Schools with high FARM rates

[Anonymous]

The worst behaved kids at our school are the ones who are perceived to have money. Less money doesn't = disruptive behavior. Bratty behavior and non medicated ADHD kids = disruptive behavior. Anyone see the news about the deputy who handcuffed an 8 yr old for bad behavior? White kid, speaks English, not FARMS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child's instructional day will be interrupted by countless episodes of disruptive behavior. The classroom culture will be tense as these children are frequently not engaged and well below level of the grade level material. Many of the teachers will be on the spectrum of burnout. Lots of staff turnover. The school focus will be to raise those test scores and the curriculum will be focused entirely on that. The common denominator of rigor will be much lower. Your kid will look like a rock star to most teachers who appreciate that he does his work, doesn't mouth off, and makes an effort. Is this a good thing? Not really, because the perception is skewed. He won't be challenged. He will not be motivated and inspired by other achievers, as they are not the norm. He will be involved in a close knit group of friends there, which is nice, but there are few options to make broader connections. School events are sparsely attended by the whole of the community.

Before the flamers start, yes, there are some kids from low income environments who excel beyond all these characterizations, but it is not the norm.

Sincerely,

Someone who really knows......

This “someone who really knows” has a very narrow knowledge of higher poverty schools.
The answer to your question is that if you have a child who comes from a very supportive home, he will likely do quite well in school, regardless of the economic level of the other students. Many Title I schools (which ARE Title I because of their high free and reduced lunch rates) have a student body that does well.
I have taught in several of these schools. I have not witnessed the “countless episodes of disruptive behavior.” Quite the opposite, really. Most of these kids are excited to be at school and quite eager to learn. Do some students misbehave? Of course. This happens in ALL schools. I won’t go through all of the pp.’s negative comments, but will point out a crucial point - the quality of your child’s teaching is most affected by the quality of the teacher. It is the TEACHER that makes the difference. So, you can have a GREAT teacher in a “bad” school or a BAD teacher in a great school.
Title I schools do have additional resources and the teachers at these schools also receive additional professional development. That is a plus.
My advice is to visit the school in question. Watch instruction. Do the teachers seem to like what they do? Do they treat the students respectfully? Do the students seem happy? Are the teachers supported by administration?
Good luck with your child and his/her schooling.

You know I'm really getting sick of these sorts of answers from educators. I'm sure you are a fantastic teacher and really know how to get through to the kids, but you realize these responses are all about your ego right? Your high opinion of yourself and the job you do. You believe you are so talented that the circumstances a school is mired in are irrelevant. It's so not helpful to the discussion.
The reality is that there is plenty of data out there that suggests there is a tipping point in the amount of poverty a school can absorb. When more than half of a school is poor, EVERY CHILD SUFFERS. That includes the middle income children. It doesn't mean that the middle income children are failing- they are just being out performed by their peers another zipcode over. The teachers who write the above comments don't seem to be bothered by that, but it sure as hell bothers me.
I'm much more interested in my child's performance than your ego.

Actually, I am not speaking as only an educator but also as a parent whose children attended a Title I school. Seems as if you are speaking from a very limited perspective. As an educator, I have been in many Title I schools - some are good, some not so good, but just being a Title I school does not make it a bad school. I have also been in many affluent schools. Some good, some not so good. One thing I can tell you is that the teachers at the Title I schools are, on the whole, stronger teachers. They know how to teach in order to reach the students. They do not rely on lecture or auditory learning only. They make learning concrete for students. They do not depend upon students to teach themselves the material or to learn new material at home. They use time efficiently to teach material and to practice new learning.
There are good teachers at most schools in No. Va. There are also teachers who are not so strong. But, on the whole, teachers at Title I schools have a better understanding of how to teach to help students not only learn but retain the material.
Yes, children from less advantaged homes have challenges that more affluent students do not have. But, believe it or not, they have the same learning capacity as students who are from homes with every advantage imaginable.
And, my expertise is not what I am referencing when I speak of the strong instruction at Title I schools. It is what I have SEEN in other teachers. I am incredibly impressed with not only the competence of these teachers, but the true dedication.

