Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're right. RM is #96. I know... people will say it's because of the IB. Well, you can an also say the W schools do well because a lot of the kids there come from high SES families that can afford tutors, prep classes, enrichment, etc..

Yes, but the difference is that whatever the reason for the W students doing well, if you move to those clusters your kid gets to be with those students. If you move to RM, your kid doesn't get to be in the IB program (putting aside the 11th grade preference), which is why people always want to distinguish. I say this as someone living in the RM cluster btw - the IB program masks the performance of the overall school since they don't report the two "subparts" of the school separately.

If I move to a W school my kids get to go to their tutor with them for free... wow who knew.

Weak attempt at sarcasm. If your kids go to a W, whether the kids there perform well because of tutors or some other reason, your kid gets to be in a class where the kids are advancing at that level. That's kind of the whole allure of attending a high performing school (nobody thinks the teaching is inherently better - it's that you are surrounded by a population of students who are motivated). If you live in RM, your kid simply gets to be in a building (starting in 9th grade) where some magnet kids happen to have their own school within a school.

There's a whole other thread about the issue of high performing kids taking adhd rx or other ways of cheating to get these high results. If an average student is surrounded by such kids, would that average student feel the pressure to also "cheat"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're right. RM is #96. I know... people will say it's because of the IB. Well, you can an also say the W schools do well because a lot of the kids there come from high SES families that can afford tutors, prep classes, enrichment, etc..

Yes, but the difference is that whatever the reason for the W students doing well, if you move to those clusters your kid gets to be with those students. If you move to RM, your kid doesn't get to be in the IB program (putting aside the 11th grade preference), which is why people always want to distinguish. I say this as someone living in the RM cluster btw - the IB program masks the performance of the overall school since they don't report the two "subparts" of the school separately.

If I move to a W school my kids get to go to their tutor with them for free... wow who knew.

Weak attempt at sarcasm. If your kids go to a W, whether the kids there perform well because of tutors or some other reason, your kid gets to be in a class where the kids are advancing at that level. That's kind of the whole allure of attending a high performing school (nobody thinks the teaching is inherently better - it's that you are surrounded by a population of students who are motivated). If you live in RM, your kid simply gets to be in a building (starting in 9th grade) where some magnet kids happen to have their own school within a school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're right. RM is #96. I know... people will say it's because of the IB. Well, you can an also say the W schools do well because a lot of the kids there come from high SES families that can afford tutors, prep classes, enrichment, etc..

Yes, but the difference is that whatever the reason for the W students doing well, if you move to those clusters your kid gets to be with those students. If you move to RM, your kid doesn't get to be in the IB program (putting aside the 11th grade preference), which is why people always want to distinguish. I say this as someone living in the RM cluster btw - the IB program masks the performance of the overall school since they don't report the two "subparts" of the school separately.

If I move to a W school my kids get to go to their tutor with them for free... wow who knew.

These rankings don't mean much.
CHEC was high up on the list a few years back because a large percentage of students were being forced to take AP exams.

Anonymous wrote:You're right. RM is #96. I know... people will say it's because of the IB. Well, you can an also say the W schools do well because a lot of the kids there come from high SES families that can afford tutors, prep classes, enrichment, etc..

Yes, but the difference is that whatever the reason for the W students doing well, if you move to those clusters your kid gets to be with those students. If you move to RM, your kid doesn't get to be in the IB program (putting aside the 11th grade preference), which is why people always want to distinguish. I say this as someone living in the RM cluster btw - the IB program masks the performance of the overall school since they don't report the two "subparts" of the school separately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And where RM? Looks like they are slacking way off. Property values plummet more

Where is RM? Look at the selection criteria. When "soft" selection criteria are used (e.g., retention rate, graduation rate, sub meals..etc), you will not see RM because SES of many RM students compare to W schools and PHS (most of PHS kids are from out of Poolesville area, upper middle class families). When you use "hard" measures (e.g., Wash Post Challenge Index, number of national merit scholars...etc), you will see RM bubble up to the top due to their high performing IB manget program. Compare WP ranking vs this one. It's kind interesting to see how schools rank based on different methodology.

You're right. RM is #96. I know... people will say it's because of the IB. Well, you can an also say the W schools do well because a lot of the kids there come from high SES families that can afford tutors, prep classes, enrichment, etc..

The WP ranking - "The index score is the number of college-level tests given at a school in the previous calendar year divided by the number of graduates that year". RM's score is undoubtedly high due to the IB, but again, the W schools are high due to the SES of the kids' families. The #1 school in Oakland CA has a very high poverty rate (kids on FARMS). This school sounds amazing.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/local/highschoolchallenge/schools/2014/list/national/

Anonymous wrote:And where RM? Looks like they are slacking way off. Property values plummet more

Where is RM? Look at the selection criteria. When "soft" selection criteria are used (e.g., retention rate, graduation rate, sub meals..etc), you will not see RM because SES of many RM students compare to W schools and PHS (most of PHS kids are from out of Poolesville area, upper middle class families). When you use "hard" measures (e.g., Wash Post Challenge Index, number of national merit scholars...etc), you will see RM bubble up to the top due to their high performing IB manget program. Compare WP ranking vs this one. It's kind interesting to see how schools rank based on different methodology.

Now if they would only give Poolesville a decent school to work in. That place is falling apart.

Blair is on the other list for schools with high % of low income kids

Anonymous wrote:Schools from MCPS:

Churchill - 24
Poolesville - 91
Wootton - 170
Whitman - 194
WJ - 237
BCC - 470
Sherwood - 500

Guessing we need to add a "W" somewhere to Poolesville?? jk
Congrats to all schools making this NATIONAL ranking!

And where RM? Looks like they are slacking way off. Property values plummet more

Schools from MCPS:

Churchill - 24
Poolesville - 91
Wootton - 170
Whitman - 194
WJ - 237
BCC - 470
Sherwood - 500

Anonymous wrote:The most surprising revelation is that there's still a Newsweek.

We have a winner.

The most surprising revelation is that there's still a Newsweek.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/09/19/newsweeks-high-school-rankings-2014-two-lists-are-better-one-268691.html