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: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.

The lost I saw a couple years ago was a lost of high schools so they are doing it in high schools.

What list? There are no Title 1 or focus high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid attends a high farms school. All of her friends have part time jobs and/or helping their families with child care. Driving to another school everyday is vastly different than driving to a close part time job on weekends and maybe a couple days during the week.
On a separate note: there needs to be a gpa restriction or prerequisite to entering an AP class. It did not serve my kid well to have low performing kids in her classes. As a result, the instruction slowed down significantly resulting in not all lessons being covered.

It's not about your kid. It's about all kids. Move to a W school if you don't like other kids in your kids classes.

Huh? PP needs to move because she wants her school to enforce the Advanced Placement in APs? What if the W school she moves to also allows kids who don't qualify into those classes?

That's been the suggestion to the rest of us is to move. She doesn't want her kids with kids she considers less than so her option is to risk losing AP classes or deal with it or move.

You are not making sense.

[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.

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.

The lost I saw a couple years ago was a lost of high schools so they are doing it in high schools.

What list? There are no Title 1 or focus high schools.

It was a list of expenditure per student per high 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.

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.

The lost I saw a couple years ago was a lost of high schools so they are doing it in high schools.

What list? There are no Title 1 or focus high schools.

It was a list of expenditure per student per high school.

I found it. It was an article on Moderately MoCo from 2023 (I think) that used state data. It says what I said it says which is schools (yes, high schools) populated by poorer students get thousands of dollars more per student per year. So can you end the charade (lie) that poor schools are underfunded compared with 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: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.

The lost I saw a couple years ago was a lost of high schools so they are doing it in high schools.

What list? There are no Title 1 or focus high schools.

It was a list of expenditure per student per high school.

I found it. It was an article on Moderately MoCo from 2023 (I think) that used state data. It says what I said it says which is schools (yes, high schools) populated by poorer students get thousands of dollars more per student per year. So can you end the charade (lie) that poor schools are underfunded compared with wealthier schools?

As I have said multiple times on this thread, these differences likely reflect funding for EML and special education, not for FARMS. Those are distinct needs from the issues associated with poverty.

[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.

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.

The lost I saw a couple years ago was a lost of high schools so they are doing it in high schools.

What list? There are no Title 1 or focus high schools.

It was a list of expenditure per student per high school.

I found it. It was an article on Moderately MoCo from 2023 (I think) that used state data. It says what I said it says which is schools (yes, high schools) populated by poorer students get thousands of dollars more per student per year. So can you end the charade (lie) that poor schools are underfunded compared with wealthier schools?

Can you post the link? I recall that article. From what I can remember, the difference in per pupil funding is attributable to the formula that gives more dollars per special Ed kid and (maybe) ELL. That makes the per pupil funding at poorer schools higher, in general.

[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.

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?

Liberal doesn't mean "most insane leftist." So yes, I'm liberal. But I'm also a realist. Claiming that "we don't even try to fix it" is laughably incorrect. We spend a fortune trying to educate our kids, many of whom don't want to be educated. Again. 26% of the kids in MCPS aren't showing up to school regularly. It's probably twice that in many east county schools. And why bring race into it? Those are your assumptions, not mine. Again, I grew up super poor and actually live that life and I'm white. And sure, we can kick kids out of the W schools if they are causing trouble as well.

Most kids want to be educated. Some of these kids have learning disabilities or didn't get the foundation early on to make them successful. If they didn't get what they needed early on they will never be successful later. Its easy when you are comfortable to make nasty coments but look at what's behind it. You have to look further at the root than just the high schools.

[Anonymous]

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


I am not PP. that’s what I could find.

[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.

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?

Liberal doesn't mean "most insane leftist." So yes, I'm liberal. But I'm also a realist. Claiming that "we don't even try to fix it" is laughably incorrect. We spend a fortune trying to educate our kids, many of whom don't want to be educated. Again. 26% of the kids in MCPS aren't showing up to school regularly. It's probably twice that in many east county schools. And why bring race into it? Those are your assumptions, not mine. Again, I grew up super poor and actually live that life and I'm white. And sure, we can kick kids out of the W schools if they are causing trouble as well.

Most kids want to be educated. Some of these kids have learning disabilities or didn't get the foundation early on to make them successful. If they didn't get what they needed early on they will never be successful later. Its easy when you are comfortable to make nasty coments but look at what's behind it. You have to look further at the root than just the high schools.

The numbers say otherwise. The chronic absenteeism rate is some easy county schools is darn near 50%. And as someone said earlier, this goes back many years so you can't blame it on Trump.

[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.

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?

Liberal doesn't mean "most insane leftist." So yes, I'm liberal. But I'm also a realist. Claiming that "we don't even try to fix it" is laughably incorrect. We spend a fortune trying to educate our kids, many of whom don't want to be educated. Again. 26% of the kids in MCPS aren't showing up to school regularly. It's probably twice that in many east county schools. And why bring race into it? Those are your assumptions, not mine. Again, I grew up super poor and actually live that life and I'm white. And sure, we can kick kids out of the W schools if they are causing trouble as well.

Most kids want to be educated. Some of these kids have learning disabilities or didn't get the foundation early on to make them successful. If they didn't get what they needed early on they will never be successful later. Its easy when you are comfortable to make nasty coments but look at what's behind it. You have to look further at the root than just the high schools.

p.s. I grew up super poor so I actually loved what we're talking about opposed to the UMC-born progressives who only fantasize about poverty.

[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:

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?