I'm sure the teachers are very good. That is not what I am disputing. I'm Talking about data. I know everyone hates all the testing. I'm not a big fan either, but it doesn't support that kids perform equally well in schools heavily populated by poverty. Many like to say it's because of high numbers of ESOL students, but that is simply not true. Having strong educators is crucial yes. Without them a title 1 school doesn't have much hope for success. Sadly, those standards for success are always lower than a school with a healthier proportion of SES diversity. I'm not saying that individual kids can't succeed and learn in a title one school, and no, they are not all equal. One of the above posters mentions lack parental involvement ( I'm betting sometimes due to parents working multiple jobs) - I tend to see strong parental involvement at my local school.
I think it's great that you are experienced and knowledgable about what is happening in the room at your kid's school.
The stats, however, don't bear out what you are experiencing. That seems to be hard for many educators to accept, but it needs to start happening if we are going to have an honest conversation about what is best for children's education and how we organize our schools.

And, how do you propose our schools be organized?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I'm always suspicious of people who speak as if their opinion is the absolute truth. It's one thing to have a view and believe that you're right, but once you start stating things like "the reality is" or "every situation results in X," that tells me taht the person lives in their own little bubble and their opinion should be disregarded.

Funny, I usually feel the same way about people who disregard math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I'm always suspicious of people who speak as if their opinion is the absolute truth. It's one thing to have a view and believe that you're right, but once you start stating things like "the reality is" or "every situation results in X," that tells me taht the person lives in their own little bubble and their opinion should be disregarded.

Funny, I usually feel the same way about people who disregard math.

Oh that's right, I forgot that social science is math based. Silly me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child's instructional day will be interrupted by countless episodes of disruptive behavior. The classroom culture will be tense as these children are frequently not engaged and well below level of the grade level material. Many of the teachers will be on the spectrum of burnout. Lots of staff turnover. The school focus will be to raise those test scores and the curriculum will be focused entirely on that. The common denominator of rigor will be much lower. Your kid will look like a rock star to most teachers who appreciate that he does his work, doesn't mouth off, and makes an effort. Is this a good thing? Not really, because the perception is skewed. He won't be challenged. He will not be motivated and inspired by other achievers, as they are not the norm. He will be involved in a close knit group of friends there, which is nice, but there are few options to make broader connections. School events are sparsely attended by the whole of the community.

Before the flamers start, yes, there are some kids from low income environments who excel beyond all these characterizations, but it is not the norm.

Sincerely,

Someone who really knows......

This “someone who really knows” has a very narrow knowledge of higher poverty schools.
The answer to your question is that if you have a child who comes from a very supportive home, he will likely do quite well in school, regardless of the economic level of the other students. Many Title I schools (which ARE Title I because of their high free and reduced lunch rates) have a student body that does well.
I have taught in several of these schools. I have not witnessed the “countless episodes of disruptive behavior.” Quite the opposite, really. Most of these kids are excited to be at school and quite eager to learn. Do some students misbehave? Of course. This happens in ALL schools. I won’t go through all of the pp.’s negative comments, but will point out a crucial point - the quality of your child’s teaching is most affected by the quality of the teacher. It is the TEACHER that makes the difference. So, you can have a GREAT teacher in a “bad” school or a BAD teacher in a great school.
Title I schools do have additional resources and the teachers at these schools also receive additional professional development. That is a plus.
My advice is to visit the school in question. Watch instruction. Do the teachers seem to like what they do? Do they treat the students respectfully? Do the students seem happy? Are the teachers supported by administration?
Good luck with your child and his/her schooling.

You know I'm really getting sick of these sorts of answers from educators. I'm sure you are a fantastic teacher and really know how to get through to the kids, but you realize these responses are all about your ego right? Your high opinion of yourself and the job you do. You believe you are so talented that the circumstances a school is mired in are irrelevant. It's so not helpful to the discussion.
The reality is that there is plenty of data out there that suggests there is a tipping point in the amount of poverty a school can absorb. When more than half of a school is poor, EVERY CHILD SUFFERS. That includes the middle income children. It doesn't mean that the middle income children are failing- they are just being out performed by their peers another zipcode over. The teachers who write the above comments don't seem to be bothered by that, but it sure as hell bothers me.
I'm much more interested in my child's performance than your ego.

Actually, I am not speaking as only an educator but also as a parent whose children attended a Title I school. Seems as if you are speaking from a very limited perspective. As an educator, I have been in many Title I schools - some are good, some not so good, but just being a Title I school does not make it a bad school. I have also been in many affluent schools. Some good, some not so good. One thing I can tell you is that the teachers at the Title I schools are, on the whole, stronger teachers. They know how to teach in order to reach the students. They do not rely on lecture or auditory learning only. They make learning concrete for students. They do not depend upon students to teach themselves the material or to learn new material at home. They use time efficiently to teach material and to practice new learning.
There are good teachers at most schools in No. Va. There are also teachers who are not so strong. But, on the whole, teachers at Title I schools have a better understanding of how to teach to help students not only learn but retain the material.
Yes, children from less advantaged homes have challenges that more affluent students do not have. But, believe it or not, they have the same learning capacity as students who are from homes with every advantage imaginable.
And, my expertise is not what I am referencing when I speak of the strong instruction at Title I schools. It is what I have SEEN in other teachers. I am incredibly impressed with not only the competence of these teachers, but the true dedication.

I'm sure the teachers are very good. That is not what I am disputing. I'm Talking about data. I know everyone hates all the testing. I'm not a big fan either, but it doesn't support that kids perform equally well in schools heavily populated by poverty. Many like to say it's because of high numbers of ESOL students, but that is simply not true. Having strong educators is crucial yes. Without them a title 1 school doesn't have much hope for success. Sadly, those standards for success are always lower than a school with a healthier proportion of SES diversity. I'm not saying that individual kids can't succeed and learn in a title one school, and no, they are not all equal. One of the above posters mentions lack parental involvement ( I'm betting sometimes due to parents working multiple jobs) - I tend to see strong parental involvement at my local school.
I think it's great that you are experienced and knowledgable about what is happening in the room at your kid's school.
The stats, however, don't bear out what you are experiencing. That seems to be hard for many educators to accept, but it needs to start happening if we are going to have an honest conversation about what is best for children's education and how we organize our schools.

And, how do you propose our schools be organized?

This is actually a housing and development issue. Even more than a school issue. Not saying it isn't complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your child's instructional day will be interrupted by countless episodes of disruptive behavior. The classroom culture will be tense as these children are frequently not engaged and well below level of the grade level material. Many of the teachers will be on the spectrum of burnout. Lots of staff turnover. The school focus will be to raise those test scores and the curriculum will be focused entirely on that. The common denominator of rigor will be much lower. Your kid will look like a rock star to most teachers who appreciate that he does his work, doesn't mouth off, and makes an effort. Is this a good thing? Not really, because the perception is skewed. He won't be challenged. He will not be motivated and inspired by other achievers, as they are not the norm. He will be involved in a close knit group of friends there, which is nice, but there are few options to make broader connections. School events are sparsely attended by the whole of the community.

Before the flamers start, yes, there are some kids from low income environments who excel beyond all these characterizations, but it is not the norm.

Sincerely,

Someone who really knows......

This was our experience as well.

Even though my child had good teachers, the other poster was correct differentiation often meant silent reading and harder math worksheets with no instruction.

Reading instruction was terrible, sadly most teachers just don't know how to intervene when a child is struggling and reading resource teachers are really limited. Writing instruction was almost non existent until 5th grade. Classroom time had to be devoted to reading and math. Science and social studies are after thoughts.

The best quality a teacher can have in a school with a high farms rate is the ability to manage classroom behavior. His/her teaching skills can be mediocre because most of the day is spent managing behaviors so that's the most needed skill. When looking at high farms rate schools, ask about that first and academics second because sadly that's the priority for e teachers and admin as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I'm always suspicious of people who speak as if their opinion is the absolute truth. It's one thing to have a view and believe that you're right, but once you start stating things like "the reality is" or "every situation results in X," that tells me taht the person lives in their own little bubble and their opinion should be disregarded.

Funny, I usually feel the same way about people who disregard math.

