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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Those people didn’t luck up there, there is something called generational momentum. Why should someone just show up here, look at the Kennedys and think I deserve that too! Do you ever ask why you’re on the wrong side of the ledger, because you were born wrong? What did your parents do wrong? Their parents?

At some point you have to been something and not share it

The idea that you deserve better stuff than other people because you picked wealthier parents to be born to. I mean.

You’re right we should abolish inheritance and reset ever generation. Yes people who are born to rich parents will get more access and stuff than people who aren’t. What world are you dreaming of where that isn’t the reality? The only variable is how the system decides who gets the stuff be it the political, Noble, military or capitalists. The peasants, slaves or workers never shake out very well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Those people didn’t luck up there, there is something called generational momentum. Why should someone just show up here, look at the Kennedys and think I deserve that too! Do you ever ask why you’re on the wrong side of the ledger, because you were born wrong? What did your parents do wrong? Their parents?

At some point you have to been something and not share it

The idea that you deserve better stuff than other people because you picked wealthier parents to be born to. I mean.

You’re right we should abolish inheritance and reset ever generation. Yes people who are born to rich parents will get more access and stuff than people who aren’t. What world are you dreaming of where that isn’t the reality? The only variable is how the system decides who gets the stuff be it the political, Noble, military or capitalists. The peasants, slaves or workers never shake out very well

Fine by me.

Regardless - as long as we're speaking of intelligence: intelligent people who were born on third base know that they didn't hit a home run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this.... however, the NIH study listed earlier in this thread said 'Factors related to a child’s home environment and parenting, education and availability of learning resources, and nutrition, among others, all contribute to intelligence. '. Which of these should ultimately become the responsibility of a public school system? I think a lot of these are extremely critical well before a child is of the age to be admitted into the public school system.

Responsibility? No. Potential problems for the public school system (among others) to mitigate so that the child can learn? Absolutely yes.

The question is exactly how much the general public is accountable to fix things which they are powerless to prevent and did not cause, and further has no power to alter all but the most extreme of ongoing issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Generally, when we're talking about people, we say "have children."

"Breed" is used for animals, and when you use it for people, a reasonable reader will infer that you consider the people you're talking about as not fully human.

So you have never heard the phrase "well bred"?

You have never come across a reference to someone being a product of "good breeding"?

Find me a reference to "breeding children into aristocracy", please. Then we'll talk.

When proven wrong, you simply change what you were fussing about. How very typical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Those people didn’t luck up there, there is something called generational momentum. Why should someone just show up here, look at the Kennedys and think I deserve that too! Do you ever ask why you’re on the wrong side of the ledger, because you were born wrong? What did your parents do wrong? Their parents?

At some point you have to been something and not share it

The idea that you deserve better stuff than other people because you picked wealthier parents to be born to. I mean.

You’re right we should abolish inheritance and reset ever generation. Yes people who are born to rich parents will get more access and stuff than people who aren’t. What world are you dreaming of where that isn’t the reality? The only variable is how the system decides who gets the stuff be it the political, Noble, military or capitalists. The peasants, slaves or workers never shake out very well

Fine by me.

Regardless - as long as we're speaking of intelligence: intelligent people who were born on third base know that they didn't hit a home run.

All I know it is clear which side of the ledger the previous poster resides on. People born on third base did nothing wrong, people born in the nose bleeds parents did little right.

Bitterness isn’t the type of hustle that is going to change your outcome or your kid’s PP. marrying your baby daddy and sticking to a job is

[Anonymous]

If kids do better at schools with more resources, why not allocate extra resources to schools with many poor kids?
When poor kids are disbursed across schools, what it does is it takes away resources from non poor kids, yet does not address specific needs of the poor students (at least, it is not tailored to address them). It’s a lose lose situation.
Why not have schools with small classes, highly paid teachers, a curriculum that allows to bring the kids up to speed from wherever they are, and a host of additional services? Year round schools with a longer day and free food.
Anyone would be able to go to such a school, but they will be based in low income areas and low income schools.
At the same time, “regular” schools will have kids on grade level, ready to learn, etc. It will also be open to any low income or ESL child who wishes to attend it.
Just basically let’s have two types of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If kids do better at schools with more resources, why not allocate extra resources to schools with many poor kids?
When poor kids are disbursed across schools, what it does is it takes away resources from non poor kids, yet does not address specific needs of the poor students (at least, it is not tailored to address them). It’s a lose lose situation.
Why not have schools with small classes, highly paid teachers, a curriculum that allows to bring the kids up to speed from wherever they are, and a host of additional services? Year round schools with a longer day and free food.
Anyone would be able to go to such a school, but they will be based in low income areas and low income schools.
At the same time, “regular” schools will have kids on grade level, ready to learn, etc. It will also be open to any low income or ESL child who wishes to attend it.
Just basically let’s have two types of school.

