Myth: low income students do better in schools with <25% FARMs rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything you do in the schools is just treating a symptom not the disease. If you don’t fix the challenges facing the families it is just like bailing out a boat with a hole in the bottom.

+1
No one wants to discuss the big elephant in the room. It is not the school's responsibility that people choose to breed children into the world that they can not afford to raise period! If we are not going to discuss the larger societal problem of poverty, then injecting poor students into wealthy schools is pointless.

We are not discussing family planning, birth control, parental courses, parental counseling, etc. before these kids are even born. The American society refuses to address poverty and now schools have to take on the impossible task of playing the role of a foster parent to kids who should not have been born in the first place from individuals who have no business breeding children.

My prediction is that many wealthy and UMC families will run to private schools. Public schools will become flooded with FARMS, have limited resources, and have a ton of academic obstacles all because individuals refuse to utilize birth control. This is a birth control issue and not a school issue.

Why are schools being blame for parent's lack of personal responsibility? Why didn't these folks have access to birth control, financial planning courses, or parental classes before they decided to bring a child into the world? We need to start teaching family planning, life skill courses, and financial planning starting in high school so that folks will learn from an early age that is not okay to breed children into poverty. Access to free birth control will decrease so many issues.

This sounds like eugenics.

Free birth control and forced birth control are two different things.

As to the rest of it, middle class and higher generally stick to having children only in wedlock. Teaching to lower classes some of the same behaviors that higher classes use to achieve and maintain more stability would seem to be behavior that demonstrates a desire for equity.

Yeah, I’m with the poster saying that human breeding is an odd phrase to use. That’s why it comes off sounding like you’re advocating eugenics. Like we need something to stop these dirty breeding people I don’t like from breeding. It doesn’t come across as compassionate at all.

We already wasted funds and precious time on being compassionate. Compassion is why we are in this mess in the first place. It is time that we cut off the weaker links because our civilization depends on it. One day we are going to wake up and wonder what happen to public education in the USA. Debating semantics and word choice are a complete waste of time. Breed, bred, birth, have....who the Hell cares? Schools across the country are suffering from the influx of poverty students and you want to debate about the utilization of the word breed?

We have more crucial things to loose sleep over. People in poverty having access to birth control is way more important. Not wasting resources is way more important. Decreasing crime is way more important. You need to spend some time in developing countries because this is what we as a nation are up against.

Why do you oppose educating impoverished people about birth control and family planning? Would you rather see our public schools overpopulated with FARM students? Would you rather schools waste resources and time playing Mommy and Daddy to impoverished students? Besides wasting money on 18 years of childcare, would it not be cost effective to provide free abortions or birth control instead? I would rather fund a birth control project than to have public schools take on the struggle of dealing with impoverished students.

We need to address poverty and prevent it. We do not need schools to use their limited resources on an issue that the larger society refuses to address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, low-income students do better at schools that lack concentrated poverty. Who wouldn't? There have been hundreds of studies that show this to be true.

Shh - don't tell the Republicants. It's funny to hear them complain about these fictions.

If poor kids do better when not around other poor kids because poor kids are a distraction, tell me again why poor kids aren’t a distractions to well off kids?

Also how do you do the math when there is 3 poor kids for every rich kid that the schools equal this utopia?

Or is what you want a world where rich kids don’t automatically get what your kid has to test into and cross their fingers that they studied as hard as the Asian kids to avoid all the basic kids doing basic stuff.

DP.

the reason why poor kids do better in a school with lower FARMS rate is because of resources.

In a school with high poverty, the needs are greater, and so you need more resources to attend to those needs. But we don't have unlimited resources.

In a school with lower FARMs rate, the needs aren't as great so it's easier to address needs with the resources that currently exist in that school.

What resources? Esol teachers are allocated based on the number of students in each school. It is the same for SE teachers and aids. The classrooms are smaller in title 1 and focus schools. There are daycares in HS but I don't know they are for students or not.

We were talking about poor kids, not ESOL or Special Education, weren't we?

And maybe you think that smaller class sizes in the lower grades in elementary schools fully address the greater needs of schools where lots of students come from poor families, but you won't find many who agree with you.

Was just going to reply the same. Interesting that ^^PP immediately jumped to FARMS = ESOL.

FARMS rate in MCPS is twice the % of ESOL. I guess non ESOL poor kids don't count when it comes to additional resources.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/county.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything you do in the schools is just treating a symptom not the disease. If you don’t fix the challenges facing the families it is just like bailing out a boat with a hole in the bottom.

