Myth: low income students do better in schools with <25% FARMs rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything you do in the schools is just treating a symptom not the disease. If you don’t fix the challenges facing the families it is just like bailing out a boat with a hole in the bottom.

I don't know about your experience, but in my experience, treating the symptoms is often very helpful. For example: my neighbor had shingles, it was very painful, she got gabapentin, she felt better. Should the doctor have said, "No, I'm not going to prescribe anything, because it's just treating a symptom not the disease"? Of course not.

If your neighbor had gotten their varicella vaccine or their shingles vaccine there would be no need for the visit or the gabapentin. See how that works.

There was no varicella vaccine when my neighbor got chicken pix, and she did get the shingles vaccine. Also, do you think that the doctor should have said, "I'm not going to treat your symptoms because you should have gotten a vaccine"?

DP.. also, not everyone can afford to get a vaccine. Average retail price is like $180, and not everyone has insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything you do in the schools is just treating a symptom not the disease. If you don’t fix the challenges facing the families it is just like bailing out a boat with a hole in the bottom.

I don't know about your experience, but in my experience, treating the symptoms is often very helpful. For example: my neighbor had shingles, it was very painful, she got gabapentin, she felt better. Should the doctor have said, "No, I'm not going to prescribe anything, because it's just treating a symptom not the disease"? Of course not.

If your neighbor had gotten their varicella vaccine or their shingles vaccine there would be no need for the visit or the gabapentin. See how that works.

There was no varicella vaccine when my neighbor got chicken pix, and she did get the shingles vaccine. Also, do you think that the doctor should have said, "I'm not going to treat your symptoms because you should have gotten a vaccine"?

DP.. also, not everyone can afford to get a vaccine. Average retail price is like $180, and not everyone has insurance.

Jesus you people are literal but I’ll continue with the analogy. I’m not saying that we should abandon all treatment and while if you keep bailing out a sinking ship it won’t sink but it won’t sail well either so we as a nation need to do more than just keep putting cream on shingles patients but we need to figure out how to deliver the vaccine to everyone which is cheaper ultimately than continuing as is and just testing when people present with the symptoms. Kind of like giving a diabetic insulin but also providing a nutritionist for them to help them eat better and exercise. If we don’t look at providing a living minimum wage, health insurance affordable housing, food support and high quality day care we will keep spending money treating the same symptoms (violence, academic failure, broken families, teen pregnancy etc..) with no change in outcomes (ie the boat that won’t sink but also will not sail).

[Anonymous]

“Table 13 shows higher percentages of Black and Hispanic students at the two low-poverty schools, Churchill and Whitman, earning scores of 3 or higher on one or more Advanced Placement Exams than their counterparts at the other four schools. In contrast their FARMS students had the lowest percentages. Perhaps even more unexpected are the results, shown in Table 14, of Churchill’s and Whitman’s FARMS students possessing the lowest percentages taking an Exam with the exception of Churchill being 2% higher than Magruder.”

37

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything you do in the schools is just treating a symptom not the disease. If you don’t fix the challenges facing the families it is just like bailing out a boat with a hole in the bottom.

I don't know about your experience, but in my experience, treating the symptoms is often very helpful. For example: my neighbor had shingles, it was very painful, she got gabapentin, she felt better. Should the doctor have said, "No, I'm not going to prescribe anything, because it's just treating a symptom not the disease"? Of course not.

If your neighbor had gotten their varicella vaccine or their shingles vaccine there would be no need for the visit or the gabapentin. See how that works.

There was no varicella vaccine when my neighbor got chicken pix, and she did get the shingles vaccine. Also, do you think that the doctor should have said, "I'm not going to treat your symptoms because you should have gotten a vaccine"?

DP.. also, not everyone can afford to get a vaccine. Average retail price is like $180, and not everyone has insurance.

I just can’t with the inability to understand the analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything you do in the schools is just treating a symptom not the disease. If you don’t fix the challenges facing the families it is just like bailing out a boat with a hole in the bottom.

I don't know about your experience, but in my experience, treating the symptoms is often very helpful. For example: my neighbor had shingles, it was very painful, she got gabapentin, she felt better. Should the doctor have said, "No, I'm not going to prescribe anything, because it's just treating a symptom not the disease"? Of course not.

If your neighbor had gotten their varicella vaccine or their shingles vaccine there would be no need for the visit or the gabapentin. See how that works.

There was no varicella vaccine when my neighbor got chicken pix, and she did get the shingles vaccine. Also, do you think that the doctor should have said, "I'm not going to treat your symptoms because you should have gotten a vaccine"?

DP.. also, not everyone can afford to get a vaccine. Average retail price is like $180, and not everyone has insurance.

I just can’t with the inability to understand the analogy.

I know!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I just can’t with the inability to understand the analogy.

We understood the analogy. We just didn't think it was a good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I just can’t with the inability to understand the analogy.

We understood the analogy. We just didn't think it was a good one.

+1

[Anonymous]

As a teacher, I think I have been more effective with fewer disruptions in higher SES classrooms. Some FARMS student have had a lot of disruption in their lives that is not their fault. That stress affects their learning process and depending on the personality can affect others in the classroom. The class clown or social butterfly is always looking for an audience. If they have gaps in their learning, these distractions can’t dominate their functionality in a classroom.

[Anonymous]

1. Yes it is a myth that low income students do better in schools with less than 25% FARMS at the MS and HS level. ES is a different situation IF the school is not overcrowded.

2. No low income students are not lost causes. It takes resources ON THE GROUND not sitting off in a remote central office to help them succeed.

In ES if the school is not overcrowded, FARMS kids can get extra help in richer schools. As a teacher, teaching in a wealthy school is much easier. The kids have the background knowledge, learn easily or already know the material, and the kids with SN have parents fighting to get them para educator time. I had time to give the 1-3 FARMS kids extra support. The PTA paid for homework club that provided them with extra help after school. The PTA paid for them to be able to buy some books at the book fair, get school t-shirts, cover expensive field trips, or go to some of the after school enrichment programs.

This ALL evaporates in MS and HS. Teachers structurally do not have time to help kids that are very far behind within the short class sessions. You don't have the same kids all day. The PTAs are not as active and usually just focused on the dances, sports, music etc. There is no PTA funding for the FARMS kids to do after school programs or go to private tutoring like their wealthier peers. It is much more dispersed. MS and HS REQUIRES a student to navigate the system. Kids need to keep track of their work and turn it in. They need to not lose their materials. They need to study at home. The wealthier kids who struggle with this have parents that keep on top of them and intervene when their grades drop. The FARMS kids do not have this.

What would work would be providing a case worker with a manageable load of students similar to how SN is supposed to be handled. (I say supposed because this isn't even implemented consistently for SN kids). The case worker would meet twice a week with the student and have up to date information on what is missing and what is due. The case worker could check that the student is taking notes, has their materials organized, or even help them edit or reflect back on any assignments that they did poorly on to learn how not to make the same mistakes next time. After school there would be a structured homework club with tutors assigned to small groups. I am NOT talking about having a few tutors sit at a table in the library saying we're available if you have questions and the session becomes a basic proctored study hall. The tutors would work with their small groups to check off their homework lists, help check work and give subject specific help as necessary. If I had more money, I would create a program where high school students would be paid minimum wage to go to summer school. They would get a bonus for earning high grades.

This all takes dedicated instructional staff and caseworkers IN THE SCHOOLS. The central office likes to label programs and say they are doing some things like this but they NEVER willingly reduce the staff in the central office to hire staff in the schools. Anything that threatens to reduce positions in the central office is viewed as a major threat.

This is why the central office is so gun ho on the idea that simply changing the demographic make up of the schools will fix the achievement gap. In their view, the teachers will have plenty of time within their existing workload to bring up the FARMS kids and all the central office staff get to stay or grow their departments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Yes it is a myth that low income students do better in schools with less than 25% FARMS at the MS and HS level. ES is a different situation IF the school is not overcrowded.

2. No low income students are not lost causes. It takes resources ON THE GROUND not sitting off in a remote central office to help them succeed.

In ES if the school is not overcrowded, FARMS kids can get extra help in richer schools. As a teacher, teaching in a wealthy school is much easier. The kids have the background knowledge, learn easily or already know the material, and the kids with SN have parents fighting to get them para educator time. I had time to give the 1-3 FARMS kids extra support. The PTA paid for homework club that provided them with extra help after school. The PTA paid for them to be able to buy some books at the book fair, get school t-shirts, cover expensive field trips, or go to some of the after school enrichment programs.

