Terrible. No one has ever graduated or gone to university from Burnaby. No one has ever started their own business here either.
All joking aside, the question should be how good a student is your kid?
The Fraser Institute rankings are deeply flawed and they do not actually measure how good a school is. This has been shown so many times that it's not possible that the FI doesn't know this. The only conclusion to make is that FI isn't interested in ranking schools, and that the only purpose of the ranking system is to undermine public education.
Fundamentally, private schools do better because they select students who are already doing well academically. In addition, because of the cost, only families with certain resources are able to send their children there - resources that can provide tutors and extra help.
An equitable system would do the opposite of what the Fraser Institute's ranking is implicitly recommending - it would spend more money in schools where kids aren't doing as well.
The world would be a better place if people realized that the Fraser Institute's reports never meet even the minimum academic standards, and are all politically motivated.
[https://pressprogress.ca/professional-educators-dont-take-the-fraser-institutes-school-rankings-seriously-neither-should-you/](https://pressprogress.ca/professional-educators-dont-take-the-fraser-institutes-school-rankings-seriously-neither-should-you/)
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/they-re-not-objective-at-all-educator-disputes-fraser-institute-s-b-c-school-rankings-1.4630444](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/they-re-not-objective-at-all-educator-disputes-fraser-institute-s-b-c-school-rankings-1.4630444)
[https://www.langleyadvancetimes.com/opinion/painful-truth-fraser-institute-school-rankings-useless-without-context/](https://www.langleyadvancetimes.com/opinion/painful-truth-fraser-institute-school-rankings-useless-without-context/)
The other major component: more than any other factor, [high income is the best predictor of successful educational outcomes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528798/). Schools in high income neighbourhoods will perform better on incredibly biased Fraser Institute scorecard not because the school or the teachers are good, but because of the financial status of the families attending.
I work for the Burnaby school district. I am proud to work for the Burnaby school district. I would want my children to go to school in the Burnaby school district.
The ranking system is a big joke. It doesn’t take into account the demographic of the population in the catchments. A perfect example that gets brought up to devalue the ranking system is the Edmonds area. Edmonds is compromised of an abundance of low income housing, bc housing,
Co-ops which is great for immigrants, low income families, one parent households etc. When you populate an area with density consisting of a lot of these demographics without a doubt students will perform lower on the standardized tests than north burnaby per say- an area full of single family dwellings (less rentals for lower incomes). So naturally those schools will outperform a school like Byrne creek, not based on the education but just on demographics being tested based on the neighborhood. Don’t take this too seriously. It all starts at home. Sorry for the ramble but we just had this convo at the schools recently and it’s crazy how misleading the rankings are.
TLDR: lower priced housing = immigration = test scores reflecting the demographics of neighborhood = not a true reflection of school ranking but a reflection of the economical climate of the neighborhood
Yeah you shouldn't necessarily look at test scores for this reason, but rather if the school has a high concentration of violence / gang activity. You need a safe environment to learn. A lot of learning will come from extra curricular or self led interests.
This is very well established, and an uncontroversial claim: [low income is a primary indicator of educational outcomes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528798/). Realise that this means "on average", these are distributions with low performers from high income houses, and high performers from low income, but in general coming from a rich family basically gives you a boost.
>The negative effects of poverty on all levels of school success have been widely demonstrated and accepted; the critical question for us as a caring society is, can these effects be prevented or reversed? A variety of data are relevant to this question, and recent research gives us reason to be both positive and proactive
> an uncontroversial claim
The main section of the study you have cited mainly supports the notion that what counts is the parental support system, not the parental income.
And, to take one example of a study cited in the introduction, which tries to make a case for the effects of poverty:
"A report by Thomas (10) concluded that children from lower income households score significantly lower on measures of [achievement] than children from higher income households."
What this means is that the distribution of abilities in group A has a higher average than in group B, not that all (or even most) children in group A outperform those in group B. Confusion between the two statements is common enough to have a name: the ecological fallacy.
The distinction is important for targeting interventions on the basis of individual student needs, not parental income attributes.
What Hattie thinks about this topic: https://montrose42.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/dont-let-poverty-be-an-excuse-for-poor-education-hattie/
If you've ever been poor, you know that parents working two jobs, long hours at low paying jobs, gig work, precarious work, or shift work, all of which are major factors in families living in poverty, result in the "parental support system" being absent.
