Spent my lunch looking at US News report on High Schools. They're messed up. They ranked the top 75 in the state. They put Mystic Valley(#7),Arlington(#16), Framingham(#37), Malden(#49), Cambridge(#60), Revere(#63) and Medford(#70) all ahead of Melrose. Melrose didn't get a ranking. That means it didn't get into the top 75.
I can't find the link. Where did they rank Lincoln-Sudbury? That is one of the better schools in the state.
Apparently, Lincoln-Sudbury is a crap system like Melrose. They were beaten out by the likes of Malden and Revere as well.
Seriously???? What is the criteria of the rankings if Revere and Malden rank higher than LS?
U.S. News comprehensive rankings methodology is based on these key principles: that a great high school must serve ALL of its students well, not just those who are college bound, and that it must be able to produce measurable academic outcomes to show it is successfully educating its student body across a range of performance indicators. It also looks at college readiness of the student population. In other words, Melrose under CT's "leadership" didn't stand a chance.
The Melrose College Readiness Index of 30.8 is surpassed by Wakefield's CRI of 40, and Wakefield didn't make the list either. Puts a point on how far Melrose has fallen under Taymore. Compared to the rest of the Mdsx League, it isn't the lowest, but it's pretty discouraging, compared to Belmont's 69.6 and Lexington's 68.5.
Don't know the ranking but the CRI was 40.4.
Guarantee you won't hear about this in Ms. Taymore's next performance evaluation! After all - look at the rubics she is judged against - nothing to do with the performance of the school district - nice going school committee - paying someone $178K and not holding them responsible for student outcomes yet judging her own staff 18% needs improvement - go figure!