Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really not see the distinction? Presumably RHS's scores have been relatively consistent. Maybe 5 one year or 6 another. People would ask the same type of questions if RHS or any other schools had a sudden drop, say from a 5 or 6 to a 1 or 2.

I freely admit that some people might offer different theories on why the drop occurred and maybe those theories would be fair and fact based, maybe they wouldn't. But I hope people would be asking the questions.

And most people acknowledge that test scores and therefore GS scores are heavily correlated to socioeconomic status, a major weakness in using them to measure school quality. Therefore, if there had been a change in the average Whitman students background, that would be another potential explanation. But I don't believe that has been the case.

Rockville HS scores were low because there are lots of poor students. Churchill HS scores were high because there are very few poor students. And Whitman HS scores were low because Whitman parents instilled a sense of right and wrong in their children?

I mean, really.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really not see the distinction? Presumably RHS's scores have been relatively consistent. Maybe 5 one year or 6 another. People would ask the same type of questions if RHS or any other schools had a sudden drop, say from a 5 or 6 to a 1 or 2.

I freely admit that some people might offer different theories on why the drop occurred and maybe those theories would be fair and fact based, maybe they wouldn't. But I hope people would be asking the questions.

And most people acknowledge that test scores and therefore GS scores are heavily correlated to socioeconomic status, a major weakness in using them to measure school quality. Therefore, if there had been a change in the average Whitman students background, that would be another potential explanation. But I don't believe that has been the case.

Rockville HS scores were low because there are lots of poor students. Churchill HS scores were high because there are very few poor students. And Whitman HS scores were low because Whitman parents instilled a sense of right and wrong in their children?

I mean, really.

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really not see the distinction? Presumably RHS's scores have been relatively consistent. Maybe 5 one year or 6 another. People would ask the same type of questions if RHS or any other schools had a sudden drop, say from a 5 or 6 to a 1 or 2.

I freely admit that some people might offer different theories on why the drop occurred and maybe those theories would be fair and fact based, maybe they wouldn't. But I hope people would be asking the questions.

And most people acknowledge that test scores and therefore GS scores are heavily correlated to socioeconomic status, a major weakness in using them to measure school quality. Therefore, if there had been a change in the average Whitman students background, that would be another potential explanation. But I don't believe that has been the case.

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

So when Whitman scores are low, it's political protest, but when other high school scores are low, it's...?

The reason this makes potential sense is that there was a precipitous drop in their scores in a one year period. It is hard to imagine that Whitman's teaching changed dramatically in a year or that the abilities of its students changed so suddenly. If this had been a slow, steady decline it would be harder to explain away. But it seems odd to me that Whitman teachers and students would all of a sudden become drastically less able.

It seems odd to me that the children of intelligent parents, with high-paying jobs and advanced degrees, who have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality, purposely tanked the test at Whitman, but did not purposely tank the tests at the other high schools where all of those things are true as well (as far as anybody knows). Why no political protest at B-CC, for example? Or Wootton, or Walter Johnson, or Churchill?

Not sure, but it is entirely possible a relatively small number of students decided to organize a campaign that was followed by more. Lots of times high school students will follow what popular kids do. For whatever reason, maybe the same effort wasn't made at other schools. Maybe it will happen this year at other schools.

More fundamentally, you asked a reasonable question, but you offered no proposed answer of your own. Why do you think scores dropped so precipitously in one year?

I have no idea. My kid goes to one of the high schools where, when the students don't do well on the standardized tests, it's obviously because the parents haven't instilled a culture of learning.

+1 No one sits around asking why the kids "chose" not to do well at the other schools with lower great schools scores. Why aren't there threads discussing why the students at Rockville High School (great schools score, 5) chose to purposefully tank the test and "not be sheep" just like the kids at Whitman?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no dog in this fight but the new PARCC scores are out and Whitman's scores are much, much better this year, so it does appear that last year's scores were an outlier.

Can you link to the new scores? I've only seen 2015-2016 so far.

Anonymous wrote:I have no dog in this fight but the new PARCC scores are out and Whitman's scores are much, much better this year, so it does appear that last year's scores were an outlier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, this "protest" at Whitman didn't seem to include Black, Latinx, and Asian kids. Maybe because those kids are less accustomed to being pandered to?

Possibly. If there was a protest, it is possible that one clique was primarily behind it and it is no secret that friend groups often break down significantly along racial lines. The disparity you point to arguably makes it more likely there was an organized protest of some sort.

If it was a decline in quality of teachers/academics, you would think it would hit students fairly uniformly across race, and again it would hard to see how there would be such a sudden drop in quality.

PP, when you have to work this hard to make your explanation fit the facts, it's time to consider a different explanation.

I am not working hard at all. And what explanation are you providing as to why there would be such a precipitous drop in one year?

Did the teachers all of a sudden turn terrible? Did the quality of the students plummet? What changed about the school that would explain such a drastic drop?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, this "protest" at Whitman didn't seem to include Black, Latinx, and Asian kids. Maybe because those kids are less accustomed to being pandered to?

Possibly. If there was a protest, it is possible that one clique was primarily behind it and it is no secret that friend groups often break down significantly along racial lines. The disparity you point to arguably makes it more likely there was an organized protest of some sort.

If it was a decline in quality of teachers/academics, you would think it would hit students fairly uniformly across race, and again it would hard to see how there would be such a sudden drop in quality.

