Why do parents from high FARMS school

[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

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.

The disconnect is that PP thinks all kids from families with lower income are the same and think they are all better off doing vocational programs. PP also seems to think most kids in rich neighborhoods are above grade level 🤣

[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

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.

The disconnect is that PP thinks all kids from families with lower income are the same and think they are all better off doing vocational programs. PP also seems to think most kids in rich neighborhoods are above grade level 🤣

They want them to be their nanny, housekeeper, yard person, car repair, hvac and plumbing, etc....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

None, that's the point. They offered it during covid.

[Anonymous]

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.

NP. MCPS has stated on numerous occasions that spends $3000-$4000 more per student per year in high poverty schools vs wealthier schools.

[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:

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!!"

You've been propagandized.

[Anonymous]

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.

NP. MCPS has stated on numerous occasions that spends $3000-$4000 more per student per year in high poverty schools vs wealthier schools.

Nope, no way, definitely not at high schools. Where do you see this money in the funding fonrulas/staffing allocations?

[Anonymous]

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.

NP. MCPS has stated on numerous occasions that spends $3000-$4000 more per student per year in high poverty schools vs wealthier schools.

And, what exactly are they spending the money on given the low scores?

[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.

NP. MCPS has stated on numerous occasions that spends $3000-$4000 more per student per year in high poverty schools vs wealthier schools.

Nope, no way, definitely not at high schools. Where do you see this money in the funding fonrulas/staffing allocations?

I'm just telling you what they have published several times. Is you want to counter that with nothing more than nanna nanna boo boo, that's on you.

[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.

NP. MCPS has stated on numerous occasions that spends $3000-$4000 more per student per year in high poverty schools vs wealthier schools.

And, what exactly are they spending the money on given the low scores?

You're almost there so I'll take you the rest of the way in. There's almost no amount of money that will raise poor kids test scores, en masse, significantly. That's because poor culture eschews and even mocks education. I know because I was raised in that culture. The best we can do is throw as many lifelines to the poor kids who DO want to learn and get them into an environment where they can do just that. The rest should be all belit abandoned. Progressives will howl at this idea but it's the best way to help those who want to be helped without draining most of the school budget on the kids who don't want to learn.

[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.

NP. MCPS has stated on numerous occasions that spends $3000-$4000 more per student per year in high poverty schools vs wealthier schools.

And, what exactly are they spending the money on given the low scores?

You're almost there so I'll take you the rest of the way in. There's almost no amount of money that will raise poor kids test scores, en masse, significantly. That's because poor culture eschews and even mocks education. I know because I was raised in that culture. The best we can do is throw as many lifelines to the poor kids who DO want to learn and get them into an environment where they can do just that. The rest should be all belit abandoned. Progressives will howl at this idea but it's the best way to help those who want to be helped without draining most of the school budget on the kids who don't want to learn.

You are a hateful person. Kids are not poor, their parents may be, but that should not define a child or their outcome. Yes, money can help if they are more teachers, reading specialists, SLP's, ESOL, etc and they get evaluated for any learning disabilities and get help specific to those. Most parents want their kids to be successful but its hard when you are struggling and not educated yourself.

[Anonymous]

On the per pupil allocation question, PP is correct that this is not true at the HS level. The fluctuation at the HS level has very little to do with FARMS rates, and everything to do with kids with special needs. Schools that host programs for kids with special needs have a higher PPA, which makes perfect sense because it's an average. Some kids are costing $50K a year to educate, if not more, and it is pulling the average up for the entire school.

https://moderatelymoco.com/mcps-per-pupil-expenditure-by-each-high-school-2020-2022/

[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.

NP. MCPS has stated on numerous occasions that spends $3000-$4000 more per student per year in high poverty schools vs wealthier schools.

And, what exactly are they spending the money on given the low scores?

You're almost there so I'll take you the rest of the way in. There's almost no amount of money that will raise poor kids test scores, en masse, significantly. That's because poor culture eschews and even mocks education. I know because I was raised in that culture. The best we can do is throw as many lifelines to the poor kids who DO want to learn and get them into an environment where they can do just that. The rest should be all belit abandoned. Progressives will howl at this idea but it's the best way to help those who want to be helped without draining most of the school budget on the kids who don't want to learn.