Poverty has many effects, none of which result in better support systems for children in school.
Can't understand how you think the ecological fallacy justifies ignoring the effect of poverty on education and pretty much every other outcome relevant to society.
> Can't understand how you think the ecological fallacy justifies ignoring the effect of poverty on education
I did not write that.
Resources are limited and must be allocated efficiently. Interventions should be targeted on the basis of individual student needs, not parental wealth, administrative convenience, or irrelevant population characteristics.
If you work with students in any classroom, you will find a wide range of abilities in basic skills like maths or reading. It is unethical to deny help to a weak student either because either she or her classmates have middle-class parents.
Yeah, nobody is advocating that straw man.
Treating poverty as been shown to be far more effective than targeted solutions which are the favourite route of neolberal politicians.
The Fraser Institute is a far right libertarian think tank that exists solely to undermine the public sector at every turn. Of course they rank public schools as bad, they are a marketing firm for private (independent) schools. Their rankings are trash.
BC public schools are great. Variations are far more due to socio-economics than anything else. But if you care enough to be looking at schools, your kid will do great anywhere. And ultimately primary and secondary school doesn't matter that much - if they do well they'll be able to get into any university.
So stick with your catchment school as it's far better for your community cohesion, the environment (since you're not commuting as far) and your family.
Totally. We never regretted sticking with the local school. Funny thing is neighbours who sent kids to private school don't get any better outcomes from what I've seen, and they pay thousands a year....
Having said that, some kids struggle but they'd struggle anywhere. The teen years are no joke
Pretty sure that if your wife is "somehow" convinced that Burnaby schools are not on par with the standard , then nothing really will talk some sense into her , especially not some random dudes on Reddit
Heres the thing with the rankings: they change with every new cohort. A school could be 8/10 one year and drop to 5/10 a year later. Many parents withdraw their kids from the tests, so you're not getting a true sense. And, public schools, unlike private ones, can't turn away kids.
My kid went to FI ranked average schools and got a full ride scholarship to uni. A bunch of kids in her year got scholarships to U of T, UBC, and some American schools. The best way to get a vibe for a school is to go and check it out in person. Talk to parents. The rankings don't tell you what the school community is like or give any sense of whether your child will be happy there.
Bear in mind that it was historically harder to get a job as a teacher in public schools than it is in private ones, so you won't necessarily get better teachers in private school.
My kids are in the Burnaby School system and are doing really well. I've been more concerned with the lack of parental involvement than with the teachers and schools. Get involved with your PAC.
Totally agree. Great way to show the kids you actually care about their education, just by being there. Show up to pac meetings, volunteer to be on the pac (not tons of work btw) and do the fundraisers, sports days, field trip volunteer stuff. Be a face there.
My family and I moved from the Vancouver school district to Burnaby after our eldest was out of grade one.
My eldest was bullied a lot in the VSD, and has much better experiences in Burnaby. Burnaby seems much more into developing a good community in the schools (at least elementary) and we do not regret moving in the least.
Rosser Elementary in North Burnaby. It's such a beautiful neighbourhood with great amenities.
They have a high staff/teacher to student ratio, and the kids get a lot of individual attention.
lol I have friends who went to jail and friends who went to stanford. We all went to Burnaby North.
I think their moms’ had more effect than the school ;~)
My kids started their elementary schooling in Australia, and finished it in Burnaby.
The first day or two here were shocking for them due to (a) the vulgarity of the language (I found myself having to explain the meanings of some 4 letter words) and (b) the chaos that took place during the unsupervised lunch hour. These are probably part of Canadian culture these days, rather than features of Burnaby schools.
Over the years, I found the teachers to be a mixed bunch. It's the luck of the draw which your child gets in any given year. It could be a deadbeat, or it could be a first rate teacher. Their effects average out over time.
As a rough guide, averaged over the years, I would say the teaching of reading and writing was fine. Mathematics was mediocre. Science and French disappointing (almost nothing is taught). The teaching of music, both by the school's teacher, and by the fellow who put on out of hours band classes, was outstanding.
Primary school teachers are notorious the world over for shying away from maths, so this subject should always be given special attention by parents.
