Nespucful arithmetic

- The navigator , devices .
- 16.
- What " 16 " ?
- And what are the "devices" ?

On August 18, 2015, the next rating of Moscow schools was published. The rating is compiled for the fifth year in a row and managed to become the hallmark of the capital's department of education.

How many information can be extracted from the rating by parents and teachers? Unfortunately no. The authors of the rating have done a lot of work, but almost all interesting results are closed.

The principles of calculating the rating are as follows:

• There are points for seven different indicators - from victories at the Olympiads to the number of preschool children in the complex;
• There are points from all schools and kindergartens included in the complex;
• Only places of complexes in the ranking are published.

So, we do not know either the final points of the complexes, or even more so the breakdown of these points in terms of indicators. Those. From the ranking it is impossible to understand who rose high due to the large number of graduates who have sold the exam, who-due to a small number of winners of high-level olympiads, and who-due to the number of preschoolers or successful work with children with disabilities. And this, you see, are completely different successes, and it would be good for parents to distinguish them for an adequate choice of school.

The deposits of individual schools to the results of the complex are also unknown to us. In the Top may be a complex of five “ordinary” schools at the expense of one special school-“locomotive”. At the same time, of course, all five ordinary schools will also wear the proud title “top school”.

It seems that this is what happened to the Kurchatov school. She is in the new ranking in 15th place. This is actually a complex formed last year (with a large scandal) by joining the Kurchatov school itself No. 1189 (was in the 65th place of last year’s rating) to complex No. 2077 (was in 197th place). Now the new director writes on the website of the complex: “We have made a huge leap in comparison with the last school year - in 182 positions.”

They say that school, like a student, must be compared not with others, but with himself. But we cannot trace the dynamics of a single school by the rating over time, because we do not know the points of this school in this or last year (and the rules for accruing these points changed slightly). And we know only the number in the ranking. If the school went down the place N+K, then this is because it worsened the results, or because K other schools improved?

You don’t have to go far for an example: my school “Intellectual” was held in the ranking of the 7th, 10th, 11th, 19th and 6th places in the ranking. At the same time, no serious changes in the educational process were observed within the school. At first, we were slowly crowded with complexes, then we were forced to merge with gymnasium No. 1588, then by mutual agreement we attached a small but famous school No. 1199 “School League”, the administration of which was tired of surviving in the conditions of enlargement policy. After that, we got up strongly in the ranking, since the indicators of the “School League” and gymnasium No. 1588 were now added to our indicators. It is clear that all this has little relation to the quality of education.

The compilers explain that they do not publish points and decoding, so as not to offend the school. It is strongly incomprehensible to me why to publicly build them according to the sum of arbitrary indicators is good, but showing achievements according to individual indicators is bad.

Is it that the rating is not compiled for society, but for the authorities? Well, then the demand is different. He is fully satisfied with bossies.