GreatSchools rating

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

+1

But thank god the rich Liberals are finally taking notice!

That being said, guys, why do you assume Greatschools should only serve you, native English, high SES people?

Maybe the new metric is better because it tells lower income, ESOL families that your "high performing" Lilly White haven of a school isn't that great for ALL STUDENTS.

I get it though. It's "flawed" because your English speaking, White, rich child could do great, despite the giant 5 on your house's Zillow page.

And? It's not like the majority of lower income ESOL families can choose where they live. They live where they can afford, and that's largely going to be in a school zone with ALL the other low income kids in the region. STILL NOT DOING WELL, even in their "haven" away from those awful white rich kids.

These scores won't tell anyone anything other than where the poor ESOL kids go to school, and as a consequence those schools will only get poorer and more segregated.

The achievement gap cannot be solved in segregated schools. NOT EVER.

How do you even come to this conclusion? If anything, it was the previous way Great Schools rated schools that told everyone where all the ESOL kids go to school. Now that previously "high performing" schools' rankings have been adjusted downwards in accordance with how well they educate the less affluent among their ranks, it's actually harder to tell which schools are browner.

So no, schools will not "get poorer and more segregated" as a" result of these scores."

I am not the poster you are arguing with.

I am at a school that scored well, both general.test scores and on the diversity rating that shows how well the school spouses the achievement gap.

Have you looked at how the data is displayed on the new great schools?

The data is definitely displayed and calculated in a way that makes it seem that poor minority ESOL Hispanic kids are bringing down the school. It makes it appear that even a small percentage of these kids (5-10%) will bring down your school rankings and housing values, even if these kids are scoring far above their average demographic score in the state. It makes it appear that the only way to avoid poor ESOL kids bringing down your school and property values is to buy in a homogenous pyramid like Langley where there are no measurable ESOL or poor students.

The new system shows two things: how the entire student body performs in relation to the state (including those ESOL students') scores AND a second score where the small group of ESOL students scores pulls down the school ranking, in most cases significantly, even if those ESOL kids are scoring 10 to 20 points higher than their demographic when compared to the rest of the state.

The weight that great schools has put on this one demographic of students (counting them twice) and using this one demographic to weigh down scores (Even if this demographic is scoring far above the state average and above the average score for their demographic) is making it appear that this one demographic is harming schools and property values.

The new system is flawed and racist.

The new system is flawed and racist? No, YOU, the rich urban moms and dads obsessed with GS ratings and your housing prices and buying to avoid the "Brown People" areas are racist. That you use GS ratings to discern where to buy does not mean that system is racist - it means YOU are.

The new metric tells everyone in the area, including Hispanics, immigrants, illegal immigrants, poor people, as well as yourself, how well as school is doing at serving EACH of their student populations.

Oh, I'm sorry, did your school's piss poor performance at educating immigrants just drag down your $1.7m house? Cry me a freakin river.

You are wrong on so many levels.

I am not white. I am not in a million dollar house. I am not liberal. And I am not in one of the pyramids that had score brought down by "poor or brown people.

In fact, I am in one of the pyramids where the scores were pulled up by "brown people" in particular, high achieving African American kids.

The Hispanic kids in most of the pyramids that Great schools marked down by several points are actually still scoring higher than the state average for Hispanic kids, and in most of those cases a lot higher. Yet great schools has their scores (already factored into the first score) pulling down the overall ranking, often by several points. They are double counting one demographic, and by quite a bit.

The way they are displaying their new score metric makes it appear that the ONLY reason a school is going down is because of the Hispanic and ESOL kids, even if those kids are scoring well.

That is racist. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

+1

But thank god the rich Liberals are finally taking notice!

That being said, guys, why do you assume Greatschools should only serve you, native English, high SES people?

Maybe the new metric is better because it tells lower income, ESOL families that your "high performing" Lilly White haven of a school isn't that great for ALL STUDENTS.

I get it though. It's "flawed" because your English speaking, White, rich child could do great, despite the giant 5 on your house's Zillow page.

And? It's not like the majority of lower income ESOL families can choose where they live. They live where they can afford, and that's largely going to be in a school zone with ALL the other low income kids in the region. STILL NOT DOING WELL, even in their "haven" away from those awful white rich kids.