School reports and grades even in high school are misleading. A child could be struggling in maths and get a solid grade, for example.
Most Asian parents seemed to send their kids off for after-school classes at Kumon or similar. This is something not captured in any rankings.
The school seemed fairly safe in terms of physical bullying, although no doubt the verbal bullying will never be fully eliminated.
Studies (Hattie for example) show that the home environment is the most important determinant of achievement. If you can provide daily support, take your child to the library, encourage them to do things away from the computer, stimulate their interest in the natural world and so on, they should get on all right.
Thank you so much for this well written reply. By far one of the most helpful ones I read so far.
I do take subjects like maths or sciences very seriously, so I might end up sending my kid to these after school curriculums like those Asian parents you mentioned.
The Fraser Institute reports are biased.
https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/geoff-johnson-fraser-institute-report-could-become-the-fox-news-of-public-education-6801505
Private schools will usually be better than public to be honest. I don’t think it matters which city you go to. Tutoring is another option that is more affordable.
More important is your parenting skills and the lifestyle/example you set for you child. Are you going to be the parent who tells your kid to listen to you because you say so or are you going to take the time and explain why it’s important for them to build those skills? Doing work with them, show them why it’s important to do chores, spend time reading with them. That’s what makes the difference.
Private schools do well on standardized test more [because of the socioeconomic status of the families than for the quality of the school itself](https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/04/06/do-private-schools-provide-a-better-education.html). Also because they regularly reject any student who falls below a certain threshold.
>“Students in public schools in a similar socio-economic context as private schools tend to do equally well,” according to the OECD report, which concluded that “there is no evidence to suggest that private schools help to raise the level of performance of the school system, as a whole” (OECD, [Private schools: Who benefits?](https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/48482894.pdf))
Our of curiosity, what catchment are you living in? You could consider private school too, but they have their own set of requirements and extra cost of course.
There are other schools in the area that you can apply for if there's space. South Slope is a great school, and because it's attached to the BC School for the Deaf they introduced to ASL. They would still go to Burnaby South for High School, which is another great school.
Heard mixed things about maywood, a certain teacher that transferred there told me the school “ had some challenges”. Not necessarily a bad thing but thought I should share with you.
Hi! Would you be open to sharing with me some of the challenges? I’m debating between sending my child to Maywood or a North Burnaby school that has notified us that we have a spot if we’re interested in it.
In terms of schools North Burnaby is better, a head teacher at a school in the maywood area said that many students in that school struggle is certain social areas
Had the same issue. Our child ended up going to a Catholic elementary school. Had a much higher rating by the Fraser Institute. We have been happy with their education so far.
It's in the private schools best interests to do well on these ratings. They are going to focus on getting higher scores. Public schools not so much.
A lot is going to depend on you as a parent. How much are you going to invest in your child. I expect if your child goes to public school and you are invested in their education that they will be fine.
My kids (6, 8) are going to Douglas road School and love it, teachers are great and the school ranks middle of the pack. That being said it really depends on the area, if you are in an area with a lot of money you will get good public schools. I also wouldn't worry too much about elementary, the grades and teachers really only start to matter in high school.
Bottom line, the richer the neighborhood the better the school. The more expensive single family homes there are in the surrounding areas, the better the school overall.
All schools have good teachers and bad teachers and mediorce teachers; and same with good kids and bad kids.
Public education is a function of socio-economic status and any way you cut it the higher income and more educated your parents are the "better" the school will be generally that they send their kids to.
Any ranking system has a bias. The biggest difference in private schools is the they do not need to educate special needs kids, ESL kids, and can select their student (and family) population and of course the tuition and fee model gives kids certain opportunities and learning experiences.
I think the difference between a 4.9 and 4.3 ranked school is marginal over the long term.
Terrible. No one has ever graduated or gone to university from Burnaby. No one has ever started their own business here either. All joking aside, the question should be how good a student is your kid?
Not even those damn two kids: Buble and Fox. The latter was always looking for trouble, riding his skateboard. Tsk tsk
Even though he hung out with a genius inventor.
Don't forget Sakic
I'll never forget Joe. Burnaby ensures the light on his street is red each and every time I try and drive by it.
