FARMS numbers are up

[Anonymous]

Brent and Maury are successful schools because the FARM rate is less than 30%. Also, Ludlow-Taylor's FARM rate seems very high. I though it was an up and coming school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are white or asian, so what if there is an uptick in FARMs students? The number of FARMs students does NOT statistically impact the performance of White and Asian students. Now if you are AA or Hispanic, and either FARMs are non-FARMs, then yes I would be concerned if your local school has high FARMs, because there is evidence it may negatively impact your child. You may need to invest in supplementation if you see your child's scores dipping.

edit:

NP. What is the evidence that high FARMs rate negatively impacts AA and Hispanic children, but not White or Asian? If that's true, then white parents should be unconcerned about the percentage of FARM children in their child's school (as they seem with charters).

One probable factor in the achievement gap that's never discussed is the assumption that white kids are better learners and that their parents are more motivated to ensure a quality education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are white or asian, so what if there is an uptick in FARMs students? The number of FARMs students does NOT statistically impact the performance of White and Asian students. Now if you are AA or Hispanic, and either FARMs are non-FARMs, then yes I would be concerned if your local school has high FARMs, because there is evidence it may negatively impact your child. You may need to invest in supplementation if you see your child's scores dipping.

edit:

NP. What is the evidence that high FARMs rate negatively impacts AA and Hispanic children, but not White or Asian? If that's true, then white parents should be unconcerned about the percentage of FARM children in their child's school (as they seem with charters).

One probable factor in the achievement gap that's never discussed is the assumption that white kids are better learners and that their parents are more motivated to ensure a quality education.

It may impact their test scores but it does impact their classroom experience. I am amazed that so parents assume one teacher can differentiate that much in one classroom. If your kid is advanced (not gifted just above typical) in a class where the majority of the kids are reading one to two grade levels below--who do you think the teacher is going to focus on? The kids who are going to bring down the school test scores. Your higher achieving kid is either "helping' others or doing a lot of busy work. I am the daughter of a teacher and she was very clear to stop kidding myself on this front. Best case scenario, the teacher teaches straight down the middle. Most likely scenario, focus only on the kids that will make your school test scores look "bad"--and that to me is a very negative classroom/educational experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brent and Maury are successful schools because the FARM rate is less than 30%. Also, Ludlow-Taylor's FARM rate seems very high. I though it was an up and coming school?

Correlation and causation are not synonymous. There are many reasons Brent, Maury and Ludlow-Taylor continue to improve for a variety of reasons which vary from school to school. Each school likewise has its own unique set of challenges. Sweeping assumptions and generalizations are not helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are white or asian, so what if there is an uptick in FARMs students? The number of FARMs students does NOT statistically impact the performance of White and Asian students. Now if you are AA or Hispanic, and either FARMs are non-FARMs, then yes I would be concerned if your local school has high FARMs, because there is evidence it may negatively impact your child. You may need to invest in supplementation if you see your child's scores dipping.

edit:

NP. What is the evidence that high FARMs rate negatively impacts AA and Hispanic children, but not White or Asian? If that's true, then white parents should be unconcerned about the percentage of FARM children in their child's school (as they seem with charters).

One probable factor in the achievement gap that's never discussed is the assumption that white kids are better learners and that their parents are more motivated to ensure a quality education.

It may impact their test scores but it does impact their classroom experience. I am amazed that so parents assume one teacher can differentiate that much in one classroom. If your kid is advanced (not gifted just above typical) in a class where the majority of the kids are reading one to two grade levels below--who do you think the teacher is going to focus on? The kids who are going to bring down the school test scores. Your higher achieving kid is either "helping' others or doing a lot of busy work. I am the daughter of a teacher and she was very clear to stop kidding myself on this front. Best case scenario, the teacher teaches straight down the middle. Most likely scenario, focus only on the kids that will make your school test scores look "bad"--and that to me is a very negative classroom/educational experience.

I think you're missing a "not" somewhere in this sentence. I understand what you're trying to say, though.

The issue I'm having is with the PP quoted above saying that it's not a problem for white or asian kids but AA and Hispanic parents need to worry. I repeatedly see the grown ups in the room looking at a class full of kids and seeing all the black and hispanic kids as those "who are going to bring down the school test scores."

For those who want to use data showing that even minority kids from higher SES households score lower than white kids on testing, I'm saying this widely held assumption is a contributing factor. I wouldn't want my AA kid in a classroom where this belief prevails, but I'm growing more and more convinced that it's impossible to get away from it in public schools.

[Anonymous]

I think DCs lack of advanced classes hurts ALL kids or all races and incomes. Its just not realistic to put every kid in a class together when they have significantly different abilities. I hear your concern PP. And its likely a teacher is making some assumptions about your AA kid. But the reason DC got rid of gifted classes was because they were sued since they didn't have enough AA kids most likely due to testing bias. I think the charge for gifted classes needs to be led by AA parents who demand more. DC has just made DCPS standards so low. Many charters become self-selecting in that regard. The parents with high achieving kids often are the same parents who can shuttle their kid across town to a better school, research schools, make multiple open houses etc. And those parents have kids that would do well anywyere. But again, why should high acheving kids get the shaft in DCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brent and Maury are successful schools because the FARM rate is less than 30%. Also, Ludlow-Taylor's FARM rate seems very high. I though it was an up and coming school?

Shepherd has >30% and has higher scores than Maury. LT has higher scores than all three schools. Your point again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brent and Maury are successful schools because the FARM rate is less than 30%. Also, Ludlow-Taylor's FARM rate seems very high. I though it was an up and coming school?

Shepherd has >30% and has higher scores than Maury. LT has higher scores than all three schools. Your point again?

Shepherd is an exception because it is not a Title I school. That's precisely the reason why Shepherd is a top notch school.

[Anonymous]

If your child goes to a Title I school, and your child is above average, then parents should supplement their education at home to keep their child progressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure this discussion will go astray very soon, so let's enjoy it while it lasts: Yes, please, what evidence is there of any link between FARM rates and any one student's ability to succeed? Of course, FARM rates are correlated with lower average % achievement by the simple arithmetic fact that poverty correlates with achievement and that therefore both averages of that distribution correlate, too. That's a no-brainer; no need to prove that point. What I want proven is that the FARM rate in a classroom has a negative impact on any one student, especially on an otherwise predicted-to-well individual, as exemplified by PP. And I'd like that in a non-anecdotal fashion please.

Anecdotally I can prove the opposite to you. My mid-upper income and PhD-holding household's child sort of benefited from an environment in which many poor and thus struggling children needed extra help. Many more resources, more opportunities, and more attention came her/his way.

Here's one from Montgomery County: http://www.tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

"Building on the strength of the random assignment of children to schools [because families were randomly assigned to different public housing developments, I examine the longitudinal school performance from 2001 to 2007 of approximately 850 students in public housing who attended elementary schools and lived in neighborhoods that fell along a spectrum of very-low poverty to moderate-poverty rates. In brief, I find that over a period of five to seven years, children in public housing who attended the school district’s most-advantaged schools (as measured by either subsidized lunch status or the district’s own criteria) far outperformed in math and reading those children in public housing who attended the district’s least-advantaged elementary schools."

The study does not address the opposite scenario--when a child from a well-off family attends a high-poverty school. But http://www.prrac.org/pdf/annotated_bibliography_on_school_poverty_concentration.pdf does. In the introduction to its list of studies, it says that "Mary Kennedy in 1986 found that the relationship between school poverty concentrations and student achievement averages is stronger than the relationship between family poverty status and student achievement. Kennedy reported that nonpoor students attending schools with high concentrations of poverty are more likely to fall behind than are poor students who attend schools with low concentrations of poverty. Numerous studies substantiate Kennedy’s findings; and at this point there is no question that school poverty concentration has a detrimental impact on student achievement."

It's good that your child has had a good experience. A lot probably depends on the needs and temperament of individual students, how good teachers are at differentiating, the personalities and skills and poverty levels of the parents (there's a big difference between two parents and a kid living off $40,000 and a single mom with 2 kids who gets $428 a month in TANF, but they both qualify for FARMs). Empirically, though, low-poverty schools are better for rich kids and poor ones. DC doesn't have enough rich kids to make every school low-poverty even if all kids went to public school and were willing to be equally distributed at schools around the District. One way to solve this is to help more families leave poverty. But that's hardly a simple thing to achieve.

PP (or you) said only wealthy AA families will be negatively impacted with high FARM classmates. Do you have any 30 year old studies to prove that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brent and Maury are successful schools because the FARM rate is less than 30%. Also, Ludlow-Taylor's FARM rate seems very high. I though it was an up and coming school?

Shepherd has >30% and has higher scores than Maury. LT has higher scores than all three schools. Your point again?

Shepherd is an exception because it is not a Title I school. That's precisely the reason why Shepherd is a top notch school.

PP didn't say that, PP said > 30%.

