I'm unclear on the point of this thread at this point.This thread started out talking about gangs and divulged into how crappy Einstein and the DCC schools are. Sorry but I don't buy the ones doing the bashing give a flying f*%& about the kids in these schools. But maybe I'm just cynical! But to sincerely try to address the questions of the last few posters....

In any given school, low-income kids have a lot of barriers that the higher income kids don't have. If parents are working two jobs are unpredictable hours they can't control in truly grueling jobs (vs. me being able to take a break as I WFH on my laptop from my professional job) they may not have time and energy to keep up with homework, etc. They may not be eating healthy, homemade foods. They may not be able to keep kids on a good sleep schedule if they need to be up and out of the house early etc. They may have other stresses - safety, financial, etc.

Those are HUGE reasons why the white (often higher income, at least in some areas) or higher income kids do better. I think Montgomery County has done some good things to try to address some of the barriers. For example, our kids go to a focus school (elementary) and they have free breakfast in the classroom for everyone, so the low-income kids who quality for free breakfast don't have to feel bad or different. Our kindergartner has a very late lunch so they ask parents to pack a snack. But many of us were asked to donate snacks so that kids whose parents don't/can't pack one (or whose parents forget) can have snacks. I know there are more extensive programs than that but I do think some things are being addressed. Sadly though, as others have stated, schools can't control for things like maternal education and other factors that drive overall student performance.

I think what some posters have been trying to say is that even though they are not themselves low-income or facing barriers, they know their kids have a high chance of success due to the other factors (HHI, parental education, family support, security, etc.) I don't think anyone is saying they don't feel for the kids at risk or are not concerned about them or don't think the schools should do more. But that average standardized test scores are not a good proxy for how their kids will do.

Anonymous wrote:And to reiterate many previous posts, an important measure of a school is how well they educate all children. Do all children improve? Granted, a large part of success is the home environment, but taking this into consideration, all children should be showing a certain level of improvement throughout their school career.

This. There is a well-regarded ES near me where kids of color and poor kids do quite poorly. Worse than the state average. Worse than kids of color and poor kids at nearby schools with similar demographics. That's troubling, and it is exactly the sort of data that is useful. If ONLY white middle class kids are doing well, that tells me that either those kids are getting outside enrichment or the school is catering to those kids because their parents are more demanding. Either way, it is a warning sign.

And to reiterate many previous posts, an important measure of a school is how well they educate all children. Do all children improve? Granted, a large part of success is the home environment, but taking this into consideration, all children should be showing a certain level of improvement throughout their school career.

Anonymous wrote:Standing ovation for you!

If all these posters don't want to send their kids to my kid's school, fine. But to come on here and disparage good schools with great teachers just because of some national statistical data on poor children is really just too much. Poor children are not a threat to you. Hispanic children and black children are not a threat to you. Whatever awful things you're imagining about MCPS schools that contain some such children are inaccurate.

All MCPS schools teach kids about the dangers of bullying on the internet. Take a lesson from them.

It is not national statistics, it is MD statistics. Here is the link for you, maybe this time you read it: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here is a middle ground: some FARMS families might value education and offer their children an environment where they can succeed. This is not the case for the majority of FARMS students, as suggested by Figure 1 in the link I provided earlier.

Bottom line: the FARMs percentage don't measure what you want it to measure. So why use it?

I like how test scores don't reflect the education outcomes, FARMS percentages are meaningless, but the white kids get the same education no matter where they go to school. So all the schools are equal.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what the benefit is being able to stick your nose up and sneer about how much better you are than someone else? I'm wondering because in 99.99999% of these education threads its basically a bunch of parents taking turns criticizing low-income families/children. What do you all get a free groupon to Starbucks or something for your snootiness? How exactly does it benefit you all to act as if you're absolutely infallible and claim that your kids are the best thing since sliced bread because you have more money and less melanin than other people?

Nobody is criticizing low-income families. I am looking at statistics and I notice trends. We can't improve the education outcomes if we are unable to acknowledge the reality.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what the benefit is being able to stick your nose up and sneer about how much better you are than someone else? I'm wondering because in 99.99999% of these education threads its basically a bunch of parents taking turns criticizing low-income families/children. What do you all get a free groupon to Starbucks or something for your snootiness? How exactly does it benefit you all to act as if you're absolutely infallible and claim that your kids are the best thing since sliced bread because you have more money and less melanin than other people?

To make those desperate Bethesda moms/dads feel better about themselves? That's all I can come up with.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what the benefit is being able to stick your nose up and sneer about how much better you are than someone else? I'm wondering because in 99.99999% of these education threads its basically a bunch of parents taking turns criticizing low-income families/children. What do you all get a free groupon to Starbucks or something for your snootiness? How exactly does it benefit you all to act as if you're absolutely infallible and claim that your kids are the best thing since sliced bread because you have more money and less melanin than other people?

