Where are all you families of high performing students planning on moving to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, they are related, but they are not the same thing.

Still I don't mind having a high or low FARMS rate. If you do, please say so.

I don't see anything wrong when I care about the performance of a school, I want a high-performing school. So that is my opinion and I feel confident to say it in public.

Can you say the same about FARMS rate (can you say "I don't see anything wrong about when I care about the FARMS rate of a school. I want a low FARMS school"?)

That is probably why some people just want to tie them together - because they can't argue against people's hope for a high-performing school, so they try to equal that to the hope for a low FARMS school.

People tie them together BECAUSE THEY ARE TIED TOGETHER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not questioning that.

I am just saying, it is fine that you care about performance. But if you want to raise one school's performance by sacrificing another school's, it would be quite natural that parents from the latter school would object. And I can't see how people can be so confident to say this is for a "public good".

The parents of the latter school are not part of the "public"?

Why are we talking about school performance? We're not educating schools. We're educating kids.

When we say "school performance", we mean "student performance" from that school.

Well, let's sub that in. "If you want to raise student performance at one school by sacrificing student performance at another school..." Are you ok with that? If you move some students at School A to School B, then students at School B will do better, and students at School A will do worse? Is that what you're saying? I thought that the whole point of this line of argument was that moving students from School A to School B actually would NOT make them do better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Round and round and round we go

Both sides are right

Society benefits more if low-performing students are spread amongst schools

Individual higher performing students are hurt and less challenged when lower performing students enter a school tipping point at 20% and 40-45% see below

https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/f...%202013_technical%20report.pdf

Summary Finding: The study took both a graphical and a statistical approach to answering this question using SY 2011-12 poverty and student achievement data.1 Graphs of school-level pass rates (i.e., the percentage of students in the school above benchmarks on the reading or mathematics SOL tests) and school poverty indicated in general that as levels of school poverty increased, schools were less likely to meet academic performance expectations (i.e., schools were more likely to have SOL pass rates falling below expected levels).
And, almost all schools with poverty levels of 45 percent or higher were unable to reach expected pass rate levels in reading or math. Follow-up statistical analyses found statistical evidence that two tipping points exist in FCPS. The reading data provided the most consistent findings as it indicated two tipping points occurring at 20 and 40-45 percent school-level poverty. Thus, FCPS schools with greater than 20 percent poverty are much less likely to meet performance expectations than those with less than 20 percent poverty. And, once poverty levels at a school reach 40 percent or more, FCPS schools are unlikely to meet expectations for school performance.

Summary Finding: Analyses that allowed school poverty to be teased apart from individual student poverty revealed that school poverty at the elementary level had a demonstrably separate, though smaller, negative association with student learning than individual poverty: school poverty was associated with an average decrease of 8 to 18 scale score points on the SOL reading test. The tipping point identified at 20 percent poverty reflected an acceleration of the overall downward trend in student scores equal to an additional 7-point decrease. The 20 percent tipping point indicates that schools with poverty levels above 20 percent were not as successful with students as those below the 20 percent poverty line. The tipping points identified at 40 and 45 percent poverty reflected the reverse, a slowing down of the observed downward trend, equal to approximately 13 to 16 points. These latter tipping points do not mean that schools above 40 or 45 percent poverty had students with higher test scores; rather, schools above 40 percent poverty had students who did not demonstrate further decreases in reading scores, reflecting a floor to the average reading scale score points at elementary schools in FCPS. It is also important to note that this impact was for all students attending FCPS schools, meaning that both students living in poverty and those not from impoverished backgrounds at the same school demonstrate similar declines in their reading performance when attending schools above the 20 percent poverty tipping point.

similar finding in moco:

https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

The positive slope for the average math performance of children in public housing in low-poverty schools indicates that public housing students in the least-poor schools were catching up to their average non-poor district-mates over the course of elementary school. (Note that the test score scale is constructed such that 50 was the average math score in Montgomery County, regardless of elementary grade level or year.) This means that the average child in public housing started out performing about 17 points (NCE score of 33) below the typical Montgomery County student (NCE score of 50) in math—0.8 of a standard deviation, which comports with the national income achievement gap. Over time, however, children in public housing in the district’s low-poverty schools began to catch up to their non-poor district-mates in math; by the end of elementary school, the math achievement gap halved from an ini-tial disparity of 17 points to 8 points. In contrast, the achievement gap between the children’s average (non-poor) district-mate and the average child in public housing in the district’s poorest elementary schools held constant.

Notably, the children in public housing benefited from attending the lowest-poverty schools even though they were more likely to cluster within non-accelerated math courses in their given schools

My post was showing how overall school performance degrades as you keep adding more and more FARMS students

your post is showing FARMS students do better when they attend lower FARMS schools

both are correct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not questioning that.

I am just saying, it is fine that you care about performance. But if you want to raise one school's performance by sacrificing another school's, it would be quite natural that parents from the latter school would object. And I can't see how people can be so confident to say this is for a "public good".

The parents of the latter school are not part of the "public"?

Why are we talking about school performance? We're not educating schools. We're educating kids.

When we say "school performance", we mean "student performance" from that school.

Well, let's sub that in. "If you want to raise student performance at one school by sacrificing student performance at another school..." Are you ok with that? If you move some students at School A to School B, then students at School B will do better, and students at School A will do worse? Is that what you're saying? I thought that the whole point of this line of argument was that moving students from School A to School B actually would NOT make them do better?

I am saying if you move some low performing students from school B to school A, the average student performance at school A will be worse.

So would it not be natural for parents of School A to be opposing the change? Maybe some people don't care if kids around their kids do well or not as long as their kids do fine, but many parents do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Round and round and round we go

Both sides are right

Society benefits more if low-performing students are spread amongst schools

Individual higher performing students are hurt and less challenged when lower performing students enter a school tipping point at 20% and 40-45% see below

https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/f...%202013_technical%20report.pdf

Summary Finding: The study took both a graphical and a statistical approach to answering this question using SY 2011-12 poverty and student achievement data.1 Graphs of school-level pass rates (i.e., the percentage of students in the school above benchmarks on the reading or mathematics SOL tests) and school poverty indicated in general that as levels of school poverty increased, schools were less likely to meet academic performance expectations (i.e., schools were more likely to have SOL pass rates falling below expected levels).
And, almost all schools with poverty levels of 45 percent or higher were unable to reach expected pass rate levels in reading or math. Follow-up statistical analyses found statistical evidence that two tipping points exist in FCPS. The reading data provided the most consistent findings as it indicated two tipping points occurring at 20 and 40-45 percent school-level poverty. Thus, FCPS schools with greater than 20 percent poverty are much less likely to meet performance expectations than those with less than 20 percent poverty. And, once poverty levels at a school reach 40 percent or more, FCPS schools are unlikely to meet expectations for school performance.

Summary Finding: Analyses that allowed school poverty to be teased apart from individual student poverty revealed that school poverty at the elementary level had a demonstrably separate, though smaller, negative association with student learning than individual poverty: school poverty was associated with an average decrease of 8 to 18 scale score points on the SOL reading test. The tipping point identified at 20 percent poverty reflected an acceleration of the overall downward trend in student scores equal to an additional 7-point decrease. The 20 percent tipping point indicates that schools with poverty levels above 20 percent were not as successful with students as those below the 20 percent poverty line. The tipping points identified at 40 and 45 percent poverty reflected the reverse, a slowing down of the observed downward trend, equal to approximately 13 to 16 points. These latter tipping points do not mean that schools above 40 or 45 percent poverty had students with higher test scores; rather, schools above 40 percent poverty had students who did not demonstrate further decreases in reading scores, reflecting a floor to the average reading scale score points at elementary schools in FCPS. It is also important to note that this impact was for all students attending FCPS schools, meaning that both students living in poverty and those not from impoverished backgrounds at the same school demonstrate similar declines in their reading performance when attending schools above the 20 percent poverty tipping point.