[Anonymous]

Ross went from 31% FARM to 17%. That's quite a drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure this discussion will go astray very soon, so let's enjoy it while it lasts: Yes, please, what evidence is there of any link between FARM rates and any one student's ability to succeed? Of course, FARM rates are correlated with lower average % achievement by the simple arithmetic fact that poverty correlates with achievement and that therefore both averages of that distribution correlate, too. That's a no-brainer; no need to prove that point. What I want proven is that the FARM rate in a classroom has a negative impact on any one student, especially on an otherwise predicted-to-well individual, as exemplified by PP. And I'd like that in a non-anecdotal fashion please.

Anecdotally I can prove the opposite to you. My mid-upper income and PhD-holding household's child sort of benefited from an environment in which many poor and thus struggling children needed extra help. Many more resources, more opportunities, and more attention came her/his way.

Here's one from Montgomery County: http://www.tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

"Building on the strength of the random assignment of children to schools [because families were randomly assigned to different public housing developments, I examine the longitudinal school performance from 2001 to 2007 of approximately 850 students in public housing who attended elementary schools and lived in neighborhoods that fell along a spectrum of very-low poverty to moderate-poverty rates. In brief, I find that over a period of five to seven years, children in public housing who attended the school district’s most-advantaged schools (as measured by either subsidized lunch status or the district’s own criteria) far outperformed in math and reading those children in public housing who attended the district’s least-advantaged elementary schools."

The study does not address the opposite scenario--when a child from a well-off family attends a high-poverty school. But http://www.prrac.org/pdf/annotated_bibliography_on_school_poverty_concentration.pdf does. In the introduction to its list of studies, it says that "Mary Kennedy in 1986 found that the relationship between school poverty concentrations and student achievement averages is stronger than the relationship between family poverty status and student achievement. Kennedy reported that nonpoor students attending schools with high concentrations of poverty are more likely to fall behind than are poor students who attend schools with low concentrations of poverty. Numerous studies substantiate Kennedy’s findings; and at this point there is no question that school poverty concentration has a detrimental impact on student achievement."

It's good that your child has had a good experience. A lot probably depends on the needs and temperament of individual students, how good teachers are at differentiating, the personalities and skills and poverty levels of the parents (there's a big difference between two parents and a kid living off $40,000 and a single mom with 2 kids who gets $428 a month in TANF, but they both qualify for FARMs). Empirically, though, low-poverty schools are better for rich kids and poor ones. DC doesn't have enough rich kids to make every school low-poverty even if all kids went to public school and were willing to be equally distributed at schools around the District. One way to solve this is to help more families leave poverty. But that's hardly a simple thing to achieve.

PP (or you) said only wealthy AA families will be negatively impacted with high FARM classmates. Do you have any 30 year old studies to prove that?

I am the one that posted the PRRAC link. I don't think that only wealthy AA families will be affected. That link shows research from the 1960s to 2010 showing that when considering student achievement, the poverty level of the student body matters a lot--in fact, it matters more than a student's own household income level. It's not just true for poor kids, and it's not just true for black kids.

There are good things about being exposed to people of a different economic level. But if I could choose, I would want my child to be in a racially and economically diverse school, but one where at least 50% of kids were not poor. The PRRAC report says "Research establishes that most successful schools are those in which the middle class is the majority. Success starts turning to failure, it is generally agreed, when the school becomes 50% minority or low income. See All Together Now at 39. The Prospects studies found that when half a student body is poor, then all students' achievement will be depressed, and that when 75% is poor, then all students' achievement will be "seriously" depressed. Prospects II at 12." It wasn't a group of white supremacists or conservatives writing this. It was the NAACP and the ACLU in an amicus brief urging greater racial and economic integration of schools. As I mentioned before, the challenge in DC is that such a high percentage of children live in poverty that even if they were distributed equally throughout all 8 wards, it would be impossible to have schools with a majority of non-poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ross went from 31% FARM to 17%. That's quite a drop.

Real estate flips are converting a lot of affordable housing into luxury condos. Pretty soon, even middle income families won't be able to afford that area.

Watch the same thing happen in neighborhoods like Petworth, where you now have to pay $700k+ for a two bedroom condo and there are fewer housing projects to slow the luxury-leaning demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ross went from 31% FARM to 17%. That's quite a drop.

Real estate flips are converting a lot of affordable housing into luxury condos. Pretty soon, even middle income families won't be able to afford that area.

Watch the same thing happen in neighborhoods like Petworth, where you now have to pay $700k+ for a two bedroom condo and there are fewer housing projects to slow the luxury-leaning demographics.

Where was there affordable housing IB for Ross last year that's been converted into luxury condos?