Oh that's right, I forgot that social science is math based. Silly me.

Bit more concrete than, " I've experienced this, and from what I've seen that"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child's instructional day will be interrupted by countless episodes of disruptive behavior. The classroom culture will be tense as these children are frequently not engaged and well below level of the grade level material. Many of the teachers will be on the spectrum of burnout. Lots of staff turnover. The school focus will be to raise those test scores and the curriculum will be focused entirely on that. The common denominator of rigor will be much lower. Your kid will look like a rock star to most teachers who appreciate that he does his work, doesn't mouth off, and makes an effort. Is this a good thing? Not really, because the perception is skewed. He won't be challenged. He will not be motivated and inspired by other achievers, as they are not the norm. He will be involved in a close knit group of friends there, which is nice, but there are few options to make broader connections. School events are sparsely attended by the whole of the community.

Before the flamers start, yes, there are some kids from low income environments who excel beyond all these characterizations, but it is not the norm.

Sincerely,

Someone who really knows......

This was our experience as well.

Even though my child had good teachers, the other poster was correct differentiation often meant silent reading and harder math worksheets with no instruction.

Reading instruction was terrible, sadly most teachers just don't know how to intervene when a child is struggling and reading resource teachers are really limited. Writing instruction was almost non existent until 5th grade. Classroom time had to be devoted to reading and math. Science and social studies are after thoughts.

The best quality a teacher can have in a school with a high farms rate is the ability to manage classroom behavior. His/her teaching skills can be mediocre because most of the day is spent managing behaviors so that's the most needed skill. When looking at high farms rate schools, ask about that first and academics second because sadly that's the priority for e teachers and admin as well.

Would you mind sharing where this was? If not the specific school- than the area.

[Anonymous]

The best quality a teacher can have in a school with a high farms rate is the ability to manage classroom behavior. His/her teaching skills can be mediocre because most of the day is spent managing behaviors so that's the most needed skill. When looking at high farms rate schools, ask about that first and academics second because sadly that's the priority for e teachers and admin as well.

Sad, but you are absolutely right. When kids come to school constantly shoving and hitting, the teacher needs to take control--or nothing gets done I speak with the experience of a young teacher who began teaching in an extremely poor school. My training had been in middle class--even lower middle class, but nothing prepared me for teaching in the projects. Try working with a small group while the others are out of control. It is not possible. So, first, you have to teach the kids how to listen. Not easy when they are not accustomed to it. Then, you must teach them to work independently for five to ten minutes. Again, this is a learned skill--not innate. The most difficult skill to teach some of these kids? How to keep their hands to themselves.
Without classroom control--and I don't mean perfect silence--you can accomplish very little. Some teachers are better than others. I became a pretty good teacher--mostly as a result of the experience in poor schools. I certainly learned a lot more about the learning process than I did in college or my colleagues in affluent schools.
Most people have no idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I'm always suspicious of people who speak as if their opinion is the absolute truth. It's one thing to have a view and believe that you're right, but once you start stating things like "the reality is" or "every situation results in X," that tells me taht the person lives in their own little bubble and their opinion should be disregarded.

Funny, I usually feel the same way about people who disregard math.

Oh that's right, I forgot that social science is math based. Silly me.

Bit more concrete than, " I've experienced this, and from what I've seen that"

Yes, definitely. Whenever you draw a conclusion based on what you've seen from a limited and distinct data set, the conclusion you draw is always absolute truth that can be applied to all similar situations. There is never any room for interpretation when we're talking about sociogical data. I mean, all human beings behave exactly the same way given the same or similar set of circumstances, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I'm always suspicious of people who speak as if their opinion is the absolute truth. It's one thing to have a view and believe that you're right, but once you start stating things like "the reality is" or "every situation results in X," that tells me taht the person lives in their own little bubble and their opinion should be disregarded.

Funny, I usually feel the same way about people who disregard math.

Oh that's right, I forgot that social science is math based. Silly me.

