Reply to First hearing on districtwide boundary study is tonight

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "First hearing on districtwide boundary study is tonight"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote]Anonymous wrote:
Studies actually do not show that low income students do better in wealthier schools. There was one study that showed slight gains in low income kids attending schools with 10% low income but those gains evaporated when the % of low income kids hit 20%. These studies also crossed districts where there were significant resource gaps between the low income and high income schools which is not the case in MCPS. MCPS knows that the achievement gap persists regardless of the wealth of the school. They already see the data that low income kids at Watkins Mills do better than low income kids at QO even though QO has much lower FAEMS. They know that low income kids do the worst at PBES even though PBES has the lowest FARMS in the entire DCC. Low income kids fail in the "vaulted" W schools too. This why schools like WJ and Wootton rank 8 rather than 10 on GS. MCPS own staff has done research into the nuances of poverty and school performance. Their own report showed that the wealth of the school was not a predictive factor for PARCC scores for low income kids. What they did fins as a predictive indicator was the number of persistent years a child lived in poverty. The more years a child was eligible for FARMS, the lower the score.

So its an entirely bull shit and misinformation to claim that balancing SES is to raise scores or academic for low income kids.

What is a factor though is school climate. MCPS found that school climate surveys from teachers were much lower in high poverty schools. School safety concerns were much higher. It was harder to retain experienced teachers and they did find a correlation between noice teachers and lower ELA scores. By bussing kids to achieve reduce the concentration of FARMS kids in any one school, MCPS is seeking to improve the school climate. With restorative justice and the policy not to remove disruptive or dangerous students, this is becoming more important.

The other factor which wasn't addressed but seems to be very apparent in MCCPTA minds is getting access to more parent donations. High poverty schools have low to no PTA interactions, members paying dues to MCCPTA and donating for school activities. By balancing FARMS, MCCPTA is hoping that wealthier parents will open their pocketbooks more and give to them. You can make a case that the experience with POMS, new band uniforms, school dances, and other things that a PTA improves a child's experience in school but there has never been correlation let alone causation to a well funded POMS group and high school performance.

This is actually one of the best explanations of WHY this might be useful. Someone needs to sticky this post and continue to post it.[/quote]

To add on some of this is driven by wanting to avoid having schools that fall at the very bottom of the state ranking lists. Its embarrassing for MCPS to have schools near the bottom like Baltimore but they keep inching closer and closer to the bottom every year. If moving a bunch of UMC kids into a high poverty school can just bump the average scores up a bit more they can avoid a whole lotta accountability. I'd say that this is the #1 driver for MCPS and BOE members. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics