What's the big deal about tj anyway.. Seriously?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All TJ placement proves is that families that are aiming for TJ focus on a couple of specific schools. They aren't doing anything special or different at those middle schools. It's about families and their priorities.

I disagree. I think they are doing something different at those schools to cater to high performing children or really parents who demand high performance. However one has to decide if it's worth it to attend those schools and then have your friends split off for high school.

as someone who lives in one of these zones with a non-AAP child, I can say based on my observation that is isn't about the schools themselves, but the parents who clamor to be in these few centers. People aim to live in those zones so that their kids will attend those centers with other kids they consider on par with their children. And I don't know that these students are actually any smarter - just test prepped to death with the TJ or bust mentality.

It is really unhealthy to watch from the outside.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ has been proven. There is a threshold for poverty. Small percentage, all kids do well. Overwhelmingly poor? All kids do worse.
Yet, they concentrate poverty into the same areas and those schools are overwhelmed.
Then you get to hear McLean and Langley posters gloat. Aren't they just so proud...

I don't recall any McLean or Langley posters gloating. That chip on your shoulder might be convincing you otherwise, however.

Oh no. Not at all... just so long as everyone knows you are the best, and people move to Langley and McLean because they truly value education.

No one forced you to read the thread, and in the grand scheme of things not that many people are going to read this thread when they can read about the poster who discovered makeup stains on her DH's undershirt.

Time to unclench. I actually don't see anyone on this thread saying other schools are bad, which happens all the time on this forum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ has been proven. There is a threshold for poverty. Small percentage, all kids do well. Overwhelmingly poor? All kids do worse.
Yet, they concentrate poverty into the same areas and those schools are overwhelmed.
Then you get to hear McLean and Langley posters gloat. Aren't they just so proud...

I don't recall any McLean or Langley posters gloating. That chip on your shoulder might be convincing you otherwise, however.

Oh no. Not at all... just so long as everyone knows you are the best, and people move to Langley and McLean because they truly value education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with this statement.

If you really want to know whether a school is doing a good job, however, check and see how well they are educating the sub-groups: special ed, low income, and English learners. Even if you don't have a child in one of the sub-groups, this is a good gauge of whether the staff is competent, the administration is strong and the programs are solid.

I disagree with this statement. There are almost no "low income" kids at schools like Langley and McLean. Same with ESOL. Special ed is a special case... if a kid has ADHD or autism and comes from a high income family with adv. degree parents and plenty of money for outside therapy and assistance... well, gee, isn't it a wonder that kids in that category do reasonably well. Special ed is such a broad catagory, it's impossible to know what that means and whether those kids have any chance of passing a test regardless of how well they are taught. What is identified as "special ed" in a wealthy neighborhood might not even be identified as special needs in a middle of the road or lower income neighborhood.

In some ways, the same can be true for ESOL. Kids who are counted as ESOL in a high income school might have parents who are immigrants, but probably wealthier immigrants (like doctors or scientists). Those kids probably speak their parents' language, but speak English just as well or better. Kids who are counted as ESOL in a middle or lower school are likely to be unaccompanied minors or the children of very poor parents. The populations that count for these are not the same. Even if they were the exact same level of neediness at both high, med. and low end schools, the resources of the school that are available to help them are very different.

If rich school (A) has 5% needy students (whatever category that is), and med. school (B) has 20% needy students, and not-so-wealthy school (C) has 35% needy students.... the needy students at school A are going to get a lot more personal attention to address their needs b/c there are so few of them and the administrators can focus their efforts. School C's administrators have to triage who to help and spread their efforts among the larger group of needy kids.

This has NOTHING to do with how good the teaching is at school A, B, or C.

I look at the kids who are like mine -- speaking english as a first language, don't have special needs, not poor. My kids aren't going to learn calculus or world history at home or at a summer camp. They are learning it IN SCHOOL. If these kids are doing well on tests, it's b/c they were taught the material in school. I'm not going to look at the kids who can't speak English, have significant learning disabilities, or who have a lot going on at home b/c of poverty. Those are issues that the teachers/administrators may or may not be able to overcome.... if they can't overcome them, it may not be a reflection on the quality of the education that my child will get. It may be a reflection on the severity of the need (language, disability, poverty).

Langley is the outlier among the top schools in terms of ESOL/FARMS rates.

2016-17 FARMS Percentages:

Langley 1.37%
McLean 8.53%
Madison 9.24%
Woodson 10.95%
Oakton 11.71%

2015-16 ESOL Percentages:

Langley 1.69%
Woodson 4.49%
Oakton 5.39%
McLean 5.77%
Madison 5.97%

I believe (based on experience at two schools in FCPS) that these schools tend to have better teachers who stay at their schools longer. While some teachers may enjoy the challenge of teaching lower-income kids, those teachers also tend to burn out and transfer more often, because they are under such intense pressure to raise scores.

Anonymous wrote:^^^ has been proven. There is a threshold for poverty. Small percentage, all kids do well. Overwhelmingly poor? All kids do worse.
Yet, they concentrate poverty into the same areas and those schools are overwhelmed.
Then you get to hear McLean and Langley posters gloat. Aren't they just so proud...

I don't recall any McLean or Langley posters gloating. That chip on your shoulder might be convincing you otherwise, however.