These scores won't tell anyone anything other than where the poor ESOL kids go to school, and as a consequence those schools will only get poorer and more segregated.

The achievement gap cannot be solved in segregated schools. NOT EVER.

How do you even come to this conclusion? If anything, it was the previous way Great Schools rated schools that told everyone where all the ESOL kids go to school. Now that previously "high performing" schools' rankings have been adjusted downwards in accordance with how well they educate the less affluent among their ranks, it's actually harder to tell which schools are browner.

So no, schools will not "get poorer and more segregated" as a" result of these scores."

I am not the poster you are arguing with.

I am at a school that scored well, both general.test scores and on the diversity rating that shows how well the school spouses the achievement gap.

Have you looked at how the data is displayed on the new great schools?

The data is definitely displayed and calculated in a way that makes it seem that poor minority ESOL Hispanic kids are bringing down the school. It makes it appear that even a small percentage of these kids (5-10%) will bring down your school rankings and housing values, even if these kids are scoring far above their average demographic score in the state. It makes it appear that the only way to avoid poor ESOL kids bringing down your school and property values is to buy in a homogenous pyramid like Langley where there are no measurable ESOL or poor students.

The new system shows two things: how the entire student body performs in relation to the state (including those ESOL students') scores AND a second score where the small group of ESOL students scores pulls down the school ranking, in most cases significantly, even if those ESOL kids are scoring 10 to 20 points higher than their demographic when compared to the rest of the state.

The weight that great schools has put on this one demographic of students (counting them twice) and using this one demographic to weigh down scores (Even if this demographic is scoring far above the state average and above the average score for their demographic) is making it appear that this one demographic is harming schools and property values.

The new system is flawed and racist.

The new system is flawed and racist? No, YOU, the rich urban moms and dads obsessed with GS ratings and your housing prices and buying to avoid the "Brown People" areas are racist. That you use GS ratings to discern where to buy does not mean that system is racist - it means YOU are.

The new metric tells everyone in the area, including Hispanics, immigrants, illegal immigrants, poor people, as well as yourself, how well as school is doing at serving EACH of their student populations.

Oh, I'm sorry, did your school's piss poor performance at educating immigrants just drag down your $1.7m house? Cry me a freakin river.

DP. No, the new metric doesn't. If it did, it would be useful, but that's not what it's doing.

Do you have your fingers in your ears and shaking your head as you say this? I gave you the link. Do you have something substantive to argue?

You're taking what GS says over the evidence that is available. On this thread and others, posters have clearly explained that the equity measurement is flawed and is over-weighted in the new, lowered total scores. Someone has their fingers in their ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

+1

But thank god the rich Liberals are finally taking notice!

That being said, guys, why do you assume Greatschools should only serve you, native English, high SES people?

Maybe the new metric is better because it tells lower income, ESOL families that your "high performing" Lilly White haven of a school isn't that great for ALL STUDENTS.

I get it though. It's "flawed" because your English speaking, White, rich child could do great, despite the giant 5 on your house's Zillow page.

And? It's not like the majority of lower income ESOL families can choose where they live. They live where they can afford, and that's largely going to be in a school zone with ALL the other low income kids in the region. STILL NOT DOING WELL, even in their "haven" away from those awful white rich kids.

These scores won't tell anyone anything other than where the poor ESOL kids go to school, and as a consequence those schools will only get poorer and more segregated.

The achievement gap cannot be solved in segregated schools. NOT EVER.

How do you even come to this conclusion? If anything, it was the previous way Great Schools rated schools that told everyone where all the ESOL kids go to school. Now that previously "high performing" schools' rankings have been adjusted downwards in accordance with how well they educate the less affluent among their ranks, it's actually harder to tell which schools are browner.

So no, schools will not "get poorer and more segregated" as a" result of these scores."

I am not the poster you are arguing with.

I am at a school that scored well, both general.test scores and on the diversity rating that shows how well the school spouses the achievement gap.

Have you looked at how the data is displayed on the new great schools?

The data is definitely displayed and calculated in a way that makes it seem that poor minority ESOL Hispanic kids are bringing down the school. It makes it appear that even a small percentage of these kids (5-10%) will bring down your school rankings and housing values, even if these kids are scoring far above their average demographic score in the state. It makes it appear that the only way to avoid poor ESOL kids bringing down your school and property values is to buy in a homogenous pyramid like Langley where there are no measurable ESOL or poor students.

The new system shows two things: how the entire student body performs in relation to the state (including those ESOL students') scores AND a second score where the small group of ESOL students scores pulls down the school ranking, in most cases significantly, even if those ESOL kids are scoring 10 to 20 points higher than their demographic when compared to the rest of the state.

The weight that great schools has put on this one demographic of students (counting them twice) and using this one demographic to weigh down scores (Even if this demographic is scoring far above the state average and above the average score for their demographic) is making it appear that this one demographic is harming schools and property values.

The new system is flawed and racist.

The new system is flawed and racist? No, YOU, the rich urban moms and dads obsessed with GS ratings and your housing prices and buying to avoid the "Brown People" areas are racist. That you use GS ratings to discern where to buy does not mean that system is racist - it means YOU are.

The new metric tells everyone in the area, including Hispanics, immigrants, illegal immigrants, poor people, as well as yourself, how well as school is doing at serving EACH of their student populations.

Oh, I'm sorry, did your school's piss poor performance at educating immigrants just drag down your $1.7m house? Cry me a freakin river.

DP. No, the new metric doesn't. If it did, it would be useful, but that's not what it's doing.

Do you have your fingers in your ears and shaking your head as you say this? I gave you the link. Do you have something substantive to argue?

You're taking what GS says over the evidence that is available. On this thread and others, posters have clearly explained that the equity measurement is flawed and is over-weighted in the new, lowered total scores. Someone has their fingers in their ears.

You mean I think you're full of sh*t and your anecdotal DCUM "evidence" might be colored by ulterior, less virtuous motives - like how you're personally affected in a negatively way by the new metric?

Absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all of you are just ticked because your property values are taking a hit

the scores actually reflect reality, a school is great if all students perform well not just high SES ones. The achievement gap is a problem in this country and schools are now on notice to do something about it

+1

But thank god the rich Liberals are finally taking notice!

That being said, guys, why do you assume Greatschools should only serve you, native English, high SES people?

Maybe the new metric is better because it tells lower income, ESOL families that your "high performing" Lilly White haven of a school isn't that great for ALL STUDENTS.

I get it though. It's "flawed" because your English speaking, White, rich child could do great, despite the giant 5 on your house's Zillow page.

And? It's not like the majority of lower income ESOL families can choose where they live. They live where they can afford, and that's largely going to be in a school zone with ALL the other low income kids in the region. STILL NOT DOING WELL, even in their "haven" away from those awful white rich kids.

These scores won't tell anyone anything other than where the poor ESOL kids go to school, and as a consequence those schools will only get poorer and more segregated.

The achievement gap cannot be solved in segregated schools. NOT EVER.

How do you even come to this conclusion? If anything, it was the previous way Great Schools rated schools that told everyone where all the ESOL kids go to school. Now that previously "high performing" schools' rankings have been adjusted downwards in accordance with how well they educate the less affluent among their ranks, it's actually harder to tell which schools are browner.

So no, schools will not "get poorer and more segregated" as a" result of these scores."

I am not the poster you are arguing with.

I am at a school that scored well, both general.test scores and on the diversity rating that shows how well the school spouses the achievement gap.

Have you looked at how the data is displayed on the new great schools?

The data is definitely displayed and calculated in a way that makes it seem that poor minority ESOL Hispanic kids are bringing down the school. It makes it appear that even a small percentage of these kids (5-10%) will bring down your school rankings and housing values, even if these kids are scoring far above their average demographic score in the state. It makes it appear that the only way to avoid poor ESOL kids bringing down your school and property values is to buy in a homogenous pyramid like Langley where there are no measurable ESOL or poor students.

The new system shows two things: how the entire student body performs in relation to the state (including those ESOL students') scores AND a second score where the small group of ESOL students scores pulls down the school ranking, in most cases significantly, even if those ESOL kids are scoring 10 to 20 points higher than their demographic when compared to the rest of the state.

The weight that great schools has put on this one demographic of students (counting them twice) and using this one demographic to weigh down scores (Even if this demographic is scoring far above the state average and above the average score for their demographic) is making it appear that this one demographic is harming schools and property values.

