Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to provide evidence that contradicts the previous posters who claim that FARMS performance does not depend on where they go to school. I also did a ‘quick glance’ at the PARCC scores and here is what I found, verify for yourself:

2017 PARCC Results - English Grade 5 – Met Expectations
http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/

Non-FARMS FARMS TOTAL
Richie Park 65.5 34.8 57.1
Beall 58.4 39.1 49.1
College Gardens 52.3 38.9 50.7
Twinbrook 38.4 27.3 31.4

From this is becomes apparent that FARMS students have a poorer performance when they are located in a high FARMS school (Twinbrook). In addition, Non-FARMS students do significantly worse when in a high FARMS school.

This is insufficient data to draw a correlation--let alone causation. The sampling size is too small to run a t-test to determine whether the difference is significant. Moreover, it is not possible to isolate other variables out of the equation.

DP. However, it is enough to say that it's not true that the FARMS students at Ritchie Park, Beall,and College Gardens score the same as the FARMS students at Twinbrook.

How do FARM students at the other schools compare against Twinbrook as a whole (which is majority low income)? I don't see much of a difference.

You don't see much of a difference between 27% of FARM students being proficient and 39% of FARM students being proficient? I think that's a meaningful difference.

I also think it's interesting that, of the three schools that aren't Twinbrook, FARM students did the worst at the most affluent one (Ritchie Park).

I didn't say I don't see a difference. I said that I cannot conclude from the limited data that FARMs concentration leads to lower performance. The data set is too small, and there are a LOT of other variables. Do you even understand how statistical hypotheses testing works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to provide evidence that contradicts the previous posters who claim that FARMS performance does not depend on where they go to school. I also did a ‘quick glance’ at the PARCC scores and here is what I found, verify for yourself:

2017 PARCC Results - English Grade 5 – Met Expectations
http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/

Non-FARMS FARMS TOTAL
Richie Park 65.5 34.8 57.1
Beall 58.4 39.1 49.1
College Gardens 52.3 38.9 50.7
Twinbrook 38.4 27.3 31.4

From this is becomes apparent that FARMS students have a poorer performance when they are located in a high FARMS school (Twinbrook). In addition, Non-FARMS students do significantly worse when in a high FARMS school.

This is insufficient data to draw a correlation--let alone causation. The sampling size is too small to run a t-test to determine whether the difference is significant. Moreover, it is not possible to isolate other variables out of the equation.

DP. However, it is enough to say that it's not true that the FARMS students at Ritchie Park, Beall,and College Gardens score the same as the FARMS students at Twinbrook.

How do FARM students at the other schools compare against Twinbrook as a whole (which is majority low income)? I don't see much of a difference.

You don't see much of a difference between 27% of FARM students being proficient and 39% of FARM students being proficient? I think that's a meaningful difference.

I also think it's interesting that, of the three schools that aren't Twinbrook, FARM students did the worst at the most affluent one (Ritchie Park).

That's just 1 subject for 1 grade. Look at 3rd and 4th grade English, College Gardens FARM students are in the single digits for meeting/exceeding proficiency (lower than Twinbrook)

[Anonymous]

PP is the guy in this meme:

[Anonymous]

You will care when you have professional high earning income young families who over the last few years bought homes in this cluster and fixed them up, to start to move out. It will have a domino effect.
The whole revamping of Rockville Pike and all the new business opening up. You think they want these families in the area to move away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Study of Montgomery County schools shows benefits of economic integration

Low-income students in Montgomery County performed better when they attended affluent elementary schools instead of ones with higher concentrations of poverty according to a new study that suggests economic integration is a powerful but neglected school-reform tool.

....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407577.html

-------------------------

MCPS knows about it and now knowingly want to put all high poverty kids in one school? Beall and RP had equal distribution of farm kids. Why not create balanced schools to make Beall, RP and RM#5 balanced? Why create a situation where RP/Beall is reducing to 10-17% from 25% and at the same time RM#5 starts with 53%? Poor kids moving from Beall/RP to RM#5 is getting bad deal.

You must be the same person. You are SO annoying! If MCPS cared so much about FARMS over proximity, they would redo all the boundaries from Chevy Chase to Damascus. They would have redone the boundaries for Twinbrook years ago (funny how Beall, RP or CG residents didn't care before)

For one study you post about it makes a difference, there are the same that says it doesn't. The FARMS kids at the other 3 cluster schools do just as poorly as Twinbrook FARMS kids. It doesn't matter where they go to school.

The only ones complaining are a small group of the 58% non FARMS going to the new school.

On what basis are you making your claim. There are innumerable studies that note that the number of children in poverty in a school is more predictive of achievement than individual effects of poverty. I'm in this field of research. I know it well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You must be the same person. You are SO annoying! If MCPS cared so much about FARMS over proximity, they would redo all the boundaries from Chevy Chase to Damascus. They would have redone the boundaries for Twinbrook years ago (funny how Beall, RP or CG residents didn't care before)

For one study you post about it makes a difference, there are the same that says it doesn't. The FARMS kids at the other 3 cluster schools do just as poorly as Twinbrook FARMS kids. It doesn't matter where they go to school.

The only ones complaining are a small group of the 58% non FARMS going to the new school.

Post the link here. Every study says that putting poor kids in higher poverty school will make their performance worse. You are dismissing cited study earlier and then at least provide some study link which disapproves it.

MCPS has stated goal for diversity. If they are intentionally not doing it then they should be called out. Why do you find it annoying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to provide evidence that contradicts the previous posters who claim that FARMS performance does not depend on where they go to school. I also did a ‘quick glance’ at the PARCC scores and here is what I found, verify for yourself:

2017 PARCC Results - English Grade 5 – Met Expectations
http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/

Non-FARMS FARMS TOTAL
Richie Park 65.5 34.8 57.1
Beall 58.4 39.1 49.1
College Gardens 52.3 38.9 50.7
Twinbrook 38.4 27.3 31.4

From this is becomes apparent that FARMS students have a poorer performance when they are located in a high FARMS school (Twinbrook). In addition, Non-FARMS students do significantly worse when in a high FARMS school.

This is insufficient data to draw a correlation--let alone causation. The sampling size is too small to run a t-test to determine whether the difference is significant. Moreover, it is not possible to isolate other variables out of the equation.

DP. However, it is enough to say that it's not true that the FARMS students at Ritchie Park, Beall,and College Gardens score the same as the FARMS students at Twinbrook.

How do FARM students at the other schools compare against Twinbrook as a whole (which is majority low income)? I don't see much of a difference.

You don't see much of a difference between 27% of FARM students being proficient and 39% of FARM students being proficient? I think that's a meaningful difference.

I also think it's interesting that, of the three schools that aren't Twinbrook, FARM students did the worst at the most affluent one (Ritchie Park).

I didn't say I don't see a difference. I said that I cannot conclude from the limited data that FARMs concentration leads to lower performance. The data set is too small, and there are a LOT of other variables. Do you even understand how statistical hypotheses testing works?

This is from the National Reading Panel's final product "Preventing Reading Difficulties." I was a party to these disscusions then...

"In principle, low SES could potentially carry risk for reading difficulty for an individual child and for entire groups of children. That is, low SES is an individual risk factor to the extent that among children attending the same schools, youngsters from low-income families are more likely to become poorer readers than those from high-income families. Low SES is also a group risk factor because children from low-income communities are likely to become poorer readers than children from more affluent communities. Because the former are more likely to attend substandard schools, the correlation between SES and low achievement is probably mediated, in large part, by differences in the quality of school experiences. It is thus not very surprising that the strength of the correlation between SES and achievement is stronger when the unit of analysis is the school than when the unit of analysis is the individual child (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992, on multilevel measures of school effects).
When the average SES of a school (or district) and the average achievement level of the students attending that school are obtained for a large sample of schools, a correlation between SES and achievement can be calculated using the school as the unit of analysis. In a meta-analytic review of the findings for 93 such samples, White (1982) found that the average size of the correlation was .68, which is substantial and dovetails with the conclusion of the section below that attending a substandard school (which is usually one whose students tend to be low in both SES and achievement) constitutes a risk factor for the entire group of children in that school."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are innumerable studies that note that the number of children in poverty in a school is more predictive of achievement than individual effects of poverty. I'm in this field of research. I know it well.

