Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Einstein quite a bit, and I think GS is nonsense all around, including when it shows predominantly white/Asian, overwhelmingly UMC/wealthy, schools as the "winners" in some deranged competition.

With that said, there are a few ways in which Einstein seems to be doing well. Knowing that GS weights how well historically marginalized groups do compared to the state average, I looked at the "equity" section.

On almost every metric, Black, Latino, and Native American kids are outperforming the state average, sometimes by quite a bit. However, I do think MCPS is fudging the numbers a little bit here (not just at AEHS) because the metric is tracking how many kids "take" an AP or IB class, not how many kids pass the class or pass the test.

The one AEHS metric that would give me pause as a parent is the percentage of chronic absences, which is above the state average for every single demographic group.

I wonder if MCPS is now paying for AP tests for everyone (except IB students) to try and help their GS ratings by increasing participation in the exams.

I think they are paying for it as they have lots of extra money and instead of doing helpful things like the tutoring, increase sub, bus driver, custodian, and paraprofessional and other lowered paid jobs, this is less costly and then they can easily claim it against equity OR they were already paying a big chunk for the lower income kids so overall fully paying isn't that much of a difference budget wise.

The cost of an ap test might cover a few hours of one student's tutoring. Yes, in a system of 160k students, there're a lot of AP tests, but those fees are not covering much payroll. We can pick anything MCPS does and decide payroll is more needed.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else notice that Einstein has jumped to a 7/10 on GS? We are in that zone but kids still in elementary so don’t really have a lot of insight (other than anecdotes from neighbors who are happy with the school for their kids). Happy to see the jump, of course, but also curious as to the factors that have led to it. Any current parents with insight?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Einstein quite a bit, and I think GS is nonsense all around, including when it shows predominantly white/Asian, overwhelmingly UMC/wealthy, schools as the "winners" in some deranged competition.

With that said, there are a few ways in which Einstein seems to be doing well. Knowing that GS weights how well historically marginalized groups do compared to the state average, I looked at the "equity" section.

On almost every metric, Black, Latino, and Native American kids are outperforming the state average, sometimes by quite a bit. However, I do think MCPS is fudging the numbers a little bit here (not just at AEHS) because the metric is tracking how many kids "take" an AP or IB class, not how many kids pass the class or pass the test.

The one AEHS metric that would give me pause as a parent is the percentage of chronic absences, which is above the state average for every single demographic group.

I wonder if MCPS is now paying for AP tests for everyone (except IB students) to try and help their GS ratings by increasing participation in the exams.

I think they are paying for it as they have lots of extra money and instead of doing helpful things like the tutoring, increase sub, bus driver, custodian, and paraprofessional and other lowered paid jobs, this is less costly and then they can easily claim it against equity OR they were already paying a big chunk for the lower income kids so overall fully paying isn't that much of a difference budget wise.

The cost of an ap test might cover a few hours of one student's tutoring. Yes, in a system of 160k students, there're a lot of AP tests, but those fees are not covering much payroll. We can pick anything MCPS does and decide payroll is more needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Einstein quite a bit, and I think GS is nonsense all around, including when it shows predominantly white/Asian, overwhelmingly UMC/wealthy, schools as the "winners" in some deranged competition.

With that said, there are a few ways in which Einstein seems to be doing well. Knowing that GS weights how well historically marginalized groups do compared to the state average, I looked at the "equity" section.

On almost every metric, Black, Latino, and Native American kids are outperforming the state average, sometimes by quite a bit. However, I do think MCPS is fudging the numbers a little bit here (not just at AEHS) because the metric is tracking how many kids "take" an AP or IB class, not how many kids pass the class or pass the test.

The one AEHS metric that would give me pause as a parent is the percentage of chronic absences, which is above the state average for every single demographic group.

I wonder if MCPS is now paying for AP tests for everyone (except IB students) to try and help their GS ratings by increasing participation in the exams.

I think they are paying for it as they have lots of extra money and instead of doing helpful things like the tutoring, increase sub, bus driver, custodian, and paraprofessional and other lowered paid jobs, this is less costly and then they can easily claim it against equity OR they were already paying a big chunk for the lower income kids so overall fully paying isn't that much of a difference budget wise.