The new system is flawed and racist.

The new system is flawed and racist? No, YOU, the rich urban moms and dads obsessed with GS ratings and your housing prices and buying to avoid the "Brown People" areas are racist. That you use GS ratings to discern where to buy does not mean that system is racist - it means YOU are.

The new metric tells everyone in the area, including Hispanics, immigrants, illegal immigrants, poor people, as well as yourself, how well as school is doing at serving EACH of their student populations.

Oh, I'm sorry, did your school's piss poor performance at educating immigrants just drag down your $1.7m house? Cry me a freakin river.

You are wrong on so many levels.

I am not white. I am not in a million dollar house. I am not liberal. And I am not in one of the pyramids that had score brought down by "poor or brown people.

In fact, I am in one of the pyramids where the scores were pulled up by "brown people" in particular, high achieving African American kids.

The Hispanic kids in most of the pyramids that Great schools marked down by several points are actually still scoring higher than the state average for Hispanic kids, and in most of those cases a lot higher. Yet great schools has their scores (already factored into the first score) pulling down the overall ranking, often by several points. They are double counting one demographic, and by quite a bit.

The way they are displaying their new score metric makes it appear that the ONLY reason a school is going down is because of the Hispanic and ESOL kids, even if those kids are scoring well.

That is racist. Period.

GS is doing a comparison of DISPARITIES. (If I am reading the methodology report correctly - which btw many of you keyboard warriors have clearly not read). Meaning they are comparing the DISPARITY between groups at your school to the DISPARITY between the same groups at the state level. Do you even understand this? You can argue whether or not measuring this disparity gives any meaning to the overall measure of a school. Instead you're sitting there yelling about "racism."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
GS is doing a comparison of DISPARITIES. (If I am reading the methodology report correctly - which btw many of you keyboard warriors have clearly not read). Meaning they are comparing the DISPARITY between groups at your school to the DISPARITY between the same groups at the state level. Do you even understand this? You can argue whether or not measuring this disparity gives any meaning to the overall measure of a school. Instead you're sitting there yelling about "racism."

From their website, this is what GS says they are doing:

"The Equity Rating is computed based upon the performance of disadvantaged groups and relative size of in-school gaps. These two components allow us to evaluate a school’s success in educating disadvantaged groups compared to students throughout the state, as well as compared specifically to other students at the school."

What they are actually doing is just the second, which means that the HS with the smallest population of disadvantaged students, Langley, has the highest equity score. Think about that. It doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
GS is doing a comparison of DISPARITIES. (If I am reading the methodology report correctly - which btw many of you keyboard warriors have clearly not read). Meaning they are comparing the DISPARITY between groups at your school to the DISPARITY between the same groups at the state level. Do you even understand this? You can argue whether or not measuring this disparity gives any meaning to the overall measure of a school. Instead you're sitting there yelling about "racism."

From their website, this is what GS says they are doing:

"The Equity Rating is computed based upon the performance of disadvantaged groups and relative size of in-school gaps. These two components allow us to evaluate a school’s success in educating disadvantaged groups compared to students throughout the state, as well as compared specifically to other students at the school."

What they are actually doing is just the second, which means that the HS with the smallest population of disadvantaged students, Langley, has the highest equity score. Think about that. It doesn't make sense.

Your paragraph doesn't make any sense. Can you explain? Are you suggesting that GS is lying about their methodology?

[Anonymous]

^^ are you being willfully obtuse or you just stupid?
- dp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ are you being willfully obtuse or you just stupid?
- dp

Let me guess, you have nothing substantive to offer, so you're just going to insult? Go to hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ are you being willfully obtuse or you just stupid?
- dp

Let me clue you condescending, knuckle-dragging idiots in on something - very few of you seem to grasp what exactly this new metric GS is employing. If you did, you would be arguing about whether it makes sense that they are measuring "equality." Instead, you keep making noise about "racism" and whether or not a particular schools' Hispanics measure better or not than Hispanics from another school.

