Does anyone ever think how MCPS is failing the Non-Farms students at Title 1 schools? By keeping their performance low and lacking MCPS is only fulfilling its blind equity agenda. If you want equity, invent a time machine, and go back to USSR.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's good to get overall lower numbers. While yes, title 1 schools need smaller class numbers, so do lots of other schools. Title 1 designation to schools come and go from one year to the next, so it's good to have overall low classes so all can benefit, including those who were title 1 a year or two ago but for whatever reason no longer make the cut, but still have the need.

They are increasing class sizes for the youngest and lowest income students.

I think it's good to get overall lower numbers. While yes, title 1 schools need smaller class numbers, so do lots of other schools. Title 1 designation to schools come and go from one year to the next, so it's good to have overall low classes so all can benefit, including those who were title 1 a year or two ago but for whatever reason no longer make the cut, but still have the need.

It is a weird choice to increase class sizes for the earliest grades and the lowest income students. The research clearly shows these are the groups that benefit the most from having class sizes under 20 students. 2nd grade will be the most negatively impacted. What do they have against low income second graders?

I like that they are creating more tiers of schools. Currently, there is a large range of FARMs rates among non-focus/title 1 schools.

Focus and Title 1 schools roughly correspond to Tiers 2 and 3. As shown below, focus/title 1 schools see the highest class size increases for 2nd grade, but do get class size reductions in 3rd-5th grade. For non focus schools, they get reductions at all grade levels and the biggest reduction in 4th grade. This does suggest non focus schools are getting the biggest benefit from this change, though it might be the case that this change is cost neutral for focus and Title 1 schools since they get class size increases and reductions, with smaller class sizes in higher grades. It is a shame, but not surprising, that MCPS does not detail the specific costs/savings associated with each of these changes. I do think it is crazy to have such large classes in the early elementary grades in non focus schools, but they really don't invest much in supporting the schools serving the highest need populations with the worst outcomes. So to now make a change that primarily supports the higher income schools and is at best neutral for the low income schools is increased inequity. Totally on brand for MCPS.

So for Kindergarten:
Non focus schools go from 25 to 23/22
Focus and Title 1 schools go from 19 to 21/20

For 1st grade
Non focus go from 26 to 24/23
Focus and Title 1 go from 19 to 22/21

For 2nd grade
Non focus go from 26 to 25/24
Focus and Title 1 go from 19 to 23/22

For 3rd grade
Non focus go from 27 to 26/25
Focus and Title 1 go from 25 to 24/23

For 4th grade
Non focus go from 29 to 26/25
Focus and Title 1 go from 27 to 24/23

For 5th grade
Non focus go from 29 to 27/26
Focus and Title 1 go from 27 to 25/24

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to make sense of the proposed class size changes in the operating budget that was just released (page 349/appendix C): https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/budget/fy2027/2027operatingbudget.pdf

Looks to me like they are planning to implement big class size increases next year in grades K-2 for Title 1 and Focus schools-- the staffing guidelines for these higher-poverty schools used to be 18 per class and have been at 19 the past two years, and the proposal has class sizes at 20-21 for K, 21-22 for 1st, and 22-23 for 2nd for higher-FARMS schools depending on FARMS share-- meaning as much as a 4-child increase in class size from this year and a 5-child increase from what it used to be pre-2024.

They are suggesting modest improvements in class size (around 1-3 fewer kids per class) for richer elementary schools and for grades 3-5 (no changes in MS or HS that I can see), but honestly it doesn't seem wise to me to do that at the expense of the youngest kids at the highest-FARMS schools... those are the formative years to get kids on a solid footing in reading and math, and if they fall further behind in these bigger classes, it's just going to cost more for intervention later on (besides just being the wrong thing to do for those kids and their future), especially with the new state requirement to hold back kids who aren't reading proficiently by 3rd.

Has anyone heard/seen anything more about this elsewhere, as far as how MCPS is justifying the change? It's pretty troubling to me.

And schools can have as high as a 74% FARMS rate and not make it into the smallest class size group (instead having target class sizes of 21 for K, 22 for 1st, 23 for 2nd)! How can anyone honestly think that a school with 70% FARMS kids is not in the highest-need group? Early elementary teachers at those schools had a hard enough time trying to get kids anywhere near grade level with 18 kids per class... how can they be expected to with classes of 22 or 23 kids, many of whom are special needs kids who aren't getting the support they need and so that all falls on the classroom teachers to deal with too?

It honestly sounds like a recipe for getting more teachers to quit, too. If you have to deal with the challenges of a high-poverty school, and the classes are only a couple kids smaller than those at the richer schools, far fewer teachers will apply or stay at those schools...

This is really messed up. I support reducing class sizes but it seems like an incredibly unwise and inequitable idea to fund it by increasing class sizes in poor schools.

If folks want to push back against this plan, it looks like they are taking sign-ups for testimony on the budget already-- you can testify in person or through recorded testimony: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdZTdWmK1FzQBV_sQJ2dofLNOb3okTWrjHY5OKP_4orQEFNKg/viewform

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.

NP. I think something can be done but it’s a lot of money and political will. Many kids will have to be in school’s custody to receive IEP services, and there needs to be a lot of mentoring and tutoring available. Should start in infancy too, talking to kids, taking them on field trips, other enrichment.
Some need to be straight up taken from their dysfunctional families but it’s mostly for those raised in generational poverty, not Hispanic immigrant kids.

This county needs to figure out ways to help the Hispanic immigrant children as that is the growing trend in the county.

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.

NP. I think something can be done but it’s a lot of money and political will. Many kids will have to be in school’s custody to receive IEP services, and there needs to be a lot of mentoring and tutoring available. Should start in infancy too, talking to kids, taking them on field trips, other enrichment.
Some need to be straight up taken from their dysfunctional families but it’s mostly for those raised in generational poverty, not Hispanic immigrant kids.

Maybe it’s been realized that it won’t save title 1 students so the money can be spent better in other ways

My DD goes to a title 1 school and I agree with the above poster that while reduced class size helps, more wrap around services are needed. Schools that have active PTA's like Viers Mill are able to get programs like after school tutoring, free l/reduced summer programs and other after school activities. Title 1 schools don't have that kind of support. We do have a community school liaison and that person (to me) helps families get urgent outside services, food programs and some programming. More help is needed including funds for my special education supports to break content down even further. The schools are getting many families coming from impoverished countries with little education background and limited resources.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn’t a community eligibility school automatically title 1?

No. There are schools that are not Title 1. Viers Mill is one. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/community-engagement/community-schools/

MCPS's current compensatory education grant is $205 million. How is that being used currently? And if that's not obvious from the budget (it's not) ask yourself why.

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:

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

Why ask for a citation if you aren't even willing to read it? If you want to remain ignorant you are free to do so, not my problem.

And you won’t point to support in a ore-pandemic reort for what you are claiming is now the case? Come on.

What new programs have they created since then to support FARMS kids specifically? If you want more recent data ask MCPS for them.

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

Why ask for a citation if you aren't even willing to read it? If you want to remain ignorant you are free to do so, not my problem.

And you won’t point to support in a ore-pandemic reort for what you are claiming is now the case? Come on.