Anonymous wrote:Sherwood fared better than Blair as well as neighboring Blake and Magruder.

Because it's about the percentage of kids taking AP level classes. How many ESOL students are there at Sherwood?

Sherwood fared better than Blair as well as neighboring Blake and Magruder.

Anonymous wrote:This is a stupid list. If you have lots of minorities with average sats the rating go up. But if we have whites and asians with high scores the ratings go down. This should really be called the mentally challenged ratings

It has absolutely nothing to do with SATs. So maybe at least read it first before you call it stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again Blair sucks

I disagree. Look at the methodology. It's dividing # of IB/AP tests by # of students. Blair is not a whole school magnet, and Blair has a very high FARMS rate. This methodology doesn't even look at FARMS rate. Not a Blair parent, btw.

True. RM has a very similar setting in terms of magnet (only smaller/fewer kids). RM ranked pretty high. That means RM general population kids outperform Blair non-magnet kids or RM magnet kids out perform Blair magnet kids or both.

'Outperform' is the wrong word choice. All the Challenge Index shows is that more kids are taking more 'challenging' classes, defined by Mathews as AP or IB. It doesn't measure performance in those classes at all. That's not to say that RM's student body might not 'outperform' Blair's using other measurables, but that's not what this shows.

Within the context of WoPo article "outperform" is the exactly the right word. It doesn't mean one is smarter, it just means one has "more" of whatever WoPo was trying to measure.

Fair enough, narrowly speaking. But if one was doing a study on, say, school tardiness, would you say the students of School A outperformed School B in tardiness? Statistically speaking that would be true, but there is a greater language context that we all understand.

This is a stupid list. If you have lots of minorities with average sats the rating go up. But if we have whites and asians with high scores the ratings go down. This should really be called the mentally challenged ratings

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again Blair sucks

I disagree. Look at the methodology. It's dividing # of IB/AP tests by # of students. Blair is not a whole school magnet, and Blair has a very high FARMS rate. This methodology doesn't even look at FARMS rate. Not a Blair parent, btw.

True. RM has a very similar setting in terms of magnet (only smaller/fewer kids). RM ranked pretty high. That means RM general population kids outperform Blair non-magnet kids or RM magnet kids out perform Blair magnet kids or both.

'Outperform' is the wrong word choice. All the Challenge Index shows is that more kids are taking more 'challenging' classes, defined by Mathews as AP or IB. It doesn't measure performance in those classes at all. That's not to say that RM's student body might not 'outperform' Blair's using other measurables, but that's not what this shows.

Exactly, just because a lot of kids are taking the AP or IB classes, does not mean they are doing well in those classes. AP and IB classes are not appropriate for all students and they should not be pressured or pushed to take classes that do not serve their needs. There are many students who are better served by taking the honors classes or in some cases grade level classes. Success should be measured in how well a child does in a particular class, not just because they signed up for it.

Yes and no. I think if students are trying for AP/IB it means that they are trying to challenge themselves. Whether or not they succeed is a different matter, true, but the fact that a larger % of students are *trying* means much, though certainly not in terms high test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again Blair sucks

I disagree. Look at the methodology. It's dividing # of IB/AP tests by # of students. Blair is not a whole school magnet, and Blair has a very high FARMS rate. This methodology doesn't even look at FARMS rate. Not a Blair parent, btw.

True. RM has a very similar setting in terms of magnet (only smaller/fewer kids). RM ranked pretty high. That means RM general population kids outperform Blair non-magnet kids or RM magnet kids out perform Blair magnet kids or both.

'Outperform' is the wrong word choice. All the Challenge Index shows is that more kids are taking more 'challenging' classes, defined by Mathews as AP or IB. It doesn't measure performance in those classes at all. That's not to say that RM's student body might not 'outperform' Blair's using other measurables, but that's not what this shows.

Exactly, just because a lot of kids are taking the AP or IB classes, does not mean they are doing well in those classes. AP and IB classes are not appropriate for all students and they should not be pressured or pushed to take classes that do not serve their needs. There are many students who are better served by taking the honors classes or in some cases grade level classes. Success should be measured in how well a child does in a particular class, not just because they signed up for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again Blair sucks

I disagree. Look at the methodology. It's dividing # of IB/AP tests by # of students. Blair is not a whole school magnet, and Blair has a very high FARMS rate. This methodology doesn't even look at FARMS rate. Not a Blair parent, btw.

True. RM has a very similar setting in terms of magnet (only smaller/fewer kids). RM ranked pretty high. That means RM general population kids outperform Blair non-magnet kids or RM magnet kids out perform Blair magnet kids or both.

'Outperform' is the wrong word choice. All the Challenge Index shows is that more kids are taking more 'challenging' classes, defined by Mathews as AP or IB. It doesn't measure performance in those classes at all. That's not to say that RM's student body might not 'outperform' Blair's using other measurables, but that's not what this shows.

Within the context of WoPo article "outperform" is the exactly the right word. It doesn't mean one is smarter, it just means one has "more" of whatever WoPo was trying to measure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again Blair sucks

I disagree. Look at the methodology. It's dividing # of IB/AP tests by # of students. Blair is not a whole school magnet, and Blair has a very high FARMS rate. This methodology doesn't even look at FARMS rate. Not a Blair parent, btw.

True. RM has a very similar setting in terms of magnet (only smaller/fewer kids). RM ranked pretty high. That means RM general population kids outperform Blair non-magnet kids or RM magnet kids out perform Blair magnet kids or both.

'Outperform' is the wrong word choice. All the Challenge Index shows is that more kids are taking more 'challenging' classes, defined by Mathews as AP or IB. It doesn't measure performance in those classes at all. That's not to say that RM's student body might not 'outperform' Blair's using other measurables, but that's not what this shows.

While he now looks at % of seniors who passed a test, which is an improvement over the old metric, there are still big differences in pass rates across schools that don't get picked up. A bunch of kids getting 4s and 5s is different than 1s and 2s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again Blair sucks

I disagree. Look at the methodology. It's dividing # of IB/AP tests by # of students. Blair is not a whole school magnet, and Blair has a very high FARMS rate. This methodology doesn't even look at FARMS rate. Not a Blair parent, btw.

True. RM has a very similar setting in terms of magnet (only smaller/fewer kids). RM ranked pretty high. That means RM general population kids outperform Blair non-magnet kids or RM magnet kids out perform Blair magnet kids or both.

Anonymous wrote:Once again Blair sucks

I disagree. Look at the methodology. It's dividing # of IB/AP tests by # of students. Blair is not a whole school magnet, and Blair has a very high FARMS rate. This methodology doesn't even look at FARMS rate. Not a Blair parent, btw.

Anonymous wrote:Once again Blair sucks

LOL... I can't disagree.

Once again Blair sucks

For what it's worth, Jay Mathew's annual Challenge Index is up on the WaPo site.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/local/high-school-challenge-2017/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_hschallenge-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory