Anonymous wrote:I work at a focus school that should be Title 1 (we are a community school and a Farms rate over 75%, SPED rate of 25%, high ELD Population… yeah it’s rough). The kids need so much more than we can provide. They are great kids, but have not had the start in life that everyone deserves. Behaviors are really tough and academically they are so far behind. Many are sad to leave for winter break as food insecurity is real.

All this said, I can’t honestly say that reduced class size will make any difference. There needs to be more wrap around services, more para support (a second adult in classrooms make a huge difference), and way better special education support. We need a curriculum that matches the level of students, less testing, more focus on progress rather than grade level “rigor.” The money is so needed in so many ways, but 1 more kid in the class won’t change anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Taylor has some serious cojones to do this to low income elementary schools when outcomes are so bad.

And his budget one pager makes it look like he is adding funding to increase equity when he is almost certainly reducing funding for low income schools.

SMH

Outcomes are going to be bad no matter what. It doesn't matter if the class sizes are 5, 10, 20, or 30. Staffing should be the same as all the other schools.

If class size doesn't matter then why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

Less class clowns per class = less teacher distraction = more attention on rach student.

So the poorest kids with the worst outcomes don't need extra attention but yours do?

I am having a hard time understanding the issue with poor families. I come from another country with much less wealth than US. Education was seen as a priority in all families, poor or wealthy. There was a push from inside the family to be be good in school. If one misbehaves, one is disciplined at home. Here we have so much entitlement. If so much money was invested in smaller classrooms, where are the results? How do we have so many failing students?

Exactly. It doesn't matter how small the classes are in the low performing schools. It is a complete waste of resources.

It's not, though. Yes, there are absolutely kids who are borderline impossible to reach, or whose daily life is so traumatic and/or chaotic that they struggle to function in school.

But we don't really have any choice but to try to reach them, because the alternative is creating a permanent underclass with no possibility to escape generational poverty. Like the PP, I came here from a country that is broadly poorer than the United States and where educational standards are generally higher.

However, my country is also happy to leave entire ethnic groups in poverty forever. Also to decide a child's educational path starting at 6, and their lifelong professional/academic path at 13.

That system is only better if you're at the top of it, and it's also fundamentally unstable for society.

Everyone agrees we should try to reach/help those kids. This is not like your home country where we collectively choose to leave groups of kids behind. But school funding and resources aren’t unlimited, so someone needs to decide how much we can afford to allocate in one direction because it will obviously affect what we can spend on other priorities and budget items. There are plenty of people in this county (and on this board) who would gladly put 50 kids in each classroom at Whitman so kids in high farms schools could have a teacher for every 10 kids. Obviously that’s an extreme example but the truth is there isn’t great consensus on where to draw the line. The amount of poverty in the county is relatively new, unprecedented, and increasing rapidly. It’s tricky to calibrate the scale tilting in a county that was only recently mostly middle to UMC.

MCPS literally gets money from the state based on the number of FARMS kids in the state and doesn't spend all of it to serve FARMS kids. The notion that let's use this money to decrease class sizes for non-poor kids is preposterous and blatantly self serving. If class sizes don't matter, why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

The high performing schools don't need smaller class sizes. The smaller class sizes for low performing schools is not working. The class size is not why they are low performing. That money should be spent a different way.

You say it's not working because there is still an achievement gap. I think it absolutely helps, but it is not remotely enough.

DP. The reasons for the achievement gap are not things schools can change.

+1

A large and growing body of evidence shows that money, when spent equitably and effectively on key school resources, improves student outcomes and closes achievement and opportunity gaps. Research consistently shows that when more money is spent on education, especially for students from low-income families, achievement and graduation rates improve, along with life outcomes such as employment and wages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Taylor has some serious cojones to do this to low income elementary schools when outcomes are so bad.

And his budget one pager makes it look like he is adding funding to increase equity when he is almost certainly reducing funding for low income schools.

SMH

Outcomes are going to be bad no matter what. It doesn't matter if the class sizes are 5, 10, 20, or 30. Staffing should be the same as all the other schools.

If class size doesn't matter then why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

Less class clowns per class = less teacher distraction = more attention on rach student.

