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:

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.

DP, and what if in some cases it’s simply lack of natural talent that shows up through chronic absenteeism? That is, kids who are incapable of working at the grade level. It’s certainly true that there are rich kids without natural talent (plenty of failsons) but what are we doing to identify disparities within groups and educating accordingly? Some kids are smarter and naturally more motivated than others and we should be tracking kids accordingly. To assume we can make all kids capable if we only have the will and resources is fool’s gold. It’s the sort of pathetic ideology that is never questioned and anyone who says otherwise is deemed a bigot. It’s like saying if you only had the will and money, anyone could be an NBA player - ignoring the natural talents each of us are given. By the way, note I said disparities within groups and not by race. That was intentional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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/

Equity Add-On Model estimate

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G1kFSf9VoYkHUiGqqKYKW-lVPhLd0Rjf/view

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/fy2026/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

Equity Add-On Model estimate

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G1kFSf9VoYkHUiGqqKYKW-lVPhLd0Rjf/view

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/fy2026/

Thanks for sharing this tiny line item that shows Einstein got $15k more than BCC. Problem solved.

[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?

DP

They are conflating elementary schools with high schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

Equity Add-On Model estimate

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G1kFSf9VoYkHUiGqqKYKW-lVPhLd0Rjf/view

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/fy2026/

Thanks for sharing this tiny line item that shows Einstein got $15k more than BCC. Problem solved.

And no it's not $15k per pupil more. It's $15k total.

Everyone relax, economic and racial inequities in MCPS have been solved!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

Equity Add-On Model estimate

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G1kFSf9VoYkHUiGqqKYKW-lVPhLd0Rjf/view

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/fy2026/

Thanks for sharing this tiny line item that shows Einstein got $15k more than BCC. Problem solved.

And no it's not $15k per pupil more. It's $15k total.

Everyone relax, economic and racial inequities in MCPS have been solved!

Who is claiming that racial and economic inequities are solved with this equity add-on?

And it looks like it is the same (small) amount for both schools per FARMS kid.

[Anonymous]

What amount would solve racial and economic disparities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

Equity Add-On Model estimate

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G1kFSf9VoYkHUiGqqKYKW-lVPhLd0Rjf/view

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/fy2026/

Thanks for sharing this tiny line item that shows Einstein got $15k more than BCC. Problem solved.

And no it's not $15k per pupil more. It's $15k total.

Everyone relax, economic and racial inequities in MCPS have been solved!

Who is claiming that racial and economic inequities are solved with this equity add-on?

And it looks like it is the same (small) amount for both schools per FARMS kid.

Well folks seem really fixated on these tiny amounts and aren't even looking at the total per pupil amount for each school, or the other needs of the populations besides poverty (EML and special ed) so I am just not sure what folks are trying to prove to themselves by repeatedly sharing these documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What amount would solve racial and economic disparities?

For poverty specifically (not race which is an additional factor, also not EML or special ed which are also separate factors), here is what AI says since you couldn't bother to do even the most basic search:

Schools should spend significantly more on low-income students, as studies show that a funding increase of 20-22% can eliminate the achievement gap, while a 10% increase can raise graduation rates and adult wages for these students. Some research suggests that students with higher needs should receive 100% to 200% more funding than their more affluent peers to address opportunity gaps, which is much more than what is currently provided.
Evidence for increased spending
Eliminating the achievement gap: A 21.7% increase in per-pupil spending for low-income children could close the attainment gap between them and their wealthier peers.
Increased graduation rates: A 10% increase in per-pupil spending over 12 years can lead to a 7% rise in high school graduation rates for all students, and about a 10% increase for low-income children.
Higher adult wages: Students who received a 10% increase in funding also saw about a 9.6% increase in adult hourly wages and a 6.1% reduction in adult poverty.
Greater impact on low-income students: The positive effects of increased spending are magnified for students from low-income backgrounds. A 10% increase in funding was associated with a 10% increase in their high school graduation rates and a 13% increase in wages at age 40.

[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.

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.

DP, and what if in some cases it’s simply lack of natural talent that shows up through chronic absenteeism? That is, kids who are incapable of working at the grade level. It’s certainly true that there are rich kids without natural talent (plenty of failsons) but what are we doing to identify disparities within groups and educating accordingly? Some kids are smarter and naturally more motivated than others and we should be tracking kids accordingly. To assume we can make all kids capable if we only have the will and resources is fool’s gold. It’s the sort of pathetic ideology that is never questioned and anyone who says otherwise is deemed a bigot. It’s like saying if you only had the will and money, anyone could be an NBA player - ignoring the natural talents each of us are given. By the way, note I said disparities within groups and not by race. That was intentional.

That’s rich…pay to play.

[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.

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.

We don’t even try to fix it. You are not a liberal. Parents want their kids to do well but if you aren’t educated it’s hard to know what your kids need and access help. Most schools and staff go out of their way not to help, speaking from experience except for the rare teacher who goes above and beyond. Your way is racist, and horrible. Should we kick the not smart kids out of the w schools and tell them to do a trade?

[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.

That’s not enough money to do much of anything.

[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.

That’s not enough money to do much of anything.

I mean per pupil it is. Too bad MCPS doesn't do this at the high school level or at most middle schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

Equity Add-On Model estimate

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G1kFSf9VoYkHUiGqqKYKW-lVPhLd0Rjf/view

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/fy2026/

Thanks for sharing this tiny line item that shows Einstein got $15k more than BCC. Problem solved.

And no it's not $15k per pupil more. It's $15k total.

Everyone relax, economic and racial inequities in MCPS have been solved!

Who is claiming that racial and economic inequities are solved with this equity add-on?

And it looks like it is the same (small) amount for both schools per FARMS kid.

Well folks seem really fixated on these tiny amounts and aren't even looking at the total per pupil amount for each school, or the other needs of the populations besides poverty (EML and special ed) so I am just not sure what folks are trying to prove to themselves by repeatedly sharing these documents.

I thought originally it was that Taylor had said there was an adjustment for FARMS, etc, and someone asked what that was. And it was this “equity add-on” thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

Equity Add-On Model estimate

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G1kFSf9VoYkHUiGqqKYKW-lVPhLd0Rjf/view

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/fy2026/

Thanks for sharing this tiny line item that shows Einstein got $15k more than BCC. Problem solved.

And no it's not $15k per pupil more. It's $15k total.

Everyone relax, economic and racial inequities in MCPS have been solved!

Who is claiming that racial and economic inequities are solved with this equity add-on?

And it looks like it is the same (small) amount for both schools per FARMS kid.

Well folks seem really fixated on these tiny amounts and aren't even looking at the total per pupil amount for each school, or the other needs of the populations besides poverty (EML and special ed) so I am just not sure what folks are trying to prove to themselves by repeatedly sharing these documents.

I thought originally it was that Taylor had said there was an adjustment for FARMS, etc, and someone asked what that was. And it was this “equity add-on” thing. [/quote
Yeah, you already said that the first time you shared these. Thank you for your help!