Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These lists just measure a school's overall affluence. It has little to do with the quality of education.

Thank you. It is the W schools and the highly selective magnet programs that are bolstering up the numbers. Other schools are a perfect storm of inexperienced teachers, more FARMS and ESOL students, terrible curriculum and no textbooks.

Uh, the "W" schools have plenty of inexperienced teachers and the same curriculum as the rest of MCPS.

To be honest, the worst teachers from our east county Focus School have been moved to "W feeders" after a year or two. When they are eased out of our school, but can't be fired full-stop, they are moved to a "low needs" school where their deficiencies can be masked by overall preparation and outside support.

That is fair, we sent all of our worst residents to the eastern side of the county. We eased them out to the low expectations communities where their deficiencies are masked by the overall lower standards of the overall population there.

Funny part is one of us is correct, the other is full of it.

Right! The PP is correct, and you're full of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These lists just measure a school's overall affluence. It has little to do with the quality of education.

Thank you. It is the W schools and the highly selective magnet programs that are bolstering up the numbers. Other schools are a perfect storm of inexperienced teachers, more FARMS and ESOL students, terrible curriculum and no textbooks.

Uh, the "W" schools have plenty of inexperienced teachers and the same curriculum as the rest of MCPS.

To be honest, the worst teachers from our east county Focus School have been moved to "W feeders" after a year or two. When they are eased out of our school, but can't be fired full-stop, they are moved to a "low needs" school where their deficiencies can be masked by overall preparation and outside support.

That is fair, we sent all of our worst residents to the eastern side of the county. We eased them out to the low expectations communities where their deficiencies are masked by the overall lower standards of the overall population there.

Funny part is one of us is correct, the other is full of it.

Anonymous wrote:
All of these 'rankings' are a self licking ice cream cone to make us feel better for the taxes we pay for substandard results. Read the Kirwan Commission Report for the real truth, not 'niche'. Our best students are likely two to three years behind their international peers. Also, when one of these schools -- MCPS included -- has the courage to take an international benchmark test like the PISA then we should give them a bow. MCPS central office deserves as much daily scorn as they receive on this board - probably even a little more -- for the curriculum travesty the past nine years. So hurrah to the cram schools for these results! (Lindamood-Bell, C2, Abacus Math...)

Uh...this is high schools. The curriculum deficiency was ES and MS.
Idiot

'Idiot' here. Fact: the kids who started on Curriculum 2.0 are now entering their Junior Year in MCPS High Schools.
https://angelialevy.com/tag/curriculum-2-0/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The list measures the average (mean) score on standardized tests taken by the students at the school.

Yes, so? Is it wrong to say it measures the "school's overall performance"? I think most reasonable person would know when we talk about HS performance, we are talking about student scores (average, not a few particular students).

I haven't followed it too closely but measuring college and career readiness is looking at more factors than it used to.

For previous rankings it only looked at state assessment scores. And some other rankings just the number of AP tests taken divided by number of graduating students for that year. So there were a lot of issues were those types of methods.

For the newer measures they look at more factors such as courses taken, I think some might look at grades, tests taken and performance, etc.

Here are the factors that the niche.com rankings took into account:
https://www.niche.com/about/methodology/college-prep-public-high-schools/

So while standardized tests still play a factor it looks at other things as well.

However I agree with previous comments that the rankings are more of a reflection of the population of the schools rather than the performance of the schools itself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These lists just measure a school's overall affluence. It has little to do with the quality of education.

The list measures the school's overall performance. Whether it has anything to do with overall affluence or quality of education, that is something to be determined (by whoever's more interested in those).

The list measures the average (mean) score on standardized tests taken by the students at the school.

Yes, so? Is it wrong to say it measures the "school's overall performance"? I think most reasonable person would know when we talk about HS performance, we are talking about student scores (average, not a few particular students).

It's not wrong. It is imprecise and inaccurate.

Anyone would mistaken "overall performance" for anything other than "student average score"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These lists just measure a school's overall affluence. It has little to do with the quality of education.

The list measures the school's overall performance. Whether it has anything to do with overall affluence or quality of education, that is something to be determined (by whoever's more interested in those).

The list measures the average (mean) score on standardized tests taken by the students at the school.

Yes, so? Is it wrong to say it measures the "school's overall performance"? I think most reasonable person would know when we talk about HS performance, we are talking about student scores (average, not a few particular students).

It's not wrong. It is imprecise and inaccurate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These lists just measure a school's overall affluence. It has little to do with the quality of education.

The list measures the school's overall performance. Whether it has anything to do with overall affluence or quality of education, that is something to be determined (by whoever's more interested in those).

The list measures the average (mean) score on standardized tests taken by the students at the school.

Yes, so? Is it wrong to say it measures the "school's overall performance"? I think most reasonable person would know when we talk about HS performance, we are talking about student scores (average, not a few particular students).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These lists just measure a school's overall affluence. It has little to do with the quality of education.

Thank you. It is the W schools and the highly selective magnet programs that are bolstering up the numbers. Other schools are a perfect storm of inexperienced teachers, more FARMS and ESOL students, terrible curriculum and no textbooks.

Uh, the "W" schools have plenty of inexperienced teachers and the same curriculum as the rest of MCPS.

To be honest, the worst teachers from our east county Focus School have been moved to "W feeders" after a year or two. When they are eased out of our school, but can't be fired full-stop, they are moved to a "low needs" school where their deficiencies can be masked by overall preparation and outside support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These lists just measure a school's overall affluence. It has little to do with the quality of education.

The list measures the school's overall performance. Whether it has anything to do with overall affluence or quality of education, that is something to be determined (by whoever's more interested in those).

The list measures the average (mean) score on standardized tests taken by the students at the school.

Anonymous wrote:These lists just measure a school's overall affluence. It has little to do with the quality of education.

The list measures the school's overall performance. Whether it has anything to do with overall affluence or quality of education, that is something to be determined (by whoever's more interested in those).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These lists just measure a school's overall affluence. It has little to do with the quality of education.

Thank you. It is the W schools and the highly selective magnet programs that are bolstering up the numbers. Other schools are a perfect storm of inexperienced teachers, more FARMS and ESOL students, terrible curriculum and no textbooks.

With few exceptions nationwide, affluence determines scores/ratings. When I lived in wealthy NE town with a tiny school system, there was no gap...because it was totally (economically) segregated. They were not performing miracles. There was no secret method that MCPS is just not adapting. They had not solved the gap. There just was no gap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These lists just measure a school's overall affluence. It has little to do with the quality of education.

Thank you. It is the W schools and the highly selective magnet programs that are bolstering up the numbers. Other schools are a perfect storm of inexperienced teachers, more FARMS and ESOL students, terrible curriculum and no textbooks.

Uh, the "W" schools have plenty of inexperienced teachers and the same curriculum as the rest of MCPS.

Anonymous wrote:These lists just measure a school's overall affluence. It has little to do with the quality of education.

Thank you. It is the W schools and the highly selective magnet programs that are bolstering up the numbers. Other schools are a perfect storm of inexperienced teachers, more FARMS and ESOL students, terrible curriculum and no textbooks.

These lists just measure a school's overall affluence. It has little to do with the quality of education.

Anonymous wrote:This list is rather ridiculous. Fat chance Sherweed is better than AHC. Ditto for GC.

As a Sherwood parent I completely agree.