This ALL evaporates in MS and HS. Teachers structurally do not have time to help kids that are very far behind within the short class sessions. You don't have the same kids all day. The PTAs are not as active and usually just focused on the dances, sports, music etc. There is no PTA funding for the FARMS kids to do after school programs or go to private tutoring like their wealthier peers. It is much more dispersed. MS and HS REQUIRES a student to navigate the system. Kids need to keep track of their work and turn it in. They need to not lose their materials. They need to study at home. The wealthier kids who struggle with this have parents that keep on top of them and intervene when their grades drop. The FARMS kids do not have this.

What would work would be providing a case worker with a manageable load of students similar to how SN is supposed to be handled. (I say supposed because this isn't even implemented consistently for SN kids). The case worker would meet twice a week with the student and have up to date information on what is missing and what is due. The case worker could check that the student is taking notes, has their materials organized, or even help them edit or reflect back on any assignments that they did poorly on to learn how not to make the same mistakes next time. After school there would be a structured homework club with tutors assigned to small groups. I am NOT talking about having a few tutors sit at a table in the library saying we're available if you have questions and the session becomes a basic proctored study hall. The tutors would work with their small groups to check off their homework lists, help check work and give subject specific help as necessary. If I had more money, I would create a program where high school students would be paid minimum wage to go to summer school. They would get a bonus for earning high grades.

This all takes dedicated instructional staff and caseworkers IN THE SCHOOLS. The central office likes to label programs and say they are doing some things like this but they NEVER willingly reduce the staff in the central office to hire staff in the schools. Anything that threatens to reduce positions in the central office is viewed as a major threat.

This is why the central office is so gun ho on the idea that simply changing the demographic make up of the schools will fix the achievement gap. In their view, the teachers will have plenty of time within their existing workload to bring up the FARMS kids and all the central office staff get to stay or grow their departments.

This is really fabulous. Are you involved in the school system, or have you considered running for the BOE?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Yes it is a myth that low income students do better in schools with less than 25% FARMS at the MS and HS level. ES is a different situation IF the school is not overcrowded.

2. No low income students are not lost causes. It takes resources ON THE GROUND not sitting off in a remote central office to help them succeed.

In ES if the school is not overcrowded, FARMS kids can get extra help in richer schools. As a teacher, teaching in a wealthy school is much easier. The kids have the background knowledge, learn easily or already know the material, and the kids with SN have parents fighting to get them para educator time. I had time to give the 1-3 FARMS kids extra support. The PTA paid for homework club that provided them with extra help after school. The PTA paid for them to be able to buy some books at the book fair, get school t-shirts, cover expensive field trips, or go to some of the after school enrichment programs.

This ALL evaporates in MS and HS. Teachers structurally do not have time to help kids that are very far behind within the short class sessions. You don't have the same kids all day. The PTAs are not as active and usually just focused on the dances, sports, music etc. There is no PTA funding for the FARMS kids to do after school programs or go to private tutoring like their wealthier peers. It is much more dispersed. MS and HS REQUIRES a student to navigate the system. Kids need to keep track of their work and turn it in. They need to not lose their materials. They need to study at home. The wealthier kids who struggle with this have parents that keep on top of them and intervene when their grades drop. The FARMS kids do not have this.

What would work would be providing a case worker with a manageable load of students similar to how SN is supposed to be handled. (I say supposed because this isn't even implemented consistently for SN kids). The case worker would meet twice a week with the student and have up to date information on what is missing and what is due. The case worker could check that the student is taking notes, has their materials organized, or even help them edit or reflect back on any assignments that they did poorly on to learn how not to make the same mistakes next time. After school there would be a structured homework club with tutors assigned to small groups. I am NOT talking about having a few tutors sit at a table in the library saying we're available if you have questions and the session becomes a basic proctored study hall. The tutors would work with their small groups to check off their homework lists, help check work and give subject specific help as necessary. If I had more money, I would create a program where high school students would be paid minimum wage to go to summer school. They would get a bonus for earning high grades.

This all takes dedicated instructional staff and caseworkers IN THE SCHOOLS. The central office likes to label programs and say they are doing some things like this but they NEVER willingly reduce the staff in the central office to hire staff in the schools. Anything that threatens to reduce positions in the central office is viewed as a major threat.

