Kids who ate before scored like 5 points higher on IQ tests. Hungry people don't concentrate as well. Income level, more specifically food scarcity does matter a lot.
I work in a diverse dual language magnet school with lots of ELs. The overall test scores are low, but the native English speakers from the middle class part of town are doing just fine on the standardized tests.
The ELs, SpED, and recent arrivals are behind, and bring down the average test scores, but they are growing, and even though the *average* is low, the doesn't negatively impact the individual kids who are doing just fine.
Also, oddly enough, it's a dual language Spanish school. The native English speakers generally outperform the native Spanish speakers in the Spanish language proficiency tests.
But do those ultimately matter when making that decision? Part of the lack of resources in poorer communities literally correlates to those very schools and students having less resources, not to mention very often teachers who are burnt to a crisp trying to deal with those factors. Correlation might as well be causation, they'll snowball. On the other point I find it hard to believe that the proportion of kids bussed into a better prepared district would be large enough to significantly change the outcomes in some district that often has thousands of kids.
In poorer districts the district wide data is often useless to begin with. Scarcity of resources, ranging priorities of families that need to make harder choices, typically a much higher culture of skepticism in education, the politics that come with a struggling community, if a district has even two choices for schools they can be dramatically different.
If the ultimate point of the post is to ask about whether testing data, the famously unpopular and distracting metric that it is, is meaningful in judging the success of a district, the short and unfortunate answer is probably. If kids are failing at a high rate, testing anxiety and strategy can't explain all of it, and kids probably often aren't being adequately prepared, for whatever reason. If the districts are doing very well, maybe they over prepare and focus on test taking over applicable skill, maybe they find ways to shave points, but ultimately the kids also manage to demonstrate competency. For a strong parent that is enough to work with, and frankly a huge skill for college entry and college courses. Modern tests, around here anyways, do a decent job of requiring relational math to ace anyways, so it can't not be taught properly at least a little. You can't point a finger at the direct cause of outcomes, and parents have a lot of impact on kids individual outcomes regardless, but the kids and culture, or whatever other variable that is or isn't working, that surrounds them can definitely be hinted at. To me it's a very similar number to, say, an SAT score. It is biased on socioeconomic lines, it does take test taking into account, it is not relatable to the real life skill in those subjects, but at worst, it shows a school didnt prepare you to work on the fly on grade level content, and at best it shows students have been prepared to take a test on grade level content, and that's.. actually pretty valuable, since getting tested on grade level content is very often how you get a degree, certificate, or job. The test is biased not necessarily because the test is classist and racist but because it reflects the reality of what is being provided to those communities. You can argue the former but nobody in their right mind should deny the latter.
I taught at an underperforming high school where I can count on my fingers the passers- state doesn't require passing- all kids that were mine I'm very proud to say. We had resources. The teachers were fine (but with citywide acceptance they came from who knows where with who knows what to work with). Income was extremely low, school culture wasn't great. I still dedicate time in my summers to help kids prep for the college tests for free so that they can have a shot, the school won't get them there. So what did admin prioritize? Teaching to the test, just to save what little numbers we could get, the very thing that people say the high performing districts are doing. The kids that I got to clear the bar had to work so much harder than the average student to get a score that is literally average at best, they were basically working alone. We had one kid score advanced the whole time... Who came in from a charter. That school had so much going for it, they're great kids, we had smart boards and supplies and all that, I was given academic freedom and could get kids across the line, but the income was absolutely the biggest problem. Kids end up having big attendance problems, being unfocused, coming in behind, having pretty unaddressed SEL issues to figure out on day one and a lot of distrust in the system, not a ton of future focus, and it's all ultimately because of income. But we still had all the same problems in addition to those, and it still created the exact environment to learn in that the scores would indicate. I don't blame the kids or the staff, if anything, I blame the economic reality of the area, the parents, and the community. But you could ignore everything I just said and looked at our numbers, and unless you went to a special admit, they would tell an accurate enough story.
Let me tell you, in the schools I’ve worked in, the teachers that stress test scores have the unhappiest students and, arguably, the students least prepared for life. Many teachers, especially in districts that put heavy emphasis on test scores, “teach to the test” meaning they focus on things they believe will be on the test and how to take the test rather than spending time on things that will be useful for life. Standardized tests are also biased against lower-income and students of color. Stress also plays a major role in how students score. Some very intelligent kids score poorly because they worry and overthink too much. All of that to say, test scores are not good measures of teacher or school performance. The atmosphere of the school and hearing from other kids/families will be the best indicators of school quality. If you’re moving to a new area, ask around on local Facebook groups about the schools you’re considering. You’ll definitely get some mixed reviews about every school but that will be a much better indicator of whether the school is the right place for your kids.
So here’s just one sort of example. Student A has 2 parents that work and make good money but are both home in the evening. Student A goes to museums, parks and other educational places over the weekends and on school breaks. Student A’s family all eats dinner together and talks about their day. Student A gets a good night’s sleep before testing days and eats a healthy breakfast.
Student B has 2 parents that work long hours and struggle to make ends meet. Student B’s family can’t afford to go lots of places on weekends or over breaks and one or both parents works evenings so they don’t really eat meals together. Student B has to watch their siblings on the night before testing so they don’t get great sleep and they eat a pop tart for breakfast before going to school.
Those two students could have the same IQ (which would mean theoretically they should score the same on standardized tests) but their lives are very different. Student A is going to likely have a broader vocabulary and more schema due to life experiences whereas Student B isn’t having as many conversations with their parents and hasn’t gotten the same variety of experiences that Student A has. Student B isn’t less smart but they just haven’t had the same access that Student A has. The language used on standardized tests often is more technical and specific so students that have had more experiences are more likely to know the words/concepts. In a regular classroom setting, teachers can explain a word or concept so that all students understand. So the standardized test isn’t accurately showing what both students can do.
Test scores would be a very good measure, but an even better one, I think, is the ratio of students in the district who go to college. Most of the time, that will track with test scores. Example: in our district, 95% of students are at reading proficiency and 91% go to college. In a neighboring district, 20% are reading proficient and around 40% go to college.
If it mostly tracks with test scores, why not just use test scores? Also couldn't you just look at median income in the area around the school since that would track as well?
Useless. I work at what is considered one of the best districts in our area. The numbers are manipulated by not having certain kids take the test.
Our district caters to the top 1%. There are few electives for those students that are not in the top 1%.Most of the staff has either quit or looking for new positions because we're treated so poorly. It looks like we will not have enough teachers next year and class sizes will be massive.
I would be most concerned with school climate and programs that are offered.
I'm a parent, not a teacher, but my mom was an educator so I feel strongly. The things we looked for were parent involvement and teacher engagement with their class. A test score says so little. I honestly have no idea what the test scores are like for our district!
What I looked for was a teacher who can find the best way to support the specific kid, not a generic kid. For example, my son has ADHD and his teachers the last few years have worked to find which seating allows him to be most effective. What activities or books to offer at which times to allow him to be successful and engaged in class. These are incredible benefits that won't show up on a test. The office staff knows every kid and parent by name. When there's a class concert the gym is full of parents and grandparents.
