Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the 2016 SAT scores for mcps:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Scroll down to page 19 where scores are broken out by school and race.

At Einstein, which is a majority-minority school with a highish FARMS rate and NO magnet program, white kids have an average SAT score of 1821.

These students aren't hurting and are college ready.

For comparison, white students' scores at other schools without magnets:
WJ 1831
Wootton 1822
Churchill 1895
Whitman 1932
BCC 1864
Sherwood 1689

Can this thread be done now, please.

All I see is Einstein had the lowest score, other than Sherwood. Also there are so few white kids at Einstein it isn’t really a fair pool. What ever limited resources get broken out for the handful of middle class families, where schools like Whitman where every kids every kid need that level of enrichment. Also I love how Blair parents take great pride in the accomplishments of West county kids that are bussed to the school. Seems sort of disingenuous, you know where there are lots of high achieving kids like the west county kids you think makes Blair so special? West county, the schools there are filled with them.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/2017/Grand-Prize-in-Science-Competition-Goes-to-Bethesda-Teen-for-Work-on-Auction-Security/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the 2016 SAT scores for mcps:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Scroll down to page 19 where scores are broken out by school and race.

At Einstein, which is a majority-minority school with a highish FARMS rate and NO magnet program, white kids have an average SAT score of 1821.

These students aren't hurting and are college ready.

For comparison, white students' scores at other schools without magnets:
WJ 1831
Wootton 1822
Churchill 1895
Whitman 1932
BCC 1864
Sherwood 1689

Can this thread be done now, please.

All I see is Einstein had the lowest score, other than Sherwood. Also there are so few white kids at Einstein it isn’t really a fair pool. What ever limited resources get broken out for the handful of middle class families, where schools like Whitman where every kids every kid need that level of enrichment. Also I love how Blair parents take great pride in the accomplishments of West county kids that are bussed to the school. Seems sort of disingenuous, you know where there are lots of high achieving kids like the west county kids you think makes Blair so special? West county, the schools there are filled with them.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/2017/Grand-Prize-in-Science-Competition-Goes-to-Bethesda-Teen-for-Work-on-Auction-Security/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Your opinion only convinces me that my kid is doing just fine where he is. Why are you trying so hard to prove your subjective point?

+1 The thing is, you can't win an argument with someone like this. If you point out some of the great colleges that Blair grads attend, PP will just tell you it must be the (Bethesda or Potomac based) magnet students. If you talk about how happy your child is there, and how well they've done, PP will tell you that you are imagining things, or just have low standards.

You literally cannot win, even with data, because PP doesn't want to admit that middle class families who choose to live on the east side of the county might be making a smart choice.

I am zoned to Richard Montgomery HS (which is an ok school, but not great). I believe test scores are meaningful. If you have a better quantitative metric on how to evaluate school quality, I still haven't heard any.

I live in RM cluster. You do understand that test scores are mostly a reflection of the SES of the student body? What you are saying is that you think a school is only good if the lower income kids who don't have the support and opportunities at home, and probably parents who are less educated, to have similar test scores as those kids who have lots of enrichment and educated parents. Seriously?

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Pg 16 shows you the SAT score breakdown by FARMS in each HS. RM and QO have somewhat similar FARMS rate and very similar SAT scores for this group. Then compare the test scores between RM and Churchill for FARMS students. You will see RM does much better. Is RM the best at educating lower income students? No. But it's certainly doing pretty well by that metric.

Lower income students don't fare any better at Churchill than they do at Gaithersburg HS by this measure, and the oft deried Watkins Mill HS shows better scores for FARMS students than for Churchill.

Given that there are some RM cluster students in the IB program, it's a bit harder to extrapolate how well the RM cluster in bound only students do on the SATs. I don't know the demographics of the IB student body well enough to come up with an accurate number, but the numbers for the FARMs students is pretty telling.

I don’t get how people use the argument “test scores are only tied to SES” and then send their kids to a school with a bunch of really poor kids. SES is environmental as much as inherently germane to the family. You are undercutting your SES by not taking advantage of it, it doesn’t make immune your kids immune for the drags of the system if they are exsposed to it.

Say what?

Socioeconomic status refers to the family of origin's economic situation. That is what studies look at vis-a-vis school performance and success.

Poverty is not contagious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Your opinion only convinces me that my kid is doing just fine where he is. Why are you trying so hard to prove your subjective point?

+1 The thing is, you can't win an argument with someone like this. If you point out some of the great colleges that Blair grads attend, PP will just tell you it must be the (Bethesda or Potomac based) magnet students. If you talk about how happy your child is there, and how well they've done, PP will tell you that you are imagining things, or just have low standards.

You literally cannot win, even with data, because PP doesn't want to admit that middle class families who choose to live on the east side of the county might be making a smart choice.

I am zoned to Richard Montgomery HS (which is an ok school, but not great). I believe test scores are meaningful. If you have a better quantitative metric on how to evaluate school quality, I still haven't heard any.