similar finding in moco:

https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

The positive slope for the average math performance of children in public housing in low-poverty schools indicates that public housing students in the least-poor schools were catching up to their average non-poor district-mates over the course of elementary school. (Note that the test score scale is constructed such that 50 was the average math score in Montgomery County, regardless of elementary grade level or year.) This means that the average child in public housing started out performing about 17 points (NCE score of 33) below the typical Montgomery County student (NCE score of 50) in math—0.8 of a standard deviation, which comports with the national income achievement gap. Over time, however, children in public housing in the district’s low-poverty schools began to catch up to their non-poor district-mates in math; by the end of elementary school, the math achievement gap halved from an ini-tial disparity of 17 points to 8 points. In contrast, the achievement gap between the children’s average (non-poor) district-mate and the average child in public housing in the district’s poorest elementary schools held constant.

Notably, the children in public housing benefited from attending the lowest-poverty schools even though they were more likely to cluster within non-accelerated math courses in their given schools

There are two ways to reduce a gap. Were the non poor students growth (points) stunted to make it seem like the gap was reduced. Perhaps if the non-poor students were not made to sit in the same classrooms as these poor students, they would’ve gained more points. Stunting any group of students growth to show some fake progress is wrong. These are kids not lab rats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not questioning that.

I am just saying, it is fine that you care about performance. But if you want to raise one school's performance by sacrificing another school's, it would be quite natural that parents from the latter school would object. And I can't see how people can be so confident to say this is for a "public good".

The parents of the latter school are not part of the "public"?

Why are we talking about school performance? We're not educating schools. We're educating kids.

When we say "school performance", we mean "student performance" from that school.

Well, let's sub that in. "If you want to raise student performance at one school by sacrificing student performance at another school..." Are you ok with that? If you move some students at School A to School B, then students at School B will do better, and students at School A will do worse? Is that what you're saying? I thought that the whole point of this line of argument was that moving students from School A to School B actually would NOT make them do better?

I am saying if you move some low performing students from school B to school A, the average student performance at school A will be worse.

So would it not be natural for parents of School A to be opposing the change? Maybe some people don't care if kids around their kids do well or not as long as their kids do fine, but many parents do.

So actually, when you say "school performance", you don't mean "student performance from that school", you mean "average school test scores,"

Will your kid get lower test scores if your kid goes to a school with lower average school test scores? And, if so, then why wouldn't it work the other way - a kid will get higher test scores if the kid goes to a school with higher average school test scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are two ways to reduce a gap. Were the non poor students growth (points) stunted to make it seem like the gap was reduced. Perhaps if the non-poor students were not made to sit in the same classrooms as these poor students, they would’ve gained more points. Stunting any group of students growth to show some fake progress is wrong. These are kids not lab rats.

Please read the study. Here it is: https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not questioning that.

I am just saying, it is fine that you care about performance. But if you want to raise one school's performance by sacrificing another school's, it would be quite natural that parents from the latter school would object. And I can't see how people can be so confident to say this is for a "public good".

The parents of the latter school are not part of the "public"?

Why are we talking about school performance? We're not educating schools. We're educating kids.

When we say "school performance", we mean "student performance" from that school.

Well, let's sub that in. "If you want to raise student performance at one school by sacrificing student performance at another school..." Are you ok with that? If you move some students at School A to School B, then students at School B will do better, and students at School A will do worse? Is that what you're saying? I thought that the whole point of this line of argument was that moving students from School A to School B actually would NOT make them do better?

I am saying if you move some low performing students from school B to school A, the average student performance at school A will be worse.

So would it not be natural for parents of School A to be opposing the change? Maybe some people don't care if kids around their kids do well or not as long as their kids do fine, but many parents do.

So actually, when you say "school performance", you don't mean "student performance from that school", you mean "average school test scores,"

Will your kid get lower test scores if your kid goes to a school with lower average school test scores? And, if so, then why wouldn't it work the other way - a kid will get higher test scores if the kid goes to a school with higher average school test scores?

Teachers are mandated by the district to teach to the lowest level of students of the class. Low performers are A teacher’s first priority. That is why if you spread our the low performers across all of the schools in the county they will overall get more instruction time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not questioning that.

I am just saying, it is fine that you care about performance. But if you want to raise one school's performance by sacrificing another school's, it would be quite natural that parents from the latter school would object. And I can't see how people can be so confident to say this is for a "public good".

The parents of the latter school are not part of the "public"?

Why are we talking about school performance? We're not educating schools. We're educating kids.

When we say "school performance", we mean "student performance" from that school.

Well, let's sub that in. "If you want to raise student performance at one school by sacrificing student performance at another school..." Are you ok with that? If you move some students at School A to School B, then students at School B will do better, and students at School A will do worse? Is that what you're saying? I thought that the whole point of this line of argument was that moving students from School A to School B actually would NOT make them do better?

I am saying if you move some low performing students from school B to school A, the average student performance at school A will be worse.

So would it not be natural for parents of School A to be opposing the change? Maybe some people don't care if kids around their kids do well or not as long as their kids do fine, but many parents do.

So actually, when you say "school performance", you don't mean "student performance from that school", you mean "average school test scores,"

Will your kid get lower test scores if your kid goes to a school with lower average school test scores? And, if so, then why wouldn't it work the other way - a kid will get higher test scores if the kid goes to a school with higher average school test scores?

Teachers are mandated by the district to teach to the lowest level of students of the class. Low performers are A teacher’s first priority. That is why if you spread our the low performers across all of the schools in the county they will overall get more instruction time.

yup and that's what society needs

will the higher performers be hurt somewhat yes but they will still be fine they are high performers already

but the alternative is areas that become ghettos and then society has to pay more when these lower performers become adults and have higher rates of unemployment crime require more social services etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not questioning that.

I am just saying, it is fine that you care about performance. But if you want to raise one school's performance by sacrificing another school's, it would be quite natural that parents from the latter school would object. And I can't see how people can be so confident to say this is for a "public good".

The parents of the latter school are not part of the "public"?

Why are we talking about school performance? We're not educating schools. We're educating kids.

When we say "school performance", we mean "student performance" from that school.

Well, let's sub that in. "If you want to raise student performance at one school by sacrificing student performance at another school..." Are you ok with that? If you move some students at School A to School B, then students at School B will do better, and students at School A will do worse? Is that what you're saying? I thought that the whole point of this line of argument was that moving students from School A to School B actually would NOT make them do better?

I am saying if you move some low performing students from school B to school A, the average student performance at school A will be worse.

So would it not be natural for parents of School A to be opposing the change? Maybe some people don't care if kids around their kids do well or not as long as their kids do fine, but many parents do.

So actually, when you say "school performance", you don't mean "student performance from that school", you mean "average school test scores,"

Will your kid get lower test scores if your kid goes to a school with lower average school test scores? And, if so, then why wouldn't it work the other way - a kid will get higher test scores if the kid goes to a school with higher average school test scores?

Teachers are mandated by the district to teach to the lowest level of students of the class. Low performers are A teacher’s first priority. That is why if you spread our the low performers across all of the schools in the county they will overall get more instruction time.

yup and that's what society needs

will the higher performers be hurt somewhat yes but they will still be fine they are high performers already

but the alternative is areas that become ghettos and then society has to pay more when these lower performers become adults and have higher rates of unemployment crime require more social services etc

There’s gotta be another solution that doesn’t involve hurting one group over the other no matter how minimal it may be.

Any creative suggestions DCUM folks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not questioning that.

I am just saying, it is fine that you care about performance. But if you want to raise one school's performance by sacrificing another school's, it would be quite natural that parents from the latter school would object. And I can't see how people can be so confident to say this is for a "public good".

The parents of the latter school are not part of the "public"?

Why are we talking about school performance? We're not educating schools. We're educating kids.

When we say "school performance", we mean "student performance" from that school.

Well, let's sub that in. "If you want to raise student performance at one school by sacrificing student performance at another school..." Are you ok with that? If you move some students at School A to School B, then students at School B will do better, and students at School A will do worse? Is that what you're saying? I thought that the whole point of this line of argument was that moving students from School A to School B actually would NOT make them do better?

I am saying if you move some low performing students from school B to school A, the average student performance at school A will be worse.

So would it not be natural for parents of School A to be opposing the change? Maybe some people don't care if kids around their kids do well or not as long as their kids do fine, but many parents do.

So actually, when you say "school performance", you don't mean "student performance from that school", you mean "average school test scores,"

Will your kid get lower test scores if your kid goes to a school with lower average school test scores? And, if so, then why wouldn't it work the other way - a kid will get higher test scores if the kid goes to a school with higher average school test scores?

Teachers are mandated by the district to teach to the lowest level of students of the class. Low performers are A teacher’s first priority. That is why if you spread our the low performers across all of the schools in the county they will overall get more instruction time.

yup and that's what society needs

will the higher performers be hurt somewhat yes but they will still be fine they are high performers already

but the alternative is areas that become ghettos and then society has to pay more when these lower performers become adults and have higher rates of unemployment crime require more social services etc

There’s gotta be another solution that doesn’t involve hurting one group over the other no matter how minimal it may be.

Any creative suggestions DCUM folks?

Mandatory summer school maybe? Summer break poses ample time for catchup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not questioning that.

I am just saying, it is fine that you care about performance. But if you want to raise one school's performance by sacrificing another school's, it would be quite natural that parents from the latter school would object. And I can't see how people can be so confident to say this is for a "public good".

The parents of the latter school are not part of the "public"?

Why are we talking about school performance? We're not educating schools. We're educating kids.

When we say "school performance", we mean "student performance" from that school.

Well, let's sub that in. "If you want to raise student performance at one school by sacrificing student performance at another school..." Are you ok with that? If you move some students at School A to School B, then students at School B will do better, and students at School A will do worse? Is that what you're saying? I thought that the whole point of this line of argument was that moving students from School A to School B actually would NOT make them do better?

I am saying if you move some low performing students from school B to school A, the average student performance at school A will be worse.

So would it not be natural for parents of School A to be opposing the change? Maybe some people don't care if kids around their kids do well or not as long as their kids do fine, but many parents do.

So actually, when you say "school performance", you don't mean "student performance from that school", you mean "average school test scores,"

Will your kid get lower test scores if your kid goes to a school with lower average school test scores? And, if so, then why wouldn't it work the other way - a kid will get higher test scores if the kid goes to a school with higher average school test scores?

Teachers are mandated by the district to teach to the lowest level of students of the class. Low performers are A teacher’s first priority. That is why if you spread our the low performers across all of the schools in the county they will overall get more instruction time.

yup and that's what society needs

will the higher performers be hurt somewhat yes but they will still be fine they are high performers already

but the alternative is areas that become ghettos and then society has to pay more when these lower performers become adults and have higher rates of unemployment crime require more social services etc

There’s gotta be another solution that doesn’t involve hurting one group over the other no matter how minimal it may be.

Any creative suggestions DCUM folks?

-After school tutoring
-Saturday day school
-summer school

[Anonymous]

Add in restorative justice and nobody will be learning in schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not questioning that.

I am just saying, it is fine that you care about performance. But if you want to raise one school's performance by sacrificing another school's, it would be quite natural that parents from the latter school would object. And I can't see how people can be so confident to say this is for a "public good".

The parents of the latter school are not part of the "public"?

Why are we talking about school performance? We're not educating schools. We're educating kids.

When we say "school performance", we mean "student performance" from that school.

Well, let's sub that in. "If you want to raise student performance at one school by sacrificing student performance at another school..." Are you ok with that? If you move some students at School A to School B, then students at School B will do better, and students at School A will do worse? Is that what you're saying? I thought that the whole point of this line of argument was that moving students from School A to School B actually would NOT make them do better?

I am saying if you move some low performing students from school B to school A, the average student performance at school A will be worse.

So would it not be natural for parents of School A to be opposing the change? Maybe some people don't care if kids around their kids do well or not as long as their kids do fine, but many parents do.

So actually, when you say "school performance", you don't mean "student performance from that school", you mean "average school test scores,"

Will your kid get lower test scores if your kid goes to a school with lower average school test scores? And, if so, then why wouldn't it work the other way - a kid will get higher test scores if the kid goes to a school with higher average school test scores?

Teachers are mandated by the district to teach to the lowest level of students of the class. Low performers are A teacher’s first priority. That is why if you spread our the low performers across all of the schools in the county they will overall get more instruction time.

yup and that's what society needs

will the higher performers be hurt somewhat yes but they will still be fine they are high performers already

but the alternative is areas that become ghettos and then society has to pay more when these lower performers become adults and have higher rates of unemployment crime require more social services etc

There’s gotta be another solution that doesn’t involve hurting one group over the other no matter how minimal it may be.

Any creative suggestions DCUM folks?

MCPS can hire more teachers and not just for high poverty schools but for schools for which a population of students have be shifted if it’s simply about teacher to student ratio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not questioning that.

I am just saying, it is fine that you care about performance. But if you want to raise one school's performance by sacrificing another school's, it would be quite natural that parents from the latter school would object. And I can't see how people can be so confident to say this is for a "public good".

The parents of the latter school are not part of the "public"?

Why are we talking about school performance? We're not educating schools. We're educating kids.

When we say "school performance", we mean "student performance" from that school.

Well, let's sub that in. "If you want to raise student performance at one school by sacrificing student performance at another school..." Are you ok with that? If you move some students at School A to School B, then students at School B will do better, and students at School A will do worse? Is that what you're saying? I thought that the whole point of this line of argument was that moving students from School A to School B actually would NOT make them do better?

I am saying if you move some low performing students from school B to school A, the average student performance at school A will be worse.

So would it not be natural for parents of School A to be opposing the change? Maybe some people don't care if kids around their kids do well or not as long as their kids do fine, but many parents do.

So actually, when you say "school performance", you don't mean "student performance from that school", you mean "average school test scores,"

Will your kid get lower test scores if your kid goes to a school with lower average school test scores? And, if so, then why wouldn't it work the other way - a kid will get higher test scores if the kid goes to a school with higher average school test scores?

Teachers are mandated by the district to teach to the lowest level of students of the class. Low performers are A teacher’s first priority. That is why if you spread our the low performers across all of the schools in the county they will overall get more instruction time.

yup and that's what society needs

will the higher performers be hurt somewhat yes but they will still be fine they are high performers already

but the alternative is areas that become ghettos and then society has to pay more when these lower performers become adults and have higher rates of unemployment crime require more social services etc

There’s gotta be another solution that doesn’t involve hurting one group over the other no matter how minimal it may be.

Any creative suggestions DCUM folks?

Mandatory summer school maybe? Summer break poses ample time for catchup.

This. Mandatory summer school, free tutoring, mandatory classes on life skills (and how to succeed in school), mentorships. school uniforms. Don't pass kids to the next grade if they can't pass the objectives of the current grade level. Bring back tracking. Recruit outstanding teachers to high -farms school and pay them well. There are a number of direct ways to help this group.