Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And test scores do not tell the whole story about schools. I wish people would stop pretending they do. It's so annoying to pick up one of those magazines named after a city, look at the article that says something like, "We rank all the high schools! Is yours in the top five?" And then look at the methodology they used only to find that it's just a ranking of test scores. Nothing more.

I am all ears to learn about a better metric than test scores.

25 year class reunion. I was shocked to see how many of the bad kids were enormously successful. And the handful that weren't probably failed due to lack of motivation or having kids very young instead of poor education. I spoke with the former school drug dealer. He has an ok job and a nice family. What impressed me the most is how wicked smart he is. Would he have done better at a different school? He said no, he would have just been dealing better drugs. My awful high school produced 9 business owners, 3 of them are large companies. We also have 10 attorneys, several middle managers and many in a trade. 7 are living and working internationally. Yes, there are some that didn't excel to DCUM standards, but I very strongly feel that a student will have the same success in school whether it be Whitman or Einstein. The difference is peer group which is very important. You want your kids surrounded by other kids that want the same in life. The drugs will be everywhere, the bullying is everywhere, and I am sure there are ample amount of kids in higher performing school's that aren't motivated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the empirical data of percent of kids who score 3 or higher on an AP test. For instance at Einstein, 49.5% of graduates are in this category. This is similar to other middle class schools like QO, Sherwood, and Rockville. It's actually more impressive because a larger percent of kids at Einstein come from less wealthy families. Sure there are kids who are failing, but literally half of the school is taking AP classes and doing well.

It's true that that percentage in the Bethesda schools is in the 70s, but how substantial of a difference is it if 50% or 70% of kids are taking advanced classes and doing well? Are we that afraid that the presence of some non-superstars will bring our kid down?

49.5% of graduates scoring 3 or higher on an AP test doesn't tell you much. It doesn't tell you how many students take AP. It doesn't tell you how many AP each student takes. It doesn't tell you how well the students do on their APs. A highly dubious metric.

Ok. There's where we differ. If you will only be comfortable sending your child to a school where literally everyone is at the top of the class (ha), then that is a priority for you. It sounds like a race to nowhere to me. My husband and I both went to average high schools and graduated at the top of our classes and went on to do very well. There may be comfort in statistics that show literally everyone doing well at one school or another, but have faith in your kid. Bright kids with good attitudes do well everywhere if they have advanced classes and opportunities.

You are again focusing on particular cases. Just because the students at the top of the class do very well, it doesn't mean that the school did a good job educating its student body. You care only about yourself, not about all the students attending your average high school.

It's heartwarming to think of all of those altruistic parents at Churchill and Whitman, unselfishly sending their children to school with lots of kids with high test scores, out of pure and self-sacrificing concern for the education of all of the students attending the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And test scores do not tell the whole story about schools. I wish people would stop pretending they do. It's so annoying to pick up one of those magazines named after a city, look at the article that says something like, "We rank all the high schools! Is yours in the top five?" And then look at the methodology they used only to find that it's just a ranking of test scores. Nothing more.

I am all ears to learn about a better metric than test scores.

Anonymous wrote:


What would you call someone who makes more money, hence a better job, lives in a nicer area, has more successful kids and with higher test scores? Sounds like they did it better to me. This is when you fire back about how you are happy with what you have and you don’t want that type of success anyway. Or maybe like the previous poster who gloats about her and her husband looking better when the went to school with a bunch of average kids. Maybe some kids don’t have be surround with mediocrity to stand out?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can always point to that one person failing in a school with highest overall test scores to make a point. But statistically speaking, the schools with the highest overall test scores provide the best education to the most students attending. I keep asking: do you have an alternative quantitative measure to measure student success?

No, statistically speaking, the schools with the highest overall test scores have the most students with high test scores.

Schools with lots of kids from affluent, well-educated families have high test scores. Do you think that's because the teachers and administrators at those schools are better?

Yes schools with better parents have better students who have better scores. You identify with the less successful group of parents, send your kids with the less successful kids but yet think your kids will buck the trend. Cheers to your optimism

It looks like one of those "better parents" came by on DCUM to teach us how to identify with the better versions of ourselves.

What would you call someone who makes more money, hence a better job, lives in a nicer area, has more successful kids and with higher test scores? Sounds like they did it better to me. This is when you fire back about how you are happy with what you have and you don’t want that type of success anyway. Or maybe like the previous poster who gloats about her and her husband looking better when the went to school with a bunch of average kids. Maybe some kids don’t have be surround with mediocrity to stand out?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can always point to that one person failing in a school with highest overall test scores to make a point. But statistically speaking, the schools with the highest overall test scores provide the best education to the most students attending. I keep asking: do you have an alternative quantitative measure to measure student success?

No, statistically speaking, the schools with the highest overall test scores have the most students with high test scores.

Schools with lots of kids from affluent, well-educated families have high test scores. Do you think that's because the teachers and administrators at those schools are better?

Yes schools with better parents have better students who have better scores. You identify with the less successful group of parents, send your kids with the less successful kids but yet think your kids will buck the trend. Cheers to your optimism

It looks like one of those "better parents" came by on DCUM to teach us how to identify with the better versions of ourselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And test scores do not tell the whole story about schools. I wish people would stop pretending they do. It's so annoying to pick up one of those magazines named after a city, look at the article that says something like, "We rank all the high schools! Is yours in the top five?" And then look at the methodology they used only to find that it's just a ranking of test scores. Nothing more.

I am all ears to learn about a better metric than test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And test scores do not tell the whole story about schools. I wish people would stop pretending they do. It's so annoying to pick up one of those magazines named after a city, look at the article that says something like, "We rank all the high schools! Is yours in the top five?" And then look at the methodology they used only to find that it's just a ranking of test scores. Nothing more.