Nope, not sound. Standardized test scores are one measure but not the bestor only measure, especially if you're comparing public and private schools and/or schools in various states. If District B has higher test scores than District A, it may be because District A has ALL students, including lower-functioning kids, take standardized tests, while District B has only the cream of the crop. Some private schools don't even have special ed students.
It could also be that District A uses a standardized test that doesn't require essay answers. A student who can get multiple choice answers correct is not necessarily a student who can extrapolate, explain, analyze, or compare and contrast. District A might teach to the test, and students won 't retain that knowledge.
It's better to use a variety of tools. Which school district has a higher graduation rate? Of college-bound seniors, what percentage get into top-ranked universities? Who has better-qualified teachers? (Drill-and-grill takes little skill, but that's not going to prepare kids for college.) Which district offers more electives? Which has smaller class sizes? Which offers more courses in the area your kid is most interested in? Which district's schools are accredited?
I would never consider standardized test scores alone.
District standardized tests are the same across districts in a respective state. There’s no such thing as one district having an essay question and the others don’t.
Hahahaha. There's not ONE standardized test for all students across the US. Did you not know that? One state might use one form of standardized tests from one publisher; another uses a different test from a different publisher.
Standardized simply means that all students in one school or district take the exact same test. It dies not mean that all students in the district, state, or country use the same test.
HAHAHA But there is one standardized test across each state. Did you not know that? If I'm comparing scores of 2 districts in the same state, they've taken the same standardized test.
Yes, I knew that. However, that applies only to public schools. Private schools are exempt from state testing but may use an entirely different test if they choose.
This year I watched a first grader pick A for every answer. They took a 37 question math test in 6 minutes. They scored mid 2nd grade.
So no, test scores should not be the only thing you look at.
As a teacher the only thing I find valuable in judging a school that you can know without working there is the vibe. Are the hallways full of kids' work and kids doing messy kids stuff? Do people seem cheerful and genuine? Do the leaders seem as though they've been trained in PR?
Given a choice, I'd avoid schools that use PBIS and restorative justice.
It's like a warm and fuzzy version of school discipline where punishment is de-emphasized or sometimes eliminated in favor of mediation and talking things out and so forth. Like if kid A punched kid B, instead of just punishing kid A, they might sit them down and have them talk it out.
This is the tl;dr version of course. In reality it's a whole program.
As I understand it, the system *can* work, but it takes a lot more effort and skill than most school districts can put into it. Half-assing it results in big problems. Usually, teachers get the blame for the problems when the system doesn't really put much power into teachers' hands.
That’s so true! Most of these initiatives come from people who haven’t been in a long time, or have never been a classroom teacher. We all know of things that work theoretically but not in the real world. PBIS does not work at all!! It does destroy intrinsic motivation and doesn’t teach actions have consequences to those who need to learn that lesson the most.
Please elaborate on why youd avoid PBIS and restorative justice! Not sure what either means but as a parent they seem like good ideas but hearing it from a teachers perspective would be interesting.
I just answered this in another comment in this thread. Basically, the incentives in these programs lead schools down a negative behavior spiral, even to the point of victim blaming.
It rewards kids for doing the bare minimum, and ignores kids who do a great job every day, all day.
Had a kid one year who never spent the entire day in my classroom because of his violent behavior. The PBIS committee suggested that if he wasn’t violent, he could get McDonald’s for lunch. They told him, he was silent all morning (did zero work), got McDonald’s for lunch, then came upstairs to class and punched a kid in the hallway for looking at him. It’s bullshit.
Having either a PBIS or RJ system signals that there have been pretty major behavioral problems within the district. Schools that have a working system don't adopt PBIS or RJ because there's no need.
I know one parent whose middle schooler who was frequently on the periphery of some drama but not directly involved. Since she was a "witness" she kept getting pulled into restorative justice meetings. The parents wound up pulling her out of public school mostly because of academics but also because this sort of stuff was an ineffective waste of time and energy.
To add to other comments, PBIS thinks kids should be rewarded for everything. Which means that kids eventually will do nothing without a reward. It destroys intrinsic motivation.
Head Start pushed it hard and I refused. I am not rewarding a child for coming to circle, picking up toys and following directions. That’s the entire point of school, to learn those skills. I did reward for above and beyond, such as helping a friend pick up their toys without being asked. It was usually a sticker. Giving kids a reward for basic skills does not make them good students, it doesn’t even make them good people. What does do is teach them that the bare minimum gets you candy.
I’ve never worked anywhere that used Restorative Justice but I have never heard anything good about it.
The idea behind each is great, but the practice is virtually always really harmful.
PBIS awards the students who do the least and teaches them that they do not need to meet their responsibilities unless they receive prizes. The more narrowly successful students become demoralized. Behavior turns to crap. Incidentally, most of the incentives must be supplied by teachers-- so we're often required to pay out of our own pockets to give takis to kids who remembered to clean up after themselves this once.
Restorative Justice is a fabulous practice for when you have 2 hours to break down everything that went into a tough moment. In classrooms, these tough moments happen pretty frequently throughout the day (anywhere from once a day to a couple times an hour), and you have about five minutes to resolve them. In schools, restorative Justice often means that students who are harmed by other students have to listen to how they (the victims) "hurt" the aggressor in some way, usually imaginary, and then are pressured to forgive them. Students quickly come to understand that even violent behaviors will be waved away if they just blame somebody else.
Proponents will tell you that when the programs look like this, they're not being implemented properly-- but this is how it ends up time and time again. There is no magical day that will come when schools don't have barriers to proper implementation.
I’m sure it won’t be long!
Years ago I taught first grade in a district that didn’t use phonics. I can’t remember the name, but it was basically memorize as many words as you can. I spent 30 minutes “teaching” the approved method, then spent another 30 minutes teaching phonics. Phonics may not be perfect but it’s a hella better than memorizing!
My husband was in that district, or one like it, 40 or so years ago. He reads so slow because of it and still can't do well sounding things out. My husband has a PhD and cannot sound out words! It's such a core/ base skill you can never retrain.
Oh, you're talking whole language or balanced literacy. The biggest load of garbage ever dumped into education. Have you listened to the podcast 'Sold a Story?' Great reporting on how we got to this point regarding literacy programs. Absolutely depressing as well.
Standardized test scores are most closely associated with the SES of the surrounding community. That may be a useful metric, but it's not much different from housing prices.
I would think more about your kids' needs. If you have a child with special needs, look at the quality and reputation of their SPED programs. If you have a child with particular interests like art or engineering, look for robust programs in that area.
It's not useless, but it's not everything by a mile. Like I live in a poorer district with a high ELL population, but our zoned school is actually pretty decent, it's just that there's a lot for them to overcome as a school. My wife and I do well financially, have resources, and like where we live because we wanted to move out of the city, but not to a white enclave. So, I think our kiddo will be fine.
