New GS rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wonder why some schools get GS score 9 or 10? check out their SATs

https://www.greatschools.org/california/fremont/94-Mission-San-Jose-High-School/
89% asian, 2023 average SAT

https://www.greatschools.org/california/san-marino/2917-San-Marino-High-School/
59% asian, 1871 average SAT

Fairfax is in Virginia, not California.

And it doesn't seem like the new scores are based on SATs. The new ones just compare how poor or minority students do to the rest of gen pop in a school.

They are also factoring things like SAT scores into the GS score, per their explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wonder why some schools get GS score 9 or 10? check out their SATs

https://www.greatschools.org/california/fremont/94-Mission-San-Jose-High-School/
89% asian, 2023 average SAT

https://www.greatschools.org/california/san-marino/2917-San-Marino-High-School/
59% asian, 1871 average SAT

Fairfax is in Virginia, not California.

And it doesn't seem like the new scores are based on SATs. The new ones just compare how poor or minority students do to the rest of gen pop in a school.

They are also factoring things like SAT scores into the GS score, per their explanation.

My schools SAT score is relatively the same as previous years, but we dropped in the rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have now spent a couple hours plotting GS data points on a graph. According to what I have so far:

1-there is a direct inverse relationship between the GS score and the percentage of black and hispanic students at the school.
2-there is a direct correlation between the percentage of white and asian students (added together) and the GS score.
3-there is a direct inverse relationship between a school's diversity and the GS score - in other words, schools with a student body that has large numbers of every racial group, as opposed to being dominated by just a few, are actually penalized in the GS scoring system.
4-having a less diverse body raises the GS score. This seems to be true even if the school is 80% of a traditionally lower-performing minority, as it is the diversity itself that lowers the school's score (since the school is penalized for having gaps between races).

I don't have every school in Fairfax County on there, of course, but I have quite a few and it seems high GS scores indicate not only lack of low-income students, but also ensure lack of racial diversity. Barring AAP centers, which are artificially balanced, no school with a 9 has any significant percentage of black or hispanic students.

I think what they are doing is comparing minorities scores to average scores of the entire population vs. minority scores vs. state average scores of minorities in the state. In other words, comparing the hispanics to the total population (which is mostly white/asian/mixed) vs. Hispanics here vs Hispanics of the state. (this is example terminology only, please don't get offended.)

The problem with this is that there is CLEARLY a bias because Hispanics in Burke schools are doing better than the state average of Hispanics, but this is compared to a generic average and not weighted appropriately for the fact that they are doing better than the state average for the race in question. For example, Fairview, which has 10% hispanic, has a 95% proficiency in math, which is well above the 72% proficiency, should have a higher score but its not because of the bias above.

I would get into it with more detail and would love access to the PP's graphs, so we can email the following companies: Redfin, Zillow, basically any real estate APP to voice our concerns. This is racial profiling of schools. The Fair Housing act of 1968 comes to mind here.

Start emailing your mom friends and emailing Justin Fairfax. We have some work to do.

And while you're rallying the troops to stop a biased scoring system, perhaps you should also report to the NAACP and LULAC and whoever else you can think of that APS is not only resegregating its schools, but it is also creating boundaries that leave the wealthiest and least densely populated area schools under capacity (permanently), and the area schools nearest to where all the multifamily housing is built, including committed affordable housing, will be permanently over capacity. Inequity all around. A rigged scoring system that will likely reward such practices while not improving things for the students who have the fewest choices or advantages is just the icing on this racist cake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wonder why some schools get GS score 9 or 10? check out their SATs

https://www.greatschools.org/california/fremont/94-Mission-San-Jose-High-School/
89% asian, 2023 average SAT

https://www.greatschools.org/california/san-marino/2917-San-Marino-High-School/
59% asian, 1871 average SAT

Here is 9 for you https://www.greatschools.org/california/los-angeles/12537-Middle-College-High-School/
<1% Asian, 1308 average SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't it be about real estate values? That was the only thing GS was used for. As it basically measured test scores (and SES status), it was the metric that homebuyers found useful in evaluating school quality. Now that it is pushing measures of diversity and gaps between groups, it will be worthless in its prior use. Just another business to sacrifice its product to the political whims. It will fade into complete obscurity.

This is the right answer. GS has become garbage and will be ignored. My neighborhood school dropped several places, and it is surrounded by multi-million dollar homes owned by surgeons, lawyers, and CEOs. I'm not buying the idea that the bottom fell out overnight.

[Anonymous]

In sum, GS noticed its traffic falling off, so it decided to shake things up dramatically to drive people to the site.

[Anonymous]

Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

Go over to the real estate forum and tell me they're not already and haven't been doing that since forever. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not new and nobody cares. In fact, the people who draw the boundaries and make the decisions prefer it this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

Go over to the real estate forum and tell me they're not already and haven't been doing that since forever. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not new and nobody cares. In fact, the people who draw the boundaries and make the decisions prefer it this way.