So the poorest kids with the worst outcomes don't need extra attention but yours do?

I am having a hard time understanding the issue with poor families. I come from another country with much less wealth than US. Education was seen as a priority in all families, poor or wealthy. There was a push from inside the family to be be good in school. If one misbehaves, one is disciplined at home. Here we have so much entitlement. If so much money was invested in smaller classrooms, where are the results? How do we have so many failing students?

Exactly. It doesn't matter how small the classes are in the low performing schools. It is a complete waste of resources.

It's not, though. Yes, there are absolutely kids who are borderline impossible to reach, or whose daily life is so traumatic and/or chaotic that they struggle to function in school.

But we don't really have any choice but to try to reach them, because the alternative is creating a permanent underclass with no possibility to escape generational poverty. Like the PP, I came here from a country that is broadly poorer than the United States and where educational standards are generally higher.

However, my country is also happy to leave entire ethnic groups in poverty forever. Also to decide a child's educational path starting at 6, and their lifelong professional/academic path at 13.

That system is only better if you're at the top of it, and it's also fundamentally unstable for society.

Everyone agrees we should try to reach/help those kids. This is not like your home country where we collectively choose to leave groups of kids behind. But school funding and resources aren’t unlimited, so someone needs to decide how much we can afford to allocate in one direction because it will obviously affect what we can spend on other priorities and budget items. There are plenty of people in this county (and on this board) who would gladly put 50 kids in each classroom at Whitman so kids in high farms schools could have a teacher for every 10 kids. Obviously that’s an extreme example but the truth is there isn’t great consensus on where to draw the line. The amount of poverty in the county is relatively new, unprecedented, and increasing rapidly. It’s tricky to calibrate the scale tilting in a county that was only recently mostly middle to UMC.

MCPS literally gets money from the state based on the number of FARMS kids in the state and doesn't spend all of it to serve FARMS kids. The notion that let's use this money to decrease class sizes for non-poor kids is preposterous and blatantly self serving. If class sizes don't matter, why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

The high performing schools don't need smaller class sizes. The smaller class sizes for low performing schools is not working. The class size is not why they are low performing. That money should be spent a different way.

You say it's not working because there is still an achievement gap. I think it absolutely helps, but it is not remotely enough.

DP. The reasons for the achievement gap are not things schools can change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Taylor has some serious cojones to do this to low income elementary schools when outcomes are so bad.

And his budget one pager makes it look like he is adding funding to increase equity when he is almost certainly reducing funding for low income schools.

SMH

Outcomes are going to be bad no matter what. It doesn't matter if the class sizes are 5, 10, 20, or 30. Staffing should be the same as all the other schools.

If class size doesn't matter then why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

Less class clowns per class = less teacher distraction = more attention on rach student.

So the poorest kids with the worst outcomes don't need extra attention but yours do?

I am having a hard time understanding the issue with poor families. I come from another country with much less wealth than US. Education was seen as a priority in all families, poor or wealthy. There was a push from inside the family to be be good in school. If one misbehaves, one is disciplined at home. Here we have so much entitlement. If so much money was invested in smaller classrooms, where are the results? How do we have so many failing students?

Exactly. It doesn't matter how small the classes are in the low performing schools. It is a complete waste of resources.

It's not, though. Yes, there are absolutely kids who are borderline impossible to reach, or whose daily life is so traumatic and/or chaotic that they struggle to function in school.

But we don't really have any choice but to try to reach them, because the alternative is creating a permanent underclass with no possibility to escape generational poverty. Like the PP, I came here from a country that is broadly poorer than the United States and where educational standards are generally higher.

However, my country is also happy to leave entire ethnic groups in poverty forever. Also to decide a child's educational path starting at 6, and their lifelong professional/academic path at 13.

That system is only better if you're at the top of it, and it's also fundamentally unstable for society.