I think you need to just know the school, know yourself and your kid and what you need. Yeah, if the school was out of control, that would be an issue, but that's not it and the county is pouring in more resources.
Also, if your kid needs any services, like I had an over 90% pass rate for my last state ELA test, and in my previous school, I had a 100% pass rate for a high school level test my junior high school students took. But I still wouldn't recommend either school for students with disabilities if you could find a place that had a more cohesive program even if the overall performance wasn't the best.
Well, for example, in my state there are 26 different “standardized” tests. So there is no apples to apples. That means in classrooms that cap at 24 each student could be taking a different one.
Also, you can’t make a student want to try. Even in elementary school, it is literally a testing violation here to tell them to go back and check, or “are you sure you are finished” when they spend 10 minutes on a 90 minute test. You can basically only say “do your best!”
Plus the tests can be based on anything in curriculum, and often times there is more curriculum than teachers have time to teach. This is especially the case if students don’t understand and you need to teach. Do you skip ahead and not reteach to get through the curriculum, or do you make sure a skill is mastered and things get missed at the end.
I like reading schools accountability reports too-mainly forbthe demographics sections that tell me how big are their class sizes, how many teachers are accredited or misassigned, how many are english learners, learning disabilities-etc.so that could aid you in research
I have worked in a few schools of varying achievement. By far the most important factor is the role of the parent.
I have seen kids with very involved parents thrive and go on to do incredible things in very poor, low performing, high incident schools. I have seen kids in schools that could pass for private academies with all the resources money could by turn to drugs and crime- usually because parents are uninvolved.
I'm not saying schools don't matter at all by any means, but the parents role is far and above the most important factor.
1000% agree with this. School is truly what you make it. Involved parents, outspoken (but still kind) parents are more beneficial to your kids than you even know.
The test scores are largely crap.
Look at facebook groups and school district facebook or social media. See how people feel, respond, support, etc. See how often the schools are celebrated. Those are the ones that will be the best schools.
When parents work with a school, the school works better.
Generally speaking, they are not particularly useful to make that choice on because of the amount of statistical noise present when trying to use it to predict your child's experience.
A much better proxy would be to look at the individual programs the school offers and what kind of opportunities they provide for parents to get involved.
There are a lot of reasons why schools may not score well on standardized tests. The tests are normed for a Euro-centric middle class student. That’s just not a lot of schools in today’s society. I’ve worked at schools that didn’t have great test scores and would’ve had my own children attend if they were still of school age. There are some ratings sites - but that doesn’t always give you a clear picture either.
Depends.
If you were using it to pick my district, there’s no guarantee there are openings at the schools with the highest scores.
There is a “pay your dues” aspect/ who you know aspect to teaching in districts/ schools with higher scores.
I wrote a response to this same question a while ago in another thread; feel free to check it out. The people saying disregard them are wrong. They do matter.
Standardized tests are just one thing to look at. I would look up things like teacher retention rates, student to teacher ratios, high school graduation rates, percentage of kids that go to college etc. I would also do a quick search for any red flags. Are the any lawsuits or problematic stuff in the news? It is important to know that there are good and bad schools in every district and good and bad teachers at every school
Honestly I don’t even need to see them anymore; give me other factors (most of them listed on GS), plus level of parental volunteering at schools, number of extracurriculars/sports at a school, educational level of parents, plus any other specific issues. Disclaimer: not a teacher
They’re not completely useless because it does let you compare apples to apples, but (1) don’t assume the test scores are a valid proxy for the learning or teaching that happens in that school, and (2) for the love of GOD don’t make that your only measure for choosing where to live.
Also… having proctored state and standardized tests before, I don’t have all that much faith anymore in the actual standardization. A lot of proctors and schools simply DGAF about adhering to the testing manual with fidelity, so it’s not like it’s an academic study with perfectly controlled experimental conditions. And kids vary widely in how they prep (like some kids get private tutoring outside of school, some get drilled on test prep at school, some study on their own outside of school, some just wing it because they can’t be bothered to prepare). Some of that has to do with SES and other external factors in kids’ lives outside the school’s control. And that’s not even touching the cheating scandals that have occurred in the past, where the scores quite literally mean nothing…
So yes, comparing standardized test scores is about as apples-to-apples as it gets in education, but like… you might be comparing three bags of apples, but one is certified organic, and another has weird greenwashing terms on it to suggest it’s organic without actually being organic, and then another says “APPLE ^(flavored food product)” and it’s actually just balls of corn byproducts coated in red dye. All of this is why it’s a terrible idea to make test scores your only variable in evaluating school quality.
Pretty much every metric by which school quality is judged is either a proxy for or a direct consequence of the socioeconomic status of its student body. Just check the demographics of the catchment area and it's almost a perfect correlation.
Here's our personal experience and I will probably get downvoted, but the first school we were at my daughter was not challenged and the content was lower level. The test scores at that school were low. I don't blame the teachers, they were doing the best they could with the resources they had, but since there were so many kid with low skills they had to spend their time trying to bring those kids up to speed. My child, who was higher level, was just kind of there. No one else at her reading level, so she was alone in her reading "group". She finished the easy things quickly and spent most of the time reading books on her own. Also, the behaviors at that school were atrocious (unsure if test scores were related or not). She was hit, had her head slammed on a table, hair pulled, threatened to be killed, and much more all at kindergarten and first grade level. So for the safety reason (and low academic challenge) we purposely moved to a school with higher test scores, better reputation. At the higher test score school, more kids were at her level. The teacher could have whole class activities that met the challenge for my kid. She was actuslly in a reading group with other kids. There were more opportunities for gifted enrichment. My son went through Kinder and 1st grade there and the curriculum was much more advanced than what my daughter got. So, yes, personally I do believe test scores are indicative of the level of instruction your child will receive. Others I'm sure will disagree but this has been our experience.
If you’re going to look at the standardized test scores, please understand that they are not necessarily a reflection of the quality of teaching occurring at that particular school.
In my opinion, the standardized test scores show the quality of time, attention, and resources the kids are receiving at home. For example, some households do not value education, it’s hard to focus at school when you’re hungry, it’s hard to do homework if you’re in an unsafe home environment, etc.
It’s also harder to learn at school if you are surrounded by students with behavioral issues (or if you’re the student with behavioral issues). This is also largely tied back to the home environment.
Test scores will tell you a lot, but not what you’d expect them to tell you. The education system, including standardized testing, is wildly flawed.
Do you know anyone in the area you could ask about the schools? If not, maybe find a Facebook group for the city or town you’re considering and ask people?
You could also look for other factors-
Does this community vote in favor of school levies? This shows how well (or not) the community supports the school.
What are the quality of the extra curriculars here? Look at more than the supports. Any school can be supportive of sports, but how do they support their band geeks?
Are there a lot of job postings for the school? High teacher turnover rate is concerning.
This is an entire rabbit hole and I could go on forever, but hopefully this helped give you some other things to consider.
Best of luck with the move and finding a new school!
Yes to the job postings! Compare the amount of vacancies at each school and they will tell you a lot about the admin. If the teachers are happy, they stay.