Bold part is true and that's why it's best to not have a concentration of high poverty kids in one school.

[Anonymous]

This is from the National Reading Panel's final product "Preventing Reading Difficulties." I was a party to these disscusions then...

"In principle, low SES could potentially carry risk for reading difficulty for an individual child and for entire groups of children. That is, low SES is an individual risk factor to the extent that among children attending the same schools, youngsters from low-income families are more likely to become poorer readers than those from high-income families. Low SES is also a group risk factor because children from low-income communities are likely to become poorer readers than children from more affluent communities. Because the former are more likely to attend substandard schools, the correlation between SES and low achievement is probably mediated, in large part, by differences in the quality of school experiences. It is thus not very surprising that the strength of the correlation between SES and achievement is stronger when the unit of analysis is the school than when the unit of analysis is the individual child (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992, on multilevel measures of school effects).
When the average SES of a school (or district) and the average achievement level of the students attending that school are obtained for a large sample of schools, a correlation between SES and achievement can be calculated using the school as the unit of analysis. In a meta-analytic review of the findings for 93 such samples, White (1982) found that the average size of the correlation was .68, which is substantial and dovetails with the conclusion of the section below that attending a substandard school (which is usually one whose students tend to be low in both SES and achievement) constitutes a risk factor for the entire group of children in that school."
The following paragraph is critical... " "When achievement scores and SES are measured individually for all children in a large sample, however, the strength of the association between SES and achievement is far lower. In White's (1982) meta-analysis, for instance, the average correlation between reading achievement and SES across 174 such samples was .23. Similarly, the correlation was .22 in a sample of 1,459 9-year-old students whose scores were obtained through the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) evaluations (Walberg and Tsai, 1985). In other words, within a given school or district, or across many districts within a country, SES differences among children are relatively weak predictors of achievement. Thus, all else being equal, coming from a family of low SES (defined according to income, education, and occupation of the parents) does not by itself greatly increase a child's risk for having difficulty in learning to read after school income level has been accounted for."

[Anonymous]

I guess my question is, why is that part of Rockville poor compared to north of it?

[Anonymous]

Doesn’t B5 include Rockville Town Square?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is from the National Reading Panel's final product "Preventing Reading Difficulties." I was a party to these disscusions then...

"In principle, low SES could potentially carry risk for reading difficulty for an individual child and for entire groups of children. That is, low SES is an individual risk factor to the extent that among children attending the same schools, youngsters from low-income families are more likely to become poorer readers than those from high-income families. Low SES is also a group risk factor because children from low-income communities are likely to become poorer readers than children from more affluent communities. Because the former are more likely to attend substandard schools, the correlation between SES and low achievement is probably mediated, in large part, by differences in the quality of school experiences. It is thus not very surprising that the strength of the correlation between SES and achievement is stronger when the unit of analysis is the school than when the unit of analysis is the individual child (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992, on multilevel measures of school effects).
When the average SES of a school (or district) and the average achievement level of the students attending that school are obtained for a large sample of schools, a correlation between SES and achievement can be calculated using the school as the unit of analysis. In a meta-analytic review of the findings for 93 such samples, White (1982) found that the average size of the correlation was .68, which is substantial and dovetails with the conclusion of the section below that attending a substandard school (which is usually one whose students tend to be low in both SES and achievement) constitutes a risk factor for the entire group of children in that school."