Everyone agrees we should try to reach/help those kids. This is not like your home country where we collectively choose to leave groups of kids behind. But school funding and resources aren’t unlimited, so someone needs to decide how much we can afford to allocate in one direction because it will obviously affect what we can spend on other priorities and budget items. There are plenty of people in this county (and on this board) who would gladly put 50 kids in each classroom at Whitman so kids in high farms schools could have a teacher for every 10 kids. Obviously that’s an extreme example but the truth is there isn’t great consensus on where to draw the line. The amount of poverty in the county is relatively new, unprecedented, and increasing rapidly. It’s tricky to calibrate the scale tilting in a county that was only recently mostly middle to UMC.

MCPS literally gets money from the state based on the number of FARMS kids in the state and doesn't spend all of it to serve FARMS kids. The notion that let's use this money to decrease class sizes for non-poor kids is preposterous and blatantly self serving. If class sizes don't matter, why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

How much money do they get from the state for FARMs stidents next year, and how much are they spending to support FARMs students?

Why are you asking a rando on DCUM? MCPS is the only entity that can track and report this and they don't do that. Every few years someone else does this analysis and finds the same bs. Ask more of MCPS please.

The DCUM Randi is making this claim. She should back it up or I am just not going to believe it.

Lady I already posted this report on this thread: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OLO/Resources/Files/2019%20Reports/OLOReport2019-14.pdf

No, this analysis has not been done since 2019. MCPS has no interest in doing it, so they don't. That obviously doesn't mean they have improved.

Where in that reort does it say that the state is providing additional funding for FARMs students, and the MCPS is not spending those additional funds on FARMs students?l

It doesn’t. First of all the report is extraordinarily outdated. It is from 2019, pre pandemic. Second, it states the amount of state aid intended for farms students and its 142 million, which is a drop in the bucket of a several billion dollar budget. Third, the report seeks to be whining that the money is being spent in compensatory services for special ed kids instead of farms kids in disproportionate fashion. Not that it’s being funneled to gen ed students not requiring compensatory services. This does not back up Larla’s point that she keeps insisting is true but can’t support with current data or evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Taylor has some serious cojones to do this to low income elementary schools when outcomes are so bad.

And his budget one pager makes it look like he is adding funding to increase equity when he is almost certainly reducing funding for low income schools.

SMH

Outcomes are going to be bad no matter what. It doesn't matter if the class sizes are 5, 10, 20, or 30. Staffing should be the same as all the other schools.

If class size doesn't matter then why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

Less class clowns per class = less teacher distraction = more attention on rach student.

So the poorest kids with the worst outcomes don't need extra attention but yours do?

I am having a hard time understanding the issue with poor families. I come from another country with much less wealth than US. Education was seen as a priority in all families, poor or wealthy. There was a push from inside the family to be be good in school. If one misbehaves, one is disciplined at home. Here we have so much entitlement. If so much money was invested in smaller classrooms, where are the results? How do we have so many failing students?

Exactly. It doesn't matter how small the classes are in the low performing schools. It is a complete waste of resources.

It's not, though. Yes, there are absolutely kids who are borderline impossible to reach, or whose daily life is so traumatic and/or chaotic that they struggle to function in school.

But we don't really have any choice but to try to reach them, because the alternative is creating a permanent underclass with no possibility to escape generational poverty. Like the PP, I came here from a country that is broadly poorer than the United States and where educational standards are generally higher.

However, my country is also happy to leave entire ethnic groups in poverty forever. Also to decide a child's educational path starting at 6, and their lifelong professional/academic path at 13.

That system is only better if you're at the top of it, and it's also fundamentally unstable for society.

Everyone agrees we should try to reach/help those kids. This is not like your home country where we collectively choose to leave groups of kids behind. But school funding and resources aren’t unlimited, so someone needs to decide how much we can afford to allocate in one direction because it will obviously affect what we can spend on other priorities and budget items. There are plenty of people in this county (and on this board) who would gladly put 50 kids in each classroom at Whitman so kids in high farms schools could have a teacher for every 10 kids. Obviously that’s an extreme example but the truth is there isn’t great consensus on where to draw the line. The amount of poverty in the county is relatively new, unprecedented, and increasing rapidly. It’s tricky to calibrate the scale tilting in a county that was only recently mostly middle to UMC.

