News-Record.com

Absolutely not. In past years, Grimsley apparently prodded students to take AP courses, even when they weren't ready. The rankings do not take into account a school's culture, discipline and behavioral issues, safety, teacher morale, administrative issues, etc. When you see Grimsley's rankings, it's a far different picture from the news accounts about fights breaking out on the campus (fights significant enough to gain media attention). It's a rude awakening to anyone who based an impression of Grimsley simply on its good ranking in a national magazine.

These rankings are ridiculous. All they do is base it on the number of tests taken, not how the students do on these tests. Of course the Early College at Guilford will do well when you have 100 students and all of them take four or five AP tests and all of them graduate. So, according to this ranking, we should have smaller schools in order to increase academic achievement. Then why do we have 1,500 kids in some? And if this is true, why don't the other Early College programs show up as high as the one at Guilford? Oh yeah, I forgot - these rankings are ridiculous.

These rankings are ridiculous. All they do is base it on the number of tests taken, not how the students do on these tests. Of course the Early College at Guilford will do well when you have 100 students and all of them take four or five AP tests and all of them graduate. So, according to this ranking, we should have smaller schools in order to increase academic achievement. Then why do we have 1,500 kids in some? And if this is true, why don't the other Early College programs show up as high as the one at Guilford? Oh yeah, I forgot - these rankings are ridiculous.

These rankings are ridiculous. All they do is base it on the number of tests taken, not how the students do on these tests. Of course the Early College at Guilford will do well when you have 100 students and all of them take four or five AP tests and all of them graduate. So, according to this ranking, we should have smaller schools in order to increase academic achievement. Then why do we have 1,500 kids in some? And if this is true, why don't the other Early College programs show up as high as the one at Guilford? Oh yeah, I forgot - these rankings are ridiculous.

If you spent 10 minutes walking the halls of Grimsley, High Point Central, or Page during a class change you would hope that these are not among the best schools in the country. If they are, the public school system has failed.

If you spent 10 minutes walking the halls of Grimsley, High Point Central, or Page during a class change you would hope that these are not among the best schools in the country. If they are, the public school system has failed.

I think the fact that HPC and Page are both included on that list pretty much speaks to how far off-base it is in reality.

If you dig through the same article from last year, you would find the phrase, "the rating is not meant to measure overall quality of a school." I assume that holds for this year, too. So, to take only the number of AP/IB classes offered and tests taken as a measure of how any of our high schools are doing in general runs counter to Jay Matthews'--the person who devised this study--own assertion. To spend over $700,000 on tests with less than a 50% passing rate when there are schools without money for library books, paper or other classroom supplies is a shame. I wish they could videotape students sleeping during the exams to show to the BOE with the question why are these students in these classes and set to these tests?

I agree with the person that made the comment listed below. I taught at one of these "top" schools in a different state and the situation is the same as this person described below. The school I taught at only made it to the "top 1300" because the school now offers AP classes to anyone who wants to take them even if they are not ready for them. Most of the kids that take these AP tests don't pass the test so how do these schools make it to the "top"? The conditions at this school I taught at are horrific. The kids are constantly fighting and there is so much disrespect toward teachers/ administrators. I would never send my child to this "top" school. Newsweek needs to re-think how it tabulates this top 1300 list. This is a good example of never believe everything you hear or read!

"Absolutely not. In past years, Grimsley apparently prodded students to take AP courses, even when they weren't ready. The rankings do not take into account a school's culture, discipline and behavioral issues, safety, teacher morale, administrative issues, etc. When you see Grimsley's rankings, it's a far different picture from the news accounts about fights breaking out on the campus (fights significant enough to gain media attention). It's a rude awakening to anyone who based an impression of Grimsley simply on its good ranking in a national magazine."

"The standings are based on the total number of Advance Placement, International Baccalaureate or Cambridge tests given at a school in May and divided by the number of seniors graduating in May or June. The classes and tests are considered benchmarks for college preparation."

So, if a school has an inner school such as an IB Program of academically accomplished students that take and pass multiple AP/IB tests, and the school overall has an abominably-low graduation rate, then wouldn't it make sense that the result is that school would have a high placement using this standard? If that is so, then it is fallacious to list that school as one of the nation's best. Could this help explain how High Point Central was listed 279th while Southwest and Andrews were down in the 600's? Does anyone in High Point really believe that Central is the superior school in that city?