<p>I have a proposal (that's probably been mentioned before) that would alleviate some of the controversy over Newsweeks' top 500 high schools.</p>
<p>Instead of ranking based on what percentage of kids take the test, rank on what percentage of kids pass the tests. Isn't this just common sense? Why don't they do this?</p>
<p>What test?</p>
<p>^sorry, AP tests. Currently the criteria for ranking is what % of kids take AP tests. Places like New Trier High School in Illinois, often called "the only public ivy league high school" are ranked 300-400.</p>
<p>Trizkutt, I agree with you, but we must be missing something. (Pug---Newsweek's rankings of high schools is based somehow on the percentage of high school seniors who take AP tests, #tests, etc.). The big problem for many of us have is that it doesn't take into account the percentage of kids who score 3 or above, or any other measure of performance on the AP tests. The argument is that the school is better for "raising the bar", but it means nothing if the kids get nothing out of the class. We're in Charlotte, NC, where there are 17+ public high schools in the school district. One or 2 made it to Newsweek's list, and they are by far NOT the ones with the highest % of kids who pass the tests, or the ones with highest scores on state tests, or highest graduation rates, etc. The arguments on any of the ranking systems is that by oversimplifying things to get to a numerical rank, you really don't paint a true picture of what you're trying to measure.</p>
<p>^exactly. I'm sure they're aware of this discrepancy, and yet no change.</p>
<p>I don't know if you've ever read Freakonomics, but I'm just thinking that if they base the School Rank upon how well the kids perform, many AP teachers will be tempted to CHEAT by teaching the kids info that will be on the test. </p>
<p>Also, that may cause the school to NOT give many mediocre/dumb kids a chance at attending AP classes because they don't want the scores to be low, and kids to perform negatively. </p>
<p>Because the school's rank is based on % of kids taking the AP tests, the school has no other choice BUT to encourage as many kids as it can to do well and take AP courses..</p>
<p>Let's say if School A wants to crank up its rank, it can easily do so by encourating the top 5% of the students to enroll in AP classes and score all 4's and 5's..</p>
<p>^yeah, that's probably similar to what's happening now, though. They make AP's accesable to ALL students and encourage them to take the test to boost their rankings. I think the other methodology, even if it is succebtable to misleading criteria, is a better reflection of a school's students.</p>
<p>also, teachers are not privvy to information on AP tests, naturally.</p>
<p>It's pretty much impossible, in my opinion, to lump all high schools into one batch and determine that one is "the best". What does "best" mean?</p>
<p>Different areas start out with different advantages-- in many cases, "high-performing" schools don't even have to be that rigorous for their students to ace any standardized tests because those students are raised in stable, wealthy households. Places with fewer special-education students will have more dollars to spend on APs or gifted students. Districts with rich residents will have more tax money to throw at any problems... and so on and so forth. In other words, many of the most prominent factors in how schools fare numerically can't be controlled by the quality of the school itself.</p>
<p>It seems silly to call a high school the "best" if it takes high-performing, stable kids and turns out high-performing, stable kids. What about a school that grapples with a student body that's not selected by a lottery or housing prices, yet sends many of its graduates on to college? Part of education is growth and transformation... and there's no way to establish that numerically.</p>
<p>Unless the rankings were broken down further by type of school and income level of the district, any numerical measurement of success is pretty useless-- there's just too many variables.</p>
<p>Get rid of the rankings altogether.</p>
<p>uhh you guys, i agree with a778999, bcuz colleges already know which schools are competitive. Plus, i would not want to take another test in high school. period.</p>
<p>Is that the only metric? # of AP tests?
Wow..</p>
<p>I agree that it should be people who pass the test...not take it but I also think AP's shouldn't be the deciding factor. I personally believe it should be a combination of average SAT's, the amount of students who go on to say...top 25 schools, success of alumni, etc.. </p>
<p>I also remember reading on there that schools who had over a certain average SAT score were not included on the list. Those schools were then put into a seperate category gaining more of an "honorable mention" role. I may be mistaken here but I believe it was based on SAT's. I don't understand how a list of the best high schools in the country could leave out the best high schools in the country.</p>
<p>Jay Mathews, Washington Post Education Columnist who designed this measure, defends it here:</p>
<p>^good point. High school rankings, if they are going to be ranked, should be more holisitc, like USNWR rankings. SAT scores, % of people who pass AP exams, where students matriculate, etc, should be included. It's ridiculously simple now.</p>
<p>yeah..I don't see how schools who don't offer AP's should be automatically eliminated from the ranking system. Just because they don't like collegeboard does not mean they are a bad school by any means. </p>
<p>(This is all opinionated right now. My school doesn't have AP's so I am especially biased towards this ranking system and I don't like collegeboard. Scarsdale might though. I have no clue.)</p>
<p>Someone in this thread inspired a great idea out of me. Make a point system! Total go to college (ranked)/total
For those that get ivies, they can make up for 2 dropouts or something and so forth.</p>
<p>haha make up for 2 dropouts...that would be great for magnet schools who have a dropout rate of 0%. (I'm all for it.)</p>
<p>Why not base the rankings on some sort of weighted average of number of kids who take the test and number of kids who pass?
Or just average SAT score.</p>