Why do parents from high FARMS school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The equity add on is roughly in line across schools and is related to the number of FARMS kids. But I don’t know how they did the allocation (it likely adjusts for things other than FARMS).

I thought that at first, but I do not think that is accurate. First of all that amount is tiny to the point of being insulting if it is indeed the equity add on. Moreover, what is it being added to? The number they are adding it to is not the total funding for the school. You can't staff a high school on $300k.

This is not the total for the school. See the other document.

the fact you are still trying to say high poverty schools get any significant funding based on their FARMS rates is actually insulting at this point. Please stop.

What? Look I’m trying to tell you what the columns mean since clearly you or someone else is not interpreting it correctly. Read what is written versus assuming you are talking to a single person.

Let's get back on track to the fact that high poverty high schools do not get a ton of extra money based on their poverty rates. This table is not helpful. It doesn't matter what the columns mean because the amounts are miniscule.

DP. I don't know. If a school gets another $50K a year to buy more books, that seems helpful.

But $50k is not the difference between high poverty and low poverty schools in that table. Why do you keep making stuff up?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:feel that the "academic" programs need to be at their school? This is not supposed to be about making these schools have equal FARMS rates, but rather about having equal acccess for all students in the county. For too long, Blair, which is located down in the bottom of the county and not close to most students, has held the programs with the big draw. Students choose not to go due to the long bus rides. Certainly, my child at Churchill would not consider it. Now they are trying to make it so all students are not too far away and adding more seats- this is a good thing. Do I think it is going to be hard to implement- yes. But I like the thinking. And I do not think that they need to consider FARMS rates when choosing which program is placed in each school. Existing teachers, space, and interest should dominate the thinking.

It’s about not hoarding resources for already more resource-rich schools, plus giving families in wealthier areas some skin in the game in the less wealthy areas. But I think you already know this and are just stirring the pot.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The equity add on is roughly in line across schools and is related to the number of FARMS kids. But I don’t know how they did the allocation (it likely adjusts for things other than FARMS).

I thought that at first, but I do not think that is accurate. First of all that amount is tiny to the point of being insulting if it is indeed the equity add on. Moreover, what is it being added to? The number they are adding it to is not the total funding for the school. You can't staff a high school on $300k.

This is not the total for the school. See the other document.

the fact you are still trying to say high poverty schools get any significant funding based on their FARMS rates is actually insulting at this point. Please stop.

What? Look I’m trying to tell you what the columns mean since clearly you or someone else is not interpreting it correctly. Read what is written versus assuming you are talking to a single person.

Let's get back on track to the fact that high poverty high schools do not get a ton of extra money based on their poverty rates. This table is not helpful. It doesn't matter what the columns mean because the amounts are miniscule.

DP. I don't know. If a school gets another $50K a year to buy more books, that seems helpful.

But $50k is not the difference between high poverty and low poverty schools in that table. Why do you keep making stuff up?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

I bet you feel super generous when you give $1 to charity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The equity add on is roughly in line across schools and is related to the number of FARMS kids. But I don’t know how they did the allocation (it likely adjusts for things other than FARMS).

I thought that at first, but I do not think that is accurate. First of all that amount is tiny to the point of being insulting if it is indeed the equity add on. Moreover, what is it being added to? The number they are adding it to is not the total funding for the school. You can't staff a high school on $300k.

This is not the total for the school. See the other document.

the fact you are still trying to say high poverty schools get any significant funding based on their FARMS rates is actually insulting at this point. Please stop.

What? Look I’m trying to tell you what the columns mean since clearly you or someone else is not interpreting it correctly. Read what is written versus assuming you are talking to a single person.

Let's get back on track to the fact that high poverty high schools do not get a ton of extra money based on their poverty rates. This table is not helpful. It doesn't matter what the columns mean because the amounts are miniscule.

DP. I don't know. If a school gets another $50K a year to buy more books, that seems helpful.

But $50k is not the difference between high poverty and low poverty schools in that table. Why do you keep making stuff up?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

I bet you feel super generous when you give $1 to charity

I feel better when I don’t demand super niche classes that predominately benefit the UMC in my school and take away resources from the majority of kids with fewer resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The equity add on is roughly in line across schools and is related to the number of FARMS kids. But I don’t know how they did the allocation (it likely adjusts for things other than FARMS).