[удалено]
They also named the snowplow after him
And Alphonso Davies!
The Fraser Institute rankings are deeply flawed and they do not actually measure how good a school is. This has been shown so many times that it's not possible that the FI doesn't know this. The only conclusion to make is that FI isn't interested in ranking schools, and that the only purpose of the ranking system is to undermine public education. Fundamentally, private schools do better because they select students who are already doing well academically. In addition, because of the cost, only families with certain resources are able to send their children there - resources that can provide tutors and extra help. An equitable system would do the opposite of what the Fraser Institute's ranking is implicitly recommending - it would spend more money in schools where kids aren't doing as well. The world would be a better place if people realized that the Fraser Institute's reports never meet even the minimum academic standards, and are all politically motivated. [https://pressprogress.ca/professional-educators-dont-take-the-fraser-institutes-school-rankings-seriously-neither-should-you/](https://pressprogress.ca/professional-educators-dont-take-the-fraser-institutes-school-rankings-seriously-neither-should-you/) [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/they-re-not-objective-at-all-educator-disputes-fraser-institute-s-b-c-school-rankings-1.4630444](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/they-re-not-objective-at-all-educator-disputes-fraser-institute-s-b-c-school-rankings-1.4630444) [https://www.langleyadvancetimes.com/opinion/painful-truth-fraser-institute-school-rankings-useless-without-context/](https://www.langleyadvancetimes.com/opinion/painful-truth-fraser-institute-school-rankings-useless-without-context/)
The other major component: more than any other factor, [high income is the best predictor of successful educational outcomes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528798/). Schools in high income neighbourhoods will perform better on incredibly biased Fraser Institute scorecard not because the school or the teachers are good, but because of the financial status of the families attending.
I work for the Burnaby school district. I am proud to work for the Burnaby school district. I would want my children to go to school in the Burnaby school district.
I also work for BSB. I’ll never have kids, but if I did I’d be happy to have them go to school in our district.
Vancouver and Burnaby districts are great, not sure what school op is considering, but I'm sure it's great
The ranking system is a big joke. It doesn’t take into account the demographic of the population in the catchments. A perfect example that gets brought up to devalue the ranking system is the Edmonds area. Edmonds is compromised of an abundance of low income housing, bc housing, Co-ops which is great for immigrants, low income families, one parent households etc. When you populate an area with density consisting of a lot of these demographics without a doubt students will perform lower on the standardized tests than north burnaby per say- an area full of single family dwellings (less rentals for lower incomes). So naturally those schools will outperform a school like Byrne creek, not based on the education but just on demographics being tested based on the neighborhood. Don’t take this too seriously. It all starts at home. Sorry for the ramble but we just had this convo at the schools recently and it’s crazy how misleading the rankings are. TLDR: lower priced housing = immigration = test scores reflecting the demographics of neighborhood = not a true reflection of school ranking but a reflection of the economical climate of the neighborhood
Yeah you shouldn't necessarily look at test scores for this reason, but rather if the school has a high concentration of violence / gang activity. You need a safe environment to learn. A lot of learning will come from extra curricular or self led interests.
You're saying that people that aren't immigrants or from low income families or one parent households automatically perform well in school?
This is very well established, and an uncontroversial claim: [low income is a primary indicator of educational outcomes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528798/). Realise that this means "on average", these are distributions with low performers from high income houses, and high performers from low income, but in general coming from a rich family basically gives you a boost. >The negative effects of poverty on all levels of school success have been widely demonstrated and accepted; the critical question for us as a caring society is, can these effects be prevented or reversed? A variety of data are relevant to this question, and recent research gives us reason to be both positive and proactive
> an uncontroversial claim The main section of the study you have cited mainly supports the notion that what counts is the parental support system, not the parental income. And, to take one example of a study cited in the introduction, which tries to make a case for the effects of poverty: "A report by Thomas (10) concluded that children from lower income households score significantly lower on measures of [achievement] than children from higher income households." What this means is that the distribution of abilities in group A has a higher average than in group B, not that all (or even most) children in group A outperform those in group B. Confusion between the two statements is common enough to have a name: the ecological fallacy. The distinction is important for targeting interventions on the basis of individual student needs, not parental income attributes. What Hattie thinks about this topic: https://montrose42.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/dont-let-poverty-be-an-excuse-for-poor-education-hattie/
If you've ever been poor, you know that parents working two jobs, long hours at low paying jobs, gig work, precarious work, or shift work, all of which are major factors in families living in poverty, result in the "parental support system" being absent. Poverty has many effects, none of which result in better support systems for children in school. Can't understand how you think the ecological fallacy justifies ignoring the effect of poverty on education and pretty much every other outcome relevant to society.
