Myth: low income students do better in schools with <25% FARMs rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what evidence looks like. And it uses all schools in Maryland, not cherry-picked schools in MoCo. Shocker... it says that proportion of FARMS students is related to outcomes. I've got plenty more pieces of evidence if you'd like. https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

From the MD report: “The variation in PARCC school proficiency rates is highly correlated with the percentage of low- income students enrolled in a school. An increase in the percentage of low-income students in a school is associated with a decrease in a school proficiency rate on the PARCC assessments. The relationship is clearest at the state level, where the low-income student enrollment corresponds to nearly two thirds (R2=0.62) of the difference in proficiency rates between schools. ”

No one denies that more low income students=low test scores at school levels as well as county levels. The problem is that many people believe the myth that low income students perform better in schools with less low income students.

Exactly low income equals dumb, what don’t people get??

Low income doesn't mean stupid. Low income means less opportunities and more struggles.

Poor people are Jess intelligent?
God help us because people truly believe that garbage!!!!!

While that's also true, it's also quite true that poor people (in general) are less intelligent than well off people. Intelligence is one of the attributes that leads to higher income. All testing shows this. In addition, when they look at social mobility using the NLSY (https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy97) high IQ poor people move out of poverty at very high rates. Interestingly, the NLSY mobility statistics are the same across racial groups.

[Anonymous]

The UMD study is comparing across schools districts again. Listen someone WITHOUT and agenda and who knows how to interpret data needs to dig into the MCPS PARCC and MAP scores and see what is going on in schools where the poverty rate is 20%, 30%, 40% or 50%. MCPS's own data does not show that low income kids reach proficiency at higher rates when they attend schools with less poverty. Why is this?


I also think its about time that MCPS and the county started to collect the real poverty stats. FARMS is a woefully undercounted number. People who want to boost an area or spin will report the FARNS number rather than the had ever been on FARMS number but the larger number is much closer to the challenging economic reality for those families. In schools with many wrap around services, there is a higher compliance with registering for FARMS. In schools that have mixed high and low SES there is much lower self reporting for needing FARMS. Even if everyone with a low enough income for FARMS was counted, it would still not really capture the true state of poverty. The county does do planning with groupings such as economically unstable or at risk. These are the working low income residents that experience many of the same problems that people making $500 less experience. These are the people who are one paycheck away from qualifying for services.

Right now MCPS is what 40% ever been on FARMS? This number is probably closer to 50%-60% if you broaden the definition to economically at risk or unstable. With numbers this high, the ship on bussing poor kids into wealthy area and wealthy kids into poor areas has basically sailed off. MCPS is 20 years too late on this idea.

The sooner MCPS accepts that IT IS a HIGH POVERTY SCHOOL DISTRICT then the sooner someone get to work on how to focus on educating poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Poor people are Jess intelligent?
God help us because people truly believe that garbage!!!!!

I think you have it backwards.

Looking at the whole of the society, less intelligent people tend to have less income than more intelligent people. That's not a absolute statement but statistically it is accurate. There are exceptions of course.

And one exclamation point is sufficient. FYI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Poor people are Jess intelligent?
God help us because people truly believe that garbage!!!!!

I think you have it backwards.

Looking at the whole of the society, less intelligent people tend to have less income than more intelligent people. That's not a absolute statement but statistically it is accurate. There are exceptions of course.

And one exclamation point is sufficient. FYI.

The Just World hypothesis is lovely and comforting for people on the good-fortune side of the ledger, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Poor people are Jess intelligent?
God help us because people truly believe that garbage!!!!!

I think you have it backwards.

Looking at the whole of the society, less intelligent people tend to have less income than more intelligent people. That's not a absolute statement but statistically it is accurate. There are exceptions of course.

And one exclamation point is sufficient. FYI.

The Just World hypothesis is lovely and comforting for people on the good-fortune side of the ledger, isn't it?

I'm not a big fan of the word 'unhinged', but you need your safe space.

[Anonymous]

Looking at the whole of the society, less intelligent people tend to have less income than more intelligent people. That's not a absolute statement but statistically it is accurate. There are exceptions of course.

This actually is true. There also is a high correlation between intelligence and jobs at different pay scales.

However, intelligence is something that is gained not locked at birth. We erroneously believe that intelligence is something you are born with and knowledge is something you gain. Intelligence is very malleable in adolescence.

If there was REAL focus not FAUX focus on finding effective ways to reduce the impacts of poverty on children and teach them then there would be fewer people with lower intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Looking at the whole of the society, less intelligent people tend to have less income than more intelligent people. That's not a absolute statement but statistically it is accurate. There are exceptions of course.

