Anonymous wrote:Low income students can never do well if their parents are not well educated, or they do not prioritize education above all else.

That’s when privilege comes into play. There are so many students in down county schools who parents have to sacrifice so much just to get the bills pay. These parents can’t afford to give their students tutors or any financial aid when it comes to their education because they’re too busy working 2 jobs just to keep the lights on some DC kids have to pay rent to help out their parents. I know most upcounty parents don’t have to worry about those problems. These are children (individuals lives) not just numbers and saying their parents are not “well educated “ or don’t care about their education is ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to define a "good" school, that is fine.

The previous poster was clearly talking about performance data. I was simply showing him that the report quoted in OP does not provide the overall performance data. You can have a school in which all subgroups perform better, but overall it does not.

Whether that performance data (score) means anything - I don't want to be dragged into that for now.

How is it possible for "each subgroup to perform better but not overall" compared to another school?

See, that's the problem. Many people are mislead by those type of reports.

Let me give you an example: pet school A and school B, dogs and cats go to these schools.

In school A, cats get an average score of 90, dogs get an average score of 20.
In school B, cats get an average score of 100, dogs get an average score of 30.

Do you think school B must out-perform school A?

Not true. The answer: school A has 100 cats and 1 dog. School B has 100 dogs and 1 cat. Now you can see which school has higher performing animals?

School A is clearly better. Your reasoning is flawed.

Wrong! School B is better for dogs and for cats since both groups perform better there than at the alternative. This is pretty basic stuff.

Although averages are interesting, you're right; it comes down to individual outcomes so dogs and cats are better off at school B.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Low income students can never do well if their parents are not well educated, or they do not prioritize education above all else.

So.. we should just give up on them?

I would not say *never*. I grew up lower income with uneducated parents, and I did fairly well in school.

Forgot to mention that my parents never pushed me to go to college. Actually, they said just learn a trade and get married early (I'm a female) and have your husband take of you. I didn't get married till I was 34, making six figures by then. I didn't listen to my parents

Were your parent fluent in proper English?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to define a "good" school, that is fine.

The previous poster was clearly talking about performance data. I was simply showing him that the report quoted in OP does not provide the overall performance data. You can have a school in which all subgroups perform better, but overall it does not.

Whether that performance data (score) means anything - I don't want to be dragged into that for now.

How is it possible for "each subgroup to perform better but not overall" compared to another school?

See, that's the problem. Many people are mislead by those type of reports.

Let me give you an example: pet school A and school B, dogs and cats go to these schools.

In school A, cats get an average score of 90, dogs get an average score of 20.
In school B, cats get an average score of 100, dogs get an average score of 30.

Do you think school B must out-perform school A?

Not true. The answer: school A has 100 cats and 1 dog. School B has 100 dogs and 1 cat. Now you can see which school has higher performing animals?

School A is clearly better. Your reasoning is flawed.

Wrong! School B is better for dogs and for cats since both groups perform better there than at the alternative. This is pretty basic stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to define a "good" school, that is fine.

The previous poster was clearly talking about performance data. I was simply showing him that the report quoted in OP does not provide the overall performance data. You can have a school in which all subgroups perform better, but overall it does not.

Whether that performance data (score) means anything - I don't want to be dragged into that for now.

How is it possible for "each subgroup to perform better but not overall" compared to another school?

See, that's the problem. Many people are mislead by those type of reports.

Let me give you an example: pet school A and school B, dogs and cats go to these schools.

In school A, cats get an average score of 90, dogs get an average score of 20.
In school B, cats get an average score of 100, dogs get an average score of 30.

Do you think school B must out-perform school A?

Not true. The answer: school A has 100 cats and 1 dog. School B has 100 dogs and 1 cat. Now you can see which school has higher performing animals?

School A is clearly better. Your reasoning is flawed.

Anonymous wrote:Low income students can never do well if their parents are not well educated, or they do not prioritize education above all else.

but mostly when they're confined to schools with concentrated poverty

Anonymous wrote:
OK, and if cat group in school A performs better than cat group in school B, and dog group in school A performs better than dog group in School B, then overall, school A is better.

Yes, the size of the group can be different.

Well, you can define "better" that way.

Just don't misled people to believe "animals in school A performs better".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to define a "good" school, that is fine.

