Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wonder why some schools get GS score 9 or 10? check out their SATs

https://www.greatschools.org/california/fremont/94-Mission-San-Jose-High-School/
89% asian, 2023 average SAT

https://www.greatschools.org/california/san-marino/2917-San-Marino-High-School/
59% asian, 1871 average SAT

Fairfax is in Virginia, not California.

And it doesn't seem like the new scores are based on SATs. The new ones just compare how poor or minority students do to the rest of gen pop in a school.

Anonymous wrote:wonder why some schools get GS score 9 or 10? check out their SATs

https://www.greatschools.org/california/fremont/94-Mission-San-Jose-High-School/
89% asian, 2023 average SAT

https://www.greatschools.org/california/san-marino/2917-San-Marino-High-School/
59% asian, 1871 average SAT

Fairfax is in Virginia, not California.

Just wait until Asians aren't considered minorities. Then the ratings will go to hell.

wonder why some schools get GS score 9 or 10? check out their SATs

https://www.greatschools.org/california/fremont/94-Mission-San-Jose-High-School/
89% asian, 2023 average SAT

https://www.greatschools.org/california/san-marino/2917-San-Marino-High-School/
59% asian, 1871 average SAT

Anonymous wrote:GS has a significant economic influence in our community, but has NO accountability for its work. How is that possible?

Who do they think they are? The Democrats?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have now spent a couple hours plotting GS data points on a graph. According to what I have so far:

1-there is a direct inverse relationship between the GS score and the percentage of black and hispanic students at the school.
2-there is a direct correlation between the percentage of white and asian students (added together) and the GS score.
3-there is a direct inverse relationship between a school's diversity and the GS score - in other words, schools with a student body that has large numbers of every racial group, as opposed to being dominated by just a few, are actually penalized in the GS scoring system.
4-having a less diverse body raises the GS score. This seems to be true even if the school is 80% of a traditionally lower-performing minority, as it is the diversity itself that lowers the school's score (since the school is penalized for having gaps between races).

I don't have every school in Fairfax County on there, of course, but I have quite a few and it seems high GS scores indicate not only lack of low-income students, but also ensure lack of racial diversity. Barring AAP centers, which are artificially balanced, no school with a 9 has any significant percentage of black or hispanic students.

Sherlock, did it ever enter into your mind that these schools are in fact better? And that schools with larger number of blacks are not as high performing?

The problem is not the usual problem with test scores representing demographics, and black students being disproportionately impoverished. There seems to be an actual weighting against schools with racial diversity as a result only of the diversity and not of actual overall performance.

Thats because they are factoring in the achievement gap and schools with a higher achievement gap are being punished more.

Schools are being downgraded harshly when blacks/hispanics have scores lower than whites/asians in the same school. The bigger the gap the more negative the score

The problem with this is that schools aren't in control of every factor that affects student performance, so it's not necessarily the fault of the school that they're seeing an achievement gap between different groups of students. Under this metric, you can have a school where minority/ED groups are outperforming the state averages for those groups in every category (suggesting the school is doing something right by these students), but have the school downgraded if rich white kids are still doing better because of what their parents are doing for them outside of school.

Anonymous wrote:I have now spent a couple hours plotting GS data points on a graph. According to what I have so far:

1-there is a direct inverse relationship between the GS score and the percentage of black and hispanic students at the school.
2-there is a direct correlation between the percentage of white and asian students (added together) and the GS score.
3-there is a direct inverse relationship between a school's diversity and the GS score - in other words, schools with a student body that has large numbers of every racial group, as opposed to being dominated by just a few, are actually penalized in the GS scoring system.
4-having a less diverse body raises the GS score. This seems to be true even if the school is 80% of a traditionally lower-performing minority, as it is the diversity itself that lowers the school's score (since the school is penalized for having gaps between races).

I don't have every school in Fairfax County on there, of course, but I have quite a few and it seems high GS scores indicate not only lack of low-income students, but also ensure lack of racial diversity. Barring AAP centers, which are artificially balanced, no school with a 9 has any significant percentage of black or hispanic students.

I think what they are doing is comparing minorities scores to average scores of the entire population vs. minority scores vs. state average scores of minorities in the state. In other words, comparing the hispanics to the total population (which is mostly white/asian/mixed) vs. Hispanics here vs Hispanics of the state. (this is example terminology only, please don't get offended.)

The problem with this is that there is CLEARLY a bias because Hispanics in Burke schools are doing better than the state average of Hispanics, but this is compared to a generic average and not weighted appropriately for the fact that they are doing better than the state average for the race in question. For example, Fairview, which has 10% hispanic, has a 95% proficiency in math, which is well above the 72% proficiency, should have a higher score but its not because of the bias above.

I would get into it with more detail and would love access to the PP's graphs, so we can email the following companies: Redfin, Zillow, basically any real estate APP to voice our concerns. This is racial profiling of schools. The Fair Housing act of 1968 comes to mind here.

Start emailing your mom friends and emailing Justin Fairfax. We have some work to do.

Anonymous wrote:It seems like FCPS is reporting scores incorrectly, or GS is pulling incorrectly. At least 99.4% of the kids at TJ takes the SAT and ACT, and more than 99.5% go to a 4 year college— some years there is a kid whom starts a tech company instead. Every kid at TJ takes AP math. AP Calc is a graduation requirement.

The reporting that only 38% of TJ kids take AP Math, and only 27% take the SAT/ ACT in 11th and 12th is blatantly, extremely wrong.

I don’t know that schools as well, but it seems like the GS number are way off there. Less than 30% of Langley takes the SAT/ACT? Only 15% take AP Math? Similar numbers for Woodson, McLean, Oakton, and Chantilly? That’s not right either. There is an error in the data.

