Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have a child at Montgomery Knolls, which has a very high FARMS rate (64%), and I have to take issue with some of the comments on this thread. DC is not FARMS but loves school and is learning a lot. B/c the FARMS rate is so high, the school's at-a-glance says last year's average class for K was 17.8, smaller for 1 and 2 grades. The at-a-glance also says that 2nd graders who are Caucasian have an 84% composite rate. That's higher than the Caucasian rate at Bethesda Elementary (81%), which had a FARMS rate of 6.7% (and an average 22 kids/class). So, if your assumption is that "poor" kids drag down the performance of kids from homes with more means, these stats, at least, don't show that.
Also, I know 2 kids in my DC's class have behavior issues. One of them is a Caucasian kid with two parents at home, and I'm doubtful the kid is FARMS. So, it may be true in general that poorer kids have more behavioral issues, but wealthier kids can, too. And if you're considering a high FARMS school vs. a low-FARMS school, I'd think you'd have to consider the class size. I understand from DCUM that lots of schools have K classes up to 25 or even 28 kids. Is that classroom easier to manage than one with 18 or 19 kids, 63% of whom are FARMS? I am sure it depends.
Also, FWIW, I am happy to have DC exposed to kids of other backgrounds. To me, there is a benefit in learning that not every kid lives in a house or speaks English at home. DC has made friends across color/economic lines, and DC has shown empathy for kids who are not fluent in English. So, I like that. If behavior issues ever start to overwhlem the classroom or DC's experience, we'll change schools, for sure. But a lot of the anti-FARMS sentiment seems, to me, pretty knee-jerk and unfortunate. There are pros and cons to everything, including being at a high FARMS school.
We are also at a SS school with high FARMS rate (above 50%) and I very much agree with this post.
Me too. My kids are thriving.
Anonymous wrote:Why do all of the schools on greatschools that have very low ratings and
test scores have a higher rate of free and reduced lunches. I dont think race is an issue .
Anonymous wrote:"Not only are the FARMS students not dragging down their affluent counterparts"
Those state tests are a floor that kids SHOULD be meeting - that's why in the well-off schools you have almost 100% of kids meeting the floor benchmarks. Meeting the floor does not mean that kids are meeting their full potential. As a PP noted, the concern w/ lots of FARMS/ESL kids in a school is that the teachers end up spending lots of time flocused on them and while I am sure my DD would still be passing the minimum benchmarks for her grade, I doubt her teachers would have time to make sure she's learning as much as SHE can when they need to devote so much time to kids who don't even know English. I don't have ill will towards those kids, but I also care most about what is best for my own kid.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have a child at Montgomery Knolls, which has a very high FARMS rate (64%), and I have to take issue with some of the comments on this thread. DC is not FARMS but loves school and is learning a lot. B/c the FARMS rate is so high, the school's at-a-glance says last year's average class for K was 17.8, smaller for 1 and 2 grades. The at-a-glance also says that 2nd graders who are Caucasian have an 84% composite rate. That's higher than the Caucasian rate at Bethesda Elementary (81%), which had a FARMS rate of 6.7% (and an average 22 kids/class). So, if your assumption is that "poor" kids drag down the performance of kids from homes with more means, these stats, at least, don't show that.
Also, I know 2 kids in my DC's class have behavior issues. One of them is a Caucasian kid with two parents at home, and I'm doubtful the kid is FARMS. So, it may be true in general that poorer kids have more behavioral issues, but wealthier kids can, too. And if you're considering a high FARMS school vs. a low-FARMS school, I'd think you'd have to consider the class size. I understand from DCUM that lots of schools have K classes up to 25 or even 28 kids. Is that classroom easier to manage than one with 18 or 19 kids, 63% of whom are FARMS? I am sure it depends.
Also, FWIW, I am happy to have DC exposed to kids of other backgrounds. To me, there is a benefit in learning that not every kid lives in a house or speaks English at home. DC has made friends across color/economic lines, and DC has shown empathy for kids who are not fluent in English. So, I like that. If behavior issues ever start to overwhlem the classroom or DC's experience, we'll change schools, for sure. But a lot of the anti-FARMS sentiment seems, to me, pretty knee-jerk and unfortunate. There are pros and cons to everything, including being at a high FARMS school.
