Should we do the fair?

[Thames Pirate]

So how can you say that, when the OP says they just want a great school, they won't get it because they won't get elite? If they assign great to anything not completely awful, then they can very well get great. I assign great to schools that are student-centered, fair to all parties, ethical, don't have unreasonable requirements, nice city, good package, good facilities and resources, and actually looking to create a community in which students can grow into global citizens. There are a lot of schools that do that without being "elite" and at which teachers would give their right arms to work.

I describe schools by their qualities rather than use a word for each tier. If I were to say elite=great, tier 1=good, tier 2=fair, and tier 3=bad, I would not be able to use the percentage curve you like so much. I would have to allow for more than one elite school in a location or region.

Do you work at a great school? I mean, if the only thing great is elite . . . .

[flipfuntasia]

@Thames @PsyGuy

Of course, who wouldn't want to be accepted in an elite school? I said "great" school, but not necessarily tier 1 or elite. I prefer to be in a school, even if they're small, based on what @Thames said in the prior post. I am quite realistic with what we can get, and I know that it is very competitive. I also know that we may not get the best teaching job there is out there, but for me, whatever works best for family will be more than enough. Before I went overseas, I didn't know we could get this job, but we did.

Well, we still have a lot to do, but thanks to you both for showing me both side of the coin. I appreciate the help.

[Thames Pirate]

Glad to help. Aim high--you never know what you might get! Stay realistic, cast wide, but don't be intimidated by "elite" schools. Those teachers are still just humans, the students are still just kids, and the parents are still just people who want what's best for their kids. Sometimes the "tier" thing gets in the way of that. When a school is prioritizing its tier, it isn't prioritizing kids, and that means it might not be great.

[PsyGuy]

@Thames Pirate

Descriptors are exclusive to one tier. If you assign great to everything or even multiple groups than the description no longer differentiates between groups. If every IS is great than no IS is great.

You can label an IS a kumquat, its just a name and dosnt mean anything, if you want to build communication and understanding than you need to use the accepted and recognized lexicon. This is one rational why contributors and readership use tier naming conventions instead of nominal descriptors such as great.

You would still be using percentages, as for any population when you commence grouping the members of the group consist of a proportion of the population, and that proportion can be expressed as a percentage, regardless of what labels you create to summarize the descriptors for any particular group.

You can have as many tiers as you want, and as many elite tier ISs as you want.

[Thames Pirate]

Then you cannot use percentages to determine tier. One or the other determines tier. Either Tier 1 is the top 5% or it's great (or good or whatever word you choose). It does not follow that only 5% are great*. Use whichever you want. I don't care. Logically you cannot use both.

[PsyGuy]

@Thames Pirate

Yes I can, N=100 ISs (thats capital N, for population), and form groups as follows:
I) 1 The top IS is Elite tier
II) 2% of the population N is 1st tier
III) 15% of the population N is 2nd tier
IV) 80% of the population N is third tier.
Its called force curving, now I can assign descriptors (and I can do so arbitrarily) to those groups:

Elite Tier = Great
1st Tier = Good
2nd Tier = Okay
3rd Tier = Bad

Now I can combine those as follows based on N=100:

1) The top 1 IS is Elite tier and describes a Great IS.
2) The top 1 and 2 ISs are first tier and describe a Good IS.
3) The next ISs 3-15 are second tier ISs and describe an Okay IS.
The remaining ISs 16-100 are third tier ISs and describe a Bad IS.

Wait a moment....

Wait a little more....

And one last minute....

Well the Universe didnt explode or implode, life didnt cease to exist, so apparently i can do that.

No aspect of logic (either Aristotelian, Boolean, or any modern school of logic) as a field or study dictates, mandates, directs, or predicates that I can not "do that".

[Thames Pirate]

You sure don't understand logic, do you? I mean, sure, you can be illogical without the universe exploding, but that doesn't change the fact that your system is prejudiced.

The more I read from you, the more I think your world revolves around rankings and elitism. You justify this by any means possible.

[PsyGuy]

@Thames Pirate

Better than you appear to. Even if prejudice was an issue, logic is only a method by which to evaluate the validity of an argument, the motivation (prejudice) of the argument is not relevant logically to its validity.

The more I read of yours the more naive I conclude you are. Rankings are very real and you cant go anywhere in Education without rankings. Im fine with being elitist its not relevant to data.

[MartElla]

Ok, so the elite tier/tier 1 etc is relative only to the country?

In that case, which would each tier be relative to, say, Thailand, The Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaysia etc.