The following paragraph is critical... " "When achievement scores and SES are measured individually for all children in a large sample, however, the strength of the association between SES and achievement is far lower. In White's (1982) meta-analysis, for instance, the average correlation between reading achievement and SES across 174 such samples was .23. Similarly, the correlation was .22 in a sample of 1,459 9-year-old students whose scores were obtained through the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) evaluations (Walberg and Tsai, 1985). In other words, within a given school or district, or across many districts within a country, SES differences among children are relatively weak predictors of achievement. Thus, all else being equal, coming from a family of low SES (defined according to income, education, and occupation of the parents) does not by itself greatly increase a child's risk for having difficulty in learning to read after school income level has been accounted for."

The references this study cited were from 1992 and 1982. The demography has been changed in the US. Especially in mcps. No more majority in student population. Soone the hispanic population will surpass the whit population and becomes the largest minority group. What I heard is that VMES wants to keep its title one school status and wants more service in Spamish. The new school? It has no voice in thr study group so what ever makes other school happy and mcps happy will pass.

[Anonymous]

MCPS has been through their very public process, all had an opportunity to comment, and MCPS made a decision. All this bickering is like Monday morning quarterbacking: IRRELEVANT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has been through their very public process, all had an opportunity to comment, and MCPS made a decision. All this bickering is like Monday morning quarterbacking: IRRELEVANT.

MCPS made a recommendation. The BoE has not yet decided.

(Though I agree that it's likely that the BoE will accept the superintendent's recommendation.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is from the National Reading Panel's final product "Preventing Reading Difficulties." I was a party to these disscusions then...

"In principle, low SES could potentially carry risk for reading difficulty for an individual child and for entire groups of children. That is, low SES is an individual risk factor to the extent that among children attending the same schools, youngsters from low-income families are more likely to become poorer readers than those from high-income families. Low SES is also a group risk factor because children from low-income communities are likely to become poorer readers than children from more affluent communities. Because the former are more likely to attend substandard schools, the correlation between SES and low achievement is probably mediated, in large part, by differences in the quality of school experiences. It is thus not very surprising that the strength of the correlation between SES and achievement is stronger when the unit of analysis is the school than when the unit of analysis is the individual child (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992, on multilevel measures of school effects).
When the average SES of a school (or district) and the average achievement level of the students attending that school are obtained for a large sample of schools, a correlation between SES and achievement can be calculated using the school as the unit of analysis. In a meta-analytic review of the findings for 93 such samples, White (1982) found that the average size of the correlation was .68, which is substantial and dovetails with the conclusion of the section below that attending a substandard school (which is usually one whose students tend to be low in both SES and achievement) constitutes a risk factor for the entire group of children in that school."

The following paragraph is critical... " "When achievement scores and SES are measured individually for all children in a large sample, however, the strength of the association between SES and achievement is far lower. In White's (1982) meta-analysis, for instance, the average correlation between reading achievement and SES across 174 such samples was .23. Similarly, the correlation was .22 in a sample of 1,459 9-year-old students whose scores were obtained through the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) evaluations (Walberg and Tsai, 1985). In other words, within a given school or district, or across many districts within a country, SES differences among children are relatively weak predictors of achievement. Thus, all else being equal, coming from a family of low SES (defined according to income, education, and occupation of the parents) does not by itself greatly increase a child's risk for having difficulty in learning to read after school income level has been accounted for."

This logic seems circular. Are the kids performing poorly because the school is substandard (in terms of curriculum, resources, etc) - or is the school considered substandard because kids are performing poorly (which could be attributed to a number of other factors unrelated to the school)? Montgomery County elementary schools pretty much have the same curriculum, and the high FARMS schools generally get more resources, which would lead me to believe that poor student performance in Montgomery County at least is less related to the "quality" of the individual school vs factors related to the students themselves. What evidence is there that, a high SES student would perform any worse at Twinbrook vs Beall for instance. In fact, that student may benefit more at Twinbrook with things like smaller class sizes.