MCPS literally gets money from the state based on the number of FARMS kids in the state and doesn't spend all of it to serve FARMS kids. The notion that let's use this money to decrease class sizes for non-poor kids is preposterous and blatantly self serving. If class sizes don't matter, why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

How much money do they get from the state for FARMs stidents next year, and how much are they spending to support FARMs students?

Why are you asking a rando on DCUM? MCPS is the only entity that can track and report this and they don't do that. Every few years someone else does this analysis and finds the same bs. Ask more of MCPS please.

The DCUM Randi is making this claim. She should back it up or I am just not going to believe it.

Lady I already posted this report on this thread: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OLO/Resources/Files/2019%20Reports/OLOReport2019-14.pdf

No, this analysis has not been done since 2019. MCPS has no interest in doing it, so they don't. That obviously doesn't mean they have improved.

Where in that reort does it say that the state is providing additional funding for FARMs students, and the MCPS is not spending those additional funds on FARMs students?l

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Taylor has some serious cojones to do this to low income elementary schools when outcomes are so bad.

And his budget one pager makes it look like he is adding funding to increase equity when he is almost certainly reducing funding for low income schools.

SMH

Outcomes are going to be bad no matter what. It doesn't matter if the class sizes are 5, 10, 20, or 30. Staffing should be the same as all the other schools.

If class size doesn't matter then why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

Less class clowns per class = less teacher distraction = more attention on rach student.

So the poorest kids with the worst outcomes don't need extra attention but yours do?

I am having a hard time understanding the issue with poor families. I come from another country with much less wealth than US. Education was seen as a priority in all families, poor or wealthy. There was a push from inside the family to be be good in school. If one misbehaves, one is disciplined at home. Here we have so much entitlement. If so much money was invested in smaller classrooms, where are the results? How do we have so many failing students?

Exactly. It doesn't matter how small the classes are in the low performing schools. It is a complete waste of resources.

It's not, though. Yes, there are absolutely kids who are borderline impossible to reach, or whose daily life is so traumatic and/or chaotic that they struggle to function in school.

But we don't really have any choice but to try to reach them, because the alternative is creating a permanent underclass with no possibility to escape generational poverty. Like the PP, I came here from a country that is broadly poorer than the United States and where educational standards are generally higher.

However, my country is also happy to leave entire ethnic groups in poverty forever. Also to decide a child's educational path starting at 6, and their lifelong professional/academic path at 13.

That system is only better if you're at the top of it, and it's also fundamentally unstable for society.

Everyone agrees we should try to reach/help those kids. This is not like your home country where we collectively choose to leave groups of kids behind. But school funding and resources aren’t unlimited, so someone needs to decide how much we can afford to allocate in one direction because it will obviously affect what we can spend on other priorities and budget items. There are plenty of people in this county (and on this board) who would gladly put 50 kids in each classroom at Whitman so kids in high farms schools could have a teacher for every 10 kids. Obviously that’s an extreme example but the truth is there isn’t great consensus on where to draw the line. The amount of poverty in the county is relatively new, unprecedented, and increasing rapidly. It’s tricky to calibrate the scale tilting in a county that was only recently mostly middle to UMC.

MCPS literally gets money from the state based on the number of FARMS kids in the state and doesn't spend all of it to serve FARMS kids. The notion that let's use this money to decrease class sizes for non-poor kids is preposterous and blatantly self serving. If class sizes don't matter, why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

How much money do they get from the state for FARMs stidents next year, and how much are they spending to support FARMs students?

Why are you asking a rando on DCUM? MCPS is the only entity that can track and report this and they don't do that. Every few years someone else does this analysis and finds the same bs. Ask more of MCPS please.

The DCUM Randi is making this claim. She should back it up or I am just not going to believe it.

Lady I already posted this report on this thread: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OLO/Resources/Files/2019%20Reports/OLOReport2019-14.pdf

No, this analysis has not been done since 2019. MCPS has no interest in doing it, so they don't. That obviously doesn't mean they have improved.

Where in that reort does it say that the state is providing additional funding for FARMs students, and the MCPS is not spending those additional funds on FARMs students?l

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Taylor has some serious cojones to do this to low income elementary schools when outcomes are so bad.

And his budget one pager makes it look like he is adding funding to increase equity when he is almost certainly reducing funding for low income schools.