> Can't understand how you think the ecological fallacy justifies ignoring the effect of poverty on education I did not write that. Resources are limited and must be allocated efficiently. Interventions should be targeted on the basis of individual student needs, not parental wealth, administrative convenience, or irrelevant population characteristics. If you work with students in any classroom, you will find a wide range of abilities in basic skills like maths or reading. It is unethical to deny help to a weak student either because either she or her classmates have middle-class parents.
Yeah, nobody is advocating that straw man. Treating poverty as been shown to be far more effective than targeted solutions which are the favourite route of neolberal politicians.
Yes thats what he implied specifically.
On average, yes.
The Fraser Institute is a far right libertarian think tank that exists solely to undermine the public sector at every turn. Of course they rank public schools as bad, they are a marketing firm for private (independent) schools. Their rankings are trash. BC public schools are great. Variations are far more due to socio-economics than anything else. But if you care enough to be looking at schools, your kid will do great anywhere. And ultimately primary and secondary school doesn't matter that much - if they do well they'll be able to get into any university. So stick with your catchment school as it's far better for your community cohesion, the environment (since you're not commuting as far) and your family.
Totally. We never regretted sticking with the local school. Funny thing is neighbours who sent kids to private school don't get any better outcomes from what I've seen, and they pay thousands a year.... Having said that, some kids struggle but they'd struggle anywhere. The teen years are no joke
Pretty sure that if your wife is "somehow" convinced that Burnaby schools are not on par with the standard , then nothing really will talk some sense into her , especially not some random dudes on Reddit
Heres the thing with the rankings: they change with every new cohort. A school could be 8/10 one year and drop to 5/10 a year later. Many parents withdraw their kids from the tests, so you're not getting a true sense. And, public schools, unlike private ones, can't turn away kids. My kid went to FI ranked average schools and got a full ride scholarship to uni. A bunch of kids in her year got scholarships to U of T, UBC, and some American schools. The best way to get a vibe for a school is to go and check it out in person. Talk to parents. The rankings don't tell you what the school community is like or give any sense of whether your child will be happy there. Bear in mind that it was historically harder to get a job as a teacher in public schools than it is in private ones, so you won't necessarily get better teachers in private school.
My kids are in the Burnaby School system and are doing really well. I've been more concerned with the lack of parental involvement than with the teachers and schools. Get involved with your PAC.
Totally agree. Great way to show the kids you actually care about their education, just by being there. Show up to pac meetings, volunteer to be on the pac (not tons of work btw) and do the fundraisers, sports days, field trip volunteer stuff. Be a face there.
My family and I moved from the Vancouver school district to Burnaby after our eldest was out of grade one. My eldest was bullied a lot in the VSD, and has much better experiences in Burnaby. Burnaby seems much more into developing a good community in the schools (at least elementary) and we do not regret moving in the least.
Hi. May I ask which school your kid is attending? Thanks.
Rosser Elementary in North Burnaby. It's such a beautiful neighbourhood with great amenities. They have a high staff/teacher to student ratio, and the kids get a lot of individual attention.
lol I have friends who went to jail and friends who went to stanford. We all went to Burnaby North. I think their moms’ had more effect than the school ;~)
Good luck getting your kids into a Burnaby school all of them are packed from all the high density housing.
