GreatSchools makes segregation easy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I like schools where the parentS are not illiterate, uneducated and unskilled. I value reading, teaching, education, working hard, and building skills. What GreatSchool should I live by?

Well, that's a tough one. If you want a school attended by students whose parents aren't illiterate and unskilled, then you should move to an area where everybody is rich. (If you can afford it.) That's no guarantee that the teachers or administrators at that school will be good, though -- so that doesn't solve your "I value teaching and education" part. For that part, you should look at staff turnover and at schools where disadvantaged kids do better than the norm. But this in turn creates its own problems, because usually schools where disadvantaged kids do better than the norm aren't in areas where everybody is rich. And then there are the questions of valuing reading (being able to read is no guarantee of valuing reading), valuing working hard (here I think you'll do best at schools with lots of students whose parents are poor immigrants), and valuing building skills (MCPS only has one vocational high school, unfortunately, but a lot of high schools (for example, Gaithersburg HS) do have skill-based programs). As I said, a tough one!

Pls quantify this? The kids are better behaved, speaking and listening to classmates, pushing for good effort on projects and tests? What norm are you talking about?

Half the immigrant kids at our school are single mothers living with cousins. I just hope they don't get pregnant or drop out before graduating. data isn't pretty here.

Sorry, I guess I should have asked you to clarify WHOSE hard work you valued. The students' (and if so, in class, out of class, or both)? The parents'? The teachers'?

No, actually I defined it for you: The kids are better behaved, speaking and listening to classmates, pushing for good effort on projects and tests.

So please quantify what you mean by schools where disadvantaged kids doing better than some mysterious "norm." And why such a school is the best for my children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, actually I defined it for you: The kids are better behaved, speaking and listening to classmates, pushing for good effort on projects and tests.

So please quantify what you mean by schools where disadvantaged kids doing better than some mysterious "norm." And why such a school is the best for my children.

It's not a mysterious norm. Or, anyway, it's not mysterious. Look at the overall scores for disadvantaged kids -- overall in MCPS or overall in Maryland, or both. Then look at the scores for disadvantaged kids in the particular school. If the scores for the disadvantaged kids in the particular school are better than the overall-MCPS or overall-Maryland scores, then there's a good chance that it's due to good teachers. And it's good teachers you're looking for, right?

In contrast, high-SES kids in wealthy areas will do well on standardized tests even if taught by incompetent fools. So the scores for such kids are not a good indicator of good teaching.

[Anonymous]

Ah yes, the magic solution to getting Common Core federal funds each year: Bring up the low hanging fruits' tests scores!

The rest can just marinate for 13 years and the parents can supplement, donate and, of course, pay their ever increasing property taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ah yes, the magic solution to getting Common Core federal funds each year: Bring up the low hanging fruits' tests scores!

The rest can just marinate for 13 years and the parents can supplement, donate and, of course, pay their ever increasing property taxes.

What, specifically, are "Common Core federal funds"? What Department of Education program are they allocated through? What federal law provides for the funds?

[Anonymous]

It's not a mysterious norm. Or, anyway, it's not mysterious. Look at the overall scores for disadvantaged kids -- overall in MCPS or overall in Maryland, or both. Then look at the scores for disadvantaged kids in the particular school. If the scores for the disadvantaged kids in the particular school are better than the overall-MCPS or overall-Maryland scores, then there's a good chance that it's due to good teachers. And it's good teachers you're looking for, right?

In contrast, high-SES kids in wealthy areas will do well on standardized tests even if taught by incompetent fools. So the scores for such kids are not a good indicator of good teaching.

I'm not the PP you are responding to above but I don't think this is a very logical approach. If disadvantaged kids are doing better at one school than another one, it means that if you have a disadvantaged child then they will do better there. It doesn't mean than an advantaged child will do better there. It doesn't mean that the teacher is able to teach two different levels simultaneously. It could mean that the teachers are spending the majority of time bringing the disadvantaged kids up and very little time challenging the students who are already at the level. If your child is not disadvantaged then you want to search for a school where kids that are no disadvantaged are doing the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not the PP you are responding to above but I don't think this is a very logical approach. If disadvantaged kids are doing better at one school than another one, it means that if you have a disadvantaged child then they will do better there. It doesn't mean than an advantaged child will do better there. It doesn't mean that the teacher is able to teach two different levels simultaneously. It could mean that the teachers are spending the majority of time bringing the disadvantaged kids up and very little time challenging the students who are already at the level. If your child is not disadvantaged then you want to search for a school where kids that are no disadvantaged are doing the best.

No, remember, PP is looking for the good teachers. Not the good test scores.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand people here, always whining about racism and the achievement gap.

I am 100% sure that none of you would hesitate at sending your kids to a top school... that was full of non-white children.

Because everyone DOES want the school with the best test scores. Regardless of skin color. No one is racist.

However don't start blaming and accusing when the reverse also holds true: why would any of you send your kids to lower-performing schools? Race doesn't matter, right? It's only quality learning that counts?

Personally, we had to factor in an additional criteria - special needs. We moved to the school that had the best reputation for catering to its special needs population. It's majority white, then has some asian, and very few Hispanics or blacks. I DO NOT CARE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now it used to be that if you asked around to find out which schools were the whitest, you would get some nasty accusations of racism. Not anymore! Check out GreatSchools, where ratings are nearly 100% correlated with race. The higher the number, the more white kids. The lower the number, the more black and Hispanic kids. It's that easy! And you can still tell your friends "We don't care what color the kids are. We just want the best schools." Everybody wins!