+1
No one wants to discuss the big elephant in the room. It is not the school's responsibility that people choose to breed children into the world that they can not afford to raise period! If we are not going to discuss the larger societal problem of poverty, then injecting poor students into wealthy schools is pointless.

We are not discussing family planning, birth control, parental courses, parental counseling, etc. before these kids are even born. The American society refuses to address poverty and now schools have to take on the impossible task of playing the role of a foster parent to kids who should not have been born in the first place from individuals who have no business breeding children.

My prediction is that many wealthy and UMC families will run to private schools. Public schools will become flooded with FARMS, have limited resources, and have a ton of academic obstacles all because individuals refuse to utilize birth control. This is a birth control issue and not a school issue.

Why are schools being blame for parent's lack of personal responsibility? Why didn't these folks have access to birth control, financial planning courses, or parental classes before they decided to bring a child into the world? We need to start teaching family planning, life skill courses, and financial planning starting in high school so that folks will learn from an early age that is not okay to breed children into poverty. Access to free birth control will decrease so many issues.

This sounds like eugenics.

Free birth control and forced birth control are two different things.

As to the rest of it, middle class and higher generally stick to having children only in wedlock. Teaching to lower classes some of the same behaviors that higher classes use to achieve and maintain more stability would seem to be behavior that demonstrates a desire for equity.

Yeah, I’m with the poster saying that human breeding is an odd phrase to use. That’s why it comes off sounding like you’re advocating eugenics. Like we need something to stop these dirty breeding people I don’t like from breeding. It doesn’t come across as compassionate at all.

We already wasted funds and precious time on being compassionate. Compassion is why we are in this mess in the first place. It is time that we cut off the weaker links because our civilization depends on it. One day we are going to wake up and wonder what happen to public education in the USA. Debating semantics and word choice are a complete waste of time. Breed, bred, birth, have....who the Hell cares? Schools across the country are suffering from the influx of poverty students and you want to debate about the utilization of the word breed?

We have more crucial things to loose sleep over. People in poverty having access to birth control is way more important. Not wasting resources is way more important. Decreasing crime is way more important. You need to spend some time in developing countries because this is what we as a nation are up against.

Why do you oppose educating impoverished people about birth control and family planning? Would you rather see our public schools overpopulated with FARM students? Would you rather schools waste resources and time playing Mommy and Daddy to impoverished students? Besides wasting money on 18 years of childcare, would it not be cost effective to provide free abortions or birth control instead? I would rather fund a birth control project than to have public schools take on the struggle of dealing with impoverished students.

We need to address poverty and prevent it. We do not need schools to use their limited resources on an issue that the larger society refuses to address.

This reminds me of the opening scene in the movie "300" where all the weak babies were thrown off a mountain, and there were piles of dead babies who were considered weak in the ravine.

I watched a documentary once about I think the Inuits and how they lived about 100 years ago, where they would leave the old grandparents behind and move on (they were nomadic) because they were just a burden. Of course, those old people died fairly quickly.

According to PP, this is how we should live. Leave the weakest ones behind. I would think our society would've evolved by the 21st century. Sadly not.

[Anonymous]

This is what evidence looks like. And it uses all schools in Maryland, not cherry-picked schools in MoCo. Shocker... it says that proportion of FARMS students is related to outcomes. I've got plenty more pieces of evidence if you'd like. https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not eugenics. We're importing unskilled, uneducated, illiterate poverty to our sanctuary city to the tune of 10000s a year. And more in the country as a whole. It's a huge cluster*ck in the public schools in CA, MD, FL, TX, AZ. Total mess: kids are 2-4 grade levels behind, graduate and need remedial everything, high absenteeism, high drop-off and teen pregnancy rates, and never master English reading, writing or speaking. Total mess.

Nah. We (however we are) aren't importing (whatever you mean by that) poverty. Rather, people are choosing to come here. And why? For the same reasons my grandparents and great-grandparents chose to come here - economic opportunity, freedom from fear, a better life for their children, in a place where there's already a community of people from their country.

Everything you're saying now, people said about my grandparents and great-grandparents.

Yes, but when my grandparents came here in the 1930s, it was not an instant get public assistance ticket - they had to work, learn the language, take lesser jobs than they had in their home country, and worked their butts off to integrate into America. They wanted it for the freedom, not the welfare benefits.

Once the whole world gets educated, the earth's population will dramatically decline - already happening in many countries, looking at you South Korea, China, etc... and that is causing lots of social issues. I am all for immigration, but it needs to be legal immigration and people who can add to society from the beginning - not take from society for a few generations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what evidence looks like. And it uses all schools in Maryland, not cherry-picked schools in MoCo. Shocker... it says that proportion of FARMS students is related to outcomes. I've got plenty more pieces of evidence if you'd like. https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

From the MD report: “The variation in PARCC school proficiency rates is highly correlated with the percentage of low- income students enrolled in a school. An increase in the percentage of low-income students in a school is associated with a decrease in a school proficiency rate on the PARCC assessments. The relationship is clearest at the state level, where the low-income student enrollment corresponds to nearly two thirds (R2=0.62) of the difference in proficiency rates between schools. ”

No one denies that more low income students=low test scores at school levels as well as county levels. The problem is that many people believe the myth that low income students perform better in schools with less low income students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what evidence looks like. And it uses all schools in Maryland, not cherry-picked schools in MoCo. Shocker... it says that proportion of FARMS students is related to outcomes. I've got plenty more pieces of evidence if you'd like. https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

From the MD report: “The variation in PARCC school proficiency rates is highly correlated with the percentage of low- income students enrolled in a school. An increase in the percentage of low-income students in a school is associated with a decrease in a school proficiency rate on the PARCC assessments. The relationship is clearest at the state level, where the low-income student enrollment corresponds to nearly two thirds (R2=0.62) of the difference in proficiency rates between schools. ”

No one denies that more low income students=low test scores at school levels as well as county levels. The problem is that many people believe the myth that low income students perform better in schools with less low income students.

Exactly low income equals dumb, what don’t people get??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything you do in the schools is just treating a symptom not the disease. If you don’t fix the challenges facing the families it is just like bailing out a boat with a hole in the bottom.

+1
No one wants to discuss the big elephant in the room. It is not the school's responsibility that people choose to breed children into the world that they can not afford to raise period! If we are not going to discuss the larger societal problem of poverty, then injecting poor students into wealthy schools is pointless.

We are not discussing family planning, birth control, parental courses, parental counseling, etc. before these kids are even born. The American society refuses to address poverty and now schools have to take on the impossible task of playing the role of a foster parent to kids who should not have been born in the first place from individuals who have no business breeding children.

My prediction is that many wealthy and UMC families will run to private schools. Public schools will become flooded with FARMS, have limited resources, and have a ton of academic obstacles all because individuals refuse to utilize birth control. This is a birth control issue and not a school issue.

Why are schools being blame for parent's lack of personal responsibility? Why didn't these folks have access to birth control, financial planning courses, or parental classes before they decided to bring a child into the world? We need to start teaching family planning, life skill courses, and financial planning starting in high school so that folks will learn from an early age that is not okay to breed children into poverty. Access to free birth control will decrease so many issues.

This sounds like eugenics.

Free birth control and forced birth control are two different things.

As to the rest of it, middle class and higher generally stick to having children only in wedlock. Teaching to lower classes some of the same behaviors that higher classes use to achieve and maintain more stability would seem to be behavior that demonstrates a desire for equity.

Yeah, I’m with the poster saying that human breeding is an odd phrase to use. That’s why it comes off sounding like you’re advocating eugenics. Like we need something to stop these dirty breeding people I don’t like from breeding. It doesn’t come across as compassionate at all.

We already wasted funds and precious time on being compassionate. Compassion is why we are in this mess in the first place. It is time that we cut off the weaker links because our civilization depends on it. One day we are going to wake up and wonder what happen to public education in the USA. Debating semantics and word choice are a complete waste of time. Breed, bred, birth, have....who the Hell cares? Schools across the country are suffering from the influx of poverty students and you want to debate about the utilization of the word breed?

We have more crucial things to loose sleep over. People in poverty having access to birth control is way more important. Not wasting resources is way more important. Decreasing crime is way more important. You need to spend some time in developing countries because this is what we as a nation are up against.

Why do you oppose educating impoverished people about birth control and family planning? Would you rather see our public schools overpopulated with FARM students? Would you rather schools waste resources and time playing Mommy and Daddy to impoverished students? Besides wasting money on 18 years of childcare, would it not be cost effective to provide free abortions or birth control instead? I would rather fund a birth control project than to have public schools take on the struggle of dealing with impoverished students.

We need to address poverty and prevent it. We do not need schools to use their limited resources on an issue that the larger society refuses to address.

Sorry. Impoverished kids already exist. Someone will always be behind, some will fall into poverty (and just ones teetering on the brink). You sound like you’d rid the world of these living people now so as to not waste another dollar.

