Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just do not understand how a school can jump up or down 25-30 spots in a span of 2 years. I do not understand how a school with an average SAT score 0f about 1400 can be 30 spots ahead of a school that has an average SAT score of 1600 and has a higher percentage of kids going to college. Somebody please shed some light on this crazy rating!!!!!
If you looked at ALL of the raw data, I doubt there's really much of a big difference between School #44 and School #122. The top 20 or 30 and the bottom 20-30 might be stand-outs on either side, but I'd say the vast majority of these schools are separated by miniscule factors that are hardly even identifiable in the daily experience of a student.
Plus, do not discount "editorial discretion." It's a magazine. It caters to the whims of its advertisers and subscribers and the communities in which they are located.
ok - but there's also a slight flaw in your logic. i completely understand the point you're making, but the simple truth is, one of the measures of success is how many students go on to college. the better the college that a student goes on to, the "more successful" can be assumed.
now - you point out true exceptions. maybe you live in an area where a child is planning on staying home, taking over the farm. why count that against the school you say? well - i grew up in an areas exactly like that. because so many children were "just going to work on the farm" (not a bad thing, they work hard and make great money as well) - the parents had no desire to fund AP programs. so for a student like me, that had no farm to work on, that school was horrible for me to advance myself. so i had to go to private school.
AP availability is certainly a plus. why wouldn't it be?
good SAT/ACT scores should definitely be a plus.
i understand not everyone is cut out for college, and not everyone has to go to college. but these are the metrics we use for "success" in education. public school isn't tasked with readying the future plumbers, electricians, construction workers, etc. although they are all great trades with hard workers, you don't need to "educate" them, so yes, they do count as dings against the system. it's sad, because they shouldn't be viewed that way, but the system isn't perfect and never will be.
you have to pick measures that make a system "successful". as long as those measures are applied across the board - the list is relevant.
maybe you want them to take safety into account as well.
the drop out rate should certainly be part of the score though.
My main point of contention was that some of the criteria was biased towards smaller schools versus larger ones. For instance, the AP criteria. You could have a school with a junior/senior class size of 300 where 100 of the students take at least one AP class and score a 3 or better on the test. You could also have one where there is a junior/senior class size of 600 where 150 take AP classes and score a 3 or better on the test. The smaller school would be considered "better" because the percentage of students taking AP classes and scoring a 3 is higher. I think a better measure is total number of AP classes offered with a weight factor for the percentage of students who score a 3 or better on the test to show quality. Larger schools with more diverse student bodies will fair worse on this measurement despite offering the same opportunities as a smaller school.
On the issue of SAT scores, this is one area where they strangely don't weight for number of students in anyway. You could have a school of a thousand kids and one takes the SAT and gets a perfect score and hence, that school has a perfect score. This helps "worse" schools as only the few with potential take the test and hurts larger schools as they encourage every student to take the test. I think here is a case where percentage of students who took the test with a weighting factor for average score would be better a measure.
*****
OK, flaw in my logic vis a vis their criteria and measurement standards aside, how does a school like Gloucester City which in every other measure of schools I've ever seen puts them about a half step ahead of Camden make the top 200 on this list while a school like Kingsway Regional that is consistently ranked as a "good" school and certainly above average for the state only manages to place number 216 or so.
I'm not trying to pull for my local school, because I know it's a good school, merely pointing out the fact that a school like Gloucester City is ranked in the top 2/3rds despite being a very poor school by every objective measure.
Just taking the only other easily verifiable measurement tool which is "greatschools" and their rating system (1-10, 10 is best) Gloucester scores a 3 based on ASK and HSPA test results and a combination of other factors such as class size, graduation rate, etc. Kingsway scores a 7. The average for all NJ schools is 5.
What factors could possible lead NJ Monthly to determine in any way shape or form that Gloucester City is better than Kingsway. This is why I am assuming their must be a major flaw in their criteria and methodology.
I'm not trying to pull for my local school, because I know it's a good school, merely pointing out the fact that a school like Gloucester City is ranked in the top 2/3rds despite being a very poor school by every objective measure.
I just looked at the underlying numbers, and it appears that their rank would actually improve slightly if they only used SAT scores and no other criteria.