I am all ears to learn about a better metric than test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the empirical data of percent of kids who score 3 or higher on an AP test. For instance at Einstein, 49.5% of graduates are in this category. This is similar to other middle class schools like QO, Sherwood, and Rockville. It's actually more impressive because a larger percent of kids at Einstein come from less wealthy families. Sure there are kids who are failing, but literally half of the school is taking AP classes and doing well.

It's true that that percentage in the Bethesda schools is in the 70s, but how substantial of a difference is it if 50% or 70% of kids are taking advanced classes and doing well? Are we that afraid that the presence of some non-superstars will bring our kid down?

49.5% of graduates scoring 3 or higher on an AP test doesn't tell you much. It doesn't tell you how many students take AP. It doesn't tell you how many AP each student takes. It doesn't tell you how well the students do on their APs. A highly dubious metric.

Ok. There's where we differ. If you will only be comfortable sending your child to a school where literally everyone is at the top of the class (ha), then that is a priority for you. It sounds like a race to nowhere to me. My husband and I both went to average high schools and graduated at the top of our classes and went on to do very well. There may be comfort in statistics that show literally everyone doing well at one school or another, but have faith in your kid. Bright kids with good attitudes do well everywhere if they have advanced classes and opportunities.

You are again focusing on particular cases. Just because the students at the top of the class do very well, it doesn't mean that the school did a good job educating its student body. You care only about yourself, not about all the students attending your average high school.

Anonymous wrote:And test scores do not tell the whole story about schools. I wish people would stop pretending they do. It's so annoying to pick up one of those magazines named after a city, look at the article that says something like, "We rank all the high schools! Is yours in the top five?" And then look at the methodology they used only to find that it's just a ranking of test scores. Nothing more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can always point to that one person failing in a school with highest overall test scores to make a point. But statistically speaking, the schools with the highest overall test scores provide the best education to the most students attending. I keep asking: do you have an alternative quantitative measure to measure student success?

No, statistically speaking, the schools with the highest overall test scores have the most students with high test scores.

Schools with lots of kids from affluent, well-educated families have high test scores. Do you think that's because the teachers and administrators at those schools are better?

Yes schools with better parents have better students who have better scores. You identify with the less successful group of parents, send your kids with the less successful kids but yet think your kids will buck the trend. Cheers to your optimism

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can always point to that one person failing in a school with highest overall test scores to make a point. But statistically speaking, the schools with the highest overall test scores provide the best education to the most students attending. I keep asking: do you have an alternative quantitative measure to measure student success?

No, statistically speaking, the schools with the highest overall test scores have the most students with high test scores.

Schools with lots of kids from affluent, well-educated families have high test scores. Do you think that's because the teachers and administrators at those schools are better?

Yes schools with better parents have better students who have better scores. You identify with the less successful group of parents, send your kids with the less successful kids but yet think your kids will buck the trend. Cheers to your optimism

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the empirical data of percent of kids who score 3 or higher on an AP test. For instance at Einstein, 49.5% of graduates are in this category. This is similar to other middle class schools like QO, Sherwood, and Rockville. It's actually more impressive because a larger percent of kids at Einstein come from less wealthy families. Sure there are kids who are failing, but literally half of the school is taking AP classes and doing well.

It's true that that percentage in the Bethesda schools is in the 70s, but how substantial of a difference is it if 50% or 70% of kids are taking advanced classes and doing well? Are we that afraid that the presence of some non-superstars will bring our kid down?

49.5% of graduates scoring 3 or higher on an AP test doesn't tell you much. It doesn't tell you how many students take AP. It doesn't tell you how many AP each student takes. It doesn't tell you how well the students do on their APs. A highly dubious metric.

Ok. There's where we differ. If you will only be comfortable sending your child to a school where literally everyone is at the top of the class (ha), then that is a priority for you. It sounds like a race to nowhere to me. My husband and I both went to average high schools and graduated at the top of our classes and went on to do very well. There may be comfort in statistics that show literally everyone doing well at one school or another, but have faith in your kid. Bright kids with good attitudes do well everywhere if they have advanced classes and opportunities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the empirical data of percent of kids who score 3 or higher on an AP test. For instance at Einstein, 49.5% of graduates are in this category. This is similar to other middle class schools like QO, Sherwood, and Rockville. It's actually more impressive because a larger percent of kids at Einstein come from less wealthy families. Sure there are kids who are failing, but literally half of the school is taking AP classes and doing well.

It's true that that percentage in the Bethesda schools is in the 70s, but how substantial of a difference is it if 50% or 70% of kids are taking advanced classes and doing well? Are we that afraid that the presence of some non-superstars will bring our kid down?

49.5% of graduates scoring 3 or higher on an AP test doesn't tell you much. It doesn't tell you how many students take AP. It doesn't tell you how many AP each student takes. It doesn't tell you how well the students do on their APs. A highly dubious metric.

Ok. There's where we differ. If you will only be comfortable sending your child to a school where literally everyone is at the top of the class (ha), then that is a priority for you. It sounds like a race to nowhere to me. My husband and I both went to average high schools and graduated at the top of our classes and went on to do very well. There may be comfort in statistics that show literally everyone doing well at one school or another, but have faith in your kid. Bright kids with good attitudes do well everywhere if they have advanced classes and opportunities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can always point to that one person failing in a school with highest overall test scores to make a point. But statistically speaking, the schools with the highest overall test scores provide the best education to the most students attending. I keep asking: do you have an alternative quantitative measure to measure student success?

No, statistically speaking, the schools with the highest overall test scores have the most students with high test scores.

Schools with lots of kids from affluent, well-educated families have high test scores. Do you think that's because the teachers and administrators at those schools are better?