Politically incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If kids do better at schools with more resources, why not allocate extra resources to schools with many poor kids?
When poor kids are disbursed across schools, what it does is it takes away resources from non poor kids, yet does not address specific needs of the poor students (at least, it is not tailored to address them). It’s a lose lose situation.
Why not have schools with small classes, highly paid teachers, a curriculum that allows to bring the kids up to speed from wherever they are, and a host of additional services? Year round schools with a longer day and free food.
Anyone would be able to go to such a school, but they will be based in low income areas and low income schools.
At the same time, “regular” schools will have kids on grade level, ready to learn, etc. It will also be open to any low income or ESL child who wishes to attend it.
Just basically let’s have two types of school.

Politically incorrect.

Hurray!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I haven't looked at the paper, and I have no idea if it's true or not.

My concern for the FARMs students would be if they are bussed to a high-income school, would all the services that are used to receiving at the low-income school, still be available to them? And would MCPS now have to provide those services at more schools, costing more money? And I'm not sure if this matters, but how many parents would pull their kids out of public and put them in private if they were forced to bus from a high-income school to a low-income school?

Easy enough to examine public school demographics in different parts of the country to get your answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If kids do better at schools with more resources, why not allocate extra resources to schools with many poor kids?
When poor kids are disbursed across schools, what it does is it takes away resources from non poor kids, yet does not address specific needs of the poor students (at least, it is not tailored to address them). It’s a lose lose situation.
Why not have schools with small classes, highly paid teachers, a curriculum that allows to bring the kids up to speed from wherever they are, and a host of additional services? Year round schools with a longer day and free food.
Anyone would be able to go to such a school, but they will be based in low income areas and low income schools.
At the same time, “regular” schools will have kids on grade level, ready to learn, etc. It will also be open to any low income or ESL child who wishes to attend it.
Just basically let’s have two types of school.

Politically incorrect.

Hurray!

The schools won’t be labeled. Basically anyone would be able to go to any school. If there is overcrowding, a new similar school is built eventually.
I know it’s utopia but how long can we pretend that a one size fits all approach is the answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If kids do better at schools with more resources, why not allocate extra resources to schools with many poor kids?
When poor kids are disbursed across schools, what it does is it takes away resources from non poor kids, yet does not address specific needs of the poor students (at least, it is not tailored to address them). It’s a lose lose situation.
Why not have schools with small classes, highly paid teachers, a curriculum that allows to bring the kids up to speed from wherever they are, and a host of additional services? Year round schools with a longer day and free food.
Anyone would be able to go to such a school, but they will be based in low income areas and low income schools.
At the same time, “regular” schools will have kids on grade level, ready to learn, etc. It will also be open to any low income or ESL child who wishes to attend it.
Just basically let’s have two types of school.

Dispersed.

The concern trolling from (presumably) affluent people* about how it's better for poor kids to have their own special separate-but-equal schools is really quite depressing.

*but for all we know, it's Svetlana and Mikhail in Moscow. Or a little old lady in Canarsie. Or a golden retriever.

[Anonymous]

I propose that within each elementary school, there should be a two-tier progressive classroom models, Age 5-7 and 8-10. kids are divided based on what they know, not on age within each tier. The fast learners are grouped at 30-35 kids per teacher, the middle students are grouped at 20-30 kids per teacher, the the slow students are grouped at 15 kids per teacher. Within each tier, kids can move up steps. This way, the teachers will have a better environment to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I propose that within each elementary school, there should be a two-tier progressive classroom models, Age 5-7 and 8-10. kids are divided based on what they know, not on age within each tier. The fast learners are grouped at 30-35 kids per teacher, the middle students are grouped at 20-30 kids per teacher, the the slow students are grouped at 15 kids per teacher. Within each tier, kids can move up steps. This way, the teachers will have a better environment to work.

Public schools wouldn't do this because there would be more black and brown kids in the lowest group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I propose that within each elementary school, there should be a two-tier progressive classroom models, Age 5-7 and 8-10. kids are divided based on what they know, not on age within each tier. The fast learners are grouped at 30-35 kids per teacher, the middle students are grouped at 20-30 kids per teacher, the the slow students are grouped at 15 kids per teacher. Within each tier, kids can move up steps. This way, the teachers will have a better environment to work.

Public schools wouldn't do this because there would be more black and brown kids in the lowest group.

But yet the term is white fragility

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People scoff at the European and Asian styles of schooling where the bottom 1/3 go to trade school and middle 1/3 go to college and the top 1/3 go to university

The exact same thing happens here according to income/school district

The bottom 1/3 would do much better going to a trade school vs a traditional high school

+1
THANK YOU!