Quote:
Just taking the only other easily verifiable measurement tool which is "greatschools" and their rating system (1-10, 10 is best)
I don't know how you'd verify that, unless they publish their formulas in some detail. SAT scores are verifiable numbers.
Quote:
What factors could possible lead NJ Monthly to determine in any way shape or form that Gloucester City is better than Kingsway. This is why I am assuming their must be a major flaw in their criteria and methodology.
They had slightly higher SAT scores (1498 against 1454) but also substantially larger class sizes and faculty to student ratios.
I just looked at the underlying numbers, and it appears that their rank would actually improve slightly if they only used SAT scores and no other criteria.
I don't know how you'd verify that, unless they publish their formulas in some detail. SAT scores are verifiable numbers.
They had slightly higher SAT scores (1498 against 1454) but also substantially larger class sizes and faculty to student ratios.
Great Schools doesn't publish their direct formula, merely the criteria used. Their scores are heavily biased towards testing, in particular ASK and HSPA which are the more direct measurement of the overall student body since every student must take those tests. They then assign the state average as a "5" and rank the schools from there. They do count other factors, but give them less weight.
Just looking at ASK and HSPA data from 2009:
*Percentages are reflected as number at or above proficiency.
Obviously there is something wrong when a school can exceed the NJ state averages in every testing category and still score in the bottom 2/3rds and lower than a school that is way under par.
For S&G's I also looked at the number for Haddon Twp. which is a school ranked in the top 100 and considered one of the better schools in South Jersey.
Their HSPA scores:
Language Arts: 89%
Math: 83%
Certainly a couple ticks above Kingsway, but what other factors drives Haddon Twp. to be ranked a full 100+ places higher on the list? Looking at the data they provide (BTW I retract my critique of the AP criteria, they actually do it right, SAT is still questionable though), here is how it fleshes it out:
Quote:
Haddon Twp. (97) vs. Kingsway (216) vs. Gloucester City (194)
So, looking at the data it seems class size and faculty ratio is a far larger component of the score than actual performance. Looking at these objectively, I will state that Kingsway and Haddon Twp. are roughly equal with the edge to Haddon Twp., but not 119 places worth of an edge. Gloucester City has no right to even be listed in the top 200, let alone above a school like Kingsway.
I stand by my statement that the list is complete BS.
Great Schools doesn't publish their direct formula, merely the criteria used. Their scores are heavily biased towards testing, in particular ASK and HSPA which are the more direct measurement of the overall student body since every student must take those tests. They then assign the state average as a "5" and rank the schools from there. They do count other factors, but give them less weight.
Just looking at ASK and HSPA data from 2009:
*Percentages are reflected as number at or above proficiency.
Obviously there is something wrong when a school can exceed the NJ state averages in every testing category and still score in the bottom 2/3rds and lower than a school that is way under par.
For S&G's I also looked at the number for Haddon Twp. which is a school ranked in the top 100 and considered one of the better schools in South Jersey.
Their HSPA scores:
Language Arts: 89%
Math: 83%
Certainly a couple ticks above Kingsway, but what other factors drives Haddon Twp. to be ranked a full 100+ places higher on the list? Looking at the data they provide (BTW I retract my critique of the AP criteria, they actually do it right, SAT is still questionable though), here is how it fleshes it out:
So, looking at the data it seems class size and faculty ratio is a far larger component of the score than actual performance. Looking at these objectively, I will state that Kingsway and Haddon Twp. are roughly equal with the edge to Haddon Twp., but not 119 places worth of an edge. Gloucester City has no right to even be listed in the top 200, let alone above a school like Kingsway.
I stand by my statement that the list is complete BS.
So, then did Kingsway ultimately get 'dinged' because of the class size and faculty ratio, in your estimation?
To appreciate the top schools a list of the worst high schools should also be published.
Comparing also rans or even hi performers ignores the larger part of the equation and confounds the search for a solution.
Consider that most of the money spent on education probably ends up in the schools not on the list.
Seeing both ends of the spectrum allows a more comprehensive understanding of what could be accomplished if funds were spent creatively.
The current educational juggernaut partnered with enabling government social scientists and grants has outlived their usefulness to a point of being destructive.
So, then did Kingsway ultimately get 'dinged' because of the class size and faculty ratio, in your estimation?
It must have. I'm not sure the exact weight given to each component but here is what they list as the criteria for "Environment". I am guessing that it makes up 1/3rd of the total score as there are three groups they list; Environment, Performance (test scores) and Outcome (college destination).
Quote:
School Environment: The sum of the standardized rank scores for average class size; student-faculty ratio; student-computer ratio; percentage of faculty with advanced degrees; and number of AP tests offered, which was calculated as a ratio of grade 11 and 12 enrollment in order not to penalize smaller schools. (Not all of these factors are shown in the published charts. Senior class size is provided for reference only; it is not part of the ranking calculation.)
My argument with this is that if the "environment" at a school like Kingsway is so poor as to lower their ranking that significantly, how did the students at Kingsway perform so well in every objective measurement of student performance?
To appreciate the top schools a list of the worst high schools should also be published.
Comparing also rans or even hi performers ignores the larger part of the equation and confounds the search for a solution.
Consider that most of the money spent on education probably ends up in the schools not on the list.
Seeing both ends of the spectrum allows a more comprehensive understanding of what could be accomplished if funds were spent creatively.
The current educational juggernaut partnered with enabling government social scientists and grants has outlived their usefulness to a point of being destructive.
Wouldn't that just be the bottom of the list since they ranked every school district in NJ?
My main point of contention was that some of the criteria was biased towards smaller schools versus larger ones. For instance, the AP criteria. You could have a school with a junior/senior class size of 300 where 100 of the students take at least one AP class and score a 3 or better on the test. You could also have one where there is a junior/senior class size of 600 where 150 take AP classes and score a 3 or better on the test. The smaller school would be considered "better" because the percentage of students taking AP classes and scoring a 3 is higher. I think a better measure is total number of AP classes offered with a weight factor for the percentage of students who score a 3 or better on the test to show quality. Larger schools with more diverse student bodies will fair worse on this measurement despite offering the same opportunities as a smaller school.
On the issue of SAT scores, this is one area where they strangely don't weight for number of students in anyway. You could have a school of a thousand kids and one takes the SAT and gets a perfect score and hence, that school has a perfect score. This helps "worse" schools as only the few with potential take the test and hurts larger schools as they encourage every student to take the test. I think here is a case where percentage of students who took the test with a weighting factor for average score would be better a measure.
*****
OK, flaw in my logic vis a vis their criteria and measurement standards aside, how does a school like Gloucester City which in every other measure of schools I've ever seen puts them about a half step ahead of Camden make the top 200 on this list while a school like Kingsway Regional that is consistently ranked as a "good" school and certainly above average for the state only manages to place number 216 or so.
I'm not trying to pull for my local school, because I know it's a good school, merely pointing out the fact that a school like Gloucester City is ranked in the top 2/3rds despite being a very poor school by every objective measure.
Just taking the only other easily verifiable measurement tool which is "greatschools" and their rating system (1-10, 10 is best) Gloucester scores a 3 based on ASK and HSPA test results and a combination of other factors such as class size, graduation rate, etc. Kingsway scores a 7. The average for all NJ schools is 5.
What factors could possible lead NJ Monthly to determine in any way shape or form that Gloucester City is better than Kingsway. This is why I am assuming their must be a major flaw in their criteria and methodology.
i see what you're saying.
i'm a bit surprised that they don't give credit for "availability of AP courses", but - if you did, a school can skew their rankings by making a lot of APs "available" in theory, but not actually enrolling students in those courses.
the bottom line is, if you, as a school, are getting 1/3 of your students to take at least 1 AP and also score at least a 3 on the test, that's a positive for your school. bottom line is, any way you do it has flaws. the important thing is to not just look at the data and judge. you have to dig deeper - as we are all doing here, to truly asses if school 156 is better than school 187. it could turn out that each have their ranking for very different reasons.
and still - NJ people are not realizing, school 215 is not a bad school. it's still far far better than school 25 in PA or school 47 in NY (arbitrary pick, but you get the point).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A break from tradition