We are also at a SS school with high FARMS rate (above 50%) and I very much agree with this post.
Anonymous wrote:We have a child at Montgomery Knolls, which has a very high FARMS rate (64%), and I have to take issue with some of the comments on this thread. DC is not FARMS but loves school and is learning a lot. B/c the FARMS rate is so high, the school's at-a-glance says last year's average class for K was 17.8, smaller for 1 and 2 grades. The at-a-glance also says that 2nd graders who are Caucasian have an 84% composite rate. That's higher than the Caucasian rate at Bethesda Elementary (81%), which had a FARMS rate of 6.7% (and an average 22 kids/class). So, if your assumption is that "poor" kids drag down the performance of kids from homes with more means, these stats, at least, don't show that.
Also, I know 2 kids in my DC's class have behavior issues. One of them is a Caucasian kid with two parents at home, and I'm doubtful the kid is FARMS. So, it may be true in general that poorer kids have more behavioral issues, but wealthier kids can, too. And if you're considering a high FARMS school vs. a low-FARMS school, I'd think you'd have to consider the class size. I understand from DCUM that lots of schools have K classes up to 25 or even 28 kids. Is that classroom easier to manage than one with 18 or 19 kids, 63% of whom are FARMS? I am sure it depends.
Also, FWIW, I am happy to have DC exposed to kids of other backgrounds. To me, there is a benefit in learning that not every kid lives in a house or speaks English at home. DC has made friends across color/economic lines, and DC has shown empathy for kids who are not fluent in English. So, I like that. If behavior issues ever start to overwhlem the classroom or DC's experience, we'll change schools, for sure. But a lot of the anti-FARMS sentiment seems, to me, pretty knee-jerk and unfortunate. There are pros and cons to everything, including being at a high FARMS school.
Anonymous wrote:You showed 1 example, everyone knows the truth. If you had to choose between a school that had 10% FARM and 70% FARM which one would you send your child to?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Here's the quote from 15:43:
At Bethesda Elementary, I looked up the same statistic, and white, grade 5 reading for Bethesda Elementary is 98%. It looks like those white kids are testing nearly the same despite the presence of the lower-scoring kids in their class. It's not clear the lower-scoring kids are bringing anyone down.
Wow! I guess you don't recognize how racist that sounds. So it's OK for "the others" (aka "them") to score low as long as the whites are still achieving.
I'll answer this because I feel the need to defend myself from this charge. I posted this because the claim had been made that having poorer or minority children in a class created a negative learning environment for all the rest of the children. I was only attempting to show that, according to the scores, this was not occurring at this particular school. No racism was intended, and in fact the whole point was to show that diverse schools can benefit lower-achieving students without negatively affecting the higher-achieving students. When you post to this board, please consider giving the original poster the benefit of the doubt.
Anonymous wrote:
Here's the quote from 15:43:
At Bethesda Elementary, I looked up the same statistic, and white, grade 5 reading for Bethesda Elementary is 98%. It looks like those white kids are testing nearly the same despite the presence of the lower-scoring kids in their class. It's not clear the lower-scoring kids are bringing anyone down.
Wow! I guess you don't recognize how racist that sounds. So it's OK for "the others" (aka "them") to score low as long as the whites are still achieving.
Anonymous wrote:"Not only are the FARMS students not dragging down their affluent counterparts"
Those state tests are a floor that kids SHOULD be meeting - that's why in the well-off schools you have almost 100% of kids meeting the floor benchmarks. Meeting the floor does not mean that kids are meeting their full potential. As a PP noted, the concern w/ lots of FARMS/ESL kids in a school is that the teachers end up spending lots of time flocused on them and while I am sure my DD would still be passing the minimum benchmarks for her grade, I doubt her teachers would have time to make sure she's learning as much as SHE can when they need to devote so much time to kids who don't even know English. I don't have ill will towards those kids, but I also care most about what is best for my own kid.