what's up with GreatSchools ratings/how to evaluate a school?
March 25, 2019 9:38 AM   Subscribe

Asking for a house-hunting friend: How seriously should one take these GreatSchools ratings attached to Zillow and Redfin listings? How did you evaluate the quality of your kid's potential school?

My friend is interested in sending his kid to schools of at least reasonable quality and it's hard to tell how seriously to take these ratings.

I'd like to hear about any independent research/discussion/critique of how useful these ratings are, information about what they actually measure, and anecdotes about how your own kid's school experience matches up with the ratings.

I'd also love to hear about what you thought was important when you were checking out potential schools for your kid. Thanks!
posted by this, of course, alludes to sex to Education (9 answers total) 6 users marked this as a favorite
 
As far as I can tell, they measure exclusively the demographics of the kids in the school. If you take the fraction of kids receiving free and reduced lunch and subtract it from 1, you will get the "GreatSchools" number. Rich students == high scores. That's it. My kid is in a "terrible" school, by choice, and the staff are super.
posted by wnissen at 9:47 AM on March 25, 2019 [3 favorites]


The question immediately reminded me of this recent Ask a Teacher column over at Slate. Basically, it recommends checking out schools and figuring out what works for you, your kid, and what you want your kid to learn. GreatSchools is just a statistic, nothing more, and what works for one kid might not work for your kid.
posted by PearlRose at 9:55 AM on March 25, 2019 [3 favorites]


GreatSchools is really skewed toward the racial and socioeconomic demographics of a school. It is deeply problematic. It is information, I suppose, but information that should be considered very carefully.
Your friend should ask people in the neighborhood, ask on neighborhood social media, etc. And then take that information with a grain of salt.
Your friend should tour the school.
posted by k8t at 10:45 AM on March 25, 2019 [2 favorites]


As far as I can tell, they measure exclusively the demographics of the kids in the school.

It's more likely a result of the correlation between socioeconomic status and performance on standardized test scores (which were historically a significant component of their statistical model).

GS has acknowledged this issue, actually, and revised their model in the last year or so to try and address it. Here is the explanation of their methodology, and the data sources they currently use.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 10:46 AM on March 25, 2019 [3 favorites]


One of my friends, listening to me describe my educational experience, decided that the most useful shorthand to evaluate a school would be to look at its performing arts program. I lived in a small city that wasn't big enough to really separate "suburbs" from "inner city", and so we were all in school together. As you might expect, the poverty and crime associated with the inner city caused a lot of problems for those kids, and the school/district's overall reputation suffered greatly. My senior year, the district had the worst standardized test scores in the state, and also the highest teen pregnancy rate. My high school is currently a 2 on GreatSchools. And yet, a solid handful of my classmates matriculated to Ivy League schools (and even ones like me who didn't still use words like "matriculate" LOL). My school had a full complement of AP classes, and now they even do IB. Even though it looks like a horrible place, it was actually quite pleasant, and very conducive to learning.

There is some logic to my friend's shorthand. Arts programs are usually one of the first things to be cut in a budget crisis, so if a school even has a theatre program at this point, it's probably a sign that it's reasonably well-funded. Also, unlike sports, the arts are not terribly visible. Even poorly-funded schools will sometimes pass a levy in order to pay for upgrades to a football stadium, but if the school is directing its funding toward the arts instead of sports, it's a sign that they value more than just the things that show up on the 11:00 news. Finally, it's a good sign that kids are actually participating in extracurriculars. That generally correlates well with other positive outcomes, and often means that parents are involved with the kids.

It's not a perfect measure, but one of my fellow alums a couple years older than me does have an EGOT, so...
posted by kevinbelt at 10:54 AM on March 25, 2019 [8 favorites]


So, I agree with others that there’s a lot of socioeconomic factors that go into the ratings, but also I think that those socioeconomic factors do impact how the schools teach the students and what level they tend to go on. I put my (g&t) kid into a “middling” (6) school on GreatSchools, and it...was really bad for her, because they were like “oh you’re fine, here are good grades” and it left her super unprepared for the rigor of her next school. However, it might have been fine for a middling student.
posted by corb at 11:35 AM on March 25, 2019


One criterion to look at is to look at how students of your child's demographics did at that school. That is (according to a friend who works in the ed system) a better way of understanding how your child might do than looking at the Great Schools ratings, which tend to be problematic for a lot of the reasons mentioned above.
posted by incountrysleep at 3:24 PM on March 25, 2019


We moved into a neighborhood with an elementary school that was a GreatSchools 9 and knowing what I know now, I wish I hadn't weighted it so highly in the decision. My kids are currently in middle and high schools that are about a 6 or 7 and they're totally fine. Also, living in a GreatSchools 9 area puts you in contact with a LOT of parents who chose a GreatSchools 9 area. These folks are not all motivated by a love of learning, some of them are just status-conscious assholes.
posted by selfmedicating at 7:00 PM on March 25, 2019


Apologies for my somewhat sarcastic answer, even though it used to be accurate. To be clear, I am making a jump based on the near-perfect correlation between demography and academic acheivement, not claiming that GreatSchool was, in fact, simply measuring the wealth of the neighborhood.

Based on NotMyselfRightNow's comment I checked out the GreatSchools site again, and they have much more granular data than before. I give them a lot of credit. You can look at the factors that matter to you, rather than a single number, which by its nature is going to be almost hopelessly reductionist. You really want to compare apples to apples, though. A huge portion of the academic advantage that upper-class kids have is that they're exposed to over a million more words than lower-class kids before they even start school! I think you have to talk to the parents and the staff, though. My kid is not being academically challenged in his school, and I worry about that a bit. But honestly I worry more about the kids who go through their whole life thinking the world is made up of people exactly like them.
posted by wnissen at 10:42 AM on March 26, 2019


« Older Metal zipper repairin manhattan or brooklyn   |   Songs in the key of STFU Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.