I care more about student growth than I do about test scores, but that's me. It's really hard to know if a district or campus is good until you're there.
Eta: turn over rate is also helpful to look at. HAPPY teachers stay. Unhappy teachers leave. Doesn't always mean the school is /good/ though.
I agree. I always say peer group is the number 1 factor for student success. I am not blaming unmotivated kids for being unmotivated, but we are all tribal creatures, and if you hang out with friends who study, who plan on success in their lives, or even plan on going to the military, that is a lot better than a group of lost and apathetic peers.
It depends on what you're looking for. Are you looking for a district where kids are good at doing tests? This likely has more to do with the wealth of the neighborhood than the quality of the education— but a wealthier neighborhood is more likely to have well-resourced schools. But they can have their own downsides, too (including, of course, the price of the homes and cost of living).
If you're not using school ratings as a proxy for wealth and genuinely want to know the quality of the school, you'll have to dig more, like how do struggling students' tests improve from year to year?
If after a comprehensive review, you loved literally everything else about a low performing district except that their standardized tests were low, I would go with the low performing district. You could make sure you know the district has the resources and programs to accommodate where you think your child is.
Test scores all depend on who showed up for the test and whether they bought in. The scores are rarely reflective of the teachers or curriculum. Best way to find schools that don’t suck, ask around. Join groups on social for that areas parents and ask what the best schools are. Often, it isn’t about the best school in the neighborhood but the best school for the individual that will allow them to be successful. Grade level matters, too, and focuses can and should change as kids progress. For example, my state is flush with charter schools and the ones at the high school level can feed students directly into college or career, and others help support behavioral or other needs with special programming. Research the area and the options, base nothing on scores.
I would consider the scores BUT they would carry very little weight in comparison to other things. Does the admin take discipline seriously? Think about it. Do you want your child's safety and education disrupted by another student who is allowed to do whatever he/she wants? Are the teachers decent humans who actually want to show up to work each day? Think about it. Would you want your child in a school where the teachers are miserable because the admin puts too much pressure on them to get great test scores? Their creativity and joy are suffocated so they can't be the best teachers for your child.
My school is Title 1 with almost 45% of our population in the ESL program. Our test scores are mediocre (a C rating is reported to the public). That is a good score considering our demographic. You will not know that as a person who just sees the score on the internet. We have several advanced math and English classes. My school is also safe. Admin does not play around with students who are violent or threatening. They move them to the alternative school as soon as they can! Yes, there are a few jerks who are shown too much grace but they are not the dangerous ones.
In at least some states, kids can opt out of standardized testing and those kids who opt out count as failed tests in the pass/fail rate. Sometimes the rate is not how many know/don’t know basic math/English, but rather how much students are pressured into testing.
Keep this in mind!
Standardized test reflect the school district. Bad districts have poor scores and good districts have above state averages. Unless you want to pay a private school, choose a district that's scores are high. Reviews mean very little. Most compliners are usually parents who don't like Mis Jones bc she yells or something frivolous.
However, if you don't believe in testing, then just move anywhere, any school USA
O don’t choose my school district for my daughter because I work for it. But I did decide for middle school to go charter vs public only because the start time was better scheduling wise. Not much difference between her current charter school and the public ones for HS. Her school is just better funded and offers a few things public doesn’t, like mandatory grade level class selections to make sure specific graduation requirements are met, for example all freshman in the class of 2026 had to take PE as an elective to make sure everyone had it for graduation. She just finished her last mandatory elective class for graduation requirements this year.
Parent here. When I was looking for schools before my kids were starting KG I though long and hard about what was important for schools. I came up with 3 things. Now that our oldest is in middle school and talking to A TON of folks putting kids through high school into college I must say I haven't changed my mind at all. The 3 that I found most useful... 1. Safe environment, 2. Parents who really care about kids education (easy to tell based on education level of parents), and 3. Some production pressure placed on the teachers to perform (not always easy to figure out).
That is it.
Honestly, what I have found is the quality of the teachers don't really matter much (no offense to the teachers out there) for the 2 ends of the spectrum. The slackers are gonna stack. The superstars are gonna be superstars (from self motivation and from their parents and NOT from the teachers). Teachers are superIMPORTANT for the middle of the road kids. So if your kid is in that middle and/ or has special needs then that is when picking the right school that has those special facilities that can provide that support is super important. Those are the folks where having great teachers are the difference of the middle of the road kids falling on the left side or right side of the normal distribution curve.
Just my 2c.
NO SCHOOL (or teacher) teaches a kid to get a 1500+ SAT. The kid AND their parents work hard themselves and deserve the credit for that accomplishment.
I agree. I teach 8th grade ELA. The students who come to me already reading on grade level can pass the state test with very little help from me. They already have a strong vocabulary, good analytical thinking development, a large amount of background knowledge, and curiosity. All of that came from innate ability and/or a very deliberate home life.
The students who come to me reading independently at a 5th grade level or lower will never pass the state test. They never have and they never will. *This is not a judgement on their value as humans.* They might be very hard working students, but the gap is too wide for them to jump over.
The students who read at the higher end of 6th grade or 7th grade level **could** pass the test with my explicit instruction and with a lot of reading to push them out of their comfort zone, **BUT** they have to be people who want to pass the test. They don't cry at hard work. They put in the effort to learn. If they don't care about learning or academic success, there is nothing I can do to change that. Actually, I have students in my advanced classes who don't pass the test because they don't care. They know it doesn't affect their life in a serious way so they just guess and take nap. How do I know? They tell me straight up to my face. 🤷
I think they are helpful in telling you the makeup of the student population in a public school. Your children will start listening to other students. High performance in school and bad behaviors are both contagious. Yes, I would factor them in a decision.
To me, standardized tests show one of two things. One, how intelligent the students are. This is a reflection of the students, not the teachers. Two, the teachers are covering for poor performing students, by changing the students answers.
[удалено]
Kids who ate before scored like 5 points higher on IQ tests. Hungry people don't concentrate as well. Income level, more specifically food scarcity does matter a lot.
Most children, according to studies, are overweight to obese. There is no scarcity of food in public schools
That kind of sucks.
I work in a diverse dual language magnet school with lots of ELs. The overall test scores are low, but the native English speakers from the middle class part of town are doing just fine on the standardized tests. The ELs, SpED, and recent arrivals are behind, and bring down the average test scores, but they are growing, and even though the *average* is low, the doesn't negatively impact the individual kids who are doing just fine. Also, oddly enough, it's a dual language Spanish school. The native English speakers generally outperform the native Spanish speakers in the Spanish language proficiency tests.
Not surprised by any of this.
