Soaring Child Poverty in DC

[Anonymous]

For every well-off DCUM touting DCPS and their lovely neighborhood, it seems that there are more children in DC slipping into poverty.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/11/poverty-soars-students-dc-montco/1959131

That's a shame - certainly for the children and also for the future of DCPS. It's much harder for children to learn when their family circumstances are so difficult.

[Anonymous]

But still very interesting how the rate is 30%, yet some schools are criticized whenever their FARMS rates are within plus or minus 10 percent of this for not adequately serving poor families. Everybody seems to think every school should have over a 70% FARMS rate, but these statistics don't bear that out. There are certainly many who have 90% or higher rates of FARMS, so shouldn't that mean that some have less?
It's also interesting how easy it is to declare FARMS eligibility with very little scrutiny. There are many schools who make it super easy to do so.

[Anonymous]

FARMS is set at a much higher rate than the poverty rate--income 2x poverty, if I'm remembering right, and that may just be the threshold for free meals, with reduced-price meals being available for incomes above that. Someone who knows better than I may have the actual figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For every well-off DCUM touting DCPS and their lovely neighborhood, it seems that there are more children in DC slipping into poverty.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/11/poverty-soars-students-dc-montco/1959131

That's a shame - certainly for the children and also for the future of DCPS. It's much harder for children to learn when their family circumstances are so difficult.


DCPS leadership believes that type of thinking is just an excuse and they accept no excuses. Their position is that all children can learn at high levels if they have effective teachers. As long as that attitude prevails, there is little hope for educating poor children in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FARMS is set at a much higher rate than the poverty rate--income 2x poverty, if I'm remembering right, and that may just be the threshold for free meals, with reduced-price meals being available for incomes above that. Someone who knows better than I may have the actual figures.

Nope. You're wrong. It's the same

[Anonymous]

13:54, you are wrong. The top FARM rate is 180% of the poverty line.

For a family of 4, that's $41,348 as a maximum you can earn to qualify for a reduced price meal.

While that might be an ok salary in some parts of the country, it's difficult to make ends meet on that in DC.

[Anonymous]

DC's poverty rate is an legacy of our region's de facto system of apartheid whose legal underpinnings were effectively ended in 1970 with the Fair Housing Act.

At some point in the not-so-distant future, it's going to be cheaper to live in the suburbs than it is in DC, and our poverty rate will look very similar to the suburbs. This will be a good thing for DC, the poor, and in the end, the suburbs as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For every well-off DCUM touting DCPS and their lovely neighborhood, it seems that there are more children in DC slipping into poverty.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/11/poverty-soars-students-dc-montco/1959131

That's a shame - certainly for the children and also for the future of DCPS. It's much harder for children to learn when their family circumstances are so difficult.


DCPS leadership believes that type of thinking is just an excuse and they accept no excuses. Their position is that all children can learn at high levels if they have effective teachers. As long as that attitude prevails, there is little hope for educating poor children in DC.

Too true. Too true. We should write poor kids off as unteachable, and just shovel money at teachers, regardless of their skills or effectiveness. After all, it's worked so well for the last 4 or 5 decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
DCPS leadership believes that type of thinking is just an excuse and they accept no excuses. Their position is that all children can learn at high levels if they have effective teachers. As long as that attitude prevails, there is little hope for educating poor children in DC.

Too true. Too true. We should write poor kids off as unteachable, and just shovel money at teachers, regardless of their skills or effectiveness. After all, it's worked so well for the last 4 or 5 decades.

There's that attitude again - make extreme statements; blame teachers; don't very look at poverty - too scary and beyond the scope of DCPS. DCPS administrators have pinned their paychecks and their puffed up self-perception on teachers being the whole answer to improving achievement -- and if they're wrong -- too bad for the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DCPS leadership believes that type of thinking is just an excuse and they accept no excuses. Their position is that all children can learn at high levels if they have effective teachers. As long as that attitude prevails, there is little hope for educating poor children in DC.

Too true. Too true. We should write poor kids off as unteachable, and just shovel money at teachers, regardless of their skills or effectiveness. After all, it's worked so well for the last 4 or 5 decades.

There's that attitude again - make extreme statements; blame teachers; don't very look at poverty - too scary and beyond the scope of DCPS. DCPS administrators have pinned their paychecks and their puffed up self-perception on teachers being the whole answer to improving achievement -- and if they're wrong -- too bad for the kids.

And there's that attitude again... I'm not making an extreme statement. Nor am I blaming teachers. I'm actually taking you at your word, and repeating to you what the logical extension of your position is.

You blame poverty for poor outcomes. I agree.

You then jump to attack DCPS for imposing a set of objective standards for teachers because it's unfair. After all, we can't expect teachers to get results when the real problem is poverty.

Let's unpack those two assertions: first, if teacher quality is irrelevant, let's get rid of highly trained (and paid) teachers until we lick this poverty problem. After all, it's just pearls before swine at this point. And we can sink the savings into poverty abatement programs.

Secondly, as you put it so eloquently "poverty - too scary and beyond the scope of DCPS". DCPS is designed to create and maintain a public primary education system. Read very carefully: DCPS CAN NOT UNILATERALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF REGIONAL OR NATIONAL POVERTY.

A few other things DCPS can't do:

- Cure cancer.
- End tribal infighting in sub-saharan Africa.
- Stabilize the Afghan tribal regions.
- Resolve the Israel/Palestine Question.
- Monetize cold fusion technology.

Okay, so now that we've got that out of the way, let's take a look at your solution to improving DCPS:

1) DCPS needs to fix the poverty issue.
2) [Whatever you follow with is completely irrelevant.]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's that attitude again - make extreme statements; blame teachers; don't very look at poverