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 suppose it all depends on what you think makes a great school. I tend to put the most weight into how school districts perform on standardized tests and like how greatschools.org ranks schools. I don't think the list you linked is doing anything radically different, though i would questions whether or not being ranked 80th i actually a good thing in western new york.
R-H had average regents scores in 2012 of 64% in algebra I, 74% in algebra II, 67% in earth science, 55% in geometry, and living environment 68%. Essentially what this tells me is if you want your kids to be scientists, engineers, and doctors look elsewhere. Now is R-H a terrible school?...like city bad, no of course not, but its not great either.
I get why you're looking at graduation rates, but really in a wealthy industrialized nation the rates should be close to 100% in nearly every district and it isn't an indication of a very good school. So far, the charter schools in the city have not produced radically different test scores than their public school alternatives. The only school that has shown to be competitive is the Genesee Elementary Charter school at the Museum and Science Center. It's students are almost all from middle class families and above in the city limits and it is only slightly more ethnically diverse than most suburban districts.
All greatschools does is grade based on test scores. That's it. Those scores have more to do with individual students and their strengths, as well as how many are proficient on those tests. You can find information on the NYSED Report Card and I believe that 2012 was when the test proficiency standards abruptly changed, but don't quote me on that.
I agree that school districts should shoot for excellence in terms of graduation rates, but given that the national and state grad rate is in the mid 70's in percentage, I'd say that the rates of even these supposedly suspect suburban SD's are well above those percentages. There should also be many pathways to graduation as well, as there are many dynamics to consider as to why the grad rates are the way they are.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 02-18-2014 at 09:00 AM..
All greatschools does is grade based on test scores. That's it. Those scores have more to do with individual students and their strengths, as well as how many are proficient on those tests. You can find information on the NYSED Report Card and I believe that 2012 was when the test proficiency standards abruptly changed, but don't quote me on that.
I agree that school districts should shoot for excellence in terms of graduation rates, but given that the national and state grad rate is in the mid 70's in percentage, I'd say that the rates of even these supposedly suspect suburban SD's are well above those percentages. There should also be many pathways to graduation as well, as there are many dynamics to consider as to why the grad rates are the way they are.
What do we have to rank districts on besides test scores? Does anyone honestly think sports, arts, facilities, etc are more valuable than test scores. I get that there is more to school than tests, people want their kids to be well rounded and have great social skills, but learning is the primary reason for schools and we measure learning with tests.
You are correct about the standards changing. Last year the new common core standards came out and new tests were administered. For the most part the same schools performed near the top and the same at the bottom. The complaints were mostly related to them being too hard, a poor basis on which to reward/punish teachers, etc. The tests themselves did not show us something radically different and indicate that top level schools were worse than we previously thought or that lower level schools were better.
The problem I have with looking at graduation rates is that on average almost every parent, even in the worst of schools districts wants and usually expects their kids to graduate high school. Its just not any barometer of success at this point and its all about getting into college and ideally obtaining a technical degree in a highly specialized field. The most desirable jobs are in the sciences and districts like R-H struggle in this area.
I attended schools in East Irondequoit, East Rochester and Pittsford growing up. I did not perceive that the kids in Pittsford had a substantially better level of intelligence than the other districts. What I did see was that in a place like Pittsford kids value education, college and have overall higher aspirations. In other districts learning was for nerds and not thought of as being cool. The kids and families you surround your own children with are half of what makes a school valuable. This is why there is a direct correlation between wealth/poverty and a school's performance.
Ideally each district would have enough motivated students to create a positive atmosphere and influence the other children, but in Rochester all of the motivated successful people are clustered in a few different districts.
What do we have to rank districts on besides test scores? Does anyone honestly think sports, arts, facilities, etc are more valuable than test scores. I get that there is more to school than tests, people want their kids to be well rounded and have great social skills, but learning is the primary reason for schools and we measure learning with tests.
You are correct about the standards changing. Last year the new common core standards came out and new tests were administered. For the most part the same schools performed near the top and the same at the bottom. The complaints were mostly related to them being too hard, a poor basis on which to reward/punish teachers, etc. The tests themselves did not show us something radically different and indicate that top level schools were worse than we previously thought or that lower level schools were better.
The problem I have with looking at graduation rates and the average is that almost every parent even in the worst of schools districts wants and usually expects their kids to graduate high school. Its just not any barometer of success at this point and its all about getting into college and ideally obtaining a technical degree in a highly specialized field. The most desirable jobs are in the sciences and districts like R-H struggle in this area.
I attended schools in East Irondequoit, East Rochester and Pittsford growing up. I did not perceive that the kids in Pittsford had a substantially better level of intelligence than the other districts. What I did see was that in a place like Pittsford kids value education, college and have overall higher aspirations. In other districts learning was for nerds and not thought of as being cool. The kids and families you surround your own children with are half of what makes a school valuable. This is why there is a direct correlation between wealth/poverty and a school's performance.
R-H's test scores are based on what the state percentage was and in that case, the educational system as a whole is struggling. Keep in mind that the state percentage for Algebra II was 64% and R-H was at 74% and that the ranking is based off of the school's percentage in relation to the state percentage. For instance, in Chemistry, R-H was at 85%, while the state percentage was at 78%. In the other science/math based tests, one only(Geometry) was R-H a good distance below the state percentage. So, while test scores have room for improvement there, many are near to well above the state percentage.
