Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I never claimed that the school's overall scores on standardized tests relate to your individual child's learning. I claimed that statistically, a school with high FARMS rates doesn't perform as well as a school with low FARMS rates.

Now we're going around in circles. What does it mean for a school to perform well, and how do you know if it's doing that?

Click the link: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

Anonymous wrote:
I never claimed that the school's overall scores on standardized tests relate to your individual child's learning. I claimed that statistically, a school with high FARMS rates doesn't perform as well as a school with low FARMS rates.

Now we're going around in circles. What does it mean for a school to perform well, and how do you know if it's doing that?

I would be satisfied if we could just stop using FARMS rate as a proxy for whether parents should buy in-bounds for a certain school.

First, it tells you NOTHING about how your non-FARMS kid will perform.

Second, it sends all sorts of implicit messages about working class families.

Third, it is a bullshit dog whistle for race. You don't see people talking about FARMS rates in places with poor whites, and people only talk about it here because DC's history means there is a strong correlation between poverty and race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could we please stop equating "having benefited from the social safety net" with "irredeemable person who I wouldn't want my child educated alongside?"

Lots of people receive (or received) free or reduced meals. The children of your nannies almost certainly receive free or reduced meals. The children of a first-year MCPS teacher could qualify for reduced meals. Poverty is not contagious, and having benefited from free or reduced lunch does not make a child inherently worthless, or worthy of avoiding.

There are exceptions, but statistically speaking, FAMRS students don't do academically as well as their peers: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

OK. How does "as a group, students who receive FARMs don't do as well academically" turn into "students who currently receive FARMs or did so in the past are irredeemable people whom I don't want in my child's high school"?

I don't think anybody claimed that FARMS students are irredeemable people. However, if you have a large percentage of them in a school, the chances are that the school will not do very well.

What does it mean for a school to do well? How do you know if the school is doing well?

Click the link: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

So by a school doing well, you mean the school's overall scores on standardized tests?

How do the school's overall scores on standardized tests relate to your individual child's learning?

I never claimed that the school's overall scores on standardized tests relate to your individual child's learning. I claimed that statistically, a school with high FARMS rates doesn't perform as well as a school with low FARMS rates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could we please stop equating "having benefited from the social safety net" with "irredeemable person who I wouldn't want my child educated alongside?"

Lots of people receive (or received) free or reduced meals. The children of your nannies almost certainly receive free or reduced meals. The children of a first-year MCPS teacher could qualify for reduced meals. Poverty is not contagious, and having benefited from free or reduced lunch does not make a child inherently worthless, or worthy of avoiding.

There are exceptions, but statistically speaking, FAMRS students don't do academically as well as their peers: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

OK. How does "as a group, students who receive FARMs don't do as well academically" turn into "students who currently receive FARMs or did so in the past are irredeemable people whom I don't want in my child's high school"?

I don't think anybody claimed that FARMS students are irredeemable people. However, if you have a large percentage of them in a school, the chances are that the school will not do very well.

What does it mean for a school to do well? How do you know if the school is doing well?

Click the link: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

From this report:

However, these analyses do not provide information on how much of the association between school composition and achievement on the PARCC is due to differences in the quality of schooling or in the opportunities available to children outside of school.

It also doesn’t say anything about predictive validity of school test scores for any given student.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could we please stop equating "having benefited from the social safety net" with "irredeemable person who I wouldn't want my child educated alongside?"

Lots of people receive (or received) free or reduced meals. The children of your nannies almost certainly receive free or reduced meals. The children of a first-year MCPS teacher could qualify for reduced meals. Poverty is not contagious, and having benefited from free or reduced lunch does not make a child inherently worthless, or worthy of avoiding.

There are exceptions, but statistically speaking, FAMRS students don't do academically as well as their peers: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

OK. How does "as a group, students who receive FARMs don't do as well academically" turn into "students who currently receive FARMs or did so in the past are irredeemable people whom I don't want in my child's high school"?

I don't think anybody claimed that FARMS students are irredeemable people. However, if you have a large percentage of them in a school, the chances are that the school will not do very well.

What does it mean for a school to do well? How do you know if the school is doing well?

Click the link: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

So by a school doing well, you mean the school's overall scores on standardized tests?

How do the school's overall scores on standardized tests relate to your individual child's learning?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School digger says 45 percent on farms. But maybe that is old data.

No dog in this fight but there are plenty of neighborhoods with feds and professionals zoned for Einstein. Yes some poor kids for sure but you are really cherry picking demographics.

No matter, I absolutely love the anti Einstein DCUM poster who gets so outraged on the every thread! So funny.

It also says 68% have been on FARMs recently

No, they don't post data about people who have received FARMs "recently". At Einstein HS in 2016-2017, 42.2% of students were receiving FARMs, and 68.1% were either receiving FARMs or had received FARMs in the past. Conventionally this is referred to as "ever FARMs".

Could we please stop equating "having benefited from the social safety net" with "irredeemable person who I wouldn't want my child educated alongside?"

Lots of people receive (or received) free or reduced meals. The children of your nannies almost certainly receive free or reduced meals. The children of a first-year MCPS teacher could qualify for reduced meals. Poverty is not contagious, and having benefited from free or reduced lunch does not make a child inherently worthless, or worthy of avoiding.

Only is they were a single parent with 5 kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could we please stop equating "having benefited from the social safety net" with "irredeemable person who I wouldn't want my child educated alongside?"

Lots of people receive (or received) free or reduced meals. The children of your nannies almost certainly receive free or reduced meals. The children of a first-year MCPS teacher could qualify for reduced meals. Poverty is not contagious, and having benefited from free or reduced lunch does not make a child inherently worthless, or worthy of avoiding.

There are exceptions, but statistically speaking, FAMRS students don't do academically as well as their peers: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

OK. How does "as a group, students who receive FARMs don't do as well academically" turn into "students who currently receive FARMs or did so in the past are irredeemable people whom I don't want in my child's high school"?

I don't think anybody claimed that FARMS students are irredeemable people. However, if you have a large percentage of them in a school, the chances are that the school will not do very well.

What does it mean for a school to do well? How do you know if the school is doing well?

Click the link: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could we please stop equating "having benefited from the social safety net" with "irredeemable person who I wouldn't want my child educated alongside?"

Lots of people receive (or received) free or reduced meals. The children of your nannies almost certainly receive free or reduced meals. The children of a first-year MCPS teacher could qualify for reduced meals. Poverty is not contagious, and having benefited from free or reduced lunch does not make a child inherently worthless, or worthy of avoiding.

There are exceptions, but statistically speaking, FAMRS students don't do academically as well as their peers: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

OK. How does "as a group, students who receive FARMs don't do as well academically" turn into "students who currently receive FARMs or did so in the past are irredeemable people whom I don't want in my child's high school"?

I don't think anybody claimed that FARMS students are irredeemable people. However, if you have a large percentage of them in a school, the chances are that the school will not do very well.

What does it mean for a school to do well? How do you know if the school is doing well?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could we please stop equating "having benefited from the social safety net" with "irredeemable person who I wouldn't want my child educated alongside?"

Lots of people receive (or received) free or reduced meals. The children of your nannies almost certainly receive free or reduced meals. The children of a first-year MCPS teacher could qualify for reduced meals. Poverty is not contagious, and having benefited from free or reduced lunch does not make a child inherently worthless, or worthy of avoiding.

There are exceptions, but statistically speaking, FAMRS students don't do academically as well as their peers: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

OK. How does "as a group, students who receive FARMs don't do as well academically" turn into "students who currently receive FARMs or did so in the past are irredeemable people whom I don't want in my child's high school"?

I don't think anybody claimed that FARMS students are irredeemable people. However, if you have a large percentage of them in a school, the chances are that the school will not do very well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could we please stop equating "having benefited from the social safety net" with "irredeemable person who I wouldn't want my child educated alongside?"

Lots of people receive (or received) free or reduced meals. The children of your nannies almost certainly receive free or reduced meals. The children of a first-year MCPS teacher could qualify for reduced meals. Poverty is not contagious, and having benefited from free or reduced lunch does not make a child inherently worthless, or worthy of avoiding.

There are exceptions, but statistically speaking, FAMRS students don't do academically as well as their peers: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

OK. How does "as a group, students who receive FARMs don't do as well academically" turn into "students who currently receive FARMs or did so in the past are irredeemable people whom I don't want in my child's high school"?

Anonymous wrote:Could we please stop equating "having benefited from the social safety net" with "irredeemable person who I wouldn't want my child educated alongside?"

Lots of people receive (or received) free or reduced meals. The children of your nannies almost certainly receive free or reduced meals. The children of a first-year MCPS teacher could qualify for reduced meals. Poverty is not contagious, and having benefited from free or reduced lunch does not make a child inherently worthless, or worthy of avoiding.

There are exceptions, but statistically speaking, FAMRS students don't do academically as well as their peers: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School digger says 45 percent on farms. But maybe that is old data.

No dog in this fight but there are plenty of neighborhoods with feds and professionals zoned for Einstein. Yes some poor kids for sure but you are really cherry picking demographics.

No matter, I absolutely love the anti Einstein DCUM poster who gets so outraged on the every thread! So funny.

It also says 68% have been on FARMs recently

No, they don't post data about people who have received FARMs "recently". At Einstein HS in 2016-2017, 42.2% of students were receiving FARMs, and 68.1% were either receiving FARMs or had received FARMs in the past. Conventionally this is referred to as "ever FARMs".

Could we please stop equating "having benefited from the social safety net" with "irredeemable person who I wouldn't want my child educated alongside?"

Lots of people receive (or received) free or reduced meals. The children of your nannies almost certainly receive free or reduced meals. The children of a first-year MCPS teacher could qualify for reduced meals. Poverty is not contagious, and having benefited from free or reduced lunch does not make a child inherently worthless, or worthy of avoiding.

^^^for comparison, the comparable numbers at my kid's high school are 27.1% and 51.0%, but the shit shack I live in is in Bumfuckistan, not in Ganglandia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School digger says 45 percent on farms. But maybe that is old data.

No dog in this fight but there are plenty of neighborhoods with feds and professionals zoned for Einstein. Yes some poor kids for sure but you are really cherry picking demographics.

No matter, I absolutely love the anti Einstein DCUM poster who gets so outraged on the every thread! So funny.

It also says 68% have been on FARMs recently

No, they don't post data about people who have received FARMs "recently". At Einstein HS in 2016-2017, 42.2% of students were receiving FARMs, and 68.1% were either receiving FARMs or had received FARMs in the past. Conventionally this is referred to as "ever FARMs".