Median Family Household Incomes by School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone changed their mind about anything based on this data? Did it inform you in any way of something you didn’t know?

For me, it was that the “rich schools” don’t have really ridiculous HHI.

And yet there are huge FARMS rates differentials. People see what they want to see.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -- Homer Simpson

Yes that is other data that we see all of the time.

The idea was a bit of a counterpoint to the PPP. "Rich schools" may not have ridiculously high meidian HHI (depending on how one views ridiculous in that regard), but the difference in poverty- or near-poverty impacts is huge across school catchments.

It's that which is among the main drivers of need for differential support, and I would caution anyone looking at the provided analysis (good to have, don't get me wrong), without substantial additional analyses to complete the picture, against concluding that we don't need to address that differential need with the programs/differential funding that would be required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone changed their mind about anything based on this data? Did it inform you in any way of something you didn’t know?

For me, it was that the “rich schools” don’t have really ridiculous HHI.

I mean, I guess "ridiculous" is subjective, but you don't think it's wild that there are school districts where roughly half or more families make over $200K?

I think given the area that a HHI of $200K can be achieved by two very middle class people. Like two teachers or government workers. So I don’t think of a HHI of $200k as super rich or even rich.

I would have thought given the home prices in the Whitman catchment that it would be impossible to live there on less than $500k HHI, but maybe not? Or tho under $200K people are all retirees that have been there for decades.

I think this data is reminding us how bad people can be at estimating their own wealth as well as that of others. There are a lot of blue collar workers out there as well as people working in non profits, etc. who aren’t making the “professional” level income that so many people think is standard.

500k HHI is very unusual.

It's not. You just need both parents to work at descent white collar jobs like computer programmers, or a single parent income from a lawyer or a doctor to hit 500K+ HHI. I'm a government employee at a high GS level, and my partner is a senior director in a local company, and our HHI easily pass that threshold, which seems to be close to the median of our neighborhood incomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone changed their mind about anything based on this data? Did it inform you in any way of something you didn’t know?

For me, it was that the “rich schools” don’t have really ridiculous HHI.

And yet there are huge FARMS rates differentials. People see what they want to see.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -- Homer Simpson

Yes that is other data that we see all of the time.

The idea was a bit of a counterpoint to the PPP. "Rich schools" may not have ridiculously high meidian HHI (depending on how one views ridiculous in that regard), but the difference in poverty- or near-poverty impacts is huge across school catchments.

It's that which is among the main drivers of need for differential support, and I would caution anyone looking at the provided analysis (good to have, don't get me wrong), without substantial additional analyses to complete the picture, against concluding that we don't need to address that differential need with the programs/differential funding that would be required.

Found the mcps administrator - the coded language gives it away. But aren’t you basically saying poor kids bring down school-wide performance than rich kids bring it up?

Also, "remotely true" things are still true even if they aren't obviously true, so of course facts can prove them and that doesn't make facts meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone changed their mind about anything based on this data? Did it inform you in any way of something you didn’t know?

For me, it was that the “rich schools” don’t have really ridiculous HHI.

And yet there are huge FARMS rates differentials. People see what they want to see.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -- Homer Simpson

Yes that is other data that we see all of the time.

The idea was a bit of a counterpoint to the PPP. "Rich schools" may not have ridiculously high meidian HHI (depending on how one views ridiculous in that regard), but the difference in poverty- or near-poverty impacts is huge across school catchments.

It's that which is among the main drivers of need for differential support, and I would caution anyone looking at the provided analysis (good to have, don't get me wrong), without substantial additional analyses to complete the picture, against concluding that we don't need to address that differential need with the programs/differential funding that would be required.

Found the mcps administrator - the coded language gives it away. But aren’t you basically saying poor kids bring down school-wide performance than rich kids bring it up?

Also, "remotely true" things are still true even if they aren't obviously true, so of course facts can prove them and that doesn't make facts meaningless.