You might be the scariest poster on DCUM I’ve seen yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what evidence looks like. And it uses all schools in Maryland, not cherry-picked schools in MoCo. Shocker... it says that proportion of FARMS students is related to outcomes. I've got plenty more pieces of evidence if you'd like. https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

From the MD report: “The variation in PARCC school proficiency rates is highly correlated with the percentage of low- income students enrolled in a school. An increase in the percentage of low-income students in a school is associated with a decrease in a school proficiency rate on the PARCC assessments. The relationship is clearest at the state level, where the low-income student enrollment corresponds to nearly two thirds (R2=0.62) of the difference in proficiency rates between schools. ”

No one denies that more low income students=low test scores at school levels as well as county levels. The problem is that many people believe the myth that low income students perform better in schools with less low income students.

People believe it because it's not a myth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not eugenics. We're importing unskilled, uneducated, illiterate poverty to our sanctuary city to the tune of 10000s a year. And more in the country as a whole. It's a huge cluster*ck in the public schools in CA, MD, FL, TX, AZ. Total mess: kids are 2-4 grade levels behind, graduate and need remedial everything, high absenteeism, high drop-off and teen pregnancy rates, and never master English reading, writing or speaking. Total mess.

Nah. We (however we are) aren't importing (whatever you mean by that) poverty. Rather, people are choosing to come here. And why? For the same reasons my grandparents and great-grandparents chose to come here - economic opportunity, freedom from fear, a better life for their children, in a place where there's already a community of people from their country.

Everything you're saying now, people said about my grandparents and great-grandparents.

Yes, but when my grandparents came here in the 1930s, it was not an instant get public assistance ticket - they had to work, learn the language, take lesser jobs than they had in their home country, and worked their butts off to integrate into America. They wanted it for the freedom, not the welfare benefits.

Once the whole world gets educated, the earth's population will dramatically decline - already happening in many countries, looking at you South Korea, China, etc... and that is causing lots of social issues. I am all for immigration, but it needs to be legal immigration and people who can add to society from the beginning - not take from society for a few generations.

I've got news for you about the people coming here now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what evidence looks like. And it uses all schools in Maryland, not cherry-picked schools in MoCo. Shocker... it says that proportion of FARMS students is related to outcomes. I've got plenty more pieces of evidence if you'd like. https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

From the MD report: “The variation in PARCC school proficiency rates is highly correlated with the percentage of low- income students enrolled in a school. An increase in the percentage of low-income students in a school is associated with a decrease in a school proficiency rate on the PARCC assessments. The relationship is clearest at the state level, where the low-income student enrollment corresponds to nearly two thirds (R2=0.62) of the difference in proficiency rates between schools. ”

No one denies that more low income students=low test scores at school levels as well as county levels. The problem is that many people believe the myth that low income students perform better in schools with less low income students.

Exactly low income equals dumb, what don’t people get??

Low income doesn't mean stupid. Low income means less opportunities and more struggles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what evidence looks like. And it uses all schools in Maryland, not cherry-picked schools in MoCo. Shocker... it says that proportion of FARMS students is related to outcomes. I've got plenty more pieces of evidence if you'd like. https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

From the MD report: “The variation in PARCC school proficiency rates is highly correlated with the percentage of low- income students enrolled in a school. An increase in the percentage of low-income students in a school is associated with a decrease in a school proficiency rate on the PARCC assessments. The relationship is clearest at the state level, where the low-income student enrollment corresponds to nearly two thirds (R2=0.62) of the difference in proficiency rates between schools. ”

No one denies that more low income students=low test scores at school levels as well as county levels. The problem is that many people believe the myth that low income students perform better in schools with less low income students.

Exactly low income equals dumb, what don’t people get??

Low income doesn't mean stupid. Low income means less opportunities and more struggles.

While that's also true, it's also quite true that poor people (in general) are less intelligent than well off people. Intelligence is one of the attributes that leads to higher income. All testing shows this. In addition, when they look at social mobility using the NLSY (https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy97) high IQ poor people move out of poverty at very high rates. Interestingly, the NLSY mobility statistics are the same across racial groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what evidence looks like. And it uses all schools in Maryland, not cherry-picked schools in MoCo. Shocker... it says that proportion of FARMS students is related to outcomes. I've got plenty more pieces of evidence if you'd like. https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

From the MD report: “The variation in PARCC school proficiency rates is highly correlated with the percentage of low- income students enrolled in a school. An increase in the percentage of low-income students in a school is associated with a decrease in a school proficiency rate on the PARCC assessments. The relationship is clearest at the state level, where the low-income student enrollment corresponds to nearly two thirds (R2=0.62) of the difference in proficiency rates between schools. ”

No one denies that more low income students=low test scores at school levels as well as county levels. The problem is that many people believe the myth that low income students perform better in schools with less low income students.

Exactly low income equals dumb, what don’t people get??

Low income doesn't mean stupid. Low income means less opportunities and more struggles.

While that's also true, it's also quite true that poor people (in general) are less intelligent than well off people. Intelligence is one of the attributes that leads to higher income. All testing shows this. In addition, when they look at social mobility using the NLSY (https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy97) high IQ poor people move out of poverty at very high rates. Interestingly, the NLSY mobility statistics are the same across racial groups.

The chicken or egg argument, is they were so smart why are they poor? Oppression you say, why are they so susceptible to oppression? Why are some people tigers and some people lambs and then how are all people equal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what evidence looks like. And it uses all schools in Maryland, not cherry-picked schools in MoCo. Shocker... it says that proportion of FARMS students is related to outcomes. I've got plenty more pieces of evidence if you'd like. https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

From the MD report: “The variation in PARCC school proficiency rates is highly correlated with the percentage of low- income students enrolled in a school. An increase in the percentage of low-income students in a school is associated with a decrease in a school proficiency rate on the PARCC assessments. The relationship is clearest at the state level, where the low-income student enrollment corresponds to nearly two thirds (R2=0.62) of the difference in proficiency rates between schools. ”

No one denies that more low income students=low test scores at school levels as well as county levels. The problem is that many people believe the myth that low income students perform better in schools with less low income students.

Exactly low income equals dumb, what don’t people get??

Low income doesn't mean stupid. Low income means less opportunities and more struggles.

While that's also true, it's also quite true that poor people (in general) are less intelligent than well off people. Intelligence is one of the attributes that leads to higher income. All testing shows this. In addition, when they look at social mobility using the NLSY (https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy97) high IQ poor people move out of poverty at very high rates. Interestingly, the NLSY mobility statistics are the same across racial groups.

Intelligence is partially based off the genetics of the parents, but obviously is more based on nutrition, time spent reading, time in extracurriculars/museums/etc. All these environmental factors are far more important to building logic, reasoning, patience, memory, focus, and general brain functioning. Poverty creates stress (cortisol) on the brain, and create environmental issues that affect learning an development. It is not really cultural at this point. Schools can try to overcome the deficits created by poverty, but past 3rd grade it seems to get much, much harder unless their are serious interventions (mentoring, special programs, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what evidence looks like. And it uses all schools in Maryland, not cherry-picked schools in MoCo. Shocker... it says that proportion of FARMS students is related to outcomes. I've got plenty more pieces of evidence if you'd like. https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

From the MD report: “The variation in PARCC school proficiency rates is highly correlated with the percentage of low- income students enrolled in a school. An increase in the percentage of low-income students in a school is associated with a decrease in a school proficiency rate on the PARCC assessments. The relationship is clearest at the state level, where the low-income student enrollment corresponds to nearly two thirds (R2=0.62) of the difference in proficiency rates between schools. ”

No one denies that more low income students=low test scores at school levels as well as county levels. The problem is that many people believe the myth that low income students perform better in schools with less low income students.

Exactly low income equals dumb, what don’t people get??

Low income doesn't mean stupid. Low income means less opportunities and more struggles.

While that's also true, it's also quite true that poor people (in general) are less intelligent than well off people. Intelligence is one of the attributes that leads to higher income. All testing shows this. In addition, when they look at social mobility using the NLSY (https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy97) high IQ poor people move out of poverty at very high rates. Interestingly, the NLSY mobility statistics are the same across racial groups.

The chicken or egg argument, is they were so smart why are they poor? Oppression you say, why are they so susceptible to oppression? Why are some people tigers and some people lambs and then how are all people equal?

I read an article (maybe someone linked it on this thread) where exposure to a subject matter outside of school could lead to scoring better on tests, but all things being equal, upper income kids may not do any better.

For example: students read about some subject matter that neither the low income nor the upper income student had been exposed to, then they had to answer some questions about it. Students from both income groups got it wrong. The upper income student didn't comprehend the text any better than the lower income student.

Upper income students have parents who can help them with HW, expose them to science and LA outside of school. Lower income students do not.

I grew up lower income, and my parents didn't speak any English, so no help with HW. My only exposure was the TV, and I'm not talking quality TV; I'm talking Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry. I didn't score well on my SATs (never took a practice test or went to tutoring), but with luck, some hard work, and family support, I was able to go to college (C rated state school), and eventually end up making good money. We expose our kids to all kinds of things, provide them with enrichment, including some workbooks, and they score much better on standardized tests.

It's about opportunities and having the financial support that usually leads to outcome, and not always about IQ. Heck, the man in the WH didn't do well in school (low IQ perhaps) and only got to where he is because of his daddy's money.