaps some left the program. Lets round it to 110. Then we have

0.75 * 478 = 359 students took the SAT
110 magnet students took the exam
359 - 110 = 249 non-magnets took the exam
478 - 110 = 368 total non-magnets in the 2016 class
249 / 368 = 67.7% of non-magnet students took the exam.

Then if we add back in 25 students as local students in the magnet program, we find that

(249 + 25) / (368 / 25) = 69.7% of local students at RM took the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would not be as easy to calculate as you think. Only 75% of the students at RM actually took the SAT. Only median numbers are reported for SAT scores among magnets, whereas the aggregate school data is reported as "average"--I could not find out whether this is median or mean. Very little data is given about the standard deviation or the distribution. You can create whatever array of possible scenarios that would fit these data.

Good data point - that 75% includes magnet kids. Assuming 100% magnet kids took the SAT, that means only about 50% of non magnet kids took the SAT, right?

478 seniors. The 2016 class had 114 enrolled students, though perhaps some left the program. Lets round it to 110. Then we have

0.75 * 478 = 359 students took the SAT
110 magnet students took the exam
359 - 110 = 249 non-magnets took the exam
478 - 110 = 368 total non-magnets in the 2016 class
249 / 368 = 67.7% of non-magnet students took the exam.

Then if we add back in 25 students as local students in the magnet program, we find that

(249 + 25) / (368 / 25) = 69.7% of local students at RM took the SAT.

Accidentally wrote a / instead of a +:

(249 + 25) / (368 + 25) = 69.7%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would not be as easy to calculate as you think. Only 75% of the students at RM actually took the SAT. Only median numbers are reported for SAT scores among magnets, whereas the aggregate school data is reported as "average"--I could not find out whether this is median or mean. Very little data is given about the standard deviation or the distribution. You can create whatever array of possible scenarios that would fit these data.

Good data point - that 75% includes magnet kids. Assuming 100% magnet kids took the SAT, that means only about 50% of non magnet kids took the SAT, right?

478 seniors. The 2016 class had 114 enrolled students, though perhaps some left the program. Lets round it to 110. Then we have

0.75 * 478 = 359 students took the SAT
110 magnet students took the exam
359 - 110 = 249 non-magnets took the exam
478 - 110 = 368 total non-magnets in the 2016 class
249 / 368 = 67.7% of non-magnet students took the exam.

Your math is right. Can't argue with correct math. Don't know what I was thinking...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would not be as easy to calculate as you think. Only 75% of the students at RM actually took the SAT. Only median numbers are reported for SAT scores among magnets, whereas the aggregate school data is reported as "average"--I could not find out whether this is median or mean. Very little data is given about the standard deviation or the distribution. You can create whatever array of possible scenarios that would fit these data.

Good data point - that 75% includes magnet kids. Assuming 100% magnet kids took the SAT, that means only about 50% of non magnet kids took the SAT, right?

478 seniors. The 2016 class had 114 enrolled students, though perhaps some left the program. Lets round it to 110. Then we have

0.75 * 478 = 359 students took the SAT
110 magnet students took the exam
359 - 110 = 249 non-magnets took the exam
478 - 110 = 368 total non-magnets in the 2016 class
249 / 368 = 67.7% of non-magnet students took the exam.

Your math is right. Can't argue with correct math. Don't know what I was thinking...

I was a former magnet student--though it has been over 15 years. Also, I live in the RM district and plan to send my children to RM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would not be as easy to calculate as you think. Only 75% of the students at RM actually took the SAT. Only median numbers are reported for SAT scores among magnets, whereas the aggregate school data is reported as "average"--I could not find out whether this is median or mean. Very little data is given about the standard deviation or the distribution. You can create whatever array of possible scenarios that would fit these data.

Good data point - that 75% includes magnet kids. Assuming 100% magnet kids took the SAT, that means only about 50% of non magnet kids took the SAT, right?

478 seniors. The 2016 class had 114 enrolled students, though perhaps some left the program. Lets round it to 110. Then we have

0.75 * 478 = 359 students took the SAT
110 magnet students took the exam
359 - 110 = 249 non-magnets took the exam
478 - 110 = 368 total non-magnets in the 2016 class
249 / 368 = 67.7% of non-magnet students took the exam.

Your math is right. Can't argue with correct math. Don't know what I was thinking...

I was a former magnet student--though it has been over 15 years. Also, I live in the RM district and plan to send my children to RM.