It's a myth
But do those ultimately matter when making that decision? Part of the lack of resources in poorer communities literally correlates to those very schools and students having less resources, not to mention very often teachers who are burnt to a crisp trying to deal with those factors. Correlation might as well be causation, they'll snowball. On the other point I find it hard to believe that the proportion of kids bussed into a better prepared district would be large enough to significantly change the outcomes in some district that often has thousands of kids. In poorer districts the district wide data is often useless to begin with. Scarcity of resources, ranging priorities of families that need to make harder choices, typically a much higher culture of skepticism in education, the politics that come with a struggling community, if a district has even two choices for schools they can be dramatically different. If the ultimate point of the post is to ask about whether testing data, the famously unpopular and distracting metric that it is, is meaningful in judging the success of a district, the short and unfortunate answer is probably. If kids are failing at a high rate, testing anxiety and strategy can't explain all of it, and kids probably often aren't being adequately prepared, for whatever reason. If the districts are doing very well, maybe they over prepare and focus on test taking over applicable skill, maybe they find ways to shave points, but ultimately the kids also manage to demonstrate competency. For a strong parent that is enough to work with, and frankly a huge skill for college entry and college courses. Modern tests, around here anyways, do a decent job of requiring relational math to ace anyways, so it can't not be taught properly at least a little. You can't point a finger at the direct cause of outcomes, and parents have a lot of impact on kids individual outcomes regardless, but the kids and culture, or whatever other variable that is or isn't working, that surrounds them can definitely be hinted at. To me it's a very similar number to, say, an SAT score. It is biased on socioeconomic lines, it does take test taking into account, it is not relatable to the real life skill in those subjects, but at worst, it shows a school didnt prepare you to work on the fly on grade level content, and at best it shows students have been prepared to take a test on grade level content, and that's.. actually pretty valuable, since getting tested on grade level content is very often how you get a degree, certificate, or job. The test is biased not necessarily because the test is classist and racist but because it reflects the reality of what is being provided to those communities. You can argue the former but nobody in their right mind should deny the latter. I taught at an underperforming high school where I can count on my fingers the passers- state doesn't require passing- all kids that were mine I'm very proud to say. We had resources. The teachers were fine (but with citywide acceptance they came from who knows where with who knows what to work with). Income was extremely low, school culture wasn't great. I still dedicate time in my summers to help kids prep for the college tests for free so that they can have a shot, the school won't get them there. So what did admin prioritize? Teaching to the test, just to save what little numbers we could get, the very thing that people say the high performing districts are doing. The kids that I got to clear the bar had to work so much harder than the average student to get a score that is literally average at best, they were basically working alone. We had one kid score advanced the whole time... Who came in from a charter. That school had so much going for it, they're great kids, we had smart boards and supplies and all that, I was given academic freedom and could get kids across the line, but the income was absolutely the biggest problem. Kids end up having big attendance problems, being unfocused, coming in behind, having pretty unaddressed SEL issues to figure out on day one and a lot of distrust in the system, not a ton of future focus, and it's all ultimately because of income. But we still had all the same problems in addition to those, and it still created the exact environment to learn in that the scores would indicate. I don't blame the kids or the staff, if anything, I blame the economic reality of the area, the parents, and the community. But you could ignore everything I just said and looked at our numbers, and unless you went to a special admit, they would tell an accurate enough story.
Let me tell you, in the schools I’ve worked in, the teachers that stress test scores have the unhappiest students and, arguably, the students least prepared for life. Many teachers, especially in districts that put heavy emphasis on test scores, “teach to the test” meaning they focus on things they believe will be on the test and how to take the test rather than spending time on things that will be useful for life. Standardized tests are also biased against lower-income and students of color. Stress also plays a major role in how students score. Some very intelligent kids score poorly because they worry and overthink too much. All of that to say, test scores are not good measures of teacher or school performance. The atmosphere of the school and hearing from other kids/families will be the best indicators of school quality. If you’re moving to a new area, ask around on local Facebook groups about the schools you’re considering. You’ll definitely get some mixed reviews about every school but that will be a much better indicator of whether the school is the right place for your kids.
I think more people need to look into the history of standardized tests. It’s rooted in eugenics and racism.
Yeah, it’s scary how much people don’t know about things that are so commonplace in schools.
How are they biased against those groups, aren’t those groups just performing lower?
So here’s just one sort of example. Student A has 2 parents that work and make good money but are both home in the evening. Student A goes to museums, parks and other educational places over the weekends and on school breaks. Student A’s family all eats dinner together and talks about their day. Student A gets a good night’s sleep before testing days and eats a healthy breakfast. Student B has 2 parents that work long hours and struggle to make ends meet. Student B’s family can’t afford to go lots of places on weekends or over breaks and one or both parents works evenings so they don’t really eat meals together. Student B has to watch their siblings on the night before testing so they don’t get great sleep and they eat a pop tart for breakfast before going to school. Those two students could have the same IQ (which would mean theoretically they should score the same on standardized tests) but their lives are very different. Student A is going to likely have a broader vocabulary and more schema due to life experiences whereas Student B isn’t having as many conversations with their parents and hasn’t gotten the same variety of experiences that Student A has. Student B isn’t less smart but they just haven’t had the same access that Student A has. The language used on standardized tests often is more technical and specific so students that have had more experiences are more likely to know the words/concepts. In a regular classroom setting, teachers can explain a word or concept so that all students understand. So the standardized test isn’t accurately showing what both students can do.
Thank you for helping me understand. That makes a lot of sense.
I’m glad that made some sense! It’s hard to put it into words sometimes.
Test scores would be a very good measure, but an even better one, I think, is the ratio of students in the district who go to college. Most of the time, that will track with test scores. Example: in our district, 95% of students are at reading proficiency and 91% go to college. In a neighboring district, 20% are reading proficient and around 40% go to college.
*At best 50% of college entrants are reading proficient.* Grim
If it mostly tracks with test scores, why not just use test scores? Also couldn't you just look at median income in the area around the school since that would track as well?
Useless. I work at what is considered one of the best districts in our area. The numbers are manipulated by not having certain kids take the test. Our district caters to the top 1%. There are few electives for those students that are not in the top 1%.Most of the staff has either quit or looking for new positions because we're treated so poorly. It looks like we will not have enough teachers next year and class sizes will be massive. I would be most concerned with school climate and programs that are offered.
Useless? No. But, I find school climate is more important, and isn’t connected to test scores specifically.
I'm a parent, not a teacher, but my mom was an educator so I feel strongly. The things we looked for were parent involvement and teacher engagement with their class. A test score says so little. I honestly have no idea what the test scores are like for our district! What I looked for was a teacher who can find the best way to support the specific kid, not a generic kid. For example, my son has ADHD and his teachers the last few years have worked to find which seating allows him to be most effective. What activities or books to offer at which times to allow him to be successful and engaged in class. These are incredible benefits that won't show up on a test. The office staff knows every kid and parent by name. When there's a class concert the gym is full of parents and grandparents.
