Factors for determining great school (homes, middle school, universities)

[Kassad]

So I have been researching the various elementary school options in NoVA because I may be moving to the area for one year in summer 2018 and in the course of my web crawling came across this very recent article:

https://www.northernvirginiamag.com/...y-county-2017/

It goes on to list the best elementary schools, and in the intro provides the methodology used to make their determination.

My question is, why are they factoring in the percentage of students who receive free/reduced lunch? The article goes on to say that the percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch, shows the socio-economic breakdown of a school. Why does the socio-economic breakdown make a school better or worse? How can that even be factored in? Is a low number bad? If so, why?

Before people start labeling me as someone I'm not, let me say I am agnostic when it comes to that number. To me it should neither encourage, or discourage someone from attending the school. I put absolutely no weight on that percentage because I don't feel someone's socio-economic status makes them a better, or worse student, or more to the point, a better or worse person than someone who has a different status.

Unless I'm missing something here, it seems to me that this percentage is meant to basically tell people where the rich families and poor families go. I don't get why that makes a school better or worse or why its important to know. Like I said, maybe I'm missing something.. is it possible that the number can provide someone who may need free or reduced lunch the likelihood that they will receive it?

[ChristineVA]

In my own experience with sending my kids to various schools both private/public and a mixture of socio-economic levels, those schools that have more kids on free lunch (i.e., poor families) also have much lower standardized test scores. This indicates other issues going on this school. In those types of schools with struggling kids, you will have more remedial classes versus gifted classes. You might see more ESL classes. This can impact students who don't have the need for those resources. My friend's daughter has taught at both types of schools (one with a high percentage of reduced/free lunch and one without) and the differences in the classroom are noticed by her. There is a lot more interaction/intervention with the kids that come from less secure backgrounds and classroom time slows down a bit.

Now at the middle school and high school levels, I think it doesn't matter as much because kids are often placed in various tracks based on previous grades and test scores so they are more apt to be with other kids that perform the same as them. In elementary school, it is much more of a mixed bag.

[Ffxdata]

Because people don’t want their kids mixing with the poors. �� it’s also generally racially coded. Dog whistle, anyone?

[LuvVA]

Unfortunately, schools which have more kids on free lunch will have low SOL scores. Low SOL scores mean lower rating for school. When these kids have no means for food on a regular basis, they can't keep up with school/studies.

I remembered watching this video few days back.

https://youtu.be/awGctTODPBk

[Watchful]

Sometimes it is used to CONTROL for discrimination (instead of ENCOURAGE discrimination).

If a disadvantaged student scores a 65 (just making up numbers) at a "bad" school and scores 65 at a "good" school, then maybe it's not the school.

Likewise, if a heavily advantaged student scores a 96 at a "bad" school or a 96 at a "good" school, then maybe it's not the school.

Some rankings just go by the aggregate score which MAY reflect the population more so than the actual quality of teaching. (Of course we all pretty much know this, don't we.)

So some rankings try to discern which schools may (despite not having stellar composite scores) actually be doing a well-above-average job of teaching with what would otherwise be a very challenging constituency.

(I don't know if I explained this well - all I'm trying to say is that the inclusion of economics is not necessarily a bad thing in trying to assess the effectiveness of a given school.)

[Hal Roach]

For some peculiar reason the demographics that make more money also do better in schools and also live in relatively higher value homes. But let's never, ever underestimate the importance of Ebonics, making prayer mats, and learning two words of Mandarin before you know cursive. Most universities still require SATs, but I have heard 500 Fred Flintstone looking NEA members assuring students that "SAT is not important."

[Ffxdata]

Originally Posted by Hal Roach

For some peculiar reason the demographics that make more money also do better in schools and also live in relatively higher value homes. But let's never, ever underestimate the importance of Ebonics, making prayer mats, and learning two words of Mandarin before you know cursive. Most universities still require SATs, but I have heard 500 Fred Flintstone looking NEA members assuring students that "SAT is not important."

Ignore everything he says.