SMH

Outcomes are going to be bad no matter what. It doesn't matter if the class sizes are 5, 10, 20, or 30. Staffing should be the same as all the other schools.

If class size doesn't matter then why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

Less class clowns per class = less teacher distraction = more attention on rach student.

So the poorest kids with the worst outcomes don't need extra attention but yours do?

I am having a hard time understanding the issue with poor families. I come from another country with much less wealth than US. Education was seen as a priority in all families, poor or wealthy. There was a push from inside the family to be be good in school. If one misbehaves, one is disciplined at home. Here we have so much entitlement. If so much money was invested in smaller classrooms, where are the results? How do we have so many failing students?

Exactly. It doesn't matter how small the classes are in the low performing schools. It is a complete waste of resources.

It's not, though. Yes, there are absolutely kids who are borderline impossible to reach, or whose daily life is so traumatic and/or chaotic that they struggle to function in school.

But we don't really have any choice but to try to reach them, because the alternative is creating a permanent underclass with no possibility to escape generational poverty. Like the PP, I came here from a country that is broadly poorer than the United States and where educational standards are generally higher.

However, my country is also happy to leave entire ethnic groups in poverty forever. Also to decide a child's educational path starting at 6, and their lifelong professional/academic path at 13.

That system is only better if you're at the top of it, and it's also fundamentally unstable for society.

Everyone agrees we should try to reach/help those kids. This is not like your home country where we collectively choose to leave groups of kids behind. But school funding and resources aren’t unlimited, so someone needs to decide how much we can afford to allocate in one direction because it will obviously affect what we can spend on other priorities and budget items. There are plenty of people in this county (and on this board) who would gladly put 50 kids in each classroom at Whitman so kids in high farms schools could have a teacher for every 10 kids. Obviously that’s an extreme example but the truth is there isn’t great consensus on where to draw the line. The amount of poverty in the county is relatively new, unprecedented, and increasing rapidly. It’s tricky to calibrate the scale tilting in a county that was only recently mostly middle to UMC.

MCPS literally gets money from the state based on the number of FARMS kids in the state and doesn't spend all of it to serve FARMS kids. The notion that let's use this money to decrease class sizes for non-poor kids is preposterous and blatantly self serving. If class sizes don't matter, why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

How much money do they get from the state for FARMs stidents next year, and how much are they spending to support FARMs students?

Why are you asking a rando on DCUM? MCPS is the only entity that can track and report this and they don't do that. Every few years someone else does this analysis and finds the same bs. Ask more of MCPS please.

The DCUM Randi is making this claim. She should back it up or I am just not going to believe it.

Lady I already posted this report on this thread: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OLO/Resources/Files/2019%20Reports/OLOReport2019-14.pdf

No, this analysis has not been done since 2019. MCPS has no interest in doing it, so they don't. That obviously doesn't mean they have improved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Taylor has some serious cojones to do this to low income elementary schools when outcomes are so bad.

And his budget one pager makes it look like he is adding funding to increase equity when he is almost certainly reducing funding for low income schools.

SMH

Outcomes are going to be bad no matter what. It doesn't matter if the class sizes are 5, 10, 20, or 30. Staffing should be the same as all the other schools.

If class size doesn't matter then why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

Less class clowns per class = less teacher distraction = more attention on rach student.

So the poorest kids with the worst outcomes don't need extra attention but yours do?

I am having a hard time understanding the issue with poor families. I come from another country with much less wealth than US. Education was seen as a priority in all families, poor or wealthy. There was a push from inside the family to be be good in school. If one misbehaves, one is disciplined at home. Here we have so much entitlement. If so much money was invested in smaller classrooms, where are the results? How do we have so many failing students?

Exactly. It doesn't matter how small the classes are in the low performing schools. It is a complete waste of resources.

It's not, though. Yes, there are absolutely kids who are borderline impossible to reach, or whose daily life is so traumatic and/or chaotic that they struggle to function in school.

But we don't really have any choice but to try to reach them, because the alternative is creating a permanent underclass with no possibility to escape generational poverty. Like the PP, I came here from a country that is broadly poorer than the United States and where educational standards are generally higher.