Both you and the person you are responding to sound like lawyers or academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone changed their mind about anything based on this data? Did it inform you in any way of something you didn’t know?

For me, it was that the “rich schools” don’t have really ridiculous HHI.

I mean, I guess "ridiculous" is subjective, but you don't think it's wild that there are school districts where roughly half or more families make over $200K?

I think given the area that a HHI of $200K can be achieved by two very middle class people. Like two teachers or government workers. So I don’t think of a HHI of $200k as super rich or even rich.

I would have thought given the home prices in the Whitman catchment that it would be impossible to live there on less than $500k HHI, but maybe not? Or tho under $200K people are all retirees that have been there for decades.

I think this data is reminding us how bad people can be at estimating their own wealth as well as that of others. There are a lot of blue collar workers out there as well as people working in non profits, etc. who aren’t making the “professional” level income that so many people think is standard.

500k HHI is very unusual.

It's not. You just need both parents to work at descent white collar jobs like computer programmers, or a single parent income from a lawyer or a doctor to hit 500K+ HHI. I'm a government employee at a high GS level, and my partner is a senior director in a local company, and our HHI easily pass that threshold, which seems to be close to the median of our neighborhood incomes.

I know it is not unheard of. If you think it’s “not unusual,” that’s just true of your particular bubble. You are the one percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone changed their mind about anything based on this data? Did it inform you in any way of something you didn’t know?

For me, it was that the “rich schools” don’t have really ridiculous HHI.

And yet there are huge FARMS rates differentials. People see what they want to see.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -- Homer Simpson

Yes that is other data that we see all of the time.

The idea was a bit of a counterpoint to the PPP. "Rich schools" may not have ridiculously high meidian HHI (depending on how one views ridiculous in that regard), but the difference in poverty- or near-poverty impacts is huge across school catchments.

It's that which is among the main drivers of need for differential support, and I would caution anyone looking at the provided analysis (good to have, don't get me wrong), without substantial additional analyses to complete the picture, against concluding that we don't need to address that differential need with the programs/differential funding that would be required.

Found the mcps administrator - the coded language gives it away. But aren’t you basically saying poor kids bring down school-wide performance than rich kids bring it up?

Also, "remotely true" things are still true even if they aren't obviously true, so of course facts can prove them and that doesn't make facts meaningless.

Well, it's an anonymous forum, so I could be anyone, I suppose, but you'd be wrong, there. I don't work for any government agency or even any proximate NGO. I'm a parent of current MCPS students, though.

Which coded language do you see? "Catchments?" I'll affirm it's my own, rather than taken from any school system reference manual.

Kids wiith needs more difficult to address, whether due to conditions made more common by relative poverty, due to non-homogeneous ability vs. cohort, due to special circumstance or due to another reason, require greater resources than those with needs less difficult to address. They don't have to "bring down" a school if the school is differentially resourced according to that cumulative need such that all individual need might be addressed with relative equivalence.

If it is not so resourced (and I posit that this currently is the case, as evidenced, if by nothing else, by the relative diversity of academic experiences reported across schools for individual students of similar profile), then the fiefdom-like latitude allowed to local school administrations leaves it up to their personal preference as to which students' needs are left less addressed, or, in the case of relative over-resourcing, to which students' interests they attend most beyond meeting need.

I see you've noted the double entendre in the quote. To your pointing it out as some error, I'd have to ask:

Are you not familiar with The Simpsons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone changed their mind about anything based on this data? Did it inform you in any way of something you didn’t know?

For me, it was that the “rich schools” don’t have really ridiculous HHI.

And yet there are huge FARMS rates differentials. People see what they want to see.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -- Homer Simpson

Yes that is other data that we see all of the time.

The idea was a bit of a counterpoint to the PPP. "Rich schools" may not have ridiculously high meidian HHI (depending on how one views ridiculous in that regard), but the difference in poverty- or near-poverty impacts is huge across school catchments.

