• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

TENAFLY HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC RESEARCH 1 2015­2016 New Jersey Public High Schools Academic Rankings C. Bucca, M. Guo, M. Hill­Oliva, J. Laufer, D. Shin, Q. Wang, M. Weiss, J. Xing Class of 2016, Tenafly High School ­ Tenafly, New Jersey ​ June 16, 2016 Abstract The correlation between the AP indices and the average composite SAT scores—for the top 100 New Jersey public schools—was analyzed to determine how indicative the two factors are of student performance. Since these two indices appeared to be highly correlated, according to the calculated R squared value, they were the only factors considered in the novel ranking methodology described in this paper. Using 2015­2016 school data, AP indices were averaged with the SAT indices for the top 100 schools in order to generate a 2015­2016 ranking of those schools. A chi­squared test proved that there was no statistically significant difference among the top 25 schools’ data. These findings suggest that it would be more appropriate to devalue the method of ranking these schools individually, and, instead, switch to a tier ranking system. This paper also goes on to predict the 2015­2016 rankings for the top 30 New Jersey public schools—based on average composite SAT scores—according to the New Jersey Monthly 2014 ​ ​ methodology. Lastly, the correlation between middle school PARCC and high school SAT scores was analyzed. The results showed that they were weakly correlated, which implies that, in general, academic performance of middle school students is loosely associated with that of high school students. TENAFLY HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC RESEARCH 2 I. High School Academic Ranking Introduction and Methods High school rankings can influence the popularity of school systems, the price of homes, and even the college admissions process. Though high school rankings are so important, many of the most popular rankings of New Jersey high schools used a variety of factors in their methodologies that may not provide the best insight into school quality. These rankings often involve many criteria that obscure actual school quality and create less accurate rankings. For instance, the New Jersey Monthly Magazine High School Ranking weighs graduation rate and ​ ​ college matriculation rate most heavily, even though these factors involve many inherent problems. For instance, among lower performing schools, college matriculation and graduation rates are often influenced by socioeconomic factors, and at higher performing schools such factors are often altered dramatically by students attending university in foreign countries or private universities that do not confirm matriculation. For these reasons, though graduation and matriculation rates may reflect school quality to an extent, they also reflect many other factors unrelated to school quality that make rankings less accurate. If a school provides a robust academic environment, evident by high SAT and AP scores, it follows that students should have the ability to succeed at a college or university; therefore, academic performance based on standardized test scores is a more reliable and better criteria for determining school strength as it does not involve the inherent problems that accompany measuring by matriculation or graduation TENAFLY HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC RESEARCH 3 rates. Additionally, while socioeconomic factors certainly play a role in performance of districts, rankings still do provide insight into the differences between districts of similar financial status. For these reasons, in this analysis, only AP scores and SAT scores, based on data taken from the NJ Department of Education (NJDOE) school performance database on 313 public, non­magnet high schools, were used in determining school ranking. These two criteria are especially promising due to their strong correlation, indicating that performance on these two standardized tests are strongly associated and therefore together reveal an overall trend in student performance as seen in the graphs below. While a correlation showing student performance is evident between SAT scores and AP scores, there may be a weaker correlation between these two criteria and PARCC scores, as the PARCC is a very new exam with less reliable data available. Additionally, though the ACT may potentially be a good indicator of school strength, it is less popular than the SAT in New Jersey and the the NJDOE database does not provide sufficient ACT data for analysis. Though SAT and AP scores are strongly correlated, it is important that both, not only one, of the criteria are used. AP scores are extremely useful as they directly test material taught in the curriculum of AP courses. While the SAT may not directly test a course curriculum, it does test skills in english and mathematics taught in the classroom. Additionally, the SAT is taken by many students, regardless of their strength in academics, it factors in the performance of lower performing students, while examining AP scores provides a better understanding of higher performing students. The importance of using both metrics together is evident in the final rankings