I live in RM cluster. You do understand that test scores are mostly a reflection of the SES of the student body? What you are saying is that you think a school is only good if the lower income kids who don't have the support and opportunities at home, and probably parents who are less educated, to have similar test scores as those kids who have lots of enrichment and educated parents. Seriously?

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Pg 16 shows you the SAT score breakdown by FARMS in each HS. RM and QO have somewhat similar FARMS rate and very similar SAT scores for this group. Then compare the test scores between RM and Churchill for FARMS students. You will see RM does much better. Is RM the best at educating lower income students? No. But it's certainly doing pretty well by that metric.

Lower income students don't fare any better at Churchill than they do at Gaithersburg HS by this measure, and the oft deried Watkins Mill HS shows better scores for FARMS students than for Churchill.

Given that there are some RM cluster students in the IB program, it's a bit harder to extrapolate how well the RM cluster in bound only students do on the SATs. I don't know the demographics of the IB student body well enough to come up with an accurate number, but the numbers for the FARMs students is pretty telling.

I don’t get how people use the argument “test scores are only tied to SES” and then send their kids to a school with a bunch of really poor kids. SES is environmental as much as inherently germane to the family. You are undercutting your SES by not taking advantage of it, it doesn’t make immune your kids immune for the drags of the system if they are exsposed to it.

Anonymous wrote:Here are the 2016 SAT scores for mcps:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Scroll down to page 19 where scores are broken out by school and race.

At Einstein, which is a majority-minority school with a highish FARMS rate and NO magnet program, white kids have an average SAT score of 1821.

These students aren't hurting and are college ready.

For comparison, white students' scores at other schools without magnets:
WJ 1831
Wootton 1822
Churchill 1895
Whitman 1932
BCC 1864
Sherwood 1689

Can this thread be done now, please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Your opinion only convinces me that my kid is doing just fine where he is. Why are you trying so hard to prove your subjective point?

+1 The thing is, you can't win an argument with someone like this. If you point out some of the great colleges that Blair grads attend, PP will just tell you it must be the (Bethesda or Potomac based) magnet students. If you talk about how happy your child is there, and how well they've done, PP will tell you that you are imagining things, or just have low standards.

You literally cannot win, even with data, because PP doesn't want to admit that middle class families who choose to live on the east side of the county might be making a smart choice.

I am zoned to Richard Montgomery HS (which is an ok school, but not great). I believe test scores are meaningful. If you have a better quantitative metric on how to evaluate school quality, I still haven't heard any.

I live in RM cluster. You do understand that test scores are mostly a reflection of the SES of the student body? What you are saying is that you think a school is only good if the lower income kids who don't have the support and opportunities at home, and probably parents who are less educated, to have similar test scores as those kids who have lots of enrichment and educated parents. Seriously?

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Pg 16 shows you the SAT score breakdown by FARMS in each HS. RM and QO have somewhat similar FARMS rate and very similar SAT scores for this group. Then compare the test scores between RM and Churchill for FARMS students. You will see RM does much better. Is RM the best at educating lower income students? No. But it's certainly doing pretty well by that metric.

Lower income students don't fare any better at Churchill than they do at Gaithersburg HS by this measure, and the oft deried Watkins Mill HS shows better scores for FARMS students than for Churchill.

Given that there are some RM cluster students in the IB program, it's a bit harder to extrapolate how well the RM cluster in bound only students do on the SATs. I don't know the demographics of the IB student body well enough to come up with an accurate number, but the numbers for the FARMs students is pretty telling.

I don’t get how people use the argument “test scores are only tied to SES” and then send their kids to a school with a bunch of really poor kids. SES is environmental as much as inherently germane to the family. You are undercutting your SES by not taking advantage of it, it doesn’t make immune your kids immune for the drags of the system if they are exsposed to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Your opinion only convinces me that my kid is doing just fine where he is. Why are you trying so hard to prove your subjective point?

+1 The thing is, you can't win an argument with someone like this. If you point out some of the great colleges that Blair grads attend, PP will just tell you it must be the (Bethesda or Potomac based) magnet students. If you talk about how happy your child is there, and how well they've done, PP will tell you that you are imagining things, or just have low standards.

You literally cannot win, even with data, because PP doesn't want to admit that middle class families who choose to live on the east side of the county might be making a smart choice.

I am zoned to Richard Montgomery HS (which is an ok school, but not great). I believe test scores are meaningful. If you have a better quantitative metric on how to evaluate school quality, I still haven't heard any.

I live in RM cluster. You do understand that test scores are mostly a reflection of the SES of the student body? What you are saying is that you think a school is only good if the lower income kids who don't have the support and opportunities at home, and probably parents who are less educated, to have similar test scores as those kids who have lots of enrichment and educated parents. Seriously?

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Pg 16 shows you the SAT score breakdown by FARMS in each HS. RM and QO have somewhat similar FARMS rate and very similar SAT scores for this group. Then compare the test scores between RM and Churchill for FARMS students. You will see RM does much better. Is RM the best at educating lower income students? No. But it's certainly doing pretty well by that metric.