[Thames Pirate]

You cannot logically have a tier defined by great and by percentage. If you have an elite school in a city and a tier 1 school that is perhaps not as old/established or pays really well but slightly less, they can both be "great," but by virtue of the percentage rule, the latter cannot be elite. Or you can say any "great" school is elite, in which case the list of elite schools could be more than a subset of the top 5%. You can define it as one or the other, but logically you cannot use both simultaneously.

Rankings really aren't everything in education. Student growth and learning is everything in education. There are a lot of good teachers helping a lot of great kids at all kinds of schools--domestic, international, for-profit, non-profit, city, country, whatever. A school might not rank well because they are resource poor or don't pay their teachers a lot. They might not rank well simply because they are newer or in a tough location. They might not rank well because management is inefficient or parents are unreasonable. Heck, sometimes the difference between the elite and the other schools is simply something like a 1:1 device program. These "lower tier" places can still offer students an outstanding education and can be amazing places to work. Meanwhile there are teachers at "elite" schools who phone it in.

Elitism is just that--neither more nor less.

[MartElla]

I'm just try a get a handle on it as an idea.

To say schools are tier 1 is arbitrary, but what makes the difference between a Tier 1 school and an Elite school in those countries I mentioned? There's one elite school, but how many Tier 1 schools?

Also, who is doing the judging? Americans might think the American School is always the best option, whereas Brits might go for the Brit option. They often aren't even much aware of the other schools. Who judges that ISB or Bangkok Patana or NIST is the elite school in Bangkok and how? What about a non-IB school like Shrewsbury, or a school offering AP but not IB? Just wondering how we rank one great school above another.

[PsyGuy]

@MartElla

Tier status is valid only within region. They do no transverse boundaries. So every region has a third, a second, and a first tier, (there isnt a consensus if every region has an elite tier, but elite tier is only a subset of a regions first 1st tier. All elite tier ISs are 1st tier ISs). That status is exclusive to that region. Its not a valid or creditable comparison to compare a 2nd tier IS in Germany to a 2nd tier IS in Thailand.

A tier 3 IS in Vietnam is likely to look very different from a tier 3 IS in Hong Kong and have different attributes and characteristics.

@Thames Pirate

Yes you can, because descriptors such as "great" are exclusive to a tier. You can construct what ever assembly of words you want. If great describes an elite tier IS it cant also describe a 1st tier IS. The error in your logic is the position that you can.

Rankings arent everything in education and neither is student growth and learning. Nothing is everything, and rankings, student growth, learning and a lot of other factors and variable are all components.

None of your sad story scenario has any relevancy to tier status and rankings. It doesnt matter why Acme AS is lower tier regardless or resources, leadership, parents, SEC, it is what it is. The differences and rationals may mean something to you and those characteristics or lack there of may have utility to you, but a third tier IS is still a third tier IS no matter how well it works for you.
If the difference between a second tier or a first tier IS is a 1:1 technology program than that is still a real difference resulting in distinct and real rankings of tier. Its not relevant if the difference between the top scoring student in an IS and the second scoring student is some difference of fraction of a point or percentage, its still a REAL difference. It doesnt matter whether you win by an inch or a mile winning is winning.

[Thames Pirate]

So can you have more than one elite school in a city? Can you have five or six elite schools in a country?

Oh, so rankings aren't everything? Again you contradict yourself. Again you miss my point. Acme IS and IS Acme are both pretty comparable. The difference is that Acme IS pays just a touch more, but both have very generous packages. Are both elite?

[wrldtrvlr123]

MartElla wrote:
> I'm just try a get a handle on it as an idea.
>
> To say schools are tier 1 is arbitrary, but what makes the difference
> between a Tier 1 school and an Elite school in those countries I mentioned?
> There's one elite school, but how many Tier 1 schools?
>
> Also, who is doing the judging? Americans might think the American School
> is always the best option, whereas Brits might go for the Brit option. They
> often aren't even much aware of the other schools. Who judges that ISB or
> Bangkok Patana or NIST is the elite school in Bangkok and how? What about a
> non-IB school like Shrewsbury, or a school offering AP but not IB? Just
> wondering how we rank one great school above another.
-----------------------
The idea that every country/location has a tier one school is just his opinion (and one I have never agreed with and seems fairly silly on the face of it). That said, I completely grant that the whole concept is very subjective and there is no consensus on what makes a school a tier one school (although I'm sure there is some psuedostatistical word salad coming on the subject anytime now).

Generally speaking, people talk about some combination of package, facilities, reputation and a desirable/rewarding/challenging (in a good way) work environment when they talk about a school being tier one. It is worth noting that one or more of these factors can be so outstanding that it makes up for a mediocre factor (or two) and still leave the school considered a tier one school by many people.