as many schools have a significant disparity between their SAT and AP ranking, such as Northern Valley Regional High School which is ranked 9 by SAT but 58 by AP, TENAFLY HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC RESEARCH 4 demonstrating that these two highly correlated, but also different metrics provide a more comprehensive description of academic performance when examined together. To determine rankings, schools were given two sub­rankings, one by average SAT score, and the other by the product of percentage of Juniors and Seniors taking AP tests in english, math, social studies, or science and the percentage of students earning scores of three or above on those exams. Whereas some rankings such as the New Jersey Monthly Magazine annual ​ ​ rankings sum the percentage of students taking AP tests with percentage of students receiving scores over 3, this is a flawed methodology as it rewards schools who encourage students to take AP tests regardless of how they will perform in order to increase participation scores. If the two values are multiplied instead, encouraging weaker students to take AP tests in order to improve participation will not improve rank as the participation value will be multiplied by a lower score value. These two sub­rankings were then averaged, providing a final ranking. TENAFLY HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC RESEARCH 5 Figure 1­ The scatterplot above shows the correlation between the SAT indices and the AP ​ indices. The R­squared value of 0.796 for the dataset which indicates there is a strong positive correlation between the SAT performance and the AP performance for the public, non­magnet high schools in New Jersey. Data was obtained from the New Jersey Department of Education using SQL. Plots were obtained using the software R. Figure 2­ The Q­Q plot above demonstrates that the residual plot is random, ​ showing the accuracy of this model. TENAFLY HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC RESEARCH 6 New Jersey High School Rankings based on SAT­AP Composite Methodology Rank Rank by AP Rank by School Name SAT 1 2 1 PRINCETON HIGH SCHOOL 2 3 5 DR RONALD MCNAIR HIGH SCHOOL 2 5 3 MILLBURN HIGH SCHOOL 4 7 4 WEST WINDSOR­PLAINSBORO HIGH SCHOOL SOUTH 4 9 2 WEST WINDSOR­PLAINSBORO HIGH SCHOOL NORTH 6 1 12 CHATHAM HIGH SCHOOL 7 6 11 MOUNTAIN LAKES HIGH SCHOOL 8 10 8 JOHN P. STEVENS HIGH SCHOOL 9 4 18 SUMMIT HIGH SCHOOL 10 19 6 MONTGOMERY HIGH SCHOOL 11 16 10 RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL 12 14 13 LIVINGSTON HIGH SCHOOL 13 8 21 RUMSON­FAIR HAVEN REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL 13 22 7 TENAFLY HIGH SCHOOL 15 11 20 GLEN ROCK HIGH SCHOOL 16 17 16 NORTHERN HIGHLANDS REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL 17 23 14 HADDONFIELD MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL 18 15 24 NORTH HUNTERDON HIGH SCHOOL TENAFLY HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC RESEARCH 7 19 21 19 CRESSKILL HIGH SCHOOL 20 20 22 BERNARDS HIGH SCHOOL 21 18 27 GLEN RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL 22 13 36 WEST MORRIS MENDHAM HIGH SCHOOL 23 25 26 MADISON HIGH SCHOOL 24 29 25 HOPEWELL VALLEY CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 25 40 15 RIDGEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL 26 26 30 SOUTH BRUNSWICK HIGH SCHOOL 26 27 29 WESTFIELD SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 28 37 23 HOLMDEL HIGH SCHOOL 29 58 9 NORTHERN VALLEY REG HIGH SCHOOL AT DEMAREST 30 24 44 WEST MORRIS CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 31 30 39 KINNELON HIGH SCHOOL 32 33 37 MARLBORO HIGH SCHOOL 33 41 33 MOORESTOWN HIGH SCHOOL 34 34 41 NEW PROVIDENCE HIGH SCHOOL 35 38 42 HUNTERDON CENTRAL REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL 36 28 53 VOORHEES HIGH SCHOOL 37 12 70 CRANFORD HIGH SCHOOL 38 54 34 BRIDGEWATER­RARITAN REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL 39 35 54 RAMAPO HIGH SCHOOL TENAFLY HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC RESEARCH 8 39 42 47 GOVERNOR LIVINGSTON HIGH SCHOOL 41 59 32 EAST BRUNSWICK HIGH SCHOOL 42 55 40 METUCHEN HIGH SCHOOL 43 48 48 PASCACK HILLS HIGH SCHOOL 44 65 31 WATCHUNG HILLS REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL 44 79 17 NORTHERN VALLEY REG OLD TAPPEN HIGH SCHOOL 46 31 66 HANOVER PARK HIGH SCHOOL 47 43 55 WHIPPANY PARK HIGH SCHOOL 48 62 38 RANDOLPH HIGH SCHOOL 49 52 51 FORT LEE HIGH SCHOOL 50 49 58 PARK RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL 51 44 64 LEONIA HIGH SCHOOL 51 80 28 CHERRY HILL HIGH SCHOOL EAST 53 60 52 COLTS NECK HIGH SCHOOL 54 70 43 INDIAN HILLS HIGH SCHOOL 55 81 35 HILLSBOROUGH HIGH SCHOOL 56 39 79 COLUMBIA HIGH SCHOOL 57 74 45 RIVER DELL REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL 58 61 59 MAHWAH HIGH SCHOOL 59 45 77 MIDLAND PARK JR./SR. HIGH SCHOOL 60 66 57 PARAMUS HIGH SCHOOL 61 75 49 MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL 62 63 63 RAMSEY HIGH SCHOOL TENAFLY HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC RESEARCH 9 63 71 56 PARSIPPANY HIGH SCHOOL 64 56 76 SCOTCH PLAINS­FANWOOD HIGH SCHOOL 64 64 68 FREEHOLD BOROUGH HIGH SCHOOL 66 32 101 RED BANK REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

Load more

  17

Copy Link