My link didn't come out clickable before. I really wish someone would read this.

https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2018/09/26/list-studies-test-scores-poverty-school-income/

"The study examines a “set of welfare and antipoverty experiments conducted in the 1990s … Our estimates suggest that a $1,000 increase in annual income increases young children’s achievement by 5%–6% of a standard deviation.” Developmental Psychology (2011)
“An additional $4000 per year for the poorest households increases educational attainment by one year at age 21 and reduces having ever committed a minor crime by 22% at ages 16?17.” American Economic Journal (2010)"

If there are 60,000 FARMS kids in MCPS then giving each FARMS family 1K per kid per school year would only cost 60K a year yet yield a 5%-6% increase in performance. Giving each FAR<S family 4K a year would be 240K per year.

The investigation into MCPS Damascus assaults is costing 250K. 60K is fraction of the travel budget for conferences. The former Damascus principle is sitting in a made up job for 140K a year plus benefits while the DUI Damascus AP is sitting in another made up job. . Getting rid of these two positions would pay for it with left over money. >

Anonymous wrote:
I don't even have advanced training in the social sciences (just did psychology/political science for my undergraduate majors), and even I know this paper is useless. It certainly would not have received a passing grade in any of the UNDERGRAD classes I took...

It has a large number of badly-designed charts, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the people who discredit the report because it was a capstone report, please read the report. After you read it, please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion. Did the report cherry picked the data? Did the author use murky stats? Was the conclusion not based on facts?

Read this one, and then please tell us why one should not believe its conclusion.

https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Because it's a non-published, non-peer reviewed report from an organization with an agenda. It's clear from this report that they crunched the data until they found a "threshold" at which they could write a report that fit their agenda.

I'm a researcher (Ph.D. with a few dozen published papers). I only quickly skimmed it, but in addition to not being peer-reviewed, it seems they only picked a few schools. It's hard to draw conclusions beyond these few schools that are generalizable to the larger school system. I also may have missed it, but I don't see any limitations listed, which is a standard part of peer-reviewed published papers.

I also noticed that the author concludes that "the hypothesis is false." It appears the author doesn't have a good handle on standard research methods. You can't conclude that a hypothesis is false; you can only say that it wasn't supported by the current data.

No school system would make changes based on a single, not peer-reviewed master's thesis.

I don't even have advanced training in the social sciences (just did psychology/political science for my undergraduate majors), and even I know this paper is useless. It certainly would not have received a passing grade in any of the UNDERGRAD classes I took...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's MCPS data on SAT scores in 2016. Facts speak for themselves. Low income students in HS with low FARMS rate scored higher than low income students at schools with high FARMS rate.

Pg 14

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Obviously, not all FARMS kids are equal. One can surmise that if parents are making the effort to place their students in certain schools, they may value education more.

Why yes, one can surmise.

Definition of surmise (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb

: to form a notion from scanty evidence :

Synonyms: Verb

assume, conjecture, daresay, guess, imagine, presume, speculate, suppose, suspect, suspicion

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's MCPS data on SAT scores in 2016. Facts speak for themselves. Low income students in HS with low FARMS rate scored higher than low income students at schools with high FARMS rate.

Pg 14

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Obviously, not all FARMS kids are equal. One can surmise that if parents are making the effort to place their students in certain schools, they may value education more.

so, if a poor parent "chooses" to live in a poor cluster, then clearly, they don't care about education. I assume you have never been poor and don't know what it's like to have extremely limited choices in life. Just because some people are able to pick certain choices, it doesn't mean they all do.

Richard, your paper sucks. Go away.

Anonymous wrote:Here's MCPS data on SAT scores in 2016. Facts speak for themselves. Low income students in HS with low FARMS rate scored higher than low income students at schools with high FARMS rate.

Pg 14

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Obviously, not all FARMS kids are equal. One can surmise that if parents are making the effort to place their students in certain schools, they may value education more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are cherry picking again. SAT scores ONLY include students who took the SAT. It is viewed as one of the worst indicators because unlike PARCC, MAP or other measures performance can be substantially altered with short prep courses.

Go look up the PARCC scores math or ELA or if you have access to them the MAP scores for early grades. It shows no correlation to low income kids doing better in schools with less than 25% farms.

The "myth-busting" graduate used SAT scores.

Not only that, apparently rich white kids at Whitman bombed PARCC on purpose which lead to GS rating for that school to drop. The excuse for them bombing the test was that they knew it didn't impact anything, so they didn't even bother trying. Gee... I wonder if maybe poor brown kids in other schools thought the same thing, or I guess they were too stupid to not realize this, so they still tried their best and did poorly?

Anonymous wrote:You are cherry picking again. SAT scores ONLY include students who took the SAT. It is viewed as one of the worst indicators because unlike PARCC, MAP or other measures performance can be substantially altered with short prep courses.

Go look up the PARCC scores math or ELA or if you have access to them the MAP scores for early grades. It shows no correlation to low income kids doing better in schools with less than 25% farms.

The "myth-busting" graduate used SAT scores.

You are cherry picking again. SAT scores ONLY include students who took the SAT. It is viewed as one of the worst indicators because unlike PARCC, MAP or other measures performance can be substantially altered with short prep courses.

Go look up the PARCC scores math or ELA or if you have access to them the MAP scores for early grades. It shows no correlation to low income kids doing better in schools with less than 25% farms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's MCPS data on SAT scores in 2016. Facts speak for themselves. Low income students in HS with low FARMS rate scored higher than low income students at schools with high FARMS rate.

Pg 14

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Also looks like white kids (generally not FARMS in MCPS) scored worse in high FARMS schools.

Maybe MCPS can make sure all the schools are high FARMS soon and all the scores will be bad.

High FARMS schools like Clarksburg HS, Northwest HS, and Quince Orchard HS, you mean? Wait, no...

Anonymous wrote:Here's MCPS data on SAT scores in 2016. Facts speak for themselves. Low income students in HS with low FARMS rate scored higher than low income students at schools with high FARMS rate.

Pg 14

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Also looks like white kids (generally not FARMS in MCPS) scored worse in high FARMS schools.

Maybe MCPS can make sure all the schools are high FARMS soon and all the scores will be bad.

Here's MCPS data on SAT scores in 2016. Facts speak for themselves. Low income students in HS with low FARMS rate scored higher than low income students at schools with high FARMS rate.

Pg 14

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Well no school system should put a former PE teacher in charge of developing an in house curriculum with a staff of unqualified curriculum writers while ignoring the multiple peer reviewed curriculums available.....oh wait.

Whataboutism alert.

Well no school system should put a former PE teacher in charge of developing an in house curriculum with a staff of unqualified curriculum writers while ignoring the multiple peer reviewed curriculums available.....oh wait.