(Yes, of course I'm sarcastic. Not everybody wins. In fact, nearly all neighborhoods lose with such a targeted tool for white-flight. In the meantime, nobody learns anything about each school's principal, class size, facilities, discipline policy, philosophy, class offerings, etc. Just test scores. They're all that matters now. Am I bitter? You bet. People will say I'm just mad my school's rating dropped. Yes I am. This goddamn GreatSchools formula turns the fantastic kids at my local school into a liability -- little anchors weighing down property values. This is wrong.)

You answered your own question.

No one defines "a very good school" by Test Scores alone. So no one pays attention to GreatSchool since it is myopic.

Take a tour of your school, ESPECIALLY if it's an elementary school. Totally different from pre-2013. Hope you like the class schedule. Hope you like the constant MAP tests. Hope you like your teachers and schools tied to the pacing of the slowest of the 60+ ESs. Hope you like Chromebooks "teaching" your 1st grader. Hope you don't mind your kid never learns to write on paper, only keyboarding. Hope you like 1 PE class a week, no fulltime art teacher, no languages, no library books (all on chromebook, yay!).

yeah, a really great school. It's only "great" if you show up not knowing english. THen you get free dental, healthcare, backpacks, meals, counseling, tutoring and babysitting before/after school. Now that's a GREAT escuela. Keep em coming MoCo!

We are at a Focus School that you would probably disdain and I have NO IDEA what you are talking about here. My kids write on paper (and do keyboarding), there is a well-stocked school library with plenty of high level books for my strong readers, 1.5 fulltime art teachers, and aftercare isn't free for anyone, including low income families.

+1 My child is at a Title 1 school.

[Anonymous]

Is there a correlation between the percentage of white students and the test scores of the school or not? If yes, GS only presents the fact. numbers don't lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal and I don't think this is a race/racist issue at all. Parents who want top schools, want top schools. They really don't care if the other children are green as long as they are highly intelligent and academically motivated. They want their children to compete and be influenced by peers who push them forward. From PEW studies the highest scoring races are africans, asians, south asians and then whites followed by african americans and hispanics. I don't think white racists would be too pleased with their kids peers on the spelling bee being black, yellow and brown. Not to mention all of our african, asian and south asian friends prioritized high ranking schools in deciding where to live.

While we may not like the scores, they are reality. It s not accurate to say that scores don't mean anything. Its a measurement and it shows you the general academic capabilities of the class. If your school is a 4 then yes there is a large population of underperforming students in your school.

Here's the problem - there are downsides to being in a public school with a large population of underperforming students. More resources are spent toward getting a larger group of students up to basic levels instead of giving higher performing students more challenging activities. In a high performing school, there can be 2-3 compacted math classes and only one regular math class. In a lower performing school, there may be no compacted math class available for a capable students because there are not enough other students to fill a class. Higher performing students do their homework, answer questions in class, come prepared and aren't disruptive. Many parents believe that having peers with these traits is better for their kids.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal and I don't think this is a race/racist issue at all. Parents who want top schools, want top schools. They really don't care if the other children are green as long as they are highly intelligent and academically motivated. They want their children to compete and be influenced by peers who push them forward. From PEW studies the highest scoring races are africans, asians, south asians and then whites followed by african americans and hispanics. I don't think white racists would be too pleased with their kids peers on the spelling bee being black, yellow and brown. Not to mention all of our african, asian and south asian friends prioritized high ranking schools in deciding where to live.

While we may not like the scores, they are reality. It s not accurate to say that scores don't mean anything. Its a measurement and it shows you the general academic capabilities of the class. If your school is a 4 then yes there is a large population of underperforming students in your school.

Here's the problem - there are downsides to being in a public school with a large population of underperforming students. More resources are spent toward getting a larger group of students up to basic levels instead of giving higher performing students more challenging activities. In a high performing school, there can be 2-3 compacted math classes and only one regular math class. In a lower performing school, there may be no compacted math class available for a capable students because there are not enough other students to fill a class. Higher performing students do their homework, answer questions in class, come prepared and aren't disruptive. Many parents believe that having peers with these traits is better for their kids.

You can argue that, but until we have a test case of a school that is both higher performing AND has more black and Hispanic kids than its neighbor schools, I can argue that this is absolutely about race. Otherwise this is all hypothetical and white kids just *happen* to be the significant majority in every school you think is okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a correlation between the percentage of white students and the test scores of the school or not? If yes, GS only presents the fact. numbers don't lie.

I don't think schools in WV, mostly poor white areas are rated high. It really is about SES rather than race.

https://www.greatschools.org/west-virginia/lewisburg/175-Greenbrier-East-High-School/

Interesting tidbit: the school has a tiny % of Asians, and there test scores are an 8 compared to 5 for whites and 1 for Blacks. I diidn't look up the SES factor of the tiny Asian student population though.

[Anonymous]

sorry.. *their* not "there" test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a correlation between the percentage of white students and the test scores of the school or not? If yes, GS only presents the fact. numbers don't lie.

Numbers don't lie, but it sure is possible to lie with numbers.

-somebody who works with numbers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah yes, the magic solution to getting Common Core federal funds each year: Bring up the low hanging fruits' tests scores!

The rest can just marinate for 13 years and the parents can supplement, donate and, of course, pay their ever increasing property taxes.

What, specifically, are "Common Core federal funds"? What Department of Education program are they allocated through? What federal law provides for the funds?

Don't be purposely obtuse. That was "Race to the Top" grants under Arne Duncan.