Graduation rates within the 4 year cohort shows that a student has met an appropriate level of requirements in order to graduate. So, I wouldn't say that it is irrelevant, as there are many ways to graduate and to make an honest living.
I'm not underminding your opinion and experience, but I just think sometimes people will automatically write off certain schools based off of demographics, location, etc. without looking at the data.
R-H's test scores are based on what the state percentage was and in that case, the educational system as a whole is struggling. Keep in mind that the state percentage for Algebra II was 64% and R-H was at 74% and that the ranking is based off of the school's percentage in relation to the state percentage. For instance, in Chemistry, R-H was at 85%, while the state percentage was at 78%. In the other science/math based tests, one only(Geometry) was R-H a good distance below the state percentage. So, while test scores have room for improvement there, many are near to well above the state percentage.
Graduation rates within the 4 year cohort shows that a student has met an appropriate level of requirements in order to graduate. So, I wouldn't say that it is irrelevant, as there are many ways to graduate and to make an honest living.
I'm not underminding your opinion and experience, but I just think sometimes people will automatically write off certain schools based off of demographics, location, etc. without looking at the data.
I think most people would agree that education is inadequate not just in New York, but in the United States as a whole. Part of the reason New York has implemented the common core is that there are too many underachieving schools and colleges are telling government that students are less and less prepared every year.
Look at this this way there are roughly 120,000 students that go to schools in Monroe County and Victor, which I threw in due to proximity. If your child goes to R-H roughly 40% of students in the area go to a higher rated school based on this list.
I really can't for the life of me imagine why a person would do that to their children. Housing is not so much cheaper in Rush and Henrietta than other places.
It also means that roughly half of the students that were at a worse school than R-H are in the City of Rochester, which is widely considered to be a failed district. I promise you I'm not writing off R-H because I hate Jefferson Road and most of the establishments on it; I just honestly believe the schools are likely not very good based on personal experience at districts not dramatically lower in the rankings. The data seems to prove my belief.
It's actually a really sad situation because the town of Henrietta actually has a ton of money due to all of the commercial property in town and owes it to the tax payers to have decent schools.
I think most people would agree that education is inadequate not just in New York, but in the United States as a whole. Part of the reason New York has implemented the common core is that there are too many underachieving schools and colleges are telling government that students are less and less prepared every year.
Look at this this way there are roughly 120,000 students that go to schools in Monroe County and Victor, which I threw in due to proximity. If your child goes to R-H roughly 40% of students in the area go to a higher rated school based on this list.
I really can't for the life of me imagine why a person would do that to their children. Housing is not so much cheaper in Rush and Henrietta than other places.
It also means that roughly half of the students that were at a worse school than R-H are in the City of Rochester, which is widely considered to be a failed district. I promise you I'm not writing off R-H because I hate Jefferson Road and most of the establishments on it; I just honestly believe the schools are likely not very good based on personal experience at districts not dramatically lower in the rankings. The data seems to prove my belief.
It's actually a really sad situation because the town of Henrietta actually has a ton of money due to all of the commercial property in town and owes it to the tax payers to have decent schools.
R-H has probably some of the lowest property tax rates in the area and if you go by the info on all of the websites, it is a decent school district, by the metrics. Its grad rate is around 90% overall with a minimal gap between Black and White students in that regard(3%). I believe that you can find some relatively newer homes at a "reasonable" price, in comparison.
Also, it is a legitimately diverse suburban SD and that can appeal to some families as well. I dare say that fact may be a reason why it is viewed the way it is viewed, but that is why I say that the context of the information is important. Here's the district NYSED Report Card: https://reportcards.nysed.gov/school...0593&year=2012
R-H has probably some of the lowest property tax rates in the area and if you go by the info on all of the websites, it is a decent school district, by the metrics. Its grad rate is around 90% overall with a minimal gap between Black and White students in that regard(3%). I believe that you can find some relatively newer homes at a "reasonable" price, in comparison.
Also, it is a legitimately diverse suburban SD and that can appeal to some families as well. I dare say that fact may be a reason why it is viewed the way it is viewed, but that is why I say that the context of the information is important. Here's the district NYSED Report Card: https://reportcards.nysed.gov/school...0593&year=2012
The grad rate is 90% now? When I was attending in the '90s the grad rate at R-H was 97%.
The grad rate is 90% now? When I was attending in the '90s the grad rate at R-H was 97%.
It fluctuates, but it seems to be in the 88-95% range. Considering that is about 14-20% higher than state and national figures in that regard, it is still well above average.
Ok, so million dollar question; Why is Rush-Henrietta, which borders Pittsford and Brighton school districts, got crappy ratings and scores in its high-school when its district elementary and middle school score are high, its location in the city is relatively ideal for commuting just about anywhere, and its racial demographics are actually more diverse? What is this school doing wrong when it could be doing so much better?
Ok, so million dollar question; Why is Rush-Henrietta, which borders Pittsford and Brighton school districts, got crappy ratings and scores in its high-school when its district elementary and middle school score are high, its location in the city is relatively ideal for commuting just about anywhere, and its racial demographics are actually more diverse? What is this school doing wrong when it could be doing so much better?
It does? Where did you see that its high school has "crappy" ratings and scores? Most sources shows that while it is no Brighton or Pittsford in terms of the HS, it is better than most in the state.
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.