I'm from a different state. We chose RM cluster over Churchill and Wootton. Many parents are happy to be in RM. That other PP who said RM was not good probably knows nothing about it other than the "I heard" comments, and the fact that RM has a larger % of FARMS and brown kids compared to the W schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would not be as easy to calculate as you think. Only 75% of the students at RM actually took the SAT. Only median numbers are reported for SAT scores among magnets, whereas the aggregate school data is reported as "average"--I could not find out whether this is median or mean. Very little data is given about the standard deviation or the distribution. You can create whatever array of possible scenarios that would fit these data.

Good data point - that 75% includes magnet kids. Assuming 100% magnet kids took the SAT, that means only about 50% of non magnet kids took the SAT, right?

478 seniors. The 2016 class had 114 enrolled students, though perhaps some left the program. Lets round it to 110. Then we have

0.75 * 478 = 359 students took the SAT
110 magnet students took the exam
359 - 110 = 249 non-magnets took the exam
478 - 110 = 368 total non-magnets in the 2016 class
249 / 368 = 67.7% of non-magnet students took the exam.

Your math is right. Can't argue with correct math. Don't know what I was thinking...

I was a former magnet student--though it has been over 15 years. Also, I live in the RM district and plan to send my children to RM.

I'm from a different state. We chose RM cluster over Churchill and Wootton. Many parents are happy to be in RM. That other PP who said RM was not good probably knows nothing about it other than the "I heard" comments, and the fact that RM has a larger % of FARMS and brown kids compared to the W schools.

Exactly. We paid Wootton-district pricing for our house in RM (yes, a bigger house than we would have gotten in Woottoon district) because we prefer RM over Wootton. It's much more valuable to really appreciate and experience true and representative SES and racial diversity than to pretend you are getting a better education while really just getting a paper-only benefit from being around helicopter parents.

[Anonymous]

Wow... Defensive parents. Reminds me of DCUM Einstein parents...

OP - you have enough here to do your own research about RM. I don't think it's what you are looking for but maybe it is. Apparently, it's good enough for many families as you can see here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow... Defensive parents. Reminds me of DCUM Einstein parents...

OP - you have enough here to do your own research about RM. I don't think it's what you are looking for but maybe it is. Apparently, it's good enough for many families as you can see here.

I am not sure why you would think that:

So what are "good" not too crowded, diverse areas that won't see significant change over the next 5 years? Tall order I know..

RM is certainly diverse and won't see significant change in the next 5 years. We gave plenty of evidence that it is "good." I am not sure what others consider good, but diversity is certainly there. Wootton may be on paper better, but it isn't diverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow... Defensive parents. Reminds me of DCUM Einstein parents...

OP - you have enough here to do your own research about RM. I don't think it's what you are looking for but maybe it is. Apparently, it's good enough for many families as you can see here.

I am not sure why you would think that:

So what are "good" not too crowded, diverse areas that won't see significant change over the next 5 years? Tall order I know..

RM is certainly diverse and won't see significant change in the next 5 years. We gave plenty of evidence that it is "good." I am not sure what others consider good, but diversity is certainly there. Wootton may be on paper better, but it isn't diverse.

I'd take RM over Wootton any day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow... Defensive parents. Reminds me of DCUM Einstein parents...

OP - you have enough here to do your own research about RM. I don't think it's what you are looking for but maybe it is. Apparently, it's good enough for many families as you can see here.

I am not sure why you would think that:

So what are "good" not too crowded, diverse areas that won't see significant change over the next 5 years? Tall order I know..

RM is certainly diverse and won't see significant change in the next 5 years. We gave plenty of evidence that it is "good." I am not sure what others consider good, but diversity is certainly there. Wootton may be on paper better, but it isn't diverse.

I'd take RM over Wootton any day.

sure you would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow... Defensive parents. Reminds me of DCUM Einstein parents...

OP - you have enough here to do your own research about RM. I don't think it's what you are looking for but maybe it is. Apparently, it's good enough for many families as you can see here.

I am not sure why you would think that:

So what are "good" not too crowded, diverse areas that won't see significant change over the next 5 years? Tall order I know..

RM is certainly diverse and won't see significant change in the next 5 years. We gave plenty of evidence that it is "good." I am not sure what others consider good, but diversity is certainly there. Wootton may be on paper better, but it isn't diverse.

I'd take RM over Wootton any day.

sure you would.

I definitely would. Why would you question me on this? My child isn't cut out for Wootton. She is a bit slower than average and there is no way I want her in that pressure cooker. As we can't afford either RM or Wootton areas - it doesn't really matter though.