s/o Why are parents around here so worried about kids who receive free lunch?

[Anonymous]

"Not only are the FARMS students not dragging down their affluent counterparts"

Those state tests are a floor that kids SHOULD be meeting - that's why in the well-off schools you have almost 100% of kids meeting the floor benchmarks. Meeting the floor does not mean that kids are meeting their full potential. As a PP noted, the concern w/ lots of FARMS/ESL kids in a school is that the teachers end up spending lots of time flocused on them and while I am sure my DD would still be passing the minimum benchmarks for her grade, I doubt her teachers would have time to make sure she's learning as much as SHE can when they need to devote so much time to kids who don't even know English. I don't have ill will towards those kids, but I also care most about what is best for my own kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Not only are the FARMS students not dragging down their affluent counterparts"

Those state tests are a floor that kids SHOULD be meeting - that's why in the well-off schools you have almost 100% of kids meeting the floor benchmarks. Meeting the floor does not mean that kids are meeting their full potential. As a PP noted, the concern w/ lots of FARMS/ESL kids in a school is that the teachers end up spending lots of time flocused on them and while I am sure my DD would still be passing the minimum benchmarks for her grade, I doubt her teachers would have time to make sure she's learning as much as SHE can when they need to devote so much time to kids who don't even know English. I don't have ill will towards those kids, but I also care most about what is best for my own kid.

But in MCPS, teachers in Potomac, Bethesda, etc will have about 10 more kids per class room (in k-2) than teachers in schools like Highland View noted above.

[Anonymous]

Using FARMS as a boundary metric is nothing more than how closet racists and School Boards of Education make themselves feel like they are being politically correct when they actually are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Here's the quote from 15:43:
At Bethesda Elementary, I looked up the same statistic, and white, grade 5 reading for Bethesda Elementary is 98%. It looks like those white kids are testing nearly the same despite the presence of the lower-scoring kids in their class. It's not clear the lower-scoring kids are bringing anyone down.

Wow! I guess you don't recognize how racist that sounds. So it's OK for "the others" (aka "them") to score low as long as the whites are still achieving.

I'll answer this because I feel the need to defend myself from this charge. I posted this because the claim had been made that having poorer or minority children in a class created a negative learning environment for all the rest of the children. I was only attempting to show that, according to the scores, this was not occurring at this particular school. No racism was intended, and in fact the whole point was to show that diverse schools can benefit lower-achieving students without negatively affecting the higher-achieving students. When you post to this board, please consider giving the original poster the benefit of the doubt.

[Anonymous]

2 reasons, FARMS rate is code for poverty. Poverty in the public school system is a prime indicator of real estate. 3% Farms only, my real estate in East Bethesda goes up, get it?

More seriously FARMS is worrisome because these kids probably don't get the best quality food. How much of it is served warm? Is it healthy? Is it locally produced, does it taste good? When you don't pick the food you eat, to me that is worrisome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here's the quote from 15:43:
At Bethesda Elementary, I looked up the same statistic, and white, grade 5 reading for Bethesda Elementary is 98%. It looks like those white kids are testing nearly the same despite the presence of the lower-scoring kids in their class. It's not clear the lower-scoring kids are bringing anyone down.

Wow! I guess you don't recognize how racist that sounds. So it's OK for "the others" (aka "them") to score low as long as the whites are still achieving.

I'll answer this because I feel the need to defend myself from this charge. I posted this because the claim had been made that having poorer or minority children in a class created a negative learning environment for all the rest of the children. I was only attempting to show that, according to the scores, this was not occurring at this particular school. No racism was intended, and in fact the whole point was to show that diverse schools can benefit lower-achieving students without negatively affecting the higher-achieving students. When you post to this board, please consider giving the original poster the benefit of the doubt.

You showed 1 example, everyone knows the truth. If you had to choose between a school that had 10% FARM and 70% FARM which one would you send your child to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You showed 1 example, everyone knows the truth. If you had to choose between a school that had 10% FARM and 70% FARM which one would you send your child to?

I guess I just like to ask questions about things that "everyone knows the truth" to.

[Anonymous]

But NO ONE here is talking about a school with 70% FARMS. I think everyone agrees that there would be issues there that don't exist in lower FARMS rate schools.

But people were getting their knickers in a twist over a change from 19% to 22% FARMS. That's ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

We have a child at Montgomery Knolls, which has a very high FARMS rate (64%), and I have to take issue with some of the comments on this thread. DC is not FARMS but loves school and is learning a lot. B/c the FARMS rate is so high, the school's at-a-glance says last year's average class for K was 17.8, smaller for 1 and 2 grades. The at-a-glance also says that 2nd graders who are Caucasian have an 84% composite rate. That's higher than the Caucasian rate at Bethesda Elementary (81%), which had a FARMS rate of 6.7% (and an average 22 kids/class). So, if your assumption is that "poor" kids drag down the performance of kids from homes with more means, these stats, at least, don't show that.

Also, I know 2 kids in my DC's class have behavior issues. One of them is a Caucasian kid with two parents at home, and I'm doubtful the kid is FARMS. So, it may be true in general that poorer kids have more behavioral issues, but wealthier kids can, too. And if you're considering a high FARMS school vs. a low-FARMS school, I'd think you'd have to consider the class size. I understand from DCUM that lots of schools have K classes up to 25 or even 28 kids. Is that classroom easier to manage than one with 18 or 19 kids, 63% of whom are FARMS? I am sure it depends.

Also, FWIW, I am happy to have DC exposed to kids of other backgrounds. To me, there is a benefit in learning that not every kid lives in a house or speaks English at home. DC has made friends across color/economic lines, and DC has shown empathy for kids who are not fluent in English. So, I like that. If behavior issues ever start to overwhlem the classroom or DC's experience, we'll change schools, for sure. But a lot of the anti-FARMS sentiment seems, to me, pretty knee-jerk and unfortunate. There are pros and cons to everything, including being at a high FARMS school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have a child at Montgomery Knolls, which has a very high FARMS rate (64%), and I have to take issue with some of the comments on this thread. DC is not FARMS but loves school and is learning a lot. B/c the FARMS rate is so high, the school's at-a-glance says last year's average class for K was 17.8, smaller for 1 and 2 grades. The at-a-glance also says that 2nd graders who are Caucasian have an 84% composite rate. That's higher than the Caucasian rate at Bethesda Elementary (81%), which had a FARMS rate of 6.7% (and an average 22 kids/class). So, if your assumption is that "poor" kids drag down the performance of kids from homes with more means, these stats, at least, don't show that.

Also, I know 2 kids in my DC's class have behavior issues. One of them is a Caucasian kid with two parents at home, and I'm doubtful the kid is FARMS. So, it may be true in general that poorer kids have more behavioral issues, but wealthier kids can, too. And if you're considering a high FARMS school vs. a low-FARMS school, I'd think you'd have to consider the class size. I understand from DCUM that lots of schools have K classes up to 25 or even 28 kids. Is that classroom easier to manage than one with 18 or 19 kids, 63% of whom are FARMS? I am sure it depends.

Also, FWIW, I am happy to have DC exposed to kids of other backgrounds. To me, there is a benefit in learning that not every kid lives in a house or speaks English at home. DC has made friends across color/economic lines, and DC has shown empathy for kids who are not fluent in English. So, I like that. If behavior issues ever start to overwhlem the classroom or DC's experience, we'll change schools, for sure. But a lot of the anti-FARMS sentiment seems, to me, pretty knee-jerk and unfortunate. There are pros and cons to everything, including being at a high FARMS school.

We are also at a SS school with high FARMS rate (above 50%) and I very much agree with this post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a child at Montgomery Knolls, which has a very high FARMS rate (64%), and I have to take issue with some of the comments on this thread. DC is not FARMS but loves school and is learning a lot. B/c the FARMS rate is so high, the school's at-a-glance says last year's average class for K was 17.8, smaller for 1 and 2 grades. The at-a-glance also says that 2nd graders who are Caucasian have an 84% composite rate. That's higher than the Caucasian rate at Bethesda Elementary (81%), which had a FARMS rate of 6.7% (and an average 22 kids/class). So, if your assumption is that "poor" kids drag down the performance of kids from homes with more means, these stats, at least, don't show that.

Also, I know 2 kids in my DC's class have behavior issues. One of them is a Caucasian kid with two parents at home, and I'm doubtful the kid is FARMS. So, it may be true in general that poorer kids have more behavioral issues, but wealthier kids can, too. And if you're considering a high FARMS school vs. a low-FARMS school, I'd think you'd have to consider the class size. I understand from DCUM that lots of schools have K classes up to 25 or even 28 kids. Is that classroom easier to manage than one with 18 or 19 kids, 63% of whom are FARMS? I am sure it depends.

Also, FWIW, I am happy to have DC exposed to kids of other backgrounds. To me, there is a benefit in learning that not every kid lives in a house or speaks English at home. DC has made friends across color/economic lines, and DC has shown empathy for kids who are not fluent in English. So, I like that. If behavior issues ever start to overwhlem the classroom or DC's experience, we'll change schools, for sure. But a lot of the anti-FARMS sentiment seems, to me, pretty knee-jerk and unfortunate. There are pros and cons to everything, including being at a high FARMS school.

We are also at a SS school with high FARMS rate (above 50%) and I very much agree with this post.

Me too. My kids are thriving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Not only are the FARMS students not dragging down their affluent counterparts"

Those state tests are a floor that kids SHOULD be meeting - that's why in the well-off schools you have almost 100% of kids meeting the floor benchmarks. Meeting the floor does not mean that kids are meeting their full potential. As a PP noted, the concern w/ lots of FARMS/ESL kids in a school is that the teachers end up spending lots of time flocused on them and while I am sure my DD would still be passing the minimum benchmarks for her grade, I doubt her teachers would have time to make sure she's learning as much as SHE can when they need to devote so much time to kids who don't even know English. I don't have ill will towards those kids, but I also care most about what is best for my own kid.

Thank you for posting this. You're exactly right. Our children, and our nation, cannot compete in the global economy against our 1st world counterparts if we simply meet the "floor benchmarks."

[Anonymous]

Great schools is a factor of msa scores. In general, higher farms lower scores. There are a few exceptions but it is very difficult to believe the numbers given the cheating that has gone on.

When looking at the scores and evaluating programs, such as Highland View. Please look at the Science scores. Science scores can be really telling, in general they are lower at all schools. Why because they are measured but do not count against AYP or in great schools. Also, schools cut science and other class for reading and math. Usually schools with higher farms have less hours devoted to extras or they have the same hours and pull kids out of class for review of MSA material.

Lower scoring schools are a problem because schools are focused on making AYP and they will do dramatic things to make it. Such as weekly pre and post test, daily or weekly review of materials. I have no issue with this if only the failing students were required to do this but at some schools everyone is required to do this.

Anonymous wrote:Why do all of the schools on greatschools that have very low ratings and
test scores have a higher rate of free and reduced lunches. I dont think race is an issue .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a child at Montgomery Knolls, which has a very high FARMS rate (64%), and I have to take issue with some of the comments on this thread. DC is not FARMS but loves school and is learning a lot. B/c the FARMS rate is so high, the school's at-a-glance says last year's average class for K was 17.8, smaller for 1 and 2 grades. The at-a-glance also says that 2nd graders who are Caucasian have an 84% composite rate. That's higher than the Caucasian rate at Bethesda Elementary (81%), which had a FARMS rate of 6.7% (and an average 22 kids/class). So, if your assumption is that "poor" kids drag down the performance of kids from homes with more means, these stats, at least, don't show that.

Also, I know 2 kids in my DC's class have behavior issues. One of them is a Caucasian kid with two parents at home, and I'm doubtful the kid is FARMS. So, it may be true in general that poorer kids have more behavioral issues, but wealthier kids can, too. And if you're considering a high FARMS school vs. a low-FARMS school, I'd think you'd have to consider the class size. I understand from DCUM that lots of schools have K classes up to 25 or even 28 kids. Is that classroom easier to manage than one with 18 or 19 kids, 63% of whom are FARMS? I am sure it depends.

Also, FWIW, I am happy to have DC exposed to kids of other backgrounds. To me, there is a benefit in learning that not every kid lives in a house or speaks English at home. DC has made friends across color/economic lines, and DC has shown empathy for kids who are not fluent in English. So, I like that. If behavior issues ever start to overwhlem the classroom or DC's experience, we'll change schools, for sure. But a lot of the anti-FARMS sentiment seems, to me, pretty knee-jerk and unfortunate. There are pros and cons to everything, including being at a high FARMS school.

We are also at a SS school with high FARMS rate (above 50%) and I very much agree with this post.

Me too. My kids are thriving.

For grades 1 and 2, most of the kid's learning is still happening at home. The problem with having a high percentage of FARM kids comes in the later grades, especially middle school. This is when the behavior problems start. This is when they start to have classes that are way below grade level to accommodate these students. If your child ends up in one of these classes, they will not learn anything. Most people want a grammar school with low FARMs because that feeds into Junior and Senior High Schools with low FARMS.

[Anonymous]

Can people be careful with their generalizations about FARMS students? My goodness!!! From some of the postings on this thread, it seems like people believe schools with low FARMS rates are the answer to everything. It's as if some parents believe their kids will automatically thrive in a low FARMS school because those FARMS kids with all their bad behavior and low test scores will not be there. Well, there are neighborhoods and schools that will accommodate your wishes. Otherwise we have to deal with the realities of public school if we live in neighborhoods that have high FARMS rates. Everyone deserves a good public education. And if you look carefully, there are actually some high FARMS schools where the parents and students are happy and the students score well.