It's that which is among the main drivers of need for differential support, and I would caution anyone looking at the provided analysis (good to have, don't get me wrong), without substantial additional analyses to complete the picture, against concluding that we don't need to address that differential need with the programs/differential funding that would be required.

Found the mcps administrator - the coded language gives it away. But aren’t you basically saying poor kids bring down school-wide performance than rich kids bring it up?

Also, "remotely true" things are still true even if they aren't obviously true, so of course facts can prove them and that doesn't make facts meaningless.

Well, it's an anonymous forum, so I could be anyone, I suppose, but you'd be wrong, there. I don't work for any government agency or even any proximate NGO. I'm a parent of current MCPS students, though.

Which coded language do you see? "Catchments?" I'll affirm it's my own, rather than taken from any school system reference manual.

Kids wiith needs more difficult to address, whether due to conditions made more common by relative poverty, due to non-homogeneous ability vs. cohort, due to special circumstance or due to another reason, require greater resources than those with needs less difficult to address. They don't have to "bring down" a school if the school is differentially resourced according to that cumulative need such that all individual need might be addressed with relative equivalence.

If it is not so resourced (and I posit that this currently is the case, as evidenced, if by nothing else, by the relative diversity of academic experiences reported across schools for individual students of similar profile), then the fiefdom-like latitude allowed to local school administrations leaves it up to their personal preference as to which students' needs are left less addressed, or, in the case of relative over-resourcing, to which students' interests they attend most beyond meeting need.

I see you've noted the double entendre in the quote. To your pointing it out as some error, I'd have to ask:

Are you not familiar with The Simpsons?

Phew, that was a tough read. "Relative poverty" instead of just "poverty", "non-homgeneous ability" instead of just reduced ability, are coded language like I see on the mcps website.

I think your trying to say kids that who are slower do need more resources than others, but don't have to bring down the overall performance of a school if extra money is allocated to schools with more of those kids. If the money isn't there then the school's administration will have to decide where to cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We make about $450k and will go to Northwood- we could def not afford to move into any of the areas with schools near the top! How can anyone going to Whitman afford to live there? You need $1mill plus to buy a house there? Family money?

Hi neighbor! Similar HHI and zoned for Northwood, too. People are buying homes 2.5-3x their incomes, that’s how they do it. I’m too chicken to do that.

[Anonymous]

Americans seem to be having a hard time realizing we’re poor now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone changed their mind about anything based on this data? Did it inform you in any way of something you didn’t know?

For me, it was that the “rich schools” don’t have really ridiculous HHI.

And yet there are huge FARMS rates differentials. People see what they want to see.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -- Homer Simpson

Yes that is other data that we see all of the time.

The idea was a bit of a counterpoint to the PPP. "Rich schools" may not have ridiculously high meidian HHI (depending on how one views ridiculous in that regard), but the difference in poverty- or near-poverty impacts is huge across school catchments.

It's that which is among the main drivers of need for differential support, and I would caution anyone looking at the provided analysis (good to have, don't get me wrong), without substantial additional analyses to complete the picture, against concluding that we don't need to address that differential need with the programs/differential funding that would be required.

Found the mcps administrator - the coded language gives it away. But aren’t you basically saying poor kids bring down school-wide performance than rich kids bring it up?

Also, "remotely true" things are still true even if they aren't obviously true, so of course facts can prove them and that doesn't make facts meaningless.

Well, it's an anonymous forum, so I could be anyone, I suppose, but you'd be wrong, there. I don't work for any government agency or even any proximate NGO. I'm a parent of current MCPS students, though.

Which coded language do you see? "Catchments?" I'll affirm it's my own, rather than taken from any school system reference manual.

Kids wiith needs more difficult to address, whether due to conditions made more common by relative poverty, due to non-homogeneous ability vs. cohort, due to special circumstance or due to another reason, require greater resources than those with needs less difficult to address. They don't have to "bring down" a school if the school is differentially resourced according to that cumulative need such that all individual need might be addressed with relative equivalence.