However, my country is also happy to leave entire ethnic groups in poverty forever. Also to decide a child's educational path starting at 6, and their lifelong professional/academic path at 13.

That system is only better if you're at the top of it, and it's also fundamentally unstable for society.

Everyone agrees we should try to reach/help those kids. This is not like your home country where we collectively choose to leave groups of kids behind. But school funding and resources aren’t unlimited, so someone needs to decide how much we can afford to allocate in one direction because it will obviously affect what we can spend on other priorities and budget items. There are plenty of people in this county (and on this board) who would gladly put 50 kids in each classroom at Whitman so kids in high farms schools could have a teacher for every 10 kids. Obviously that’s an extreme example but the truth is there isn’t great consensus on where to draw the line. The amount of poverty in the county is relatively new, unprecedented, and increasing rapidly. It’s tricky to calibrate the scale tilting in a county that was only recently mostly middle to UMC.

MCPS literally gets money from the state based on the number of FARMS kids in the state and doesn't spend all of it to serve FARMS kids. The notion that let's use this money to decrease class sizes for non-poor kids is preposterous and blatantly self serving. If class sizes don't matter, why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

The high performing schools don't need smaller class sizes. The smaller class sizes for low performing schools is not working. The class size is not why they are low performing. That money should be spent a different way.

You say it's not working because there is still an achievement gap. I think it absolutely helps, but it is not remotely enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Taylor has some serious cojones to do this to low income elementary schools when outcomes are so bad.

And his budget one pager makes it look like he is adding funding to increase equity when he is almost certainly reducing funding for low income schools.

SMH

Outcomes are going to be bad no matter what. It doesn't matter if the class sizes are 5, 10, 20, or 30. Staffing should be the same as all the other schools.

If class size doesn't matter then why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

Less class clowns per class = less teacher distraction = more attention on rach student.

So the poorest kids with the worst outcomes don't need extra attention but yours do?

I am having a hard time understanding the issue with poor families. I come from another country with much less wealth than US. Education was seen as a priority in all families, poor or wealthy. There was a push from inside the family to be be good in school. If one misbehaves, one is disciplined at home. Here we have so much entitlement. If so much money was invested in smaller classrooms, where are the results? How do we have so many failing students?

Exactly. It doesn't matter how small the classes are in the low performing schools. It is a complete waste of resources.

It's not, though. Yes, there are absolutely kids who are borderline impossible to reach, or whose daily life is so traumatic and/or chaotic that they struggle to function in school.

But we don't really have any choice but to try to reach them, because the alternative is creating a permanent underclass with no possibility to escape generational poverty. Like the PP, I came here from a country that is broadly poorer than the United States and where educational standards are generally higher.

However, my country is also happy to leave entire ethnic groups in poverty forever. Also to decide a child's educational path starting at 6, and their lifelong professional/academic path at 13.

That system is only better if you're at the top of it, and it's also fundamentally unstable for society.

Everyone agrees we should try to reach/help those kids. This is not like your home country where we collectively choose to leave groups of kids behind. But school funding and resources aren’t unlimited, so someone needs to decide how much we can afford to allocate in one direction because it will obviously affect what we can spend on other priorities and budget items. There are plenty of people in this county (and on this board) who would gladly put 50 kids in each classroom at Whitman so kids in high farms schools could have a teacher for every 10 kids. Obviously that’s an extreme example but the truth is there isn’t great consensus on where to draw the line. The amount of poverty in the county is relatively new, unprecedented, and increasing rapidly. It’s tricky to calibrate the scale tilting in a county that was only recently mostly middle to UMC.

MCPS literally gets money from the state based on the number of FARMS kids in the state and doesn't spend all of it to serve FARMS kids. The notion that let's use this money to decrease class sizes for non-poor kids is preposterous and blatantly self serving. If class sizes don't matter, why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

The high performing schools don't need smaller class sizes. The smaller class sizes for low performing schools is not working. The class size is not why they are low performing. That money should be spent a different way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Taylor has some serious cojones to do this to low income elementary schools when outcomes are so bad.

And his budget one pager makes it look like he is adding funding to increase equity when he is almost certainly reducing funding for low income schools.