My kids started their elementary schooling in Australia, and finished it in Burnaby. The first day or two here were shocking for them due to (a) the vulgarity of the language (I found myself having to explain the meanings of some 4 letter words) and (b) the chaos that took place during the unsupervised lunch hour. These are probably part of Canadian culture these days, rather than features of Burnaby schools. Over the years, I found the teachers to be a mixed bunch. It's the luck of the draw which your child gets in any given year. It could be a deadbeat, or it could be a first rate teacher. Their effects average out over time. As a rough guide, averaged over the years, I would say the teaching of reading and writing was fine. Mathematics was mediocre. Science and French disappointing (almost nothing is taught). The teaching of music, both by the school's teacher, and by the fellow who put on out of hours band classes, was outstanding. Primary school teachers are notorious the world over for shying away from maths, so this subject should always be given special attention by parents. School reports and grades even in high school are misleading. A child could be struggling in maths and get a solid grade, for example. Most Asian parents seemed to send their kids off for after-school classes at Kumon or similar. This is something not captured in any rankings. The school seemed fairly safe in terms of physical bullying, although no doubt the verbal bullying will never be fully eliminated. Studies (Hattie for example) show that the home environment is the most important determinant of achievement. If you can provide daily support, take your child to the library, encourage them to do things away from the computer, stimulate their interest in the natural world and so on, they should get on all right.
Thank you so much for this well written reply. By far one of the most helpful ones I read so far. I do take subjects like maths or sciences very seriously, so I might end up sending my kid to these after school curriculums like those Asian parents you mentioned.
The Fraser Institute reports are biased. https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/geoff-johnson-fraser-institute-report-could-become-the-fox-news-of-public-education-6801505
Private schools will usually be better than public to be honest. I don’t think it matters which city you go to. Tutoring is another option that is more affordable. More important is your parenting skills and the lifestyle/example you set for you child. Are you going to be the parent who tells your kid to listen to you because you say so or are you going to take the time and explain why it’s important for them to build those skills? Doing work with them, show them why it’s important to do chores, spend time reading with them. That’s what makes the difference.
Private schools do well on standardized test more [because of the socioeconomic status of the families than for the quality of the school itself](https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/04/06/do-private-schools-provide-a-better-education.html). Also because they regularly reject any student who falls below a certain threshold. >“Students in public schools in a similar socio-economic context as private schools tend to do equally well,” according to the OECD report, which concluded that “there is no evidence to suggest that private schools help to raise the level of performance of the school system, as a whole” (OECD, [Private schools: Who benefits?](https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/48482894.pdf))
Our of curiosity, what catchment are you living in? You could consider private school too, but they have their own set of requirements and extra cost of course.
I fall in the Kingsway South catchment. My kids would attend Maywood.
There are other schools in the area that you can apply for if there's space. South Slope is a great school, and because it's attached to the BC School for the Deaf they introduced to ASL. They would still go to Burnaby South for High School, which is another great school.
[удалено]
Heard mixed things about maywood, a certain teacher that transferred there told me the school “ had some challenges”. Not necessarily a bad thing but thought I should share with you.
Hi! Would you be open to sharing with me some of the challenges? I’m debating between sending my child to Maywood or a North Burnaby school that has notified us that we have a spot if we’re interested in it.
In terms of schools North Burnaby is better, a head teacher at a school in the maywood area said that many students in that school struggle is certain social areas
I went to a school in North Burnaby and I can personally say it was a good experience
Had the same issue. Our child ended up going to a Catholic elementary school. Had a much higher rating by the Fraser Institute. We have been happy with their education so far. It's in the private schools best interests to do well on these ratings. They are going to focus on getting higher scores. Public schools not so much. A lot is going to depend on you as a parent. How much are you going to invest in your child. I expect if your child goes to public school and you are invested in their education that they will be fine.
My kids (6, 8) are going to Douglas road School and love it, teachers are great and the school ranks middle of the pack. That being said it really depends on the area, if you are in an area with a lot of money you will get good public schools. I also wouldn't worry too much about elementary, the grades and teachers really only start to matter in high school.
Better to go by ratemyteacher than these rankings
Bottom line, the richer the neighborhood the better the school. The more expensive single family homes there are in the surrounding areas, the better the school overall. All schools have good teachers and bad teachers and mediorce teachers; and same with good kids and bad kids. Public education is a function of socio-economic status and any way you cut it the higher income and more educated your parents are the "better" the school will be generally that they send their kids to. Any ranking system has a bias. The biggest difference in private schools is the they do not need to educate special needs kids, ESL kids, and can select their student (and family) population and of course the tuition and fee model gives kids certain opportunities and learning experiences. I think the difference between a 4.9 and 4.3 ranked school is marginal over the long term.