Hmmmm
Nope, not sound. Standardized test scores are one measure but not the bestor only measure, especially if you're comparing public and private schools and/or schools in various states. If District B has higher test scores than District A, it may be because District A has ALL students, including lower-functioning kids, take standardized tests, while District B has only the cream of the crop. Some private schools don't even have special ed students. It could also be that District A uses a standardized test that doesn't require essay answers. A student who can get multiple choice answers correct is not necessarily a student who can extrapolate, explain, analyze, or compare and contrast. District A might teach to the test, and students won 't retain that knowledge. It's better to use a variety of tools. Which school district has a higher graduation rate? Of college-bound seniors, what percentage get into top-ranked universities? Who has better-qualified teachers? (Drill-and-grill takes little skill, but that's not going to prepare kids for college.) Which district offers more electives? Which has smaller class sizes? Which offers more courses in the area your kid is most interested in? Which district's schools are accredited? I would never consider standardized test scores alone.
District standardized tests are the same across districts in a respective state. There’s no such thing as one district having an essay question and the others don’t.
WHAT?!? It's not standardized if they're giving different tests. What are you even talking about?
Hahahaha. There's not ONE standardized test for all students across the US. Did you not know that? One state might use one form of standardized tests from one publisher; another uses a different test from a different publisher. Standardized simply means that all students in one school or district take the exact same test. It dies not mean that all students in the district, state, or country use the same test.
HAHAHA But there is one standardized test across each state. Did you not know that? If I'm comparing scores of 2 districts in the same state, they've taken the same standardized test.
Yes, I knew that. However, that applies only to public schools. Private schools are exempt from state testing but may use an entirely different test if they choose.
They are not useless but they don’t paint a full or 100% accurate picture.
This year I watched a first grader pick A for every answer. They took a 37 question math test in 6 minutes. They scored mid 2nd grade. So no, test scores should not be the only thing you look at.
As a teacher the only thing I find valuable in judging a school that you can know without working there is the vibe. Are the hallways full of kids' work and kids doing messy kids stuff? Do people seem cheerful and genuine? Do the leaders seem as though they've been trained in PR? Given a choice, I'd avoid schools that use PBIS and restorative justice.
What’s restorative justice?
It's like a warm and fuzzy version of school discipline where punishment is de-emphasized or sometimes eliminated in favor of mediation and talking things out and so forth. Like if kid A punched kid B, instead of just punishing kid A, they might sit them down and have them talk it out. This is the tl;dr version of course. In reality it's a whole program.
As I understand it, the system *can* work, but it takes a lot more effort and skill than most school districts can put into it. Half-assing it results in big problems. Usually, teachers get the blame for the problems when the system doesn't really put much power into teachers' hands.
You just described most of the initiatives in education today. Lol
A program made up and pushed buy the US government. It’s crap and I hate it.
It's not really the government. It comes from colleges/researchers and organizations in the field of education. I am also not a fan.
That’s so true! Most of these initiatives come from people who haven’t been in a long time, or have never been a classroom teacher. We all know of things that work theoretically but not in the real world. PBIS does not work at all!! It does destroy intrinsic motivation and doesn’t teach actions have consequences to those who need to learn that lesson the most.
Please elaborate on why youd avoid PBIS and restorative justice! Not sure what either means but as a parent they seem like good ideas but hearing it from a teachers perspective would be interesting.
I just answered this in another comment in this thread. Basically, the incentives in these programs lead schools down a negative behavior spiral, even to the point of victim blaming.
It rewards kids for doing the bare minimum, and ignores kids who do a great job every day, all day. Had a kid one year who never spent the entire day in my classroom because of his violent behavior. The PBIS committee suggested that if he wasn’t violent, he could get McDonald’s for lunch. They told him, he was silent all morning (did zero work), got McDonald’s for lunch, then came upstairs to class and punched a kid in the hallway for looking at him. It’s bullshit.
Having either a PBIS or RJ system signals that there have been pretty major behavioral problems within the district. Schools that have a working system don't adopt PBIS or RJ because there's no need.
I know one parent whose middle schooler who was frequently on the periphery of some drama but not directly involved. Since she was a "witness" she kept getting pulled into restorative justice meetings. The parents wound up pulling her out of public school mostly because of academics but also because this sort of stuff was an ineffective waste of time and energy.
To add to other comments, PBIS thinks kids should be rewarded for everything. Which means that kids eventually will do nothing without a reward. It destroys intrinsic motivation. Head Start pushed it hard and I refused. I am not rewarding a child for coming to circle, picking up toys and following directions. That’s the entire point of school, to learn those skills. I did reward for above and beyond, such as helping a friend pick up their toys without being asked. It was usually a sticker. Giving kids a reward for basic skills does not make them good students, it doesn’t even make them good people. What does do is teach them that the bare minimum gets you candy. I’ve never worked anywhere that used Restorative Justice but I have never heard anything good about it.
I hate PBIS with a fiery passion.
A few of us were sharing this same sentiment today at work
Why avoid PBIS or RJ? I don’t have much experience in either beyond the concept and the basics. But I like the idea of both.
The idea behind each is great, but the practice is virtually always really harmful. PBIS awards the students who do the least and teaches them that they do not need to meet their responsibilities unless they receive prizes. The more narrowly successful students become demoralized. Behavior turns to crap. Incidentally, most of the incentives must be supplied by teachers-- so we're often required to pay out of our own pockets to give takis to kids who remembered to clean up after themselves this once. Restorative Justice is a fabulous practice for when you have 2 hours to break down everything that went into a tough moment. In classrooms, these tough moments happen pretty frequently throughout the day (anywhere from once a day to a couple times an hour), and you have about five minutes to resolve them. In schools, restorative Justice often means that students who are harmed by other students have to listen to how they (the victims) "hurt" the aggressor in some way, usually imaginary, and then are pressured to forgive them. Students quickly come to understand that even violent behaviors will be waved away if they just blame somebody else. Proponents will tell you that when the programs look like this, they're not being implemented properly-- but this is how it ends up time and time again. There is no magical day that will come when schools don't have barriers to proper implementation.
Kinda sounds like "communism is great on paper" until it actually gets executed and then it becomes a state of disaster and exploitation
What’s PBIS?
Positive behavior interventions and supports. The current buzz acronym that sounds great in theory and is terrible in practice.
True of 99.9% of current buzzes!
I am just waiting for the next acronym from hell to roll through
I’m sure it won’t be long! Years ago I taught first grade in a district that didn’t use phonics. I can’t remember the name, but it was basically memorize as many words as you can. I spent 30 minutes “teaching” the approved method, then spent another 30 minutes teaching phonics. Phonics may not be perfect but it’s a hella better than memorizing!
My husband was in that district, or one like it, 40 or so years ago. He reads so slow because of it and still can't do well sounding things out. My husband has a PhD and cannot sound out words! It's such a core/ base skill you can never retrain.
Oh, you're talking whole language or balanced literacy. The biggest load of garbage ever dumped into education. Have you listened to the podcast 'Sold a Story?' Great reporting on how we got to this point regarding literacy programs. Absolutely depressing as well.
Current? I've been reading about that for 10 years and 10 years ago i was a 3rd grader.
Giving kids takis and stickers for showing up
Standardized test scores are most closely associated with the SES of the surrounding community. That may be a useful metric, but it's not much different from housing prices. I would think more about your kids' needs. If you have a child with special needs, look at the quality and reputation of their SPED programs. If you have a child with particular interests like art or engineering, look for robust programs in that area.