SMH

Outcomes are going to be bad no matter what. It doesn't matter if the class sizes are 5, 10, 20, or 30. Staffing should be the same as all the other schools.

If class size doesn't matter then why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

Less class clowns per class = less teacher distraction = more attention on rach student.

So the poorest kids with the worst outcomes don't need extra attention but yours do?

I am having a hard time understanding the issue with poor families. I come from another country with much less wealth than US. Education was seen as a priority in all families, poor or wealthy. There was a push from inside the family to be be good in school. If one misbehaves, one is disciplined at home. Here we have so much entitlement. If so much money was invested in smaller classrooms, where are the results? How do we have so many failing students?

Exactly. It doesn't matter how small the classes are in the low performing schools. It is a complete waste of resources.

It's not, though. Yes, there are absolutely kids who are borderline impossible to reach, or whose daily life is so traumatic and/or chaotic that they struggle to function in school.

But we don't really have any choice but to try to reach them, because the alternative is creating a permanent underclass with no possibility to escape generational poverty. Like the PP, I came here from a country that is broadly poorer than the United States and where educational standards are generally higher.

However, my country is also happy to leave entire ethnic groups in poverty forever. Also to decide a child's educational path starting at 6, and their lifelong professional/academic path at 13.

That system is only better if you're at the top of it, and it's also fundamentally unstable for society.

Everyone agrees we should try to reach/help those kids. This is not like your home country where we collectively choose to leave groups of kids behind. But school funding and resources aren’t unlimited, so someone needs to decide how much we can afford to allocate in one direction because it will obviously affect what we can spend on other priorities and budget items. There are plenty of people in this county (and on this board) who would gladly put 50 kids in each classroom at Whitman so kids in high farms schools could have a teacher for every 10 kids. Obviously that’s an extreme example but the truth is there isn’t great consensus on where to draw the line. The amount of poverty in the county is relatively new, unprecedented, and increasing rapidly. It’s tricky to calibrate the scale tilting in a county that was only recently mostly middle to UMC.

MCPS literally gets money from the state based on the number of FARMS kids in the state and doesn't spend all of it to serve FARMS kids. The notion that let's use this money to decrease class sizes for non-poor kids is preposterous and blatantly self serving. If class sizes don't matter, why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

Anonymous wrote:The state should be funding Tile 1 and Focus directly instead of forcing everyone to waste money on these BS "pre professional" certificates and reshuffling math courses.

MoCo shouldn't be the unfunded dumping ground for the state's poor immigrants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Taylor has some serious cojones to do this to low income elementary schools when outcomes are so bad.

And his budget one pager makes it look like he is adding funding to increase equity when he is almost certainly reducing funding for low income schools.

SMH

Outcomes are going to be bad no matter what. It doesn't matter if the class sizes are 5, 10, 20, or 30. Staffing should be the same as all the other schools.

If class size doesn't matter then why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

Less class clowns per class = less teacher distraction = more attention on rach student.

So the poorest kids with the worst outcomes don't need extra attention but yours do?

I am having a hard time understanding the issue with poor families. I come from another country with much less wealth than US. Education was seen as a priority in all families, poor or wealthy. There was a push from inside the family to be be good in school. If one misbehaves, one is disciplined at home. Here we have so much entitlement. If so much money was invested in smaller classrooms, where are the results? How do we have so many failing students?

Exactly. It doesn't matter how small the classes are in the low performing schools. It is a complete waste of resources.

It's not, though. Yes, there are absolutely kids who are borderline impossible to reach, or whose daily life is so traumatic and/or chaotic that they struggle to function in school.

But we don't really have any choice but to try to reach them, because the alternative is creating a permanent underclass with no possibility to escape generational poverty. Like the PP, I came here from a country that is broadly poorer than the United States and where educational standards are generally higher.

However, my country is also happy to leave entire ethnic groups in poverty forever. Also to decide a child's educational path starting at 6, and their lifelong professional/academic path at 13.

That system is only better if you're at the top of it, and it's also fundamentally unstable for society.