I thought that at first, but I do not think that is accurate. First of all that amount is tiny to the point of being insulting if it is indeed the equity add on. Moreover, what is it being added to? The number they are adding it to is not the total funding for the school. You can't staff a high school on $300k.

This is not the total for the school. See the other document.

the fact you are still trying to say high poverty schools get any significant funding based on their FARMS rates is actually insulting at this point. Please stop.

What? Look I’m trying to tell you what the columns mean since clearly you or someone else is not interpreting it correctly. Read what is written versus assuming you are talking to a single person.

Let's get back on track to the fact that high poverty high schools do not get a ton of extra money based on their poverty rates. This table is not helpful. It doesn't matter what the columns mean because the amounts are miniscule.

DP. I don't know. If a school gets another $50K a year to buy more books, that seems helpful.

But $50k is not the difference between high poverty and low poverty schools in that table. Why do you keep making stuff up?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

I bet you feel super generous when you give $1 to charity

Why don't you get some fresh air and take a break from DCUM for a while?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The equity add on is roughly in line across schools and is related to the number of FARMS kids. But I don’t know how they did the allocation (it likely adjusts for things other than FARMS).

I thought that at first, but I do not think that is accurate. First of all that amount is tiny to the point of being insulting if it is indeed the equity add on. Moreover, what is it being added to? The number they are adding it to is not the total funding for the school. You can't staff a high school on $300k.

This is not the total for the school. See the other document.

the fact you are still trying to say high poverty schools get any significant funding based on their FARMS rates is actually insulting at this point. Please stop.

What? Look I’m trying to tell you what the columns mean since clearly you or someone else is not interpreting it correctly. Read what is written versus assuming you are talking to a single person.

Let's get back on track to the fact that high poverty high schools do not get a ton of extra money based on their poverty rates. This table is not helpful. It doesn't matter what the columns mean because the amounts are miniscule.

DP. I don't know. If a school gets another $50K a year to buy more books, that seems helpful.

But $50k is not the difference between high poverty and low poverty schools in that table. Why do you keep making stuff up?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

I bet you feel super generous when you give $1 to charity

I feel better when I don’t demand super niche classes that predominately benefit the UMC in my school and take away resources from the majority of kids with fewer resources.

Which niche classes am I demanding? It sounds like you are confusing me with someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The equity add on is roughly in line across schools and is related to the number of FARMS kids. But I don’t know how they did the allocation (it likely adjusts for things other than FARMS).

I thought that at first, but I do not think that is accurate. First of all that amount is tiny to the point of being insulting if it is indeed the equity add on. Moreover, what is it being added to? The number they are adding it to is not the total funding for the school. You can't staff a high school on $300k.

This is not the total for the school. See the other document.

the fact you are still trying to say high poverty schools get any significant funding based on their FARMS rates is actually insulting at this point. Please stop.

What? Look I’m trying to tell you what the columns mean since clearly you or someone else is not interpreting it correctly. Read what is written versus assuming you are talking to a single person.

Let's get back on track to the fact that high poverty high schools do not get a ton of extra money based on their poverty rates. This table is not helpful. It doesn't matter what the columns mean because the amounts are miniscule.

DP. I don't know. If a school gets another $50K a year to buy more books, that seems helpful.

But $50k is not the difference between high poverty and low poverty schools in that table. Why do you keep making stuff up?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

I bet you feel super generous when you give $1 to charity

Why don't you get some fresh air and take a break from DCUM for a while?

Oh do you not like it when people say that high poverty high schools in MCPS do not get significant extra funding based on their FARMS rates? Do you not like it when people tell you that no, you aren't God's gift to the world for giving a pittance of your wealth to the less fortunate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The equity add on is roughly in line across schools and is related to the number of FARMS kids. But I don’t know how they did the allocation (it likely adjusts for things other than FARMS).

I thought that at first, but I do not think that is accurate. First of all that amount is tiny to the point of being insulting if it is indeed the equity add on. Moreover, what is it being added to? The number they are adding it to is not the total funding for the school. You can't staff a high school on $300k.

