Regardless of whether GS scores = SES, it still means that the kids can't pass the test. I don't want to be in a school with such a low testing rate, low reading and math scores.

And if SES determines the low test scores, I think it's more that the lack of parental involvement determines low test scores. Which is another thing I want to avoid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why some posters are saying to disregard things like test scores. Are low scores not indicative of the student performance and the level at which a teacher can teach?

Isn't there an argument that test scores don't speak for how well truly kids are prepared?

I am just so shocked that people don't know this already. It's not argument - it is incontrovertible, much-proved fact. Test scores have NOTHING to do with teaching. They are most influenced by the student's home environment. When I taught at low SES school we used to compare scores each year. What percentages passed, which ones didn't, and so on. We gave a test in the second week of school to see where we were starting, and would compare that to the test at the end of the year. Whatever we started with was what we finished with. We found that a kid who got 60% in week 2 would likely pass at the end of the year, but below that was iffy, and anyone in the 25% range rarely passed at the end of the year. It was consistent every time. There were exceptions, of course, and god knows we put 110% of our effort and resources into the ones in the low range, but nothing helped.

Even worse, whoever got the special ed group or the esol group that year would always have a low pass rate, no matter what they did. And whoever was lucky enough to get an average class always had a good pass rate, and would be the first to admit they did nothing special and just got lucky with a good class. And from year to year one teacher could get low scores (with a low starting class) and then the next have the highest score (with a class that was high from the beginning).

We were incredibly well-trained and well-educated, and we worked 60-70 hour weeks. You could not find better teachers, but the school had a 3 and always will.

It's so sad to see that only teachers really understand the futility of this ranking system, and parents are so gullible and ill-informed.

I think you misunderstood my question. I'm the one who asked about the level of teaching. I'm not asking or even suggesting that the level of the teachers are not good at schools with low scores. Absolutely not! I'm asking about the level at which one can teach a class where there are students who received 25% on the week 2 test that you mentioned. You answered my question, though, when you stated that you put quite a bit of effort into that group. You're the teacher, so correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you be able to teach higher leveled material if you didn't have kids who scored so low on the test? That's my concern regarding schools with low test scores. FWIW, I don't think that test scores are linked to a teacher's ability to teach.

My kids are in a GS3 that is not Title I. I have one GTLD kiddo who is adequately challenged in areas of strength, but could be better supported in areas of weakness. My younger child is receiving intervention supports, so I see both ends of the spectrum. I see a lot of benefits to being in such a diverse school and the school has really fantastic teachers. There is more to a school than a GS ranking.

Anonymous wrote:In some states, GS is piloting an attempt to build in metrics other than pure test scores, such as test scores over time. However, neither Maryland, DC, nor Virginia are part of that pilot project. So right now the GS ranking = test scores, which we know from actual research on the topic = SES

DC is a part of the pilot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:would be for me. i only consider 8 and above.

I used to think that too, but our school is a 7 and I love it. Everyone, from the people in the front office, to the teachers, students and families I've met have been so nice. My child is happy and learning and that's good enough for me. Years ago we were at a school with a 5 rating and it was AWFUL. So I agree with you, but my childs 7 school is pretty awesome.

A 7 is still pretty high, would be a non-issue for us.

Now, OP asked about a 3...that's like playing with fire. Why do that, if you have other options?

Off the table.

In some states, GS is piloting an attempt to build in metrics other than pure test scores, such as test scores over time. However, neither Maryland, DC, nor Virginia are part of that pilot project. So right now the GS ranking = test scores, which we know from actual research on the topic = SES

Greatschools rating is based purely on test scores. Reviews don't impact it.

http://www.greatschools.org/about/ratings.page

"Anonymous wrote:
calexander wrote:
Great school ratings are nearly useless. People insert numbers that don't match the review, or worse, don't insert a number at all and GS does not clean it up.


oh i see you are in a bad schools, thanks for your input


No, dummy. Our "GS Rating" is 8. But we also have about a third of our ratings with text like, "The teachers are great! The Principal is great! What's not to love!" and NO RATING. What number is that in their scoring system?"

It is not relevant. The reviews determine the star rating which is "how enthusiastic are people about this school" really. The number rating that everyone talks about is based on test scores.

I will say that some of the things that others in highly rated schools complain bitterly about such as not being able to volunteer in classrooms is not an issue at my kids GS 3 elementary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

calexander wrote:Great school ratings are nearly useless. People insert numbers that don't match the review, or worse, don't insert a number at all and GS does not clean it up.

oh i see you are in a bad schools, thanks for your input

No, dummy. Our "GS Rating" is 8. But we also have about a third of our ratings with text like, "The teachers are great! The Principal is great! What's not to love!" and NO RATING. What number is that in their scoring system?

Those parent ratings don't have anything to do with the GS rating so it doesn't matter if they put two stars or five stars.