^^^ has been proven. There is a threshold for poverty. Small percentage, all kids do well. Overwhelmingly poor? All kids do worse.
Yet, they concentrate poverty into the same areas and those schools are overwhelmed.
Then you get to hear McLean and Langley posters gloat. Aren't they just so proud...

Anonymous wrote:McLean is better than Langley even with more poors

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with this statement.

If you really want to know whether a school is doing a good job, however, check and see how well they are educating the sub-groups: special ed, low income, and English learners. Even if you don't have a child in one of the sub-groups, this is a good gauge of whether the staff is competent, the administration is strong and the programs are solid.

I disagree with this statement. There are almost no "low income" kids at schools like Langley and McLean. Same with ESOL. Special ed is a special case... if a kid has ADHD or autism and comes from a high income family with adv. degree parents and plenty of money for outside therapy and assistance... well, gee, isn't it a wonder that kids in that category do reasonably well. Special ed is such a broad catagory, it's impossible to know what that means and whether those kids have any chance of passing a test regardless of how well they are taught. What is identified as "special ed" in a wealthy neighborhood might not even be identified as special needs in a middle of the road or lower income neighborhood.

In some ways, the same can be true for ESOL. Kids who are counted as ESOL in a high income school might have parents who are immigrants, but probably wealthier immigrants (like doctors or scientists). Those kids probably speak their parents' language, but speak English just as well or better. Kids who are counted as ESOL in a middle or lower school are likely to be unaccompanied minors or the children of very poor parents. The populations that count for these are not the same. Even if they were the exact same level of neediness at both high, med. and low end schools, the resources of the school that are available to help them are very different.

If rich school (A) has 5% needy students (whatever category that is), and med. school (B) has 20% needy students, and not-so-wealthy school (C) has 35% needy students.... the needy students at school A are going to get a lot more personal attention to address their needs b/c there are so few of them and the administrators can focus their efforts. School C's administrators have to triage who to help and spread their efforts among the larger group of needy kids.

This has NOTHING to do with how good the teaching is at school A, B, or C.

I look at the kids who are like mine -- speaking english as a first language, don't have special needs, not poor. My kids aren't going to learn calculus or world history at home or at a summer camp. They are learning it IN SCHOOL. If these kids are doing well on tests, it's b/c they were taught the material in school. I'm not going to look at the kids who can't speak English, have significant learning disabilities, or who have a lot going on at home b/c of poverty. Those are issues that the teachers/administrators may or may not be able to overcome.... if they can't overcome them, it may not be a reflection on the quality of the education that my child will get. It may be a reflection on the severity of the need (language, disability, poverty).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All TJ placement proves is that families that are aiming for TJ focus on a couple of specific schools. They aren't doing anything special or different at those middle schools. It's about families and their priorities.

I disagree. I think they are doing something different at those schools to cater to high performing children or really parents who demand high performance. However one has to decide if it's worth it to attend those schools and then have your friends split off for high school.

PP was right. At all schools, a majority of students do not go to TJ. And they don't want to.

Students who go to TJ are not the right metric for best school. There is no relationship between the two factors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with this statement.

If you really want to know whether a school is doing a good job, however, check and see how well they are educating the sub-groups: special ed, low income, and English learners. Even if you don't have a child in one of the sub-groups, this is a good gauge of whether the staff is competent, the administration is strong and the programs are solid.

But what if the school is focused on those sub-groups and basically leaving the other kids to fend for themselves? NoVa has plenty of schools like that.

How would you possibly know unless you've had a child at the school in question? The fact that a school has a large population of special ed, low income, or ESL students does not in and of itself mean that it leaves others to fend for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with this statement.

If you really want to know whether a school is doing a good job, however, check and see how well they are educating the sub-groups: special ed, low income, and English learners. Even if you don't have a child in one of the sub-groups, this is a good gauge of whether the staff is competent, the administration is strong and the programs are solid.

But what if the school is focused on those sub-groups and basically leaving the other kids to fend for themselves? NoVa has plenty of schools like that.

I agree with this statement.

If you really want to know whether a school is doing a good job, however, check and see how well they are educating the sub-groups: special ed, low income, and English learners. Even if you don't have a child in one of the sub-groups, this is a good gauge of whether the staff is competent, the administration is strong and the programs are solid.

McLean is better than Langley even with more poors

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Langley and McLean are the best, and it's even more telling when you see how many kids from those pyramids are also at TJ.

which is again not about school quality....but how rich the families are in those districts

Who's to say the affluent aren't moving there in large part because the schools are strong?

The affluent ARE moving there because the schools are strong, and the schools ARE strong because the affluent are moving there.

If you really want to know whether a school is doing a good job, however, check and see how well they are educating the sub-groups: special ed, low income, and English learners. Even if you don't have a child in one of the sub-groups, this is a good gauge of whether the staff is competent, the administration is strong and the programs are solid.

I agree with this. Perhaps we should look at the schools in which the students are performing well and overcoming obstacles.

US News doesn't rank schools if the black and Hispanic minority students and the economically challenged students don't achieve certain benchmarks on state tests. The top schools in NoVa do reasonably well at this, although the cohorts of students in those categories at Langley is very small.