I don't buy into the idea that a school that is not excellent in any of those areas should be called a tier one school simply because it is the best of a bad to mediocre lot. I also don't generally get the impression that people rate schools higher simply based on curriculum etc (although some people may in fact be biased towards IB, etc.)

Bottom line is that everyone has and is entitled to an opinion on the subject.

[PsyGuy]

@WT123

There can be and often are more than one first tier IS in a region, even a city (the majority of 1st tier ISs are actually located in the same city) Tokyo is an excellent example.

Every region does have a first tier, regardless of what model you want to use, once you determine that IS quality is ordinal then by definition one IS is going to be superior to another IS, and that some portion of that group is going to be at the top and some group at the bottom, its how scales work.
Of course you can also believe that every IS is special and there are no differences, meaning no ones special.

There is actually significant consensus is there much dissent that within JP the embassy AS in Tokyo is a first tier IS? No, not significantly. Its crazy talk to believe that there are no differences of meaningful value between ISs.

If an IS is little more than the least offending of a nothing but bad in a region of ISs they still have a first tier, hence why tier status does not transgress regional boundaries. There is still some portion of the group that is comparably superior than the others, and a group comparatively inferior to the others. What they dont have is an elite tier IS.

@MartElla

Tier status is subjective to a certain degree, but its not arbitrary.

There isnt always an elite tier IS. Elite tier is a sub group of the first tier, its not a distinct tier in itself. Its part of the first tier. Theres never more than 1 elite tier IS, there can be disagreement among which 1st tier IS is the elite but there tends to be a majority, though not consensus.

Elite tier ISs are the ones within the first tier of their respective regions that have distinguished themselves in some relevant factor in the IT community, typically this is in coin or package. Its not marginal distinction either, the difference in compensation needs to be significant. Elite tier ISs cant compensate out of other critical factors. They cant pay so much more coin but neglect insurance benefits for example and still claim the title of elite IS.

ITs construct the model largely based on assessment of concrete metrics. Some are easier to measure than others. An IS that offers higher coin compared to others is relatively easy to determine. Most of the metrics revolve around measurable such as salary, contact hours and contact days, housing, relocation, shipping, transportation, settling in allowances, PD time and resources, capital projects, technology, etc. They do include less tangible factors such as environment, leadership style, ethos, etc.

Curriculum as a preference between NCs is not a viable metric the IT membership typically disputes over. It doesnt matter much to the membership if an IS is AS, BS, or iB. What membership does care about in regards to curriculum is:
1) Do they have one?
2) Is it organized?
3) Is there continued PD.
4) What is the state of its development?
5) How much time do I have to commit to building the curriculum?
6) Does leadership understand the curriculum?
7) Does the curriculum have continuity between years and stability within years and across collaborative subjects.
8) Is the curriculum supported by resources.
9) Where in the accreditation/inspection/authorization cycle is the curriculum in?
10) What is the regulatory authorities status on the curriculum, is it undergoing change, are guidelines and interpretations available.

At school leaving level most subjects are highly congruent between curriculum whether AP, A levels, or DIP.

If you would like to explore tiers more, you can do a search and find my standard treatise on the subject.

@Thames Pirate

I never claimed rankings were everything my statement was "Rankings are very real and you cant go anywhere in Education without rankings" at no pint did I use the term everything.

There is never more than 1 elite IS in a region. The elite tier IS is the one among the first tier ISs thats markedly better than the others. Usually this is a compensation factor, though not a trivial difference in coin or other benefits.
The issue in IE is agreement among the 1st tier ISs of which one is Elite. Acme AS may have a shorter calendar of 190 days vs. 210 days for IS Genovia, and as a single factor is the elite tier IS for an IT where another IT may value the significantly higher salary from IS Genovia. It could be Acme AS is only slightly better in a number of factors not any one greatly better, but as a whole has a significantly better package.

No both arent elite, in your scenario the assumption is that ALL other factors are equal, thats rarely true, but if it were than Acme IS is the Elite tier IS and IS Acme is still a first tier IS. If you have assigned descriptors to those classes than Acme IS is "great" and IS Acme is "good" even if the differences are slight.
However, again, as discussed above the differences between the elite tier IS and the other 1st tier ISs are rarely based on marginal differences. In your scenario the conclusion would likely be that this region simply didnt have an elite tier IS as no IS within the first tier had significantly distinguished itself from the others. Elite tier is recognition, not an actually distinct tier.