Anonymous wrote:

calexander wrote:Great school ratings are nearly useless. People insert numbers that don't match the review, or worse, don't insert a number at all and GS does not clean it up.

oh i see you are in a bad schools, thanks for your input

No, dummy. Our "GS Rating" is 8. But we also have about a third of our ratings with text like, "The teachers are great! The Principal is great! What's not to love!" and NO RATING. What number is that in their scoring system?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why some posters are saying to disregard things like test scores. Are low scores not indicative of the student performance and the level at which a teacher can teach?

Isn't there an argument that test scores don't speak for how well truly kids are prepared?

I am just so shocked that people don't know this already. It's not argument - it is incontrovertible, much-proved fact. Test scores have NOTHING to do with teaching. They are most influenced by the student's home environment. When I taught at low SES school we used to compare scores each year. What percentages passed, which ones didn't, and so on. We gave a test in the second week of school to see where we were starting, and would compare that to the test at the end of the year. Whatever we started with was what we finished with. We found that a kid who got 60% in week 2 would likely pass at the end of the year, but below that was iffy, and anyone in the 25% range rarely passed at the end of the year. It was consistent every time. There were exceptions, of course, and god knows we put 110% of our effort and resources into the ones in the low range, but nothing helped.

Even worse, whoever got the special ed group or the esol group that year would always have a low pass rate, no matter what they did. And whoever was lucky enough to get an average class always had a good pass rate, and would be the first to admit they did nothing special and just got lucky with a good class. And from year to year one teacher could get low scores (with a low starting class) and then the next have the highest score (with a class that was high from the beginning).

We were incredibly well-trained and well-educated, and we worked 60-70 hour weeks. You could not find better teachers, but the school had a 3 and always will.

It's so sad to see that only teachers really understand the futility of this ranking system, and parents are so gullible and ill-informed.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why some posters are saying to disregard things like test scores. Are low scores not indicative of the student performance and the level at which a teacher can teach?

Not really. I think this is what PP was getting at with the "look behind the scores" comment. For example, imagine two schools: one with a really large population of ESOL students and a small population of non-ESOL students that has a low GS rating because of lower average test scores (we'll call this "LR") and one with a large population of non-ESOL students and a small population of ESOL students and a high GS rating because of higher average scores (we'll call this "HR").

Assuming that ESOL students generally face learning and testing disadvantages, the average scores (and thus the GS ratings) are not necessarily telling you much about the teaching in the two schools (to the extent that test scores say anything about teaching, but let's assume they do). For example, if you look at the breakdowns of scores among groups, you might see that at both schools generally ESOL kids score lower than the non-ESOL kids. You might also see that while the non-ESOL kids at LR have essentially the same average scores as the non-ESOL kids HR, the ESOL kids at LR actually score higher than the ESOL kids at HR.

So why is HR the highly rated school? Because HR has fewer ESOL students, the lower scores don't impact the average very much so they end up with higher average scores and thus a higher GS rating. Conversely, at LR even though the ESOL students score better than their counterparts at HR, because there are so many of them relative to the non-ESOL population, those scores bring the average down by a much greater degree. You could look at that situation and conclude that overall, there is better teaching going on at LR because the ESOL kids score better than at HR and the non-ESOL kids score just as well. In the hypothetical, HR has such a small population of ESOL kids that the school can essentially afford to let them fail without losing their high rating while at LR teachers have to make significant gains across the ESOL population in order to move the average even just a little.

In other words, its a problem of what averages tell you -- a higher GS rating probably tells you more about the make-up of the student population than it does about the quality of the teaching. (Indeed, where the non-ESOL and ESOL students have the same average scores at LR and HR, LR's GS score would still be lower than HR based on the population numbers). That may indeed be relevant to you in making your school choice - this board is full of people who want to avoid all ESOL/SN/FARMS kids as much as possible - but it is information available in ways other than GS rating and test scores. I think this is why many people say that average test scores/GS ratings don't really give you much useful information. They are essentially proxies for demographics. Of course, people feel a lot better about themselves when they say their decisions are based on GS ratings not demographics.

They only way average test scores/GS ratings might tell you something is if you are comparing ratings at two schools that have essentially the same demographic breakdown but have significantly different ratings (i.e. not 7 v 8 but 8 v 3 or something). And of course I am not saying that the hypothetical above is always true -- it could be that at any given lower rated school, all students have lower scores than those at the higher rated schools, it's just not something you can tell from the GS score.

No way would I allow kids to attend a school with horrendous test scores like that unless there was a great magnet or gifted program. I would rent in a different district if I couldn't sell my house.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why some posters are saying to disregard things like test scores. Are low scores not indicative of the student performance and the level at which a teacher can teach?

Isn't there an argument that test scores don't speak for how well truly kids are prepared?