Lower income students don't fare any better at Churchill than they do at Gaithersburg HS by this measure, and the oft deried Watkins Mill HS shows better scores for FARMS students than for Churchill.

Given that there are some RM cluster students in the IB program, it's a bit harder to extrapolate how well the RM cluster in bound only students do on the SATs. I don't know the demographics of the IB student body well enough to come up with an accurate number, but the numbers for the FARMs students is pretty telling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Your opinion only convinces me that my kid is doing just fine where he is. Why are you trying so hard to prove your subjective point?

+1 The thing is, you can't win an argument with someone like this. If you point out some of the great colleges that Blair grads attend, PP will just tell you it must be the (Bethesda or Potomac based) magnet students. If you talk about how happy your child is there, and how well they've done, PP will tell you that you are imagining things, or just have low standards.

You literally cannot win, even with data, because PP doesn't want to admit that middle class families who choose to live on the east side of the county might be making a smart choice.

I am zoned to Richard Montgomery HS (which is an ok school, but not great). I believe test scores are meaningful. If you have a better quantitative metric on how to evaluate school quality, I still haven't heard any.

I live in RM cluster. You do understand that test scores are mostly a reflection of the SES of the student body? What you are saying is that you think a school is only good if the lower income kids who don't have the support and opportunities at home, and probably parents who are less educated, to have similar test scores as those kids who have lots of enrichment and educated parents. Seriously?

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Pg 16 shows you the SAT score breakdown by FARMS in each HS. RM and QO have somewhat similar FARMS rate and very similar SAT scores for this group. Then compare the test scores between RM and Churchill for FARMS students. You will see RM does much better. Is RM the best at educating lower income students? No. But it's certainly doing pretty well by that metric.

Lower income students don't fare any better at Churchill than they do at Gaithersburg HS by this measure, and the oft deried Watkins Mill HS shows better scores for FARMS students than for Churchill.

Given that there are some RM cluster students in the IB program, it's a bit harder to extrapolate how well the RM cluster in bound only students do on the SATs. I don't know the demographics of the IB student body well enough to come up with an accurate number, but the numbers for the FARMs students is pretty telling.

Oops... typed in the wrong place in the previous post: What I am saying is that I haven't heard of a better metric than the test scores to assess school performance. What you are trying to do is use test scores to prove me wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oops... typed in the wrong place in the previous post: What I am saying is that I haven't heard of a better metric than the test scores to assess school performance. What you are trying to do is use test scores to prove me wrong.

PP, nobody has said that test scores should be disregarded entirely. So that's a straw man. The discussion has been over whether overall average test scores for a school are a good measure of how good the school is.

And, speaking of goodness, I hope that you're not the PP who thinks that people with more money are more good than people with less money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Your opinion only convinces me that my kid is doing just fine where he is. Why are you trying so hard to prove your subjective point?

+1 The thing is, you can't win an argument with someone like this. If you point out some of the great colleges that Blair grads attend, PP will just tell you it must be the (Bethesda or Potomac based) magnet students. If you talk about how happy your child is there, and how well they've done, PP will tell you that you are imagining things, or just have low standards.

You literally cannot win, even with data, because PP doesn't want to admit that middle class families who choose to live on the east side of the county might be making a smart choice.

I am zoned to Richard Montgomery HS (which is an ok school, but not great). I believe test scores are meaningful. If you have a better quantitative metric on how to evaluate school quality, I still haven't heard any.

I live in RM cluster. You do understand that test scores are mostly a reflection of the SES of the student body? What you are saying is that you think a school is only good if the lower income kids who don't have the support and opportunities at home, and probably parents who are less educated, to have similar test scores as those kids who have lots of enrichment and educated parents. Seriously?

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Pg 16 shows you the SAT score breakdown by FARMS in each HS. RM and QO have somewhat similar FARMS rate and very similar SAT scores for this group. Then compare the test scores between RM and Churchill for FARMS students. You will see RM does much better. Is RM the best at educating lower income students? No. But it's certainly doing pretty well by that metric.

Lower income students don't fare any better at Churchill than they do at Gaithersburg HS by this measure, and the oft deried Watkins Mill HS shows better scores for FARMS students than for Churchill.

Given that there are some RM cluster students in the IB program, it's a bit harder to extrapolate how well the RM cluster in bound only students do on the SATs. I don't know the demographics of the IB student body well enough to come up with an accurate number, but the numbers for the FARMs students is pretty telling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oops... typed in the wrong place in the previous post: What I am saying is that I haven't heard of a better metric than the test scores to assess school performance. What you are trying to do is use test scores to prove me wrong.

PP, nobody has said that test scores should be disregarded entirely. So that's a straw man. The discussion has been over whether overall average test scores for a school are a good measure of how good the school is.

And, speaking of goodness, I hope that you're not the PP who thinks that people with more money are more good than people with less money.