Schools with high FARM rates

[Anonymous]

So i've been told that schools with high FARMS rates tend to perform poorly. Excuse my ignorance on this matter, but how does this effect students that are from middle/upper class households? Especially those that come from a home with academic support. Does a school like this hurt them in the long run or does it affect college admissions in any way?

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

It can go either way:

1. big fish/little pond - good for your kid - might have a better chance getting into univ. of choice because there aren't many kids from that schools that apply there

2. if the the majority of kids are learning at a slower pace, need more time to learn things, then your kid might have to slow down to go at their pace

[Anonymous]

Another thing to consider is that schools with high FARMS might have additional resources for more staff allowing more personalized attention, and for splitting the classroom into groups by abilities (differentiation).
Someone please tell me this is true.

[Anonymous]

OP there's a lot of debate on this issue. You won't get a consensus here.

A child from a home with strong academic support at a school with low test scores can be a big fish in a small pond. It can affect college admissions positively. I saw multiple examples of this when teaching at a local HS with higher-than-average FARMS.

The child's personality will play into the result, and perhaps the size of the school.

[Anonymous]

Generally, class sizes are smaller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Generally, class sizes are smaller.

Not at my school. Maybe the student/staff ratio is better but that's probably because we have two counselors, a school/parent coordinator, a social worker, a mental health counselor (PT last year), two bilingual paraeducators, etc.

[Anonymous]

Your child's instructional day will be interrupted by countless episodes of disruptive behavior. The classroom culture will be tense as these children are frequently not engaged and well below level of the grade level material. Many of the teachers will be on the spectrum of burnout. Lots of staff turnover. The school focus will be to raise those test scores and the curriculum will be focused entirely on that. The common denominator of rigor will be much lower. Your kid will look like a rock star to most teachers who appreciate that he does his work, doesn't mouth off, and makes an effort. Is this a good thing? Not really, because the perception is skewed. He won't be challenged. He will not be motivated and inspired by other achievers, as they are not the norm. He will be involved in a close knit group of friends there, which is nice, but there are few options to make broader connections. School events are sparsely attended by the whole of the community.

Before the flamers start, yes, there are some kids from low income environments who excel beyond all these characterizations, but it is not the norm.

Sincerely,

Someone who really knows......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another thing to consider is that schools with high FARMS might have additional resources for more staff allowing more personalized attention, and for splitting the classroom into groups by abilities (differentiation).
Someone please tell me this is true.

Differentiation is a MYTH. You cannot differentiate curriculum for students who are vastly below level in reading and math. Those extra personnel are there as support for those very low level learners, but the curriculum does not meet them at their level.

[Anonymous]

Sadly, that's been our experience too, PP at 1:45.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, that's been our experience too, PP at 1:45.

+1

And if it is a school with low English proficiency, languages other than English will be spoken by the majority of kids on the playground at recess, and if your child does not speak the second language, your child may be teased by several children, using the second language. The teachers will try to do something if you are fortunate, but the teasing will likely continue. Hopefully your child will be able to find friends that share his or her interests and do not tease in a second language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your child's instructional day will be interrupted by countless episodes of disruptive behavior. The classroom culture will be tense as these children are frequently not engaged and well below level of the grade level material. Many of the teachers will be on the spectrum of burnout. Lots of staff turnover. The school focus will be to raise those test scores and the curriculum will be focused entirely on that. The common denominator of rigor will be much lower. Your kid will look like a rock star to most teachers who appreciate that he does his work, doesn't mouth off, and makes an effort. Is this a good thing? Not really, because the perception is skewed. He won't be challenged. He will not be motivated and inspired by other achievers, as they are not the norm. He will be involved in a close knit group of friends there, which is nice, but there are few options to make broader connections. School events are sparsely attended by the whole of the community.

Before the flamers start, yes, there are some kids from low income environments who excel beyond all these characterizations, but it is not the norm.

Sincerely,

Someone who really knows......

This “someone who really knows” has a very narrow knowledge of higher poverty schools.
The answer to your question is that if you have a child who comes from a very supportive home, he will likely do quite well in school, regardless of the economic level of the other students. Many Title I schools (which ARE Title I because of their high free and reduced lunch rates) have a student body that does well.
I have taught in several of these schools. I have not witnessed the “countless episodes of disruptive behavior.” Quite the opposite, really. Most of these kids are excited to be at school and quite eager to learn. Do some students misbehave? Of course. This happens in ALL schools. I won’t go through all of the pp.’s negative comments, but will point out a crucial point - the quality of your child’s teaching is most affected by the quality of the teacher. It is the TEACHER that makes the difference. So, you can have a GREAT teacher in a “bad” school or a BAD teacher in a great school.
Title I schools do have additional resources and the teachers at these schools also receive additional professional development. That is a plus.
My advice is to visit the school in question. Watch instruction. Do the teachers seem to like what they do? Do they treat the students respectfully? Do the students seem happy? Are the teachers supported by administration?
Good luck with your child and his/her schooling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child's instructional day will be interrupted by countless episodes of disruptive behavior. The classroom culture will be tense as these children are frequently not engaged and well below level of the grade level material. Many of the teachers will be on the spectrum of burnout. Lots of staff turnover. The school focus will be to raise those test scores and the curriculum will be focused entirely on that. The common denominator of rigor will be much lower. Your kid will look like a rock star to most teachers who appreciate that he does his work, doesn't mouth off, and makes an effort. Is this a good thing? Not really, because the perception is skewed. He won't be challenged. He will not be motivated and inspired by other achievers, as they are not the norm. He will be involved in a close knit group of friends there, which is nice, but there are few options to make broader connections. School events are sparsely attended by the whole of the community.

Before the flamers start, yes, there are some kids from low income environments who excel beyond all these characterizations, but it is not the norm.

Sincerely,

Someone who really knows......

This “someone who really knows” has a very narrow knowledge of higher poverty schools.
The answer to your question is that if you have a child who comes from a very supportive home, he will likely do quite well in school, regardless of the economic level of the other students. Many Title I schools (which ARE Title I because of their high free and reduced lunch rates) have a student body that does well.
I have taught in several of these schools. I have not witnessed the “countless episodes of disruptive behavior.” Quite the opposite, really. Most of these kids are excited to be at school and quite eager to learn. Do some students misbehave? Of course. This happens in ALL schools. I won’t go through all of the pp.’s negative comments, but will point out a crucial point - the quality of your child’s teaching is most affected by the quality of the teacher. It is the TEACHER that makes the difference. So, you can have a GREAT teacher in a “bad” school or a BAD teacher in a great school.
Title I schools do have additional resources and the teachers at these schools also receive additional professional development. That is a plus.
My advice is to visit the school in question. Watch instruction. Do the teachers seem to like what they do? Do they treat the students respectfully? Do the students seem happy? Are the teachers supported by administration?
Good luck with your child and his/her schooling.

You know I'm really getting sick of these sorts of answers from educators. I'm sure you are a fantastic teacher and really know how to get through to the kids, but you realize these responses are all about your ego right? Your high opinion of yourself and the job you do. You believe you are so talented that the circumstances a school is mired in are irrelevant. It's so not helpful to the discussion.
The reality is that there is plenty of data out there that suggests there is a tipping point in the amount of poverty a school can absorb. When more than half of a school is poor, EVERY CHILD SUFFERS. That includes the middle income children. It doesn't mean that the middle income children are failing- they are just being out performed by their peers another zipcode over. The teachers who write the above comments don't seem to be bothered by that, but it sure as hell bothers me.
I'm much more interested in my child's performance than your ego.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child's instructional day will be interrupted by countless episodes of disruptive behavior. The classroom culture will be tense as these children are frequently not engaged and well below level of the grade level material. Many of the teachers will be on the spectrum of burnout. Lots of staff turnover. The school focus will be to raise those test scores and the curriculum will be focused entirely on that. The common denominator of rigor will be much lower. Your kid will look like a rock star to most teachers who appreciate that he does his work, doesn't mouth off, and makes an effort. Is this a good thing? Not really, because the perception is skewed. He won't be challenged. He will not be motivated and inspired by other achievers, as they are not the norm. He will be involved in a close knit group of friends there, which is nice, but there are few options to make broader connections. School events are sparsely attended by the whole of the community.

