Anonymous wrote:I wish we had 10x the amount of magnets as we do here. I'd love language immersion, IB, STEM or really anything other than just regular school.

I think that the absolute worst thing about public schools in this country is that their quality is tied to your house value. Live in a crummy apartment? Here's a bad school for you. Live in a 2m house? Here's a nice school for you. Your kid is being bullied mercilessly at school? Sorry, you have to go to the school you're districted to. Your only other option is the $$$ private schools in this area.

That’s why we live in DC, where you can lottery into any school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about a list of the "smartest" schools that aren't magnets? Even better, one where they control for wealth.

Now that would be interesting.

Youi would see some surprises, but not really surprises.

Go check out NYC's chinatown public schools. You will see a ton of poverty listings, but high test scores. Sounds crazy right?
It's just that some communities prioritze education more than others.

Some communities prioritize higher test scores more than others. The two are not the same thing, although they relentlessly believe that they are.

Some prioritize it so much they put their thumb on the scale by investing in years of outside enrichment that has even involved test buying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All charter schools. Interesting list.

It’s amazing what happens when you can exclude students you don’t want

These lists just reflect the wealth of the student body.

Not true at all. I went to one of the NYC schools on the list and the vast majority of the families were working class and middle class. If anything, the school was a great launching point for the students -- surrounded by kids that were motivated and wanting to learn more.

Are the vast majority of students at TJ working class?

Not really, the new system is more diverse economically, but many of the admits of the old admission process were UMC since it required spending thousands on outside prep in order to compete.

Anonymous wrote:TJ has been taken down a notch, thanks solely to our woke school board.

More sliding to come due to sliding admission criteria.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All charter schools. Interesting list.

It’s amazing what happens when you can exclude students you don’t want

Exactly.

Schools would be more effective and productive for ALL students if they grouped kids based on academic ability vs zip code.

That's not what the data suggests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about a list of the "smartest" schools that aren't magnets? Even better, one where they control for wealth.

Now that would be interesting.

Youi would see some surprises, but not really surprises.

Go check out NYC's chinatown public schools. You will see a ton of poverty listings, but high test scores. Sounds crazy right?
It's just that some communities prioritze education more than others.

Some communities prioritize higher test scores more than others. The two are not the same thing, although they relentlessly believe that they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish we had 10x the amount of magnets as we do here. I'd love language immersion, IB, STEM or really anything other than just regular school.

I think that the absolute worst thing about public schools in this country is that their quality is tied to your house value. Live in a crummy apartment? Here's a bad school for you. Live in a 2m house? Here's a nice school for you. Your kid is being bullied mercilessly at school? Sorry, you have to go to the school you're districted to. Your only other option is the $$$ private schools in this area.

It isn’t that the schools are better, but the student body is smarter, better prepared for school, and have less challenges. Of course the school filled with kids living with grandma, with absent parent/s, parents that do drugs or doing afternoon/evening shift work, no one caring about their homework or studying, on YouTube all day, no one reading to them; these schools are not going to be academic powerhouses.

UMC parents schools are filled with kids who have been in piano since age 4, read to since birth, in preschool since 2-3, have very engaged parents invested in their learning. So yeah- those schools are better because the parents have been pouring time and energy into their kids academic success since a very early age.

I'm somewhat amused that you put these two things next to each other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All charter schools. Interesting list.

It’s amazing what happens when you can exclude students you don’t want

These lists just reflect the wealth of the student body.

Not true at all. I went to one of the NYC schools on the list and the vast majority of the families were working class and middle class. If anything, the school was a great launching point for the students -- surrounded by kids that were motivated and wanting to learn more.

Are the vast majority of students at TJ working class?

Nope.

Anonymous wrote:How about a list of the "smartest" schools that aren't magnets? Even better, one where they control for wealth.

Now that would be interesting.

Youi would see some surprises, but not really surprises.

Go check out NYC's chinatown public schools. You will see a ton of poverty listings, but high test scores. Sounds crazy right?
It's just that some communities prioritze education more than others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All charter schools. Interesting list.

It’s amazing what happens when you can exclude students you don’t want

Exactly.

Schools would be more effective and productive for ALL students if they grouped kids based on academic ability vs zip code.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All charter schools. Interesting list.

It’s amazing what happens when you can exclude students you don’t want

Yep. When you require admissions testing, certain prerequisite classes, and a complex application process that must be managed, and you can exclude behavioral and academic disabilities, and all the kids who just don’t want to be there at all?

Shocking. /s

Not to mention that I’m familiar with charters that don’t provide transportation, lunches, etc. What a mystery of who will select to go there!

Applications that require parents to have a high degree of literacy, the inability to meet all but the most basic IEPs…

That doesn't seem to be true for NYCs elite public's with it's high share of immigrants/children of immigrants coupled with 50% free and reduced lunch.

It sure is true for magnets and charters literally everywhere else.

This was a very specific NYC policy--and it's one of the few places that can do this and still have high achievement just because there are so many people and a good public transit system that you can be very selective and choose the most talented, motivated poor kids. And, even so NYC has some stellar examples, but has pretty poor equity/achievement statistics outside these exemplar schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All charter schools. Interesting list.

It’s amazing what happens when you can exclude students you don’t want

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:I wish we had 10x the amount of magnets as we do here. I'd love language immersion, IB, STEM or really anything other than just regular school.

I think that the absolute worst thing about public schools in this country is that their quality is tied to your house value. Live in a crummy apartment? Here's a bad school for you. Live in a 2m house? Here's a nice school for you. Your kid is being bullied mercilessly at school? Sorry, you have to go to the school you're districted to. Your only other option is the $$$ private schools in this area.

It isn’t that the schools are better, but the student body is smarter, better prepared for school, and have less challenges. Of course the school filled with kids living with grandma, with absent parent/s, parents that do drugs or doing afternoon/evening shift work, no one caring about their homework or studying, on YouTube all day, no one reading to them; these schools are not going to be academic powerhouses.

UMC parents schools are filled with kids who have been in piano since age 4, read to since birth, in preschool since 2-3, have very engaged parents invested in their learning. So yeah- those schools are better because the parents have been pouring time and energy into their kids academic success since a very early age.

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked that Central HS isn’t in this list. Or even Masterman.

They are good but not great.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All charter schools. Interesting list.

It’s amazing what happens when you can exclude students you don’t want

These lists just reflect the wealth of the student body.

Not true at all. I went to one of the NYC schools on the list and the vast majority of the families were working class and middle class. If anything, the school was a great launching point for the students -- surrounded by kids that were motivated and wanting to learn more.

Are the vast majority of students at TJ working class?