You are a hateful person. Kids are not poor, their parents may be, but that should not define a child or their outcome. Yes, money can help if they are more teachers, reading specialists, SLP's, ESOL, etc and they get evaluated for any learning disabilities and get help specific to those. Most parents want their kids to be successful but its hard when you are struggling and not educated yourself.

DP +1

Also, “poor culture” is not a monolith. But yes, let’s abandon the *children* who “don’t want to learn” rather than figure out ways to support them.

[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.

NP. MCPS has stated on numerous occasions that spends $3000-$4000 more per student per year in high poverty schools vs wealthier schools.

And, what exactly are they spending the money on given the low scores?

You're almost there so I'll take you the rest of the way in. There's almost no amount of money that will raise poor kids test scores, en masse, significantly. That's because poor culture eschews and even mocks education. I know because I was raised in that culture. The best we can do is throw as many lifelines to the poor kids who DO want to learn and get them into an environment where they can do just that. The rest should be all belit abandoned. Progressives will howl at this idea but it's the best way to help those who want to be helped without draining most of the school budget on the kids who don't want to learn.

You are a hateful person. Kids are not poor, their parents may be, but that should not define a child or their outcome. Yes, money can help if they are more teachers, reading specialists, SLP's, ESOL, etc and they get evaluated for any learning disabilities and get help specific to those. Most parents want their kids to be successful but its hard when you are struggling and not educated yourself.

I'm a liberal and a realist which is what it takes to tackle difficult problems I've actually experienced. You're a progressive who hasn't been poor so you fantasize what that culture is like and can only make emotionally unregulated assumptions about what it would take to fix the problems there. With my way, we help a lot of kids who want help. With your way, everyone gets dragged downward.

[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.

NP. MCPS has stated on numerous occasions that spends $3000-$4000 more per student per year in high poverty schools vs wealthier schools.

And, what exactly are they spending the money on given the low scores?

You're almost there so I'll take you the rest of the way in. There's almost no amount of money that will raise poor kids test scores, en masse, significantly. That's because poor culture eschews and even mocks education. I know because I was raised in that culture. The best we can do is throw as many lifelines to the poor kids who DO want to learn and get them into an environment where they can do just that. The rest should be all belit abandoned. Progressives will howl at this idea but it's the best way to help those who want to be helped without draining most of the school budget on the kids who don't want to learn.

You are a hateful person. Kids are not poor, their parents may be, but that should not define a child or their outcome. Yes, money can help if they are more teachers, reading specialists, SLP's, ESOL, etc and they get evaluated for any learning disabilities and get help specific to those. Most parents want their kids to be successful but its hard when you are struggling and not educated yourself.

DP +1

Also, “poor culture” is not a monolith. But yes, let’s abandon the *children* who “don’t want to learn” rather than figure out ways to support them.

There are themes that run through many poor cultures and avoiding education is one of them. And we've been trying to "figure out ways to support them" for decades and the results are only getting worse.

[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.

NP. MCPS has stated on numerous occasions that spends $3000-$4000 more per student per year in high poverty schools vs wealthier schools.

And, what exactly are they spending the money on given the low scores?

You're almost there so I'll take you the rest of the way in. There's almost no amount of money that will raise poor kids test scores, en masse, significantly. That's because poor culture eschews and even mocks education. I know because I was raised in that culture. The best we can do is throw as many lifelines to the poor kids who DO want to learn and get them into an environment where they can do just that. The rest should be all belit abandoned. Progressives will howl at this idea but it's the best way to help those who want to be helped without draining most of the school budget on the kids who don't want to learn.

You are a hateful person. Kids are not poor, their parents may be, but that should not define a child or their outcome. Yes, money can help if they are more teachers, reading specialists, SLP's, ESOL, etc and they get evaluated for any learning disabilities and get help specific to those. Most parents want their kids to be successful but its hard when you are struggling and not educated yourself.

DP +1

Also, “poor culture” is not a monolith. But yes, let’s abandon the *children* who “don’t want to learn” rather than figure out ways to support them.

There are themes that run through many poor cultures and avoiding education is one of them. And we've been trying to "figure out ways to support them" for decades and the results are only getting worse.

26% chronic absenteeism says this is correct. All the bussing and special programming in the word doesn't matter if kids aren't even showing up.