Bit more concrete than, " I've experienced this, and from what I've seen that"

Yes, definitely. Whenever you draw a conclusion based on what you've seen from a limited and distinct data set, the conclusion you draw is always absolute truth that can be applied to all similar situations. There is never any room for interpretation when we're talking about sociogical data. I mean, all human beings behave exactly the same way given the same or similar set of circumstances, right?

Right. Or you could look at the test scores for you local title one schools and compare them to the test scores of the more advantaged schools nearby and and see an easily interpreted trend. And then you could continue to see that trend repeated over and over all across the nation for the last several decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I'm always suspicious of people who speak as if their opinion is the absolute truth. It's one thing to have a view and believe that you're right, but once you start stating things like "the reality is" or "every situation results in X," that tells me taht the person lives in their own little bubble and their opinion should be disregarded.

Funny, I usually feel the same way about people who disregard math.

Oh that's right, I forgot that social science is math based. Silly me.

Bit more concrete than, " I've experienced this, and from what I've seen that"

Yes, definitely. Whenever you draw a conclusion based on what you've seen from a limited and distinct data set, the conclusion you draw is always absolute truth that can be applied to all similar situations. There is never any room for interpretation when we're talking about sociogical data. I mean, all human beings behave exactly the same way given the same or similar set of circumstances, right?

Right. Or you could look at the test scores for you local title one schools and compare them to the test scores of the more advantaged schools nearby and and see an easily interpreted trend. And then you could continue to see that trend repeated over and over all across the nation for the last several decades.

Yes, repeated observation of similar data sets can mean only one thing - absolute truth. I'm sure all great scientists would agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The worst behaved kids at our school are the ones who are perceived to have money. Less money doesn't = disruptive behavior. Bratty behavior and non medicated ADHD kids = disruptive behavior. Anyone see the news about the deputy who handcuffed an 8 yr old for bad behavior? White kid, speaks English, not FARMS.

The kid was latino and the previous incident was with an AA girl.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/kentucky-school-cop-handcuffed-8-year-old-boy-mental-disorder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So i've been told that schools with high FARMS rates tend to perform poorly. Excuse my ignorance on this matter, but how does this effect students that are from middle/upper class households? Especially those that come from a home with academic support. Does a school like this hurt them in the long run or does it affect college admissions in any way?

Thanks.

My twins went to a Title I school last year for kindergarten. I found that the education was ok - but mostly a review of what they learned in pre-k at a private daycare. (I figured that would be the case for any kindergarten). What I did not like was what slang they came home with and some of the concepts they were exposed to. I found it very difficult as a parent to impress upon my kids that we speak Standard American English and that is what is appropriate for our family vs. how others speak while trying to make sure they weren't judging others. My last straw was when my 6 year old asked me what sex was because she heard about it from a friend. I figured that would happen eventually - but not in K. This all sounds incredibly elitist - but I don't care. I want my kids to have the best opportunities and be in the best environment possible. The school just didn't cut it.

We're moving to a new school district. They'll be going to a good school that's actually more diverse in terms of ethnicity but less diverse SES.

[Anonymous]

Sad, but you are absolutely right. When kids come to school constantly shoving and hitting, the teacher needs to take control--or nothing gets done I speak with the experience of a young teacher who began teaching in an extremely poor school. My training had been in middle class--even lower middle class, but nothing prepared me for teaching in the projects. Try working with a small group while the others are out of control. It is not possible. So, first, you have to teach the kids how to listen. Not easy when they are not accustomed to it. Then, you must teach them to work independently for five to ten minutes. Again, this is a learned skill--not innate. The most difficult skill to teach some of these kids? How to keep their hands to themselves.
Without classroom control--and I don't mean perfect silence--you can accomplish very little. Some teachers are better than others. I became a pretty good teacher--mostly as a result of the experience in poor schools. I certainly learned a lot more about the learning process than I did in college or my colleagues in affluent schools.
Most people have no idea.

Good post. After your experience, would you or have you put your child in a high poverty school? If you had a choice, where would you educate your child? I'm not saying that high poverty necessarily equals bad behavior, but say you had high poverty with reasonable behavior in a classroom, would the educational concerns alone be enough for you to place your child in a different classroom? Do you believe that differentiation is effective when levels of students vary by more than 3 or 4 grades?