If it is not so resourced (and I posit that this currently is the case, as evidenced, if by nothing else, by the relative diversity of academic experiences reported across schools for individual students of similar profile), then the fiefdom-like latitude allowed to local school administrations leaves it up to their personal preference as to which students' needs are left less addressed, or, in the case of relative over-resourcing, to which students' interests they attend most beyond meeting need.

I see you've noted the double entendre in the quote. To your pointing it out as some error, I'd have to ask:

Are you not familiar with The Simpsons?

Phew, that was a tough read. "Relative poverty" instead of just "poverty", "non-homgeneous ability" instead of just reduced ability, are coded language like I see on the mcps website.

I think your trying to say kids that who are slower do need more resources than others, but don't have to bring down the overall performance of a school if extra money is allocated to schools with more of those kids. If the money isn't there then the school's administration will have to decide where to cut.

Apologies for the tough read, but, again, it's my own language, even if found similar to something on the MCPS website.

I chose "relative poverty" because not all students with wealth-related disadvantage that might require additional resources to be met with reasonable equivalence are technically at the poverty level (as government might define).

I chose "non-homogeneous ability vs. cohort" because, while one end of the spectrum tends to present needs that require more resources than the other, either end can present differential resource requirements to meet need, and this plays out in the classroom moreso when the cohort is less uniform, wherever on the spectrum that grouping might be centered.

With that broader context, and hopefully with a less charged wording than "bring down," I think you have some of it. It is that those cuts will be variably applied according to local school leadership (i.e., principal) preference and that the current allocation paradigm's failing to provide well enough for that need differential across schools means that the system, as a whole, is not set up best to deliver relative equivalence of educational service to students, based merely on their location in the county (whatever other inequities may exist).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Americans seem to be having a hard time realizing we’re poor now

What are you considering poor as your idea of poor is probably rich people pretending to be middle class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone changed their mind about anything based on this data? Did it inform you in any way of something you didn’t know?

For me, it was that the “rich schools” don’t have really ridiculous HHI.

And yet there are huge FARMS rates differentials. People see what they want to see.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -- Homer Simpson

Yes that is other data that we see all of the time.

The idea was a bit of a counterpoint to the PPP. "Rich schools" may not have ridiculously high meidian HHI (depending on how one views ridiculous in that regard), but the difference in poverty- or near-poverty impacts is huge across school catchments.

It's that which is among the main drivers of need for differential support, and I would caution anyone looking at the provided analysis (good to have, don't get me wrong), without substantial additional analyses to complete the picture, against concluding that we don't need to address that differential need with the programs/differential funding that would be required.

The big difference between families with similar incomes is the willingness to stretch but offerings for kids should be reasonably equal at all schools, especially stem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is not right. We are at Wootton and are at $325,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone changed their mind about anything based on this data? Did it inform you in any way of something you didn’t know?

For me, it was that the “rich schools” don’t have really ridiculous HHI.

I mean, I guess "ridiculous" is subjective, but you don't think it's wild that there are school districts where roughly half or more families make over $200K?

I think given the area that a HHI of $200K can be achieved by two very middle class people. Like two teachers or government workers. So I don’t think of a HHI of $200k as super rich or even rich.

I would have thought given the home prices in the Whitman catchment that it would be impossible to live there on less than $500k HHI, but maybe not? Or tho under $200K people are all retirees that have been there for decades.

I think this data is reminding us how bad people can be at estimating their own wealth as well as that of others. There are a lot of blue collar workers out there as well as people working in non profits, etc. who aren’t making the “professional” level income that so many people think is standard.

500k HHI is very unusual.[/]

I would imagine that there are many many people on DCUM who believe that most families at Whitman have HHI beyond $400k.

Yes, or family money or got lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not right. We are at Wootton and are at $325,000.

Why so low?