Before the flamers start, yes, there are some kids from low income environments who excel beyond all these characterizations, but it is not the norm.

Sincerely,

Someone who really knows......

This “someone who really knows” has a very narrow knowledge of higher poverty schools.
The answer to your question is that if you have a child who comes from a very supportive home, he will likely do quite well in school, regardless of the economic level of the other students. Many Title I schools (which ARE Title I because of their high free and reduced lunch rates) have a student body that does well.
I have taught in several of these schools. I have not witnessed the “countless episodes of disruptive behavior.” Quite the opposite, really. Most of these kids are excited to be at school and quite eager to learn. Do some students misbehave? Of course. This happens in ALL schools. I won’t go through all of the pp.’s negative comments, but will point out a crucial point - the quality of your child’s teaching is most affected by the quality of the teacher. It is the TEACHER that makes the difference. So, you can have a GREAT teacher in a “bad” school or a BAD teacher in a great school.
Title I schools do have additional resources and the teachers at these schools also receive additional professional development. That is a plus.
My advice is to visit the school in question. Watch instruction. Do the teachers seem to like what they do? Do they treat the students respectfully? Do the students seem happy? Are the teachers supported by administration?
Good luck with your child and his/her schooling.

You know I'm really getting sick of these sorts of answers from educators. I'm sure you are a fantastic teacher and really know how to get through to the kids, but you realize these responses are all about your ego right? Your high opinion of yourself and the job you do. You believe you are so talented that the circumstances a school is mired in are irrelevant. It's so not helpful to the discussion.
The reality is that there is plenty of data out there that suggests there is a tipping point in the amount of poverty a school can absorb. When more than half of a school is poor, EVERY CHILD SUFFERS. That includes the middle income children. It doesn't mean that the middle income children are failing- they are just being out performed by their peers another zipcode over. The teachers who write the above comments don't seem to be bothered by that, but it sure as hell bothers me.
I'm much more interested in my child's performance than your ego.

Actually, I am not speaking as only an educator but also as a parent whose children attended a Title I school. Seems as if you are speaking from a very limited perspective. As an educator, I have been in many Title I schools - some are good, some not so good, but just being a Title I school does not make it a bad school. I have also been in many affluent schools. Some good, some not so good. One thing I can tell you is that the teachers at the Title I schools are, on the whole, stronger teachers. They know how to teach in order to reach the students. They do not rely on lecture or auditory learning only. They make learning concrete for students. They do not depend upon students to teach themselves the material or to learn new material at home. They use time efficiently to teach material and to practice new learning.
There are good teachers at most schools in No. Va. There are also teachers who are not so strong. But, on the whole, teachers at Title I schools have a better understanding of how to teach to help students not only learn but retain the material.
Yes, children from less advantaged homes have challenges that more affluent students do not have. But, believe it or not, they have the same learning capacity as students who are from homes with every advantage imaginable.
And, my expertise is not what I am referencing when I speak of the strong instruction at Title I schools. It is what I have SEEN in other teachers. I am incredibly impressed with not only the competence of these teachers, but the true dedication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child's instructional day will be interrupted by countless episodes of disruptive behavior. The classroom culture will be tense as these children are frequently not engaged and well below level of the grade level material. Many of the teachers will be on the spectrum of burnout. Lots of staff turnover. The school focus will be to raise those test scores and the curriculum will be focused entirely on that. The common denominator of rigor will be much lower. Your kid will look like a rock star to most teachers who appreciate that he does his work, doesn't mouth off, and makes an effort. Is this a good thing? Not really, because the perception is skewed. He won't be challenged. He will not be motivated and inspired by other achievers, as they are not the norm. He will be involved in a close knit group of friends there, which is nice, but there are few options to make broader connections. School events are sparsely attended by the whole of the community.

Before the flamers start, yes, there are some kids from low income environments who excel beyond all these characterizations, but it is not the norm.

Sincerely,

Someone who really knows......

This “someone who really knows” has a very narrow knowledge of higher poverty schools.
The answer to your question is that if you have a child who comes from a very supportive home, he will likely do quite well in school, regardless of the economic level of the other students. Many Title I schools (which ARE Title I because of their high free and reduced lunch rates) have a student body that does well.
I have taught in several of these schools. I have not witnessed the “countless episodes of disruptive behavior.” Quite the opposite, really. Most of these kids are excited to be at school and quite eager to learn. Do some students misbehave? Of course. This happens in ALL schools. I won’t go through all of the pp.’s negative comments, but will point out a crucial point - the quality of your child’s teaching is most affected by the quality of the teacher. It is the TEACHER that makes the difference. So, you can have a GREAT teacher in a “bad” school or a BAD teacher in a great school.
Title I schools do have additional resources and the teachers at these schools also receive additional professional development. That is a plus.
My advice is to visit the school in question. Watch instruction. Do the teachers seem to like what they do? Do they treat the students respectfully? Do the students seem happy? Are the teachers supported by administration?
Good luck with your child and his/her schooling.

You know I'm really getting sick of these sorts of answers from educators. I'm sure you are a fantastic teacher and really know how to get through to the kids, but you realize these responses are all about your ego right? Your high opinion of yourself and the job you do. You believe you are so talented that the circumstances a school is mired in are irrelevant. It's so not helpful to the discussion.
The reality is that there is plenty of data out there that suggests there is a tipping point in the amount of poverty a school can absorb. When more than half of a school is poor, EVERY CHILD SUFFERS. That includes the middle income children. It doesn't mean that the middle income children are failing- they are just being out performed by their peers another zipcode over. The teachers who write the above comments don't seem to be bothered by that, but it sure as hell bothers me.
I'm much more interested in my child's performance than your ego.

Actually, I am not speaking as only an educator but also as a parent whose children attended a Title I school. Seems as if you are speaking from a very limited perspective. As an educator, I have been in many Title I schools - some are good, some not so good, but just being a Title I school does not make it a bad school. I have also been in many affluent schools. Some good, some not so good. One thing I can tell you is that the teachers at the Title I schools are, on the whole, stronger teachers. They know how to teach in order to reach the students. They do not rely on lecture or auditory learning only. They make learning concrete for students. They do not depend upon students to teach themselves the material or to learn new material at home. They use time efficiently to teach material and to practice new learning.
There are good teachers at most schools in No. Va. There are also teachers who are not so strong. But, on the whole, teachers at Title I schools have a better understanding of how to teach to help students not only learn but retain the material.
Yes, children from less advantaged homes have challenges that more affluent students do not have. But, believe it or not, they have the same learning capacity as students who are from homes with every advantage imaginable.
And, my expertise is not what I am referencing when I speak of the strong instruction at Title I schools. It is what I have SEEN in other teachers. I am incredibly impressed with not only the competence of these teachers, but the true dedication.

I'm sure the teachers are very good. That is not what I am disputing. I'm Talking about data. I know everyone hates all the testing. I'm not a big fan either, but it doesn't support that kids perform equally well in schools heavily populated by poverty. Many like to say it's because of high numbers of ESOL students, but that is simply not true. Having strong educators is crucial yes. Without them a title 1 school doesn't have much hope for success. Sadly, those standards for success are always lower than a school with a healthier proportion of SES diversity. I'm not saying that individual kids can't succeed and learn in a title one school, and no, they are not all equal. One of the above posters mentions lack parental involvement ( I'm betting sometimes due to parents working multiple jobs) - I tend to see strong parental involvement at my local school.
I think it's great that you are experienced and knowledgable about what is happening in the room at your kid's school.
The stats, however, don't bear out what you are experiencing. That seems to be hard for many educators to accept, but it needs to start happening if we are going to have an honest conversation about what is best for children's education and how we organize our schools.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I'm always suspicious of people who speak as if their opinion is the absolute truth. It's one thing to have a view and believe that you're right, but once you start stating things like "the reality is" or "every situation results in X," that tells me taht the person lives in their own little bubble and their opinion should be disregarded.