This actually is true. There also is a high correlation between intelligence and jobs at different pay scales.

However, intelligence is something that is gained not locked at birth. We erroneously believe that intelligence is something you are born with and knowledge is something you gain. Intelligence is very malleable in adolescence.

If there was REAL focus not FAUX focus on finding effective ways to reduce the impacts of poverty on children and teach them then there would be fewer people with lower intelligence.

I agree with this.... however, the NIH study listed earlier in this thread said 'Factors related to a child’s home environment and parenting, education and availability of learning resources, and nutrition, among others, all contribute to intelligence. '. Which of these should ultimately become the responsibility of a public school system? I think a lot of these are extremely critical well before a child is of the age to be admitted into the public school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this.... however, the NIH study listed earlier in this thread said 'Factors related to a child’s home environment and parenting, education and availability of learning resources, and nutrition, among others, all contribute to intelligence. '. Which of these should ultimately become the responsibility of a public school system? I think a lot of these are extremely critical well before a child is of the age to be admitted into the public school system.

Responsibility? No. Potential problems for the public school system (among others) to mitigate so that the child can learn? Absolutely yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Looking at the whole of the society, less intelligent people tend to have less income than more intelligent people. That's not a absolute statement but statistically it is accurate. There are exceptions of course.

This actually is true. There also is a high correlation between intelligence and jobs at different pay scales.

However, intelligence is something that is gained not locked at birth. We erroneously believe that intelligence is something you are born with and knowledge is something you gain. Intelligence is very malleable in adolescence.

If there was REAL focus not FAUX focus on finding effective ways to reduce the impacts of poverty on children and teach them then there would be fewer people with lower intelligence.

Why when the winners & Losers nature of capitalism typically has about 50% poor people. We have enough people jockeying for 25% advantaged slots. The problem with millennials is they all think they come out of school managers. At some point somebody just needs to shut up and cut my lawn.

[Anonymous]

Where are all of these social Darwinists suddenly coming from?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Poor people are Jess intelligent?
God help us because people truly believe that garbage!!!!!

I think you have it backwards.

Looking at the whole of the society, less intelligent people tend to have less income than more intelligent people. That's not a absolute statement but statistically it is accurate. There are exceptions of course.

And one exclamation point is sufficient. FYI.

The Just World hypothesis is lovely and comforting for people on the good-fortune side of the ledger, isn't it?

Those people didn’t luck up there, there is something called generational momentum. Why should someone just show up here, look at the Kennedys and think I deserve that too! Do you ever ask why you’re on the wrong side of the ledger, because you were born wrong? What did your parents do wrong? Their parents?

At some point you have to been something and not share it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Those people didn’t luck up there, there is something called generational momentum. Why should someone just show up here, look at the Kennedys and think I deserve that too! Do you ever ask why you’re on the wrong side of the ledger, because you were born wrong? What did your parents do wrong? Their parents?

At some point you have to been something and not share it

The idea that you deserve better stuff than other people because you picked wealthier parents to be born to. I mean.

[Anonymous]

People scoff at the European and Asian styles of schooling where the bottom 1/3 go to trade school and middle 1/3 go to college and the top 1/3 go to university

The exact same thing happens here according to income/school district

The bottom 1/3 would do much better going to a trade school vs a traditional high school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People scoff at the European and Asian styles of schooling where the bottom 1/3 go to trade school and middle 1/3 go to college and the top 1/3 go to university

The exact same thing happens here according to income/school district

The bottom 1/3 would do much better going to a trade school vs a traditional high school

I don't want a system that assumes that kids who couldn't/didn't do well in HS for one reason or another must go to vocational school. I think one of the best things about this country is that even if you f*d up in HS you can go to community college, and then to a 4 yr univ. I don't think there is anything wrong with a vocational track if that is what one chooses, but I don't think it should be the only path available to someone who didn't do well in HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People scoff at the European and Asian styles of schooling where the bottom 1/3 go to trade school and middle 1/3 go to college and the top 1/3 go to university

The exact same thing happens here according to income/school district

The bottom 1/3 would do much better going to a trade school vs a traditional high school

I don't want a system that assumes that kids who couldn't/didn't do well in HS for one reason or another must go to vocational school. I think one of the best things about this country is that even if you f*d up in HS you can go to community college, and then to a 4 yr univ. I don't think there is anything wrong with a vocational track if that is what one chooses, but I don't think it should be the only path available to someone who didn't do well in HS.

PP here.. and I'm Asian, married to a European, who agrees with me.