HELLO - they are not comparing minority groups between schools. They are comparing the difference between groups in each school, compared to the difference in groups to other schools (AKA the state average). They are measuring how "equal" the score distribution your school is in terms of whatever groups they've identified. So, it is irrelevant how well a particular "disadvantaged group" does in your school, it's the gap between that group and the higher performing groups that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
GS is doing a comparison of DISPARITIES. (If I am reading the methodology report correctly - which btw many of you keyboard warriors have clearly not read). Meaning they are comparing the DISPARITY between groups at your school to the DISPARITY between the same groups at the state level. Do you even understand this? You can argue whether or not measuring this disparity gives any meaning to the overall measure of a school. Instead you're sitting there yelling about "racism."

From their website, this is what GS says they are doing:

"The Equity Rating is computed based upon the performance of disadvantaged groups and relative size of in-school gaps. These two components allow us to evaluate a school’s success in educating disadvantaged groups compared to students throughout the state, as well as compared specifically to other students at the school."

What they are actually doing is just the second, which means that the HS with the smallest population of disadvantaged students, Langley, has the highest equity score. Think about that. It doesn't make sense.

Your paragraph doesn't make any sense. Can you explain? Are you suggesting that GS is lying about their methodology?

DP, no GS is not lying. Their methodology is flawed. A school gets rewarded for "not having an achievement gap" by having an entirely homogeneous population. So, yes there is no gap, but that is because the kids are all well off and the lower SES kids are not present. Schools that have a larger FARMs population get penalized for that population performing lower.
That's not how it should work. The penalty for equity should somehow be normalized so that schools that have a completely homogenous population are also negatively impacted for not being diverse. Otherwise they are just penalizing schools for having a more diverse population, which doesn't make sense objectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
GS is doing a comparison of DISPARITIES. (If I am reading the methodology report correctly - which btw many of you keyboard warriors have clearly not read). Meaning they are comparing the DISPARITY between groups at your school to the DISPARITY between the same groups at the state level. Do you even understand this? You can argue whether or not measuring this disparity gives any meaning to the overall measure of a school. Instead you're sitting there yelling about "racism."

From their website, this is what GS says they are doing:

"The Equity Rating is computed based upon the performance of disadvantaged groups and relative size of in-school gaps. These two components allow us to evaluate a school’s success in educating disadvantaged groups compared to students throughout the state, as well as compared specifically to other students at the school."

What they are actually doing is just the second, which means that the HS with the smallest population of disadvantaged students, Langley, has the highest equity score. Think about that. It doesn't make sense.

Your paragraph doesn't make any sense. Can you explain? Are you suggesting that GS is lying about their methodology?

DP. PP is wrong in the explanation but gets to right ultimate issue. GS is measuring equity by comparing how traditionally lower-performing groups (such as racial minorities and low-income students) do compared to the overall state population and to the overall school population. Nearly by definition, the least-advantaged students in a school will not perform as well as the more-advantaged students in their school and in their state, so any school with enough lesser-advantaged students to be counted (see the next paragraph on this point) is going to be dinged by GS for the fact that those students don't perform as well, regardless of whether the reasons for that performance difference have anything to do with the school itself. In that regard, it is very significant that GS leaves out one point of comparison -- how racial minority, low-income and disabled students do against their similarly situated peers across the state. Thus you can have a backwards situation where a very good school has all of its students performing better than the state average for students in their demographic group, and still gets points deducted for factors beyond their control that contribute to a performance discrepancy between groups. If GS also included how minority/low-income/disabled students in the school did compared to similarly situated students across the state, a school that hadn't closed the performance gap but was still doing better by those students than other schools in the state would get a boost from that, but instead it gets dinged based solely on the performance gap.

There is an exception to this methodology, which is that when a school doesn't have at least 5% of their student population fall into a particular group, the statistics for that population don't get included in the GS calculations, and thus no deductions are taken for discrepancies between those students and the rest of the school. It is important to note in this regard that the default is to start out at a 10 for equity and then lose points for discrepancies in performance rather than starting with a 0/1 and then gaining points for demonstrating that your school is closing the performance. Thus, you could have a very white, very affluent school where the white/affluent students perform well above state averages but where the handful of minority/low-income students perform well below state averages (which should be a big red flag for the school), but as long as those black, hispanic, low-income, etc., students each make up less than 5% of the student population, their data won't be included by GS and the school will get top marks for equity (because no deductions for reported performance discrepancies), despite the fact that the schools is clearly worse for racial minorities/low-income students than a school where on average those student groups perform substantially better (and ahead of state averages).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
GS is doing a comparison of DISPARITIES. (If I am reading the methodology report correctly - which btw many of you keyboard warriors have clearly not read). Meaning they are comparing the DISPARITY between groups at your school to the DISPARITY between the same groups at the state level. Do you even understand this? You can argue whether or not measuring this disparity gives any meaning to the overall measure of a school. Instead you're sitting there yelling about "racism."

