Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just out:

1. Whitman
2. McLean
3. Langley
4. Wooten
5. Churchill
6. Oakton
7. George Mason
8. Yorktown
9. Marshall
10. Walter Johnson
11. Woodson
12. B-CC
13. Richard Montgomery
14. Madison
15. Chantilly

Is this a list of good school or just schools with the fewest poor people?

They're pretty much the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just out:

1. Whitman
2. McLean
3. Langley
4. Wooten
5. Churchill
6. Oakton
7. George Mason
8. Yorktown
9. Marshall
10. Walter Johnson
11. Woodson
12. B-CC
13. Richard Montgomery
14. Madison
15. Chantilly

Is this a list of good school or just schools with the fewest poor people?

Yes, there's no need for this type of ranking since it just amounts to ranking school pyramids by HHI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just out:

1. Whitman
2. McLean
3. Langley
4. Wooten
5. Churchill
6. Oakton
7. George Mason
8. Yorktown
9. Marshall
10. Walter Johnson
11. Woodson
12. B-CC
13. Richard Montgomery
14. Madison
15. Chantilly

Is this a list of good school or just schools with the fewest poor people?

It seems their metric is more about avoiding low-income families than school quality.

Anonymous wrote:Just out:

1. Whitman
2. McLean
3. Langley
4. Wooten
5. Churchill
6. Oakton
7. George Mason
8. Yorktown
9. Marshall
10. Walter Johnson
11. Woodson
12. B-CC
13. Richard Montgomery
14. Madison
15. Chantilly

Is this a list of good school or just schools with the fewest poor people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much for Yorktown being terrible.

It just means it has very few kids from low-income families.

The pp is referring to people on this board that constantly say Arlington's schools are "terrible." W-L and Wakefield are also strong schools, but yes they don't make it on these types of list because they have more socio-economic diversity.

Wakefield definitely had more fentanyl ODs than the competition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:whiteman wins again

Poolesville is ranked higher.

Poolesville was excluded by OP, apparently, because it's largely a magnet. TJ wasn't included either.

Anonymous wrote:whiteman wins again

Poolesville is ranked higher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much for Yorktown being terrible.

It just means it has very few kids from low-income families.

The pp is referring to people on this board that constantly say Arlington's schools are "terrible." W-L and Wakefield are also strong schools, but yes they don't make it on these types of list because they have more socio-economic diversity.

I don't think it's that Arlington schools are "terrible," necessarily. It's just that people grow tired of hearing "Oh, we live in Arlington because of the schools." They are fine. That's it. Nothing more nothing less IMO.

We chose Arlington over Fairfax because of the schools. We liked the smaller class size and push-in/pull-out gifted approach (vs. segregation).

Def can appreciate living in Arlington over Fairfax. And Arlington isn't that great.

It's the least bad option in the DC area IMO.

Spot on!! It's nothing spectacular but the best of the local options.

Agreed. It’s not the the best in the world, but it’s the best of what we have to choose from. You don’t need to decamp to Fairfax if you have the budget for Arlington.

What are you going on about? Arlington isn’t the nicest suburb in the DC area nor does it have the top schools. It’s fine but not exactly deserving of any superlatives.

None of the DC suburbs are nice. But where do you like best?

Have you never traveled to lower income parts of the US?? Coming from the midwest all the suburbs here are nice, you all are so spoiled its depressing. This area is lush with greenery, nice housing stock with great landscaping, flush with high income families that pour all sorts of resources into their kids, giving your child ambitious classmates. You can be poor here and have a shot at making it, that's simply not true elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much for Yorktown being terrible.

It just means it has very few kids from low-income families.

The pp is referring to people on this board that constantly say Arlington's schools are "terrible." W-L and Wakefield are also strong schools, but yes they don't make it on these types of list because they have more socio-economic diversity.

WL is so good that lots of Yorktown kids choose to attend WL for the IB program. But WL will never make this list bc it’s a diverse school. Doesn’t matter bc we all know WL is the equal of Yorktown.

The formula that they use also dings IB programs over AP since IB is less common (2 year IB classes count as 1 which lowers 'college readiness').

This is false. The college readiness component is just based on having taken and passed at least 1 AP or IB course. Doesn’t matter whether the course has a 1 or 2-year sequence.

Yes, but the IB courses are 2 years and count as 1.

Not all IB courses are two years, and you’d be discriminating in favor of IB if you gave kids credit for taking a IB course without actually getting a passing score on an IB exam. Your whining is silly - and you are still wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much for Yorktown being terrible.

It just means it has very few kids from low-income families.

The pp is referring to people on this board that constantly say Arlington's schools are "terrible." W-L and Wakefield are also strong schools, but yes they don't make it on these types of list because they have more socio-economic diversity.

WL is so good that lots of Yorktown kids choose to attend WL for the IB program. But WL will never make this list bc it’s a diverse school. Doesn’t matter bc we all know WL is the equal of Yorktown.

The formula that they use also dings IB programs over AP since IB is less common (2 year IB classes count as 1 which lowers 'college readiness').

This is false. The college readiness component is just based on having taken and passed at least 1 AP or IB course. Doesn’t matter whether the course has a 1 or 2-year sequence.

Yes, but the IB courses are 2 years and count as 1.