The previous poster was clearly talking about performance data. I was simply showing him that the report quoted in OP does not provide the overall performance data. You can have a school in which all subgroups perform better, but overall it does not.

Whether that performance data (score) means anything - I don't want to be dragged into that for now.

How is it possible for "each subgroup to perform better but not overall" compared to another school?

See, that's the problem. Many people are mislead by those type of reports.

Let me give you an example: pet school A and school B, dogs and cats go to these schools.

In school A, cats get an average score of 90, dogs get an average score of 20.
In school B, cats get an average score of 100, dogs get an average score of 30.

Do you think school B must out-perform school A?

Not true. The answer: school A has 100 cats and 1 dog. School B has 100 dogs and 1 cat. Now you can see which school has higher performing animals?

? The chart compares like for like -- "subgroups". Every school is grouped the same way per that site.

If every subgroup does well in school A compared to school B then clearly, school A is better.

So did I: subgroups: cat group and dog group.

You just can't assume the sizes of subgroups are all the same across different schools.

OK, and if cat group in school A performs better than cat group in school B, and dog group in school A performs better than dog group in School B, then overall, school A is better.

Yes, the size of the group can be different.

Anonymous wrote:Low income students can never do well if their parents are not well educated, or they do not prioritize education above all else.

Oh, certainly they can do well. Maybe they need to work harder to reach their full potentials, but to do well (or, say being average) is not that hard.

Those kids who really fall behind are mostly who do not study. Whether that is due to their own not wanting to, or their family/culture/environment not encouraging them to, is really not our concern.

Einstein is great for the 4/5th of the kids who graduate and the 1/3 that make it into college. For the rest

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to define a "good" school, that is fine.

The previous poster was clearly talking about performance data. I was simply showing him that the report quoted in OP does not provide the overall performance data. You can have a school in which all subgroups perform better, but overall it does not.

Whether that performance data (score) means anything - I don't want to be dragged into that for now.

How is it possible for "each subgroup to perform better but not overall" compared to another school?

See, that's the problem. Many people are mislead by those type of reports.

Let me give you an example: pet school A and school B, dogs and cats go to these schools.

In school A, cats get an average score of 90, dogs get an average score of 20.
In school B, cats get an average score of 100, dogs get an average score of 30.

Do you think school B must out-perform school A?

Not true. The answer: school A has 100 cats and 1 dog. School B has 100 dogs and 1 cat. Now you can see which school has higher performing animals?

? The chart compares like for like -- "subgroups". Every school is grouped the same way per that site.

If every subgroup does well in school A compared to school B then clearly, school A is better.

So did I: subgroups: cat group and dog group.

You just can't assume the sizes of subgroups are all the same across different schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Low income students can never do well if their parents are not well educated, or they do not prioritize education above all else.

So.. we should just give up on them?

I would not say *never*. I grew up lower income with uneducated parents, and I did fairly well in school.

Forgot to mention that my parents never pushed me to go to college. Actually, they said just learn a trade and get married early (I'm a female) and have your husband take of you. I didn't get married till I was 34, making six figures by then. I didn't listen to my parents

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to define a "good" school, that is fine.

The previous poster was clearly talking about performance data. I was simply showing him that the report quoted in OP does not provide the overall performance data. You can have a school in which all subgroups perform better, but overall it does not.

Whether that performance data (score) means anything - I don't want to be dragged into that for now.

How is it possible for "each subgroup to perform better but not overall" compared to another school?

See, that's the problem. Many people are mislead by those type of reports.

Let me give you an example: pet school A and school B, dogs and cats go to these schools.

In school A, cats get an average score of 90, dogs get an average score of 20.
In school B, cats get an average score of 100, dogs get an average score of 30.

Do you think school B must out-perform school A?

Not true. The answer: school A has 100 cats and 1 dog. School B has 100 dogs and 1 cat. Now you can see which school has higher performing animals?

? The chart compares like for like -- "subgroups". Every school is grouped the same way per that site.

If every subgroup does well in school A compared to school B then clearly, school A is better.

Anonymous wrote:Low income students can never do well if their parents are not well educated, or they do not prioritize education above all else.

So.. we should just give up on them?

I would not say *never*. I grew up lower income with uneducated parents, and I did fairly well in school.

Low income students can never do well if their parents are not well educated, or they do not prioritize education above all else.