But what is super interesting is that it isn't necessarily even explaining school quality demographically in a clear way.

Take Laurel Ridge Elementary in FCPS. It's now a 6 on great schools. But if you look at the non-free and reduced lunch performance, the school is a 9. https://www.greatschools.org/virginia/fairfax/531-Laurel-Ridge-Elementary-School/#Race_ethnicity*Discipline_and_attendance

What this says is that poor children struggle more on testing. And water is wet.

But what the rating system does is reward schools without poor children because it doesn't count populations of less than five percent. So, look at Navy Elementary (where FARMS is 4.5 percent). It's an 8. https://www.greatschools.org/virginia/fairfax/550-Navy-Elementary-School/#Low-income_students*Test_scores*Overview

It's main ding was that Hispanic students were over 5 percent of the population. So, they counted. Otherwise, the school would have been a 9.

It's messy data modeling at its best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

Go over to the real estate forum and tell me they're not already and haven't been doing that since forever. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not new and nobody cares. In fact, the people who draw the boundaries and make the decisions prefer it this way.

But what is super interesting is that it isn't necessarily even explaining school quality demographically in a clear way.

Take Laurel Ridge Elementary in FCPS. It's now a 6 on great schools. But if you look at the non-free and reduced lunch performance, the school is a 9. https://www.greatschools.org/virginia/fairfax/531-Laurel-Ridge-Elementary-School/#Race_ethnicity*Discipline_and_attendance

What this says is that poor children struggle more on testing. And water is wet.

But what the rating system does is reward schools without poor children because it doesn't count populations of less than five percent. So, look at Navy Elementary (where FARMS is 4.5 percent). It's an 8. https://www.greatschools.org/virginia/fairfax/550-Navy-Elementary-School/#Low-income_students*Test_scores*Overview

It's main ding was that Hispanic students were over 5 percent of the population. So, they counted. Otherwise, the school would have been a 9.

It's messy data modeling at its best.

I don't disagree, but this is just the latest way for people to be terrible and to segregate. And if you live in APS, like I do, it's being codified into every boundary decision. They are literally drawing the lines so that some schools will have NO disadvantaged students, those schools will be permanently under capacity, and the school cultures are such that SWD are fleeing to the less desirable schools where they won't be bullied or made to feel ashamed of their existence (or worse, they are being counselled to leave their own schools to find the resources they need to have an equitable education). So we're going to wind up with some schools that have all the ED/SWD/and racial/ethnic minorities and others that have NONE. And homeowners in the districts with NONE of all those type of students are overjoyed and prefer that potential homebuyers can more easily find the "best" schools. In summary, people are terrible, and get rewarded for being terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

Go over to the real estate forum and tell me they're not already and haven't been doing that since forever. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not new and nobody cares. In fact, the people who draw the boundaries and make the decisions prefer it this way.

But what is super interesting is that it isn't necessarily even explaining school quality demographically in a clear way.

Take Laurel Ridge Elementary in FCPS. It's now a 6 on great schools. But if you look at the non-free and reduced lunch performance, the school is a 9. https://www.greatschools.org/virginia/fairfax/531-Laurel-Ridge-Elementary-School/#Race_ethnicity*Discipline_and_attendance

What this says is that poor children struggle more on testing. And water is wet.

But what the rating system does is reward schools without poor children because it doesn't count populations of less than five percent. So, look at Navy Elementary (where FARMS is 4.5 percent). It's an 8. https://www.greatschools.org/virginia/fairfax/550-Navy-Elementary-School/#Low-income_students*Test_scores*Overview

It's main ding was that Hispanic students were over 5 percent of the population. So, they counted. Otherwise, the school would have been a 9.

It's messy data modeling at its best.

I don't disagree, but this is just the latest way for people to be terrible and to segregate. And if you live in APS, like I do, it's being codified into every boundary decision. They are literally drawing the lines so that some schools will have NO disadvantaged students, those schools will be permanently under capacity, and the school cultures are such that SWD are fleeing to the less desirable schools where they won't be bullied or made to feel ashamed of their existence (or worse, they are being counselled to leave their own schools to find the resources they need to have an equitable education). So we're going to wind up with some schools that have all the ED/SWD/and racial/ethnic minorities and others that have NONE. And homeowners in the districts with NONE of all those type of students are overjoyed and prefer that potential homebuyers can more easily find the "best" schools. In summary, people are terrible, and get rewarded for being terrible.

Absolutely. But Greatschools is not a person. It's a nonprofit. And there are laws that govern what it can and cannot do. I hope that it can be proven that is in violation of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially, the new great schools rankings are out and out tools that can be used to violate the fair housing act. It's essentially a way for realtors to identify schools with small black populations, it seems.