Yeah. They really mean nothing. Sure, you don’t want super low scores, but they don’t really show a true picture.
It's not useless, but it's not everything by a mile. Like I live in a poorer district with a high ELL population, but our zoned school is actually pretty decent, it's just that there's a lot for them to overcome as a school. My wife and I do well financially, have resources, and like where we live because we wanted to move out of the city, but not to a white enclave. So, I think our kiddo will be fine. I think you need to just know the school, know yourself and your kid and what you need. Yeah, if the school was out of control, that would be an issue, but that's not it and the county is pouring in more resources. Also, if your kid needs any services, like I had an over 90% pass rate for my last state ELA test, and in my previous school, I had a 100% pass rate for a high school level test my junior high school students took. But I still wouldn't recommend either school for students with disabilities if you could find a place that had a more cohesive program even if the overall performance wasn't the best.
I read this as fake, exaggerated on purpose, trying to make a point. Was OP serious?
Well, for example, in my state there are 26 different “standardized” tests. So there is no apples to apples. That means in classrooms that cap at 24 each student could be taking a different one. Also, you can’t make a student want to try. Even in elementary school, it is literally a testing violation here to tell them to go back and check, or “are you sure you are finished” when they spend 10 minutes on a 90 minute test. You can basically only say “do your best!” Plus the tests can be based on anything in curriculum, and often times there is more curriculum than teachers have time to teach. This is especially the case if students don’t understand and you need to teach. Do you skip ahead and not reteach to get through the curriculum, or do you make sure a skill is mastered and things get missed at the end.
I like reading schools accountability reports too-mainly forbthe demographics sections that tell me how big are their class sizes, how many teachers are accredited or misassigned, how many are english learners, learning disabilities-etc.so that could aid you in research
I have worked in a few schools of varying achievement. By far the most important factor is the role of the parent. I have seen kids with very involved parents thrive and go on to do incredible things in very poor, low performing, high incident schools. I have seen kids in schools that could pass for private academies with all the resources money could by turn to drugs and crime- usually because parents are uninvolved. I'm not saying schools don't matter at all by any means, but the parents role is far and above the most important factor.
1000% agree with this. School is truly what you make it. Involved parents, outspoken (but still kind) parents are more beneficial to your kids than you even know.
i think it will tell you a lot about the socioeconomic status of that area
The test scores are largely crap. Look at facebook groups and school district facebook or social media. See how people feel, respond, support, etc. See how often the schools are celebrated. Those are the ones that will be the best schools. When parents work with a school, the school works better.
Generally speaking, they are not particularly useful to make that choice on because of the amount of statistical noise present when trying to use it to predict your child's experience. A much better proxy would be to look at the individual programs the school offers and what kind of opportunities they provide for parents to get involved.
Standardized test scores tell you the socioeconomic status of the students. That is it.
Standardized test scores tell you one thing, the socioeconomic status of that zip code.
There are a lot of reasons why schools may not score well on standardized tests. The tests are normed for a Euro-centric middle class student. That’s just not a lot of schools in today’s society. I’ve worked at schools that didn’t have great test scores and would’ve had my own children attend if they were still of school age. There are some ratings sites - but that doesn’t always give you a clear picture either.
Depends. If you were using it to pick my district, there’s no guarantee there are openings at the schools with the highest scores. There is a “pay your dues” aspect/ who you know aspect to teaching in districts/ schools with higher scores.
I wrote a response to this same question a while ago in another thread; feel free to check it out. The people saying disregard them are wrong. They do matter.
Standardized tests are just one thing to look at. I would look up things like teacher retention rates, student to teacher ratios, high school graduation rates, percentage of kids that go to college etc. I would also do a quick search for any red flags. Are the any lawsuits or problematic stuff in the news? It is important to know that there are good and bad schools in every district and good and bad teachers at every school
Scores do matter quite a bit, but it’s your choice .
Honestly I don’t even need to see them anymore; give me other factors (most of them listed on GS), plus level of parental volunteering at schools, number of extracurriculars/sports at a school, educational level of parents, plus any other specific issues. Disclaimer: not a teacher
They’re not completely useless because it does let you compare apples to apples, but (1) don’t assume the test scores are a valid proxy for the learning or teaching that happens in that school, and (2) for the love of GOD don’t make that your only measure for choosing where to live. Also… having proctored state and standardized tests before, I don’t have all that much faith anymore in the actual standardization. A lot of proctors and schools simply DGAF about adhering to the testing manual with fidelity, so it’s not like it’s an academic study with perfectly controlled experimental conditions. And kids vary widely in how they prep (like some kids get private tutoring outside of school, some get drilled on test prep at school, some study on their own outside of school, some just wing it because they can’t be bothered to prepare). Some of that has to do with SES and other external factors in kids’ lives outside the school’s control. And that’s not even touching the cheating scandals that have occurred in the past, where the scores quite literally mean nothing… So yes, comparing standardized test scores is about as apples-to-apples as it gets in education, but like… you might be comparing three bags of apples, but one is certified organic, and another has weird greenwashing terms on it to suggest it’s organic without actually being organic, and then another says “APPLE ^(flavored food product)” and it’s actually just balls of corn byproducts coated in red dye. All of this is why it’s a terrible idea to make test scores your only variable in evaluating school quality.
Pretty much every metric by which school quality is judged is either a proxy for or a direct consequence of the socioeconomic status of its student body. Just check the demographics of the catchment area and it's almost a perfect correlation.
Property values in the surrounding areas would be more valuable
Yes.
Yes, mostly, because the scores don't reflect the teachers. They reflect the students.
Here's our personal experience and I will probably get downvoted, but the first school we were at my daughter was not challenged and the content was lower level. The test scores at that school were low. I don't blame the teachers, they were doing the best they could with the resources they had, but since there were so many kid with low skills they had to spend their time trying to bring those kids up to speed. My child, who was higher level, was just kind of there. No one else at her reading level, so she was alone in her reading "group". She finished the easy things quickly and spent most of the time reading books on her own. Also, the behaviors at that school were atrocious (unsure if test scores were related or not). She was hit, had her head slammed on a table, hair pulled, threatened to be killed, and much more all at kindergarten and first grade level. So for the safety reason (and low academic challenge) we purposely moved to a school with higher test scores, better reputation. At the higher test score school, more kids were at her level. The teacher could have whole class activities that met the challenge for my kid. She was actuslly in a reading group with other kids. There were more opportunities for gifted enrichment. My son went through Kinder and 1st grade there and the curriculum was much more advanced than what my daughter got. So, yes, personally I do believe test scores are indicative of the level of instruction your child will receive. Others I'm sure will disagree but this has been our experience.