Blame the school reporting. Data source: https://ocrdata.ed.gov/flex/Reports.aspx?type=school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have now spent a couple hours plotting GS data points on a graph. According to what I have so far:

1-there is a direct inverse relationship between the GS score and the percentage of black and hispanic students at the school.
2-there is a direct correlation between the percentage of white and asian students (added together) and the GS score.
3-there is a direct inverse relationship between a school's diversity and the GS score - in other words, schools with a student body that has large numbers of every racial group, as opposed to being dominated by just a few, are actually penalized in the GS scoring system.
4-having a less diverse body raises the GS score. This seems to be true even if the school is 80% of a traditionally lower-performing minority, as it is the diversity itself that lowers the school's score (since the school is penalized for having gaps between races).

I don't have every school in Fairfax County on there, of course, but I have quite a few and it seems high GS scores indicate not only lack of low-income students, but also ensure lack of racial diversity. Barring AAP centers, which are artificially balanced, no school with a 9 has any significant percentage of black or hispanic students.

Sherlock, did it ever enter into your mind that these schools are in fact better? And that schools with larger number of blacks are not as high performing?

The problem is not the usual problem with test scores representing demographics, and black students being disproportionately impoverished. There seems to be an actual weighting against schools with racial diversity as a result only of the diversity and not of actual overall performance.

Thats because they are factoring in the achievement gap and schools with a higher achievement gap are being punished more.

Schools are being downgraded harshly when blacks/hispanics have scores lower than whites/asians in the same school. The bigger the gap the more negative the score

GS has a significant economic influence in our community, but has NO accountability for its work. How is that possible?

It seems like FCPS is reporting scores incorrectly, or GS is pulling incorrectly. At least 99.4% of the kids at TJ takes the SAT and ACT, and more than 99.5% go to a 4 year college— some years there is a kid whom starts a tech company instead. Every kid at TJ takes AP math. AP Calc is a graduation requirement.

The reporting that only 38% of TJ kids take AP Math, and only 27% take the SAT/ ACT in 11th and 12th is blatantly, extremely wrong.

I don’t know that schools as well, but it seems like the GS number are way off there. Less than 30% of Langley takes the SAT/ACT? Only 15% take AP Math? Similar numbers for Woodson, McLean, Oakton, and Chantilly? That’s not right either. There is an error in the data.

Anonymous wrote:Did schools with majority poverty students receive a bump then? Seems that a school is rated based on how regular kids do versus impoverished students. The worst elementary school in my area is rated the same as mine because mine is half umc, half esol.

The only school I know of near me that had its rating increase was an elementary school with umc students and is half Asian, half white.

It seems that the less diverse a school is, both in terms of race and income, and regardless of what the dominant population is, the more of a bump it got from the new "system." It is alarming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have now spent a couple hours plotting GS data points on a graph. According to what I have so far:

1-there is a direct inverse relationship between the GS score and the percentage of black and hispanic students at the school.
2-there is a direct correlation between the percentage of white and asian students (added together) and the GS score.
3-there is a direct inverse relationship between a school's diversity and the GS score - in other words, schools with a student body that has large numbers of every racial group, as opposed to being dominated by just a few, are actually penalized in the GS scoring system.
4-having a less diverse body raises the GS score. This seems to be true even if the school is 80% of a traditionally lower-performing minority, as it is the diversity itself that lowers the school's score (since the school is penalized for having gaps between races).

I don't have every school in Fairfax County on there, of course, but I have quite a few and it seems high GS scores indicate not only lack of low-income students, but also ensure lack of racial diversity. Barring AAP centers, which are artificially balanced, no school with a 9 has any significant percentage of black or hispanic students.

Sherlock, did it ever enter into your mind that these schools are in fact better? And that schools with larger number of blacks are not as high performing?

The problem is not the usual problem with test scores representing demographics, and black students being disproportionately impoverished. There seems to be an actual weighting against schools with racial diversity as a result only of the diversity and not of actual overall performance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents do not want to live near the poors. The poors have “poor” habits that make them bad neighbors and that are detrimental to the schools - indolence, criminality, violence, lack of intellectual curiosity. Even the poors themselves do not want to live near the poors. This has been going on since the beginning of time and will never end for obvious reasons.

Not sure if your are joking but this is accurate

The only issue I have with this is that current GS ratings are high only for the richest and most lilly-white schools. The system is now so heavily rigged against a school with any low SES or diverse population at all, that parents can effectively use it to make sure their children only go to school with people absolutely identical to them.

Why do you care about that? It gives information to anyone who wants it.

I guess I'm just the kind of person who sees something wrong with a metric for parents to evaluate a school's (and neighborhood's) whiteness.

You know what is best for all their kids, right? Their parents are wrong and you are right.

Yes, Richard Spencer. Now back to your troll hole.

Anonymous wrote:I have now spent a couple hours plotting GS data points on a graph. According to what I have so far:

1-there is a direct inverse relationship between the GS score and the percentage of black and hispanic students at the school.
2-there is a direct correlation between the percentage of white and asian students (added together) and the GS score.
3-there is a direct inverse relationship between a school's diversity and the GS score - in other words, schools with a student body that has large numbers of every racial group, as opposed to being dominated by just a few, are actually penalized in the GS scoring system.
4-having a less diverse body raises the GS score. This seems to be true even if the school is 80% of a traditionally lower-performing minority, as it is the diversity itself that lowers the school's score (since the school is penalized for having gaps between races).

I don't have every school in Fairfax County on there, of course, but I have quite a few and it seems high GS scores indicate not only lack of low-income students, but also ensure lack of racial diversity. Barring AAP centers, which are artificially balanced, no school with a 9 has any significant percentage of black or hispanic students.

Sherlock, did it ever enter into your mind that these schools are in fact better? And that schools with larger number of blacks are not as high performing?