Crazy town.

Go over to the real estate forum and tell me they're not already and haven't been doing that since forever. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not new and nobody cares. In fact, the people who draw the boundaries and make the decisions prefer it this way.

But what is super interesting is that it isn't necessarily even explaining school quality demographically in a clear way.

Take Laurel Ridge Elementary in FCPS. It's now a 6 on great schools. But if you look at the non-free and reduced lunch performance, the school is a 9. https://www.greatschools.org/virginia/fairfax/531-Laurel-Ridge-Elementary-School/#Race_ethnicity*Discipline_and_attendance

What this says is that poor children struggle more on testing. And water is wet.

But what the rating system does is reward schools without poor children because it doesn't count populations of less than five percent. So, look at Navy Elementary (where FARMS is 4.5 percent). It's an 8. https://www.greatschools.org/virginia/fairfax/550-Navy-Elementary-School/#Low-income_students*Test_scores*Overview

It's main ding was that Hispanic students were over 5 percent of the population. So, they counted. Otherwise, the school would have been a 9.

It's messy data modeling at its best.

I don't disagree, but this is just the latest way for people to be terrible and to segregate. And if you live in APS, like I do, it's being codified into every boundary decision. They are literally drawing the lines so that some schools will have NO disadvantaged students, those schools will be permanently under capacity, and the school cultures are such that SWD are fleeing to the less desirable schools where they won't be bullied or made to feel ashamed of their existence (or worse, they are being counselled to leave their own schools to find the resources they need to have an equitable education). So we're going to wind up with some schools that have all the ED/SWD/and racial/ethnic minorities and others that have NONE. And homeowners in the districts with NONE of all those type of students are overjoyed and prefer that potential homebuyers can more easily find the "best" schools. In summary, people are terrible, and get rewarded for being terrible.

Absolutely. But Greatschools is not a person. It's a nonprofit. And there are laws that govern what it can and cannot do. I hope that it can be proven that is in violation of them.

And there are laws that govern what staff and school board members do, and yet. Maybe we need more threats of law suits.

[Anonymous]

I guess I just don't understand why Great Schools is emphasizing race so much. Why does it matter if Asian kids are doing better than black kids in a school? I care more about the overall average performance. I also don't care about the poverty levels at all. Either kids are testing well or not.

It's also extremely not fair if you're school is a center that brings in SN kids/ESOL from surrounding schools. You're basically getting punished with having a lower score for helping these kids when it's probably in these kid's best interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have now spent a couple hours plotting GS data points on a graph. According to what I have so far:

1-there is a direct inverse relationship between the GS score and the percentage of black and hispanic students at the school.
2-there is a direct correlation between the percentage of white and asian students (added together) and the GS score.
3-there is a direct inverse relationship between a school's diversity and the GS score - in other words, schools with a student body that has large numbers of every racial group, as opposed to being dominated by just a few, are actually penalized in the GS scoring system.
4-having a less diverse body raises the GS score. This seems to be true even if the school is 80% of a traditionally lower-performing minority, as it is the diversity itself that lowers the school's score (since the school is penalized for having gaps between races).

I don't have every school in Fairfax County on there, of course, but I have quite a few and it seems high GS scores indicate not only lack of low-income students, but also ensure lack of racial diversity. Barring AAP centers, which are artificially balanced, no school with a 9 has any significant percentage of black or hispanic students.

Sherlock, did it ever enter into your mind that these schools are in fact better? And that schools with larger number of blacks are not as high performing?

Have you ever stopped to think it may be socioeconomic status and not race that is the determining factor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have now spent a couple hours plotting GS data points on a graph. According to what I have so far:

1-there is a direct inverse relationship between the GS score and the percentage of black and hispanic students at the school.
2-there is a direct correlation between the percentage of white and asian students (added together) and the GS score.
3-there is a direct inverse relationship between a school's diversity and the GS score - in other words, schools with a student body that has large numbers of every racial group, as opposed to being dominated by just a few, are actually penalized in the GS scoring system.
4-having a less diverse body raises the GS score. This seems to be true even if the school is 80% of a traditionally lower-performing minority, as it is the diversity itself that lowers the school's score (since the school is penalized for having gaps between races).

I don't have every school in Fairfax County on there, of course, but I have quite a few and it seems high GS scores indicate not only lack of low-income students, but also ensure lack of racial diversity. Barring AAP centers, which are artificially balanced, no school with a 9 has any significant percentage of black or hispanic students.

Sherlock, did it ever enter into your mind that these schools are in fact better? And that schools with larger number of blacks are not as high performing?

Have you ever stopped to think it may be socioeconomic status and not race that is the determining factor?

NP but yes. There really aren't that many poor whites and Asians in this area. Go to rural areas and they're there though. I don't blame them. If I was struggling to make ends meet, I'd get out of the DC area.