From their website, this is what GS says they are doing:

"The Equity Rating is computed based upon the performance of disadvantaged groups and relative size of in-school gaps. These two components allow us to evaluate a school’s success in educating disadvantaged groups compared to students throughout the state, as well as compared specifically to other students at the school."

What they are actually doing is just the second, which means that the HS with the smallest population of disadvantaged students, Langley, has the highest equity score. Think about that. It doesn't make sense.

Your paragraph doesn't make any sense. Can you explain? Are you suggesting that GS is lying about their methodology?

DP, no GS is not lying. Their methodology is flawed. A school gets rewarded for "not having an achievement gap" by having an entirely homogeneous population. So, yes there is no gap, but that is because the kids are all well off and the lower SES kids are not present. Schools that have a larger FARMs population get penalized for that population performing lower.
That's not how it should work. The penalty for equity should somehow be normalized so that schools that have a completely homogenous population are also negatively impacted for not being diverse. Otherwise they are just penalizing schools for having a more diverse population, which doesn't make sense objectively.

That is not (necessarily) true, because within the GS methodology, they either punish nor reward you for having a homogenous population. They give homogenous schools (rich and poor) a multiplier of "1" - which is effectively a completely neutral adjuster.

Then, if you have a diverse population, this sub-score raises your GS score if you surpass the average state "equality rating."

The equality rating affects the overall score negatively if your score gap between groups is larger than the state's.

They also factor in whether your school is improving.

I suspect that in this area it's actually the large numbers of (very) high-performing students that are actually widening the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged groups, and that is negatively impacting the gap score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
GS is doing a comparison of DISPARITIES. (If I am reading the methodology report correctly - which btw many of you keyboard warriors have clearly not read). Meaning they are comparing the DISPARITY between groups at your school to the DISPARITY between the same groups at the state level. Do you even understand this? You can argue whether or not measuring this disparity gives any meaning to the overall measure of a school. Instead you're sitting there yelling about "racism."

From their website, this is what GS says they are doing:

"The Equity Rating is computed based upon the performance of disadvantaged groups and relative size of in-school gaps. These two components allow us to evaluate a school’s success in educating disadvantaged groups compared to students throughout the state, as well as compared specifically to other students at the school."

What they are actually doing is just the second, which means that the HS with the smallest population of disadvantaged students, Langley, has the highest equity score. Think about that. It doesn't make sense.

Your paragraph doesn't make any sense. Can you explain? Are you suggesting that GS is lying about their methodology?

DP. PP is wrong in the explanation but gets to right ultimate issue. GS is measuring equity by comparing how traditionally lower-performing groups (such as racial minorities and low-income students) do compared to the overall state population and to the overall school population. Nearly by definition, the least-advantaged students in a school will not perform as well as the more-advantaged students in their school and in their state, so any school with enough lesser-advantaged students to be counted (see the next paragraph on this point) is going to be dinged by GS for the fact that those students don't perform as well, regardless of whether the reasons for that performance difference have anything to do with the school itself. In that regard, it is very significant that GS leaves out one point of comparison -- how racial minority, low-income and disabled students do against their similarly situated peers across the state. Thus you can have a backwards situation where a very good school has all of its students performing better than the state average for students in their demographic group, and still gets points deducted for factors beyond their control that contribute to a performance discrepancy between groups. If GS also included how minority/low-income/disabled students in the school did compared to similarly situated students across the state, a school that hadn't closed the performance gap but was still doing better by those students than other schools in the state would get a boost from that, but instead it gets dinged based solely on the performance gap.