This is not the total for the school. See the other document.

the fact you are still trying to say high poverty schools get any significant funding based on their FARMS rates is actually insulting at this point. Please stop.

What? Look I’m trying to tell you what the columns mean since clearly you or someone else is not interpreting it correctly. Read what is written versus assuming you are talking to a single person.

Let's get back on track to the fact that high poverty high schools do not get a ton of extra money based on their poverty rates. This table is not helpful. It doesn't matter what the columns mean because the amounts are miniscule.

DP. I don't know. If a school gets another $50K a year to buy more books, that seems helpful.

But $50k is not the difference between high poverty and low poverty schools in that table. Why do you keep making stuff up?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

I bet you feel super generous when you give $1 to charity

Why don't you get some fresh air and take a break from DCUM for a while?

Oh do you not like it when people say that high poverty high schools in MCPS do not get significant extra funding based on their FARMS rates? Do you not like it when people tell you that no, you aren't God's gift to the world for giving a pittance of your wealth to the less fortunate?

One person one this thread said “high FARMS schools get more funding (as they should)” and you’ve strawmanned that into something else. What that poster said is true, as evidenced by data shown. Is it enough funding? Probably not. But you should step away from the computer for a minute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The equity add on is roughly in line across schools and is related to the number of FARMS kids. But I don’t know how they did the allocation (it likely adjusts for things other than FARMS).

I thought that at first, but I do not think that is accurate. First of all that amount is tiny to the point of being insulting if it is indeed the equity add on. Moreover, what is it being added to? The number they are adding it to is not the total funding for the school. You can't staff a high school on $300k.

This is not the total for the school. See the other document.

the fact you are still trying to say high poverty schools get any significant funding based on their FARMS rates is actually insulting at this point. Please stop.

What? Look I’m trying to tell you what the columns mean since clearly you or someone else is not interpreting it correctly. Read what is written versus assuming you are talking to a single person.

Let's get back on track to the fact that high poverty high schools do not get a ton of extra money based on their poverty rates. This table is not helpful. It doesn't matter what the columns mean because the amounts are miniscule.

DP. I don't know. If a school gets another $50K a year to buy more books, that seems helpful.

But $50k is not the difference between high poverty and low poverty schools in that table. Why do you keep making stuff up?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

I bet you feel super generous when you give $1 to charity

Why don't you get some fresh air and take a break from DCUM for a while?

Oh do you not like it when people say that high poverty high schools in MCPS do not get significant extra funding based on their FARMS rates? Do you not like it when people tell you that no, you aren't God's gift to the world for giving a pittance of your wealth to the less fortunate?

One person one this thread said “high FARMS schools get more funding (as they should)” and you’ve strawmanned that into something else. What that poster said is true, as evidenced by data shown. Is it enough funding? Probably not. But you should step away from the computer for a minute.

No, it hasn't been shown to be accurate. This is one tiny line item in a massive budget. There are other factors that greatly outweigh this "equity allocation",.like the experience differential between the teachers in high income and low income schools. I would guess the low income schools do get more funding per pupil overall than the high income schools, but not because of their FARMS rates. It is funding for EML and special education.

The fact that instead of saying "whoops, these numbers are not really that big" folks are digging into this notion that low income schools get any significant funding to address poverty (nevermind racism) speaks volumes about how much y'all are invested in making sure MCPS stays as inequitable as possible. Someone who wants equity would not look at these numbers and say "See! They do get extra funding!!"

[Anonymous]

Sigh. Useless to argue when you are lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. Useless to argue when you are lying.[/quote
Lying about what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The equity add on is roughly in line across schools and is related to the number of FARMS kids. But I don’t know how they did the allocation (it likely adjusts for things other than FARMS).

I thought that at first, but I do not think that is accurate. First of all that amount is tiny to the point of being insulting if it is indeed the equity add on. Moreover, what is it being added to? The number they are adding it to is not the total funding for the school. You can't staff a high school on $300k.

This is not the total for the school. See the other document.

the fact you are still trying to say high poverty schools get any significant funding based on their FARMS rates is actually insulting at this point. Please stop.

