Why people care about redistricting SAT scores

[Anonymous]

Since SATs are still required for colleges SAT scores matter

The lower FARMS rate the higher SAT score

This is the number one reason why people choose to stay away from high FARMS/Poverty/Black and Brown schools period. It's not racism it's about caring about the future or your children which is highly driven by the type of college you can attend which is you guessed it largely based on SAT scores.

https://graphics.wsj.com/dynamic-inset-iframer/?url=https://asset.wsj.net/wsjnewsgraphics/dice/ADVERSITY-e4e29395-d059-499c-aa63-6f10f4132367/inset.json&layout=bleed

[Anonymous]

Give it a rest, OP.

When your kid applies to college, they use their own, individual SAT score. They don't apply to college with their high school's average SAT score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Give it a rest, OP.

When your kid applies to college, they use their own, individual SAT score. They don't apply to college with their high school's average SAT score.

Ok really slowly so you can understand

Would you rather have your kid grow up and be around kids who score 900 on SATs or 1400 on SATs get it

It's about the environment, you want an environment with a higher performing cohort

[Anonymous]

Your scores don't magically get worse just because you are around poorer kids, just as people say that poor kids scores don't get better just because they are around rich kids.

You are not looking at it correctly. Your chance of getting into a good college with a high SAT score is better from a not so great school than a like a W school. Big fish in little pond vs small fish in big pond, more so if you are Asian.

Also, more and more colleges seem to be moving away from SATs.

But having a decent size peer group is important.

-signed an Asian American

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give it a rest, OP.

When your kid applies to college, they use their own, individual SAT score. They don't apply to college with their high school's average SAT score.

Ok really slowly so you can understand

Would you rather have your kid grow up and be around kids who score 900 on SATs or 1400 on SATs get it

It's about the environment, you want an environment with a higher performing cohort

Why do I want this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give it a rest, OP.

When your kid applies to college, they use their own, individual SAT score. They don't apply to college with their high school's average SAT score.

Ok really slowly so you can understand

Would you rather have your kid grow up and be around kids who score 900 on SATs or 1400 on SATs get it

It's about the environment, you want an environment with a higher performing cohort

Why do I want this?

because you give a f about your child and want them to be challenged/successful

I mean really lol

[Anonymous]

You misinterpret the data about SAT scores. SAT scores are not reflective of quality of school teaching, nor are they linked to community or school average income level (as reflected by FARMS rate).

SAT scores *are* highly correlated to the family income of the student. The wealthier your family, the more likely you are to do well on the SAT. This is because wealthy families generally access private tutoring for SAT/ACT and class support. Particularly in HS, many students are getting tutors to make up for poor classroom teaching. Wealthy families also access more enrichment activities, etc., for their kids.

[Anonymous]

I don't think this is all that meaningful. When I realize scores for typically non-FARMS cohorts at schools like Blair are 70 points higher than any W this non-sense kind of falls apart.

[Anonymous]

SAT scores are determined by parent education levels and family income. Not class size, not curriculum, not even IQ/ A kid that is hungry, does not have a stable living arrangement, etc is just not going to do as well as another kid in the exact same class with the same intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You misinterpret the data about SAT scores. SAT scores are not reflective of quality of school teaching, nor are they linked to community or school average income level (as reflected by FARMS rate).

SAT scores *are* highly correlated to the family income of the student. The wealthier your family, the more likely you are to do well on the SAT. This is because wealthy families generally access private tutoring for SAT/ACT and class support. Particularly in HS, many students are getting tutors to make up for poor classroom teaching. Wealthy families also access more enrichment activities, etc., for their kids.

They're much more highly correlated to the educational attainment of the parents. When this is added into the mix, SES influence drops almost to zero. I'd bet if you were able to add parental IQ, educational attainment would in turn become much less relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this is all that meaningful. When I realize scores for typically non-FARMS cohorts at schools like Blair are 70 points higher than any W this non-sense kind of falls apart.

The county had Blair's SAT average for the largest common cohort at 1326 whereas the highest W was 1270 or so. Someone complained that it was the 30 magnet students in that cohort skewing the results but but when they removed those scores the average SAT score was still 1290 something. Perhaps, someday these parents will realize diversity is not a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this is all that meaningful. When I realize scores for typically non-FARMS cohorts at schools like Blair are 70 points higher than any W this non-sense kind of falls apart.

The county had Blair's SAT average for the largest common cohort at 1326 whereas the highest W was 1270 or so. Someone complained that it was the 30 magnet students in that cohort skewing the results but but when they removed those scores the average SAT score was still 1290 something. Perhaps, someday these parents will realize diversity is not a problem.

you won't convince W parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this is all that meaningful. When I realize scores for typically non-FARMS cohorts at schools like Blair are 70 points higher than any W this non-sense kind of falls apart.

The county had Blair's SAT average for the largest common cohort at 1326 whereas the highest W was 1270 or so. Someone complained that it was the 30 magnet students in that cohort skewing the results but but when they removed those scores the average SAT score was still 1290 something. Perhaps, someday these parents will realize diversity is not a problem.

you won't convince W parents

yeah for the last time it's SES and really FARMS/at-risk that is the issue. It's highly correlated to race in this area since there are so few poor whites and there are large amounts of poorer blacks and hispanics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You misinterpret the data about SAT scores. SAT scores are not reflective of quality of school teaching, nor are they linked to community or school average income level (as reflected by FARMS rate).

SAT scores *are* highly correlated to the family income of the student. The wealthier your family, the more likely you are to do well on the SAT. This is because wealthy families generally access private tutoring for SAT/ACT and class support. Particularly in HS, many students are getting tutors to make up for poor classroom teaching. Wealthy families also access more enrichment activities, etc., for their kids.

They're much more highly correlated to the educational attainment of the parents. When this is added into the mix, SES influence drops almost to zero. I'd bet if you were able to add parental IQ, educational attainment would in turn become much less relevant.

OP I agree that there is at least a grain in truth in this. Then why are we trying to move kids around again if the actual impact is almost entirely related to the parents and not the school again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You misinterpret the data about SAT scores. SAT scores are not reflective of quality of school teaching, nor are they linked to community or school average income level (as reflected by FARMS rate).

SAT scores *are* highly correlated to the family income of the student. The wealthier your family, the more likely you are to do well on the SAT. This is because wealthy families generally access private tutoring for SAT/ACT and class support. Particularly in HS, many students are getting tutors to make up for poor classroom teaching. Wealthy families also access more enrichment activities, etc., for their kids.

They're much more highly correlated to the educational attainment of the parents. When this is added into the mix, SES influence drops almost to zero. I'd bet if you were able to add parental IQ, educational attainment would in turn become much less relevant.

OP I agree that there is at least a grain in truth in this. Then why are we trying to move kids around again if the actual impact is almost entirely related to the parents and not the school again.

1. because it's not just about SAT scores
2. because schools are overcrowded and boundaries need to be redrawn
3. because schools with high FARMS rate have issues that are difficult to address with limited resources
4. because kids of all backgrounds benefit from being exposed to diversity