Reply to Latin replication pulled from PCSB agenda

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Latin replication pulled from PCSB agenda"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]If someone has time to dig into them, there's good data in these fact sheets, although they are from 2015-16 and 2016-17.

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dm...20Fact%20%20Sheet_10.06.17.pdf 
https://dme.dc.gov/node/1198445

Also, at risk of academic failure is a designation DC has only begun using in the last 2 years, so any comparison going further back isn't valid. Before that it was economically disadvantaged; before that FARMS, which only captures income.

[b]At-risk is a narrower definition and fewer students meet this criterion (very poor, homeless, in foster care or at least one year behind the expected grade for your age) that meet the economically disadvantaged criterion.[/b][/quote]

What was the impetus for shifting from the FARMs designation to the narrower "at risk" category?    [/quote]

First OSSE went to economically disadvantaged -- in between that shift.

It was done because during the Obama Administration the USDA introduced the community eligibility standard. At any school with 60% or more students qualifying for FARMS, everyone would be allowed to have meals for free. It also made the FARMS category as a proxy for poverty meaningless. At a community eligibility, 100% percent of the students are reported as receiving FARMS.

I think at-risk was done to make sure that schools with the highest need students, poor kids but also children who are homeless or who are in foster care, would be eligible for additional resources.

[/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