Standing ovation for you!

If all these posters don't want to send their kids to my kid's school, fine. But to come on here and disparage good schools with great teachers just because of some national statistical data on poor children is really just too much. Poor children are not a threat to you. Hispanic children and black children are not a threat to you. Whatever awful things you're imagining about MCPS schools that contain some such children are inaccurate.

All MCPS schools teach kids about the dangers of bullying on the internet. Take a lesson from them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here is a middle ground: some FARMS families might value education and offer their children an environment where they can succeed. This is not the case for the majority of FARMS students, as suggested by Figure 1 in the link I provided earlier.

Bottom line: the FARMs percentage don't measure what you want it to measure. So why use it?

^^^*doesn't measure

Anonymous wrote:
Here is a middle ground: some FARMS families might value education and offer their children an environment where they can succeed. This is not the case for the majority of FARMS students, as suggested by Figure 1 in the link I provided earlier.

Bottom line: the FARMs percentage don't measure what you want it to measure. So why use it?

Can someone explain to me what the benefit is being able to stick your nose up and sneer about how much better you are than someone else? I'm wondering because in 99.99999% of these education threads its basically a bunch of parents taking turns criticizing low-income families/children. What do you all get a free groupon to Starbucks or something for your snootiness? How exactly does it benefit you all to act as if you're absolutely infallible and claim that your kids are the best thing since sliced bread because you have more money and less melanin than other people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever looked at the worksheet to qualify for FARMs? It doesn't ask you whether you (or your children) value education. It only asks you what your household income is and how many people are in your household.

If you're using household income to measure how much a child values education -- well, don't do that.

Take off your rosy glasses and look at Figure 1 here: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship
Statistically speaking FARMS students don't do as well as those from higher SES households. There might be some who do well, but that is the exception rather than the norm.

Rosy glasses?

1. FARMS does not measure SES. It measures only current household income.
2. Neither current household income nor SES measures how much a family or child values education.
3. PARCC scores do not measure how much a family or child values education.

So if your goal is, "I want my child to be in class with lots of students who get high scores on standardized tests," then yes, you absolutely can use PARCC scores. But if your goal is, "I want my child to be in class with lots of students who value education," then no, you can't. Or rather, you can , but you won't be measuring what you think you're measuring.

Here is a middle ground: some FARMS families might value education and offer their children an environment where they can succeed. This is not the case for the majority of FARMS students, as suggested by Figure 1 in the link I provided earlier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever looked at the worksheet to qualify for FARMs? It doesn't ask you whether you (or your children) value education. It only asks you what your household income is and how many people are in your household.

If you're using household income to measure how much a child values education -- well, don't do that.

Take off your rosy glasses and look at Figure 1 here: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship
Statistically speaking FARMS students don't do as well as those from higher SES households. There might be some who do well, but that is the exception rather than the norm.

Rosy glasses?

1. FARMS does not measure SES. It measures only current household income.
2. Neither current household income nor SES measures how much a family or child values education.
3. PARCC scores do not measure how much a family or child values education.

So if your goal is, "I want my child to be in class with lots of students who get high scores on standardized tests," then yes, you absolutely can use PARCC scores. But if your goal is, "I want my child to be in class with lots of students who value education," then no, you can't. Or rather, you can , but you won't be measuring what you think you're measuring.

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever looked at the worksheet to qualify for FARMs? It doesn't ask you whether you (or your children) value education. It only asks you what your household income is and how many people are in your household.

If you're using household income to measure how much a child values education -- well, don't do that.

Take off your rosy glasses and look at Figure 1 here: https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship
Statistically speaking FARMS students don't do as well as those from higher SES households. There might be some who do well, but that is the exception rather than the norm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here... I understand what they are saying in terms of peers, but numbers don't lie. Having stated that, however, there is something to be said about the whole school experience. I'm a PP who stated that I wouldn't want my child going to a very high FARMS school or a very low FARMs school because I think both have their own issues. Yes I know that all schools have issues, but I'm speaking about issues particular to SES.

From an SAT score perspective, it doesn't seem to matter that much what HS the kid goes to, but having peers who value education is important. Yes, I do know that non W schools have kids and families who value education. We live in a non W cluster.

I think the Bethesda parents would argue that most of the kids in those schools (or at least the parents) value education. It's having that critical mass of a larger student population who share that value. But, those schools also have other issues that I would rather not deal with, namely all the issues that comes with exposure to too much wealth.

We all pick and choose what's most important for our kid's education.

I strongly agree that having peers who value education is important. Peers can pull you up or they can drag you down. Statistically ~20% FARMS is where the rest of the class pulls up the FARMS students.

Have you ever looked at the worksheet to qualify for FARMs? It doesn't ask you whether you (or your children) value education. It only asks you what your household income is and how many people are in your household.

If you're using household income to measure how much a child values education -- well, don't do that.