Good school mean it's good for real estate market of the area because of the SES of its residents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And "good" in terms of test scores doesn't mean "good" for any given kid.

Test scores are important -- particularly if you look into the different groups because that can tell you who the school cares about and doesn't care about, somewhat. They are not the whole story.

My kid is not ever going to be one of the elite students at his school. Measures that talk about "number of kids who get into ivies" mean nothing to me.

Could you explain what you mean by the second paragraph? Are you saying that, in low SES schools, the focus is on the groups with the low scores in order to try and help them pass the SOLs? Some view it as the educational equivalent of an ER with an endless supply of trauma patients. At least anecdotally, it sounds like there is more teacher burnout at schools like this.

I mean two things: a) test scores are one of many things to use to judge a school. Marginal differences in score at the high end don't matter -- people going on and on about City of Falls Church v Yorktown. It can't possibly matter. b) Looking at the different groups tells you a lot - for example, I wouldn't send my child of color to a school that has so few children of color that they cant measure that group and gave them an asterix. Assuming you have other information, you can look at how the scores compare with what else you know about the school. Are they doing worse than expected? Better than expected? Things like that. None of us end up choosing among such radically different schools as your second comments suggest -- do you really think people are in the market for a house near Hoffman Boston and one near Jamestown?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sick of people saying that some schools are better than others because of the damn test scores. Every school has good teachers, and poor teachers, and a few outstanding ones. In FCPS, higher ratings are for the most part due to socioeconomic levels of the student population. Get real.

+1 and agree

The FCPS School Board commissioned a study to look at what they call the "tipping point" for free and reduced lunch (FRL) percentages. The study concluded that FCPS schools with greater than 20 percent poverty (FRL) are much less likely to meet performance expectations than those with less than 20 percent poverty. And, once poverty levels at a school reach 40 percent or more, FCPS schools are unlikely to meet expectations for school performance.

So substitute GS/US News ratings for FRL/FARMS percentages, and "better" for "meeting performance obligations," and you basically end up in the same place.

However, the challenge is that, if FCPS thinks it should treat such a finding as a basis to redistrict a 10% FRL school and a 30% FRL school with the goal of creating two 20% schools (as opposed to such identifying a tipping point with respect to meeting current performance standards), it may just end up with two 25% FRL schools, because parents from the first school end up moving to nearby school districts or counties or send their kids to privates.

Agree, although some would argue this is making the best out of a bad situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sick of people saying that some schools are better than others because of the damn test scores. Every school has good teachers, and poor teachers, and a few outstanding ones. In FCPS, higher ratings are for the most part due to socioeconomic levels of the student population. Get real.

+1 and agree

The FCPS School Board commissioned a study to look at what they call the "tipping point" for free and reduced lunch (FRL) percentages. The study concluded that FCPS schools with greater than 20 percent poverty (FRL) are much less likely to meet performance expectations than those with less than 20 percent poverty. And, once poverty levels at a school reach 40 percent or more, FCPS schools are unlikely to meet expectations for school performance.

So substitute GS/US News ratings for FRL/FARMS percentages, and "better" for "meeting performance obligations," and you basically end up in the same place.

However, the challenge is that, if FCPS thinks it should treat such a finding as a basis to redistrict a 10% FRL school and a 30% FRL school with the goal of creating two 20% schools (as opposed to such identifying a tipping point with respect to meeting current performance standards), it may just end up with two 25% FRL schools, because parents from the first school end up moving to nearby school districts or counties or send their kids to privates.

13:06 here -- I should have included a link to the study:

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=9DDLJG53D18A

^^^^wonder how much they spent on that study? I could have told them that without a study.

Anonymous wrote:I am sick of people saying that some schools are better than others because of the damn test scores. Every school has good teachers, and poor teachers, and a few outstanding ones. In FCPS, higher ratings are for the most part due to socioeconomic levels of the student population. Get real.

