I’m an NA alumn also. And that above quote is the key message that the printed “rankings” don’t reveal.
Bottom line is that of the top local schools “ranked”, 3 have huge heroin problems. One uses books for common classes that are over 20 years old. One is a building that hasn’t seen renovation in over 20 years. Because they have a strong population of high achievers gets them on the ranking list, when in fact their average to below average students fare far worse than those in other districts.
Rankings don’t show what the school can offer; and that’s what is important to me.
There are local “non-ranked” districts that offer every bit as much, and sometimes more, than what those above schools can. Because they are not ranked shows more to me that the student body as a whole doesn’t apply themselves. It shows me nothing about the district itself or what it has to offer. It just shows that the student body is affluent as a whole, so of course the scores/rankings/anything-based-on-student-achievement is going to be solid.