PP, when you have to work this hard to make your explanation fit the facts, it's time to consider a different explanation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone been able to provide an explanation as to what went wrong at Whitman? Assuming on average the test takers at Whitman didn’t change their habits from test takers in prior years, why was there such a huge change in score? Can it be that the last group of Whitman test takes were just significantly less prepared (or intellectually capable) than prior Whitman students? Why would that happen? Changes at Whitman perhaps? The effect seems to be a school-wide phenomenon?

I don’t think you can blame the lower scores on the test either. If the low score had something to do with the test, why don’t we see similar effects at other schools?

Also, look at the internals. The Black and Hispanic students at Whitman actually scored slightly higher on average than White and Asian students? In fact, the only reason Whitman scored a 4 instead of a 3 is because it appears the Black and Hispanic students are propping up the score ---- they average 4/10 whereas the White and Asian students average 3/10.

I’m not trying to make excuses for Whitman’s poor scores. Instead, I’m trying to understand what could have gone wrong.

We know what went wrong. A substantial portion of Whitman students, with the backing of a handful of teachers, blew off the test because it didn't count toward college admissions. Filled in random bubbles, wrote C all the way down, etc.

We know this isn't about lack of ability or preparation, even though that's certainly the charge Whitman folks level at East County folks all the time. It's about culture and attitude. A culture of only doing your best when there is an external award (a trophy, a participation ribbon, a college admissions boost) rather than doing your best for the sake of doing your best. An attitude of dismissal, as if nothing that benefits the school but not the student personally could possibly be worth participating in.

I believe this scenario with one exception. I cannot honestly believe a handful of teachers were behind this. Silly as it might be, standardized testing scores are important for the school. How can teachers get away with this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight (yet), but I think it's safe to say that a majority of kids attending Whitman are not pompous ingrates that are oblivious to reality. Sure there are some, but most are being raised by parents that are somewhat intelligent, who are sitting in high-paying jobs and hold advanced degrees. These parents have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality. It is much more likely that these kids purposely tanked the test as a protest/statement against this kind of testing that public school kids are so often forced to endure. And even if they tanked it for more selfish reasons -- i.e. they were told it wouldn't effect their college admissions -- unless the school made it clear to them (in real/digestible terms) why doing well on the test was good for their school and community you can't blame them for not wanting to focus their energy on something they saw held no value for them or their future.

So when Whitman scores are low, it's political protest, but when other high school scores are low, it's...?

The reason this makes potential sense is that there was a precipitous drop in their scores in a one year period. It is hard to imagine that Whitman's teaching changed dramatically in a year or that the abilities of its students changed so suddenly. If this had been a slow, steady decline it would be harder to explain away. But it seems odd to me that Whitman teachers and students would all of a sudden become drastically less able.

It seems odd to me that the children of intelligent parents, with high-paying jobs and advanced degrees, who have instilled in their children a sense of what's right and wrong and pushed critical thinking and rocking the boat over a sheep mentality, purposely tanked the test at Whitman, but did not purposely tank the tests at the other high schools where all of those things are true as well (as far as anybody knows). Why no political protest at B-CC, for example? Or Wootton, or Walter Johnson, or Churchill?

Not sure, but it is entirely possible a relatively small number of students decided to organize a campaign that was followed by more. Lots of times high school students will follow what popular kids do. For whatever reason, maybe the same effort wasn't made at other schools. Maybe it will happen this year at other schools.

More fundamentally, you asked a reasonable question, but you offered no proposed answer of your own. Why do you think scores dropped so precipitously in one year?

I have no idea. My kid goes to one of the high schools where, when the students don't do well on the standardized tests, it's obviously because the parents haven't instilled a culture of learning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, this "protest" at Whitman didn't seem to include Black, Latinx, and Asian kids. Maybe because those kids are less accustomed to being pandered to?

Possibly. If there was a protest, it is possible that one clique was primarily behind it and it is no secret that friend groups often break down significantly along racial lines. The disparity you point to arguably makes it more likely there was an organized protest of some sort.

If it was a decline in quality of teachers/academics, you would think it would hit students fairly uniformly across race, and again it would hard to see how there would be such a sudden drop in quality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone been able to provide an explanation as to what went wrong at Whitman? Assuming on average the test takers at Whitman didn’t change their habits from test takers in prior years, why was there such a huge change in score? Can it be that the last group of Whitman test takes were just significantly less prepared (or intellectually capable) than prior Whitman students? Why would that happen? Changes at Whitman perhaps? The effect seems to be a school-wide phenomenon?

I don’t think you can blame the lower scores on the test either. If the low score had something to do with the test, why don’t we see similar effects at other schools?

Also, look at the internals. The Black and Hispanic students at Whitman actually scored slightly higher on average than White and Asian students? In fact, the only reason Whitman scored a 4 instead of a 3 is because it appears the Black and Hispanic students are propping up the score ---- they average 4/10 whereas the White and Asian students average 3/10.

I’m not trying to make excuses for Whitman’s poor scores. Instead, I’m trying to understand what could have gone wrong.

We know what went wrong. A substantial portion of Whitman students, with the backing of a handful of teachers, blew off the test because it didn't count toward college admissions. Filled in random bubbles, wrote C all the way down, etc.

We know this isn't about lack of ability or preparation, even though that's certainly the charge Whitman folks level at East County folks all the time. It's about culture and attitude. A culture of only doing your best when there is an external award (a trophy, a participation ribbon, a college admissions boost) rather than doing your best for the sake of doing your best. An attitude of dismissal, as if nothing that benefits the school but not the student personally could possibly be worth participating in.

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, this "protest" at Whitman didn't seem to include Black, Latinx, and Asian kids. Maybe because those kids are less accustomed to being pandered to?