What? Look I’m trying to tell you what the columns mean since clearly you or someone else is not interpreting it correctly. Read what is written versus assuming you are talking to a single person.

Let's get back on track to the fact that high poverty high schools do not get a ton of extra money based on their poverty rates. This table is not helpful. It doesn't matter what the columns mean because the amounts are miniscule.

DP. I don't know. If a school gets another $50K a year to buy more books, that seems helpful.

But $50k is not the difference between high poverty and low poverty schools in that table. Why do you keep making stuff up?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

I bet you feel super generous when you give $1 to charity

I feel better when I don’t demand super niche classes that predominately benefit the UMC in my school and take away resources from the majority of kids with fewer resources.

There is no way you can be at one of these schools which is why you say this non-sense. All students deserve to get their needs met. Having more challenging classes doesn't take away from kids with fewer resources, are there are classes available to meet their needs. You clearly don't have a clue whats going on.

[Anonymous]

$50K can bring back the online tutoring services for students and that can cover a lot of tutoring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to hear what deranged level of course offerings should be offered at every school.

How about offering the same exact classes at all schools. You are ok with this because your kids have access. You bash other parents whose kids don’t have access why? You are the problem.

I think your child’s needs should be met, but I don’t think you are being realistic or reasonable in thinking you can buy a home in an under resourced school pyramid and expect that your outlier child, who is not a family on FARMS or an EML student, should get bespoke treatment/allocation of school resources when the majority of your school needs different classes and remediation. I think mcps should provide you transportation to mc or to a nearby high school so you can access those classes they can’t provide at yours. I don’t think your under resourced over crowded school should have to cater to a very small subset.

I think that's a mis-reading of the student population at these high FARMS schools. It's not like 90% are below grade level. There's a substantial cohort of able learners, and they should be able to have their needs met at their home school.

Honestly, this is perhaps a topic for another thread, but the simplest way to do that IMO is less about super-advanced AP or post-AP classes, but to go back to cohorted Grade 9-10 English and Social Studies classes so that teachers aren't scrambling trying to teach to such a wide range of abilities in one classroom, an approach that I don't think helps students at any level.

Yes - DCC parent here who wants MCPS to eliminate all these special programs and focus on: same course offerings in each school; cohorted by ability. There is a decent sized chunk of high performing kids in my zoned high school but special programs incentivize them to leave whereas cohorts would incentivize them to stay with their similarly academically-abled friends they’ve grown up with. Why can’t we do this? I don’t care if there’s only one AP Calculus class in my school and four of them in Whitman as long as any kids in my school who qualify to take AP Calculus can do so without having to take a 45 minute bus ride each way.

I agree with this. I think the problem starts with CES and continues all the way up.

DP and another DCC parent: I could not agree more. Enough already.

Just getting rid of the special programs is not going to convince MCPS to cohort classes locally, though... there is a lot of internal opposition to that-- it's not just about lack of resources or adequately-sized cohorts. Instead, there needs to be advocacy specifically focused on offering advanced classes in all subjects, starting in middle school.

The problem is that having multiple levels generally makes racial and SES disparities more visible, and addressing those disparities the right way is hard. Just putting everyone in the same level classes is much easier, so MCPS prefers to do it that way.

When you say internal opposition to cohorting, is that from teachers, parents, or MCPS CO staff?

MCPS CO staff. And I think some principals as well (not sure how much of that is for philosophical reasons and how much of it is just that it makes logistics and staffing easier )

I mean, I get it, there are indeed big disparities. But they seem to just ignore that the districts that have done a good job with honors-for-all type approaches are ones that actually keep the classes honors/advanced but provide intensive support to lower -level kids to help them succeed in those difficult classes (and supports to teachers to make it easier to work with students at different levels, like smaller class sizes, extra staff in the classroom to help, more planning time, etc.) if they want to do that, great. But if they don't, then the classes are almost inevitably going to get watered down and not serve the needs of anyone very well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$50K can bring back the online tutoring services for students and that can cover a lot of tutoring.

Oh which low income school is getting an extra $50k for this?