If you’re going to look at the standardized test scores, please understand that they are not necessarily a reflection of the quality of teaching occurring at that particular school. In my opinion, the standardized test scores show the quality of time, attention, and resources the kids are receiving at home. For example, some households do not value education, it’s hard to focus at school when you’re hungry, it’s hard to do homework if you’re in an unsafe home environment, etc. It’s also harder to learn at school if you are surrounded by students with behavioral issues (or if you’re the student with behavioral issues). This is also largely tied back to the home environment. Test scores will tell you a lot, but not what you’d expect them to tell you. The education system, including standardized testing, is wildly flawed. Do you know anyone in the area you could ask about the schools? If not, maybe find a Facebook group for the city or town you’re considering and ask people? You could also look for other factors- Does this community vote in favor of school levies? This shows how well (or not) the community supports the school. What are the quality of the extra curriculars here? Look at more than the supports. Any school can be supportive of sports, but how do they support their band geeks? Are there a lot of job postings for the school? High teacher turnover rate is concerning. This is an entire rabbit hole and I could go on forever, but hopefully this helped give you some other things to consider. Best of luck with the move and finding a new school!
Yes to the job postings! Compare the amount of vacancies at each school and they will tell you a lot about the admin. If the teachers are happy, they stay.
I care more about student growth than I do about test scores, but that's me. It's really hard to know if a district or campus is good until you're there. Eta: turn over rate is also helpful to look at. HAPPY teachers stay. Unhappy teachers leave. Doesn't always mean the school is /good/ though.
I agree. I always say peer group is the number 1 factor for student success. I am not blaming unmotivated kids for being unmotivated, but we are all tribal creatures, and if you hang out with friends who study, who plan on success in their lives, or even plan on going to the military, that is a lot better than a group of lost and apathetic peers.
It depends on what you're looking for. Are you looking for a district where kids are good at doing tests? This likely has more to do with the wealth of the neighborhood than the quality of the education— but a wealthier neighborhood is more likely to have well-resourced schools. But they can have their own downsides, too (including, of course, the price of the homes and cost of living). If you're not using school ratings as a proxy for wealth and genuinely want to know the quality of the school, you'll have to dig more, like how do struggling students' tests improve from year to year? If after a comprehensive review, you loved literally everything else about a low performing district except that their standardized tests were low, I would go with the low performing district. You could make sure you know the district has the resources and programs to accommodate where you think your child is.
High scores vs low scores are more a reflection of the socio-economic level of the parents than anything else. I’d go with the school I loved.
Find the school with the lowest free/reduced lunch percentage. They will almost certainly have the highest test scores. This is sad, not PC, but true.
Test scores all depend on who showed up for the test and whether they bought in. The scores are rarely reflective of the teachers or curriculum. Best way to find schools that don’t suck, ask around. Join groups on social for that areas parents and ask what the best schools are. Often, it isn’t about the best school in the neighborhood but the best school for the individual that will allow them to be successful. Grade level matters, too, and focuses can and should change as kids progress. For example, my state is flush with charter schools and the ones at the high school level can feed students directly into college or career, and others help support behavioral or other needs with special programming. Research the area and the options, base nothing on scores.
I would consider the scores BUT they would carry very little weight in comparison to other things. Does the admin take discipline seriously? Think about it. Do you want your child's safety and education disrupted by another student who is allowed to do whatever he/she wants? Are the teachers decent humans who actually want to show up to work each day? Think about it. Would you want your child in a school where the teachers are miserable because the admin puts too much pressure on them to get great test scores? Their creativity and joy are suffocated so they can't be the best teachers for your child. My school is Title 1 with almost 45% of our population in the ESL program. Our test scores are mediocre (a C rating is reported to the public). That is a good score considering our demographic. You will not know that as a person who just sees the score on the internet. We have several advanced math and English classes. My school is also safe. Admin does not play around with students who are violent or threatening. They move them to the alternative school as soon as they can! Yes, there are a few jerks who are shown too much grace but they are not the dangerous ones.
In at least some states, kids can opt out of standardized testing and those kids who opt out count as failed tests in the pass/fail rate. Sometimes the rate is not how many know/don’t know basic math/English, but rather how much students are pressured into testing. Keep this in mind!
Standardized test reflect the school district. Bad districts have poor scores and good districts have above state averages. Unless you want to pay a private school, choose a district that's scores are high. Reviews mean very little. Most compliners are usually parents who don't like Mis Jones bc she yells or something frivolous. However, if you don't believe in testing, then just move anywhere, any school USA
O don’t choose my school district for my daughter because I work for it. But I did decide for middle school to go charter vs public only because the start time was better scheduling wise. Not much difference between her current charter school and the public ones for HS. Her school is just better funded and offers a few things public doesn’t, like mandatory grade level class selections to make sure specific graduation requirements are met, for example all freshman in the class of 2026 had to take PE as an elective to make sure everyone had it for graduation. She just finished her last mandatory elective class for graduation requirements this year.
Parent here. When I was looking for schools before my kids were starting KG I though long and hard about what was important for schools. I came up with 3 things. Now that our oldest is in middle school and talking to A TON of folks putting kids through high school into college I must say I haven't changed my mind at all. The 3 that I found most useful... 1. Safe environment, 2. Parents who really care about kids education (easy to tell based on education level of parents), and 3. Some production pressure placed on the teachers to perform (not always easy to figure out). That is it. Honestly, what I have found is the quality of the teachers don't really matter much (no offense to the teachers out there) for the 2 ends of the spectrum. The slackers are gonna stack. The superstars are gonna be superstars (from self motivation and from their parents and NOT from the teachers). Teachers are superIMPORTANT for the middle of the road kids. So if your kid is in that middle and/ or has special needs then that is when picking the right school that has those special facilities that can provide that support is super important. Those are the folks where having great teachers are the difference of the middle of the road kids falling on the left side or right side of the normal distribution curve. Just my 2c. NO SCHOOL (or teacher) teaches a kid to get a 1500+ SAT. The kid AND their parents work hard themselves and deserve the credit for that accomplishment.
I agree. I teach 8th grade ELA. The students who come to me already reading on grade level can pass the state test with very little help from me. They already have a strong vocabulary, good analytical thinking development, a large amount of background knowledge, and curiosity. All of that came from innate ability and/or a very deliberate home life. The students who come to me reading independently at a 5th grade level or lower will never pass the state test. They never have and they never will. *This is not a judgement on their value as humans.* They might be very hard working students, but the gap is too wide for them to jump over. The students who read at the higher end of 6th grade or 7th grade level **could** pass the test with my explicit instruction and with a lot of reading to push them out of their comfort zone, **BUT** they have to be people who want to pass the test. They don't cry at hard work. They put in the effort to learn. If they don't care about learning or academic success, there is nothing I can do to change that. Actually, I have students in my advanced classes who don't pass the test because they don't care. They know it doesn't affect their life in a serious way so they just guess and take nap. How do I know? They tell me straight up to my face. 🤷
I think they are helpful in telling you the makeup of the student population in a public school. Your children will start listening to other students. High performance in school and bad behaviors are both contagious. Yes, I would factor them in a decision.
Go by test scores. It’s all that matters.
To me, standardized tests show one of two things. One, how intelligent the students are. This is a reflection of the students, not the teachers. Two, the teachers are covering for poor performing students, by changing the students answers.