This is why the central office is so gun ho on the idea that simply changing the demographic make up of the schools will fix the achievement gap. In their view, the teachers will have plenty of time within their existing workload to bring up the FARMS kids and all the central office staff get to stay or grow their departments.

Should MCPS structure its pay scales differently for Admin and teachers? The admins in central office should be paid less than the teachers with same length of service? Losing the best teachers to center office happens all the time because it is considered as a promotion. If there is a bonus for classroom teachers structured in their pay, any teacher moves away from classroom will not receive the bonus.

[Anonymous]

^"Yes it is a myth that low income students do better in schools with less than 25% FARMS at the MS and HS level. ES is a different situation IF the school is not overcrowded."

There is a study that shows otherwise. Where do you get your information from? What peer reviewed research shows that this is a myth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Yes it is a myth that low income students do better in schools with less than 25% FARMS at the MS and HS level. ES is a different situation IF the school is not overcrowded.

2. No low income students are not lost causes. It takes resources ON THE GROUND not sitting off in a remote central office to help them succeed.

In ES if the school is not overcrowded, FARMS kids can get extra help in richer schools. As a teacher, teaching in a wealthy school is much easier. The kids have the background knowledge, learn easily or already know the material, and the kids with SN have parents fighting to get them para educator time. I had time to give the 1-3 FARMS kids extra support. The PTA paid for homework club that provided them with extra help after school. The PTA paid for them to be able to buy some books at the book fair, get school t-shirts, cover expensive field trips, or go to some of the after school enrichment programs.

This ALL evaporates in MS and HS. Teachers structurally do not have time to help kids that are very far behind within the short class sessions. You don't have the same kids all day. The PTAs are not as active and usually just focused on the dances, sports, music etc. There is no PTA funding for the FARMS kids to do after school programs or go to private tutoring like their wealthier peers. It is much more dispersed. MS and HS REQUIRES a student to navigate the system. Kids need to keep track of their work and turn it in. They need to not lose their materials. They need to study at home. The wealthier kids who struggle with this have parents that keep on top of them and intervene when their grades drop. The FARMS kids do not have this.

What would work would be providing a case worker with a manageable load of students similar to how SN is supposed to be handled. (I say supposed because this isn't even implemented consistently for SN kids). The case worker would meet twice a week with the student and have up to date information on what is missing and what is due. The case worker could check that the student is taking notes, has their materials organized, or even help them edit or reflect back on any assignments that they did poorly on to learn how not to make the same mistakes next time. After school there would be a structured homework club with tutors assigned to small groups. I am NOT talking about having a few tutors sit at a table in the library saying we're available if you have questions and the session becomes a basic proctored study hall. The tutors would work with their small groups to check off their homework lists, help check work and give subject specific help as necessary. If I had more money, I would create a program where high school students would be paid minimum wage to go to summer school. They would get a bonus for earning high grades.

This all takes dedicated instructional staff and caseworkers IN THE SCHOOLS. The central office likes to label programs and say they are doing some things like this but they NEVER willingly reduce the staff in the central office to hire staff in the schools. Anything that threatens to reduce positions in the central office is viewed as a major threat.

This is why the central office is so gun ho on the idea that simply changing the demographic make up of the schools will fix the achievement gap. In their view, the teachers will have plenty of time within their existing workload to bring up the FARMS kids and all the central office staff get to stay or grow their departments.

All good points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^"Yes it is a myth that low income students do better in schools with less than 25% FARMS at the MS and HS level. ES is a different situation IF the school is not overcrowded."

There is a study that shows otherwise. Where do you get your information from? What peer reviewed research shows that this is a myth?

Here is the link to a new report: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=geog_ms_capstone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the people who discredit the report because it was a capstone report, please read the report. After you read it, please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion. Did the report cherry picked the data? Did the author use murky stats? Was the conclusion not based on facts?

Read this one, and then please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion.

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

Because it's a non-published, non-peer reviewed report from an organization with an agenda. It's clear from this report that they crunched the data until they found a "threshold" at which they could write a report that fit their agenda.

It's a non-published, non-peer reviewed report from a person who probably doesn't have an agenda.

The century paper is bad though. It's just curve fitting without confidence bounds. The government tried something similar (much larger scale though) with the "Moving to opportunity " program and found no educational benefits.