+1 and agree

The FCPS School Board commissioned a study to look at what they call the "tipping point" for free and reduced lunch (FRL) percentages. The study concluded that FCPS schools with greater than 20 percent poverty (FRL) are much less likely to meet performance expectations than those with less than 20 percent poverty. And, once poverty levels at a school reach 40 percent or more, FCPS schools are unlikely to meet expectations for school performance.

Anonymous wrote:" Some view it as the educational equivalent of an ER with an endless supply of trauma patients."

Agreed. I do believe that the major wounds of the patient must be addressed way before concern for SOL scores. You can't bandage the scratches while the arteries have been punctured. To me, that's what the SOL scores can show---that there has been superficial "help", but who knows if the underlying issues have been addressed.

In order to function well in society, there are many skills that a person needs and none of those are "tested" via the SOLs. If a person is not well adjusted physically, emotionally, socially, and psychologically, you can forget whatever the SOL score is.

There was a fascinating article about this recently in the NYT by an educator expressing frustration with the focus on raising the test scores of the most challenged student populations, as opposed to dealing with the underlying issues that stand in the way of academic progress. Maybe you saw the piece.

These are really tough issues, and I think as a society we've dumped an enormous and increasing amount of responsibility on public schools without acknowledging it. But, again, where parents are concerned, they put their own kids first, whether that means looking for a highly rated public, checking to see that their own particular demographic does OK at a less highly rated school, or opting for private. One could argue that some of these burdens need to be shared more equally among jurisdictions or schools (including the privates that some of the policy-makers who make the decisions that affect the public schools send their own children to instead) but until that happens most people are not going to stop aiming for schools that they believe will give their own kids a solid chance of success.

Anonymous wrote:
"And "good" in terms of test scores doesn't mean "good" for any given kid."

This.

True, but since people often decide where to live when their kids are relatively young, they will look for objective evidence that a school pyramid has plenty of motivated, high-achieving students, which is what they wish for their own children. Most schools in FCPS, particularly the middle and high schools, will have a cohort of such students, and beyond that the differences tend to relate more to the strength and scope of the extra-curriculars.

This is not going to change any time soon, whether you like it or not. If you are happy with your schools, what's the issue?

" Some view it as the educational equivalent of an ER with an endless supply of trauma patients."

Agreed. I do believe that the major wounds of the patient must be addressed way before concern for SOL scores. You can't bandage the scratches while the arteries have been punctured. To me, that's what the SOL scores can show---that there has been superficial "help", but who knows if the underlying issues have been addressed.

In order to function well in society, there are many skills that a person needs and none of those are "tested" via the SOLs. If a person is not well adjusted physically, emotionally, socially, and psychologically, you can forget whatever the SOL score is.

"And "good" in terms of test scores doesn't mean "good" for any given kid."


This.

Anonymous wrote:And "good" in terms of test scores doesn't mean "good" for any given kid.

Test scores are important -- particularly if you look into the different groups because that can tell you who the school cares about and doesn't care about, somewhat. They are not the whole story.

My kid is not ever going to be one of the elite students at his school. Measures that talk about "number of kids who get into ivies" mean nothing to me.

Could you explain what you mean by the second paragraph? Are you saying that, in low SES schools, the focus is on the groups with the low scores in order to try and help them pass the SOLs? Some view it as the educational equivalent of an ER with an endless supply of trauma patients. At least anecdotally, it sounds like there is more teacher burnout at schools like this.

And "good" in terms of test scores doesn't mean "good" for any given kid.

Test scores are important -- particularly if you look into the different groups because that can tell you who the school cares about and doesn't care about, somewhat. They are not the whole story.

My kid is not ever going to be one of the elite students at his school. Measures that talk about "number of kids who get into ivies" mean nothing to me.

Yes, we know. Which is why the poor test scores are usually correlated with high FARMs percentages. This is discussed explicitly in these school forums. What's your point?

I am sick of people saying that some schools are better than others because of the damn test scores. Every school has good teachers, and poor teachers, and a few outstanding ones. In FCPS, higher ratings are for the most part due to socioeconomic levels of the student population. Get real.