Everyone agrees we should try to reach/help those kids. This is not like your home country where we collectively choose to leave groups of kids behind. But school funding and resources aren’t unlimited, so someone needs to decide how much we can afford to allocate in one direction because it will obviously affect what we can spend on other priorities and budget items. There are plenty of people in this county (and on this board) who would gladly put 50 kids in each classroom at Whitman so kids in high farms schools could have a teacher for every 10 kids. Obviously that’s an extreme example but the truth is there isn’t great consensus on where to draw the line. The amount of poverty in the county is relatively new, unprecedented, and increasing rapidly. It’s tricky to calibrate the scale tilting in a county that was only recently mostly middle to UMC.

MCPS literally gets money from the state based on the number of FARMS kids in the state and doesn't spend all of it to serve FARMS kids. The notion that let's use this money to decrease class sizes for non-poor kids is preposterous and blatantly self serving. If class sizes don't matter, why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

How much money do they get from the state for FARMs stidents next year, and how much are they spending to support FARMs students?

Why are you asking a rando on DCUM? MCPS is the only entity that can track and report this and they don't do that. Every few years someone else does this analysis and finds the same bs. Ask more of MCPS please.

The DCUM Randi is making this claim. She should back it up or I am just not going to believe it.

Anonymous wrote:The state should be funding Tile 1 and Focus directly instead of forcing everyone to waste money on these BS "pre professional" certificates and reshuffling math courses.

MoCo shouldn't be the unfunded dumping ground for the state's poor immigrants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Taylor has some serious cojones to do this to low income elementary schools when outcomes are so bad.

And his budget one pager makes it look like he is adding funding to increase equity when he is almost certainly reducing funding for low income schools.

SMH

Outcomes are going to be bad no matter what. It doesn't matter if the class sizes are 5, 10, 20, or 30. Staffing should be the same as all the other schools.

If class size doesn't matter then why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

Less class clowns per class = less teacher distraction = more attention on rach student.

So the poorest kids with the worst outcomes don't need extra attention but yours do?

I am having a hard time understanding the issue with poor families. I come from another country with much less wealth than US. Education was seen as a priority in all families, poor or wealthy. There was a push from inside the family to be be good in school. If one misbehaves, one is disciplined at home. Here we have so much entitlement. If so much money was invested in smaller classrooms, where are the results? How do we have so many failing students?

Exactly. It doesn't matter how small the classes are in the low performing schools. It is a complete waste of resources.

It's not, though. Yes, there are absolutely kids who are borderline impossible to reach, or whose daily life is so traumatic and/or chaotic that they struggle to function in school.

But we don't really have any choice but to try to reach them, because the alternative is creating a permanent underclass with no possibility to escape generational poverty. Like the PP, I came here from a country that is broadly poorer than the United States and where educational standards are generally higher.

However, my country is also happy to leave entire ethnic groups in poverty forever. Also to decide a child's educational path starting at 6, and their lifelong professional/academic path at 13.

That system is only better if you're at the top of it, and it's also fundamentally unstable for society.

Everyone agrees we should try to reach/help those kids. This is not like your home country where we collectively choose to leave groups of kids behind. But school funding and resources aren’t unlimited, so someone needs to decide how much we can afford to allocate in one direction because it will obviously affect what we can spend on other priorities and budget items. There are plenty of people in this county (and on this board) who would gladly put 50 kids in each classroom at Whitman so kids in high farms schools could have a teacher for every 10 kids. Obviously that’s an extreme example but the truth is there isn’t great consensus on where to draw the line. The amount of poverty in the county is relatively new, unprecedented, and increasing rapidly. It’s tricky to calibrate the scale tilting in a county that was only recently mostly middle to UMC.

MCPS literally gets money from the state based on the number of FARMS kids in the state and doesn't spend all of it to serve FARMS kids. The notion that let's use this money to decrease class sizes for non-poor kids is preposterous and blatantly self serving. If class sizes don't matter, why do you want smaller class sizes for your kid?

How much money do they get from the state for FARMs stidents next year, and how much are they spending to support FARMs students?

Why are you asking a rando on DCUM? MCPS is the only entity that can track and report this and they don't do that. Every few years someone else does this analysis and finds the same bs. Ask more of MCPS please.