Liberal doesn't mean "most insane leftist." So yes, I'm liberal. But I'm also a realist. Claiming that "we don't even try to fix it" is laughably incorrect. We spend a fortune trying to educate our kids, many of whom don't want to be educated. Again. 26% of the kids in MCPS aren't showing up to school regularly. It's probably twice that in many east county schools. And why bring race into it? Those are your assumptions, not mine. Again, I grew up super poor and actually live that life and I'm white. And sure, we can kick kids out of the W schools if they are causing trouble as well.

Most kids want to be educated. Some of these kids have learning disabilities or didn't get the foundation early on to make them successful. If they didn't get what they needed early on they will never be successful later. Its easy when you are comfortable to make nasty coments but look at what's behind it. You have to look further at the root than just the high schools.

p.s. I grew up super poor so I actually loved what we're talking about opposed to the UMC-born progressives who only fantasize about poverty.

lived

Darn typo

[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:

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?

Liberal doesn't mean "most insane leftist." So yes, I'm liberal. But I'm also a realist. Claiming that "we don't even try to fix it" is laughably incorrect. We spend a fortune trying to educate our kids, many of whom don't want to be educated. Again. 26% of the kids in MCPS aren't showing up to school regularly. It's probably twice that in many east county schools. And why bring race into it? Those are your assumptions, not mine. Again, I grew up super poor and actually live that life and I'm white. And sure, we can kick kids out of the W schools if they are causing trouble as well.

Most kids want to be educated. Some of these kids have learning disabilities or didn't get the foundation early on to make them successful. If they didn't get what they needed early on they will never be successful later. Its easy when you are comfortable to make nasty coments but look at what's behind it. You have to look further at the root than just the high schools.

The numbers say otherwise. The chronic absenteeism rate is some easy county schools is darn near 50%. And as someone said earlier, this goes back many years so you can't blame it on Trump.

DP. I was interested to see if the stats varied that much by school, and found from the "Attendance" file here: https://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Graphs/#/DataDownloads/datadownload/3/17/6/99/XXXX/2025

Chronic absenteeism rates for 2025 school year (at least that is what it is labeled as. the stats were created in Sept. 2025 so I'm guessing this is 2024 data):
Einstein 41.4
Northwood 46.4
Blair 33.7
BCC 24.8
Whitman 18.5

[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:

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?

Liberal doesn't mean "most insane leftist." So yes, I'm liberal. But I'm also a realist. Claiming that "we don't even try to fix it" is laughably incorrect. We spend a fortune trying to educate our kids, many of whom don't want to be educated. Again. 26% of the kids in MCPS aren't showing up to school regularly. It's probably twice that in many east county schools. And why bring race into it? Those are your assumptions, not mine. Again, I grew up super poor and actually live that life and I'm white. And sure, we can kick kids out of the W schools if they are causing trouble as well.

Most kids want to be educated. Some of these kids have learning disabilities or didn't get the foundation early on to make them successful. If they didn't get what they needed early on they will never be successful later. Its easy when you are comfortable to make nasty coments but look at what's behind it. You have to look further at the root than just the high schools.

The numbers say otherwise. The chronic absenteeism rate is some easy county schools is darn near 50%. And as someone said earlier, this goes back many years so you can't blame it on Trump.

One has nothing to do with the other and you are entirely missing the point. You are right, this has nothing to do with Trump and it has to do with MCPS failing kids at the elementary 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:

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?

Liberal doesn't mean "most insane leftist." So yes, I'm liberal. But I'm also a realist. Claiming that "we don't even try to fix it" is laughably incorrect. We spend a fortune trying to educate our kids, many of whom don't want to be educated. Again. 26% of the kids in MCPS aren't showing up to school regularly. It's probably twice that in many east county schools. And why bring race into it? Those are your assumptions, not mine. Again, I grew up super poor and actually live that life and I'm white. And sure, we can kick kids out of the W schools if they are causing trouble as well.

Most kids want to be educated. Some of these kids have learning disabilities or didn't get the foundation early on to make them successful. If they didn't get what they needed early on they will never be successful later. Its easy when you are comfortable to make nasty coments but look at what's behind it. You have to look further at the root than just the high schools.

The numbers say otherwise. The chronic absenteeism rate is some easy county schools is darn near 50%. And as someone said earlier, this goes back many years so you can't blame it on Trump.

DP. I was interested to see if the stats varied that much by school, and found from the "Attendance" file here: https://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Graphs/#/DataDownloads/datadownload/3/17/6/99/XXXX/2025

Chronic absenteeism rates for 2025 school year (at least that is what it is labeled as. the stats were created in Sept. 2025 so I'm guessing this is 2024 data):
Einstein 41.4
Northwood 46.4
Blair 33.7
BCC 24.8
Whitman 18.5

And, I don't belive those numbers as my kids are marked absent when they aren't and I emailed in the past and it never got corrected.

[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:

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?

Liberal doesn't mean "most insane leftist." So yes, I'm liberal. But I'm also a realist. Claiming that "we don't even try to fix it" is laughably incorrect. We spend a fortune trying to educate our kids, many of whom don't want to be educated. Again. 26% of the kids in MCPS aren't showing up to school regularly. It's probably twice that in many east county schools. And why bring race into it? Those are your assumptions, not mine. Again, I grew up super poor and actually live that life and I'm white. And sure, we can kick kids out of the W schools if they are causing trouble as well.

Most kids want to be educated. Some of these kids have learning disabilities or didn't get the foundation early on to make them successful. If they didn't get what they needed early on they will never be successful later. Its easy when you are comfortable to make nasty coments but look at what's behind it. You have to look further at the root than just the high schools.

p.s. I grew up super poor so I actually loved what we're talking about opposed to the UMC-born progressives who only fantasize about poverty.

You are one person who really doesn't understand it. Its not about poverty.