There is an exception to this methodology, which is that when a school doesn't have at least 5% of their student population fall into a particular group, the statistics for that population don't get included in the GS calculations, and thus no deductions are taken for discrepancies between those students and the rest of the school. It is important to note in this regard that the default is to start out at a 10 for equity and then lose points for discrepancies in performance rather than starting with a 0/1 and then gaining points for demonstrating that your school is closing the performance. Thus, you could have a very white, very affluent school where the white/affluent students perform well above state averages but where the handful of minority/low-income students perform well below state averages (which should be a big red flag for the school), but as long as those black, hispanic, low-income, etc., students each make up less than 5% of the student population, their data won't be included by GS and the school will get top marks for equity (because no deductions for reported performance discrepancies), despite the fact that the schools is clearly worse for racial minorities/low-income students than a school where on average those student groups perform substantially better (and ahead of state averages).

Yes, (I'm the PP) I think you are correct generally in your understanding of how they are calculating this new stat.

But I do think many of you need to realize that just the presence of "diversity" in a school is not an automatic deduction to the score; you can either *gain* or *lose* based on how you compare to the state.

I do think the reason so many schools around here are getting their score docked is because there's a big gap, [i]not because the poor students are doing worse, but because the advantaged students are doing very well." In other words, you can increase a gap by lowering the bottom, or by increasing the top, and the latter is what is happening here. And punishing schools for this is not warranted.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. We moved to get out of a 6 school which overnight turned into a 4 this fall because they are over counting the "gap" at the first school. We are at a 9 which stayed a 9. The difference is very little poverty in the second school. Ridiculous. The rich get richer, if you look at the property values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
GS is doing a comparison of DISPARITIES. (If I am reading the methodology report correctly - which btw many of you keyboard warriors have clearly not read). Meaning they are comparing the DISPARITY between groups at your school to the DISPARITY between the same groups at the state level. Do you even understand this? You can argue whether or not measuring this disparity gives any meaning to the overall measure of a school. Instead you're sitting there yelling about "racism."

From their website, this is what GS says they are doing:

"The Equity Rating is computed based upon the performance of disadvantaged groups and relative size of in-school gaps. These two components allow us to evaluate a school’s success in educating disadvantaged groups compared to students throughout the state, as well as compared specifically to other students at the school."

What they are actually doing is just the second, which means that the HS with the smallest population of disadvantaged students, Langley, has the highest equity score. Think about that. It doesn't make sense.

Your paragraph doesn't make any sense. Can you explain? Are you suggesting that GS is lying about their methodology?

DP, no GS is not lying. Their methodology is flawed. A school gets rewarded for "not having an achievement gap" by having an entirely homogeneous population. So, yes there is no gap, but that is because the kids are all well off and the lower SES kids are not present. Schools that have a larger FARMs population get penalized for that population performing lower.
That's not how it should work. The penalty for equity should somehow be normalized so that schools that have a completely homogenous population are also negatively impacted for not being diverse. Otherwise they are just penalizing schools for having a more diverse population, which doesn't make sense objectively.

That is not (necessarily) true, because within the GS methodology, they either punish nor reward you for having a homogenous population. They give homogenous schools (rich and poor) a multiplier of "1" - which is effectively a completely neutral adjuster.

Then, if you have a diverse population, this sub-score raises your GS score if you surpass the average state "equality rating."

The equality rating affects the overall score negatively if your score gap between groups is larger than the state's.

They also factor in whether your school is improving.

I suspect that in this area it's actually the large numbers of (very) high-performing students that are actually widening the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged groups, and that is negatively impacting the gap score.

That is not true.

There are schools in FC whose Hispanics and blacks are performing well above the state average (10-17 points over the state average) but who received a 4 on equity because their Asians happen to perform at a 98 to 99 range.

They are getting penalized even if their minority groups are performing very well and far above the state average.

And then taking a school like WSHS where the point spread between all their groups is almost identical, around 3 at a max, and in some cases the minority score is one of the top demographics, and where everyone is far above the state average, they only get a 6 for equity. Having scores that close and that far above the state averages for demographics means that they should have received a higher score fo closing the achievement gap.

So then my question would be what score range would constitute a high equity score? If a 3-4 point spread with minority groups far above the state average (and outscoring other traditionally higher demographics in some subjects) is not closing the achievement gap, then what is?