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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I haven't looked at the paper, and I have no idea if it's true or not.

My concern for the FARMs students would be if they are bussed to a high-income school, would all the services that are used to receiving at the low-income school, still be available to them? And would MCPS now have to provide those services at more schools, costing more money? And I'm not sure if this matters, but how many parents would pull their kids out of public and put them in private if they were forced to bus from a high-income school to a low-income school?

wow way to concern troll lol

you just don't want poors at your school lol

[Anonymous]

NP.

A graduate student's capstone project? LOL. OP is really grasping at straws to protect his/her school cluster from being economically and racially integrated. Sad!

[Anonymous]

For the people who discredit the report because it was a capstone report, please read the report. After you read it, please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion. Did the report cherry picked the data? Did the author use murky stats? Was the conclusion not based on facts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the people who discredit the report because it was a capstone report, please read the report. After you read it, please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion. Did the report cherry picked the data? Did the author use murky stats? Was the conclusion not based on facts?

Yes. Yes. And yes.

[Anonymous]

I assume there are other studies on this subject? Perhaps we should look at more than just one??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the people who discredit the report because it was a capstone report, please read the report. After you read it, please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion. Did the report cherry picked the data? Did the author use murky stats? Was the conclusion not based on facts?

Read this one, and then please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion.

https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what's your point? We should pull out all the farms kids in the rich schools and bus them to the FARMS schools so they cannot be seen or bring down the test scores.

No pint. Just like to bust the Myth.

Please read the research report. Fast forwards to figure 12 and 13

You're too dumb. I feel sorry for you.

Why you are so angry? Do you want to blame the poor kids sit next to you? Did you pass your algebra last year?

Angry? LOL, just pointing out that you're truly dumb if you think this is a research report or you "bust the myth "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what's your point? We should pull out all the farms kids in the rich schools and bus them to the FARMS schools so they cannot be seen or bring down the test scores.

No pint. Just like to bust the Myth.

Please read the research report. Fast forwards to figure 12 and 13

You're too dumb. I feel sorry for you.

DP, and your too rude.. get a life[/quote]
I will when you learn the difference between "your" and "you're ".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what's your point? We should pull out all the farms kids in the rich schools and bus them to the FARMS schools so they cannot be seen or bring down the test scores.

No pint. Just like to bust the Myth.

Please read the research report. Fast forwards to figure 12 and 13

You're too dumb. I feel sorry for you.

DP, and your too rude.. get a life

I will when you learn the difference between "your" and "you're ".

[Anonymous]

This is 100% OP’s shitty term paper

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the people who discredit the report because it was a capstone report, please read the report. After you read it, please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion. Did the report cherry picked the data? Did the author use murky stats? Was the conclusion not based on facts?

Read this one, and then please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion.

https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Because it's a non-published, non-peer reviewed report from an organization with an agenda. It's clear from this report that they crunched the data until they found a "threshold" at which they could write a report that fit their agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the people who discredit the report because it was a capstone report, please read the report. After you read it, please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion. Did the report cherry picked the data? Did the author use murky stats? Was the conclusion not based on facts?

Read this one, and then please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion.

https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Because it's a non-published, non-peer reviewed report from an organization with an agenda. It's clear from this report that they crunched the data until they found a "threshold" at which they could write a report that fit their agenda.

Uh huh. And the capstone paper??

[Anonymous]

The study that MCPS seems to be clinging to that showed low income kids do better in schools with less than 25% FARMS was done across school systems where poorer schools had less resources. This study had a number of flaws in the methodology but even if you set those aside the study really only showed the correlation against funding ,not demographics of peers. Nation wide less is spent per student in low income schools than neighboring high income schools. When people speak at the national level about educational opportunities, this is what they are talking about and this is an inequity.

MCPS does not have a funding inequity. Within MCPS, a system that is uniform and able to devote more resources to lower income schools their own data does not show that low income kids do better in wealthier schools. It is all over the map and there is no clear pattern -unless you delete multiple data points that do not fit your desire. This is concerning to me because once again we have MCPS ignoring or cherry picking its own data and making bad decisions. While no one knows how far MCPS will go with its demographic balancing initiative this seems to be the only thing they are talking about in terms of improving student outcomes despite the data showing it does not do this.

There are other schools in the nation that are solving this problem and other studies that show different approaches.

This is a good article with references to more reputable sources and studies beyond the the flawed one that MCPS loves and the grad students that looked at MCPS data -https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2018/09/26/list-studies-test-scores-poverty-school-income/. At the county level the type of financial grants described in the article could have a significant impact on student outcomes. David Yang may be an outlier but the data backs up his position on UBI.

MCPS could look at the mid sized schools in Texas with high concentrations of poverty AND test scores exceeding those of the wealthy white state/national average. These schools include passionate leadership, community driven engagement, extensive wrap around services , extended school day, embrace and integrate community cultural influences
and produce results. They're not just moving the deck chairs around the Titanic.

The achievement gap is a solvable problem. It takes money and competent school officials. Montgomery County and even MCPS has the money if they would stop wasting it. Competent school officials is the missing ingredient. So once again the BOE is trotting off in the wrong direction with a bunch of foolish sycophants cheering them on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The study that MCPS seems to be clinging to that showed low income kids do better in schools with less than 25% FARMS was done across school systems where poorer schools had less resources. This study had a number of flaws in the methodology but even if you set those aside the study really only showed the correlation against funding ,not demographics of peers. Nation wide less is spent per student in low income schools than neighboring high income schools. When people speak at the national level about educational opportunities, this is what they are talking about and this is an inequity.

Nope. Not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the people who discredit the report because it was a capstone report, please read the report. After you read it, please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion. Did the report cherry picked the data? Did the author use murky stats? Was the conclusion not based on facts?

Read this one, and then please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion.

https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Because it's a non-published, non-peer reviewed report from an organization with an agenda. It's clear from this report that they crunched the data until they found a "threshold" at which they could write a report that fit their agenda.

I'm a researcher (Ph.D. with a few dozen published papers). I only quickly skimmed it, but in addition to not being peer-reviewed, it seems they only picked a few schools. It's hard to draw conclusions beyond these few schools that are generalizable to the larger school system. I also may have missed it, but I don't see any limitations listed, which is a standard part of peer-reviewed published papers.

I also noticed that the author concludes that "the hypothesis is false." It appears the author doesn't have a good handle on standard research methods. You can't conclude that a hypothesis is false; you can only say that it wasn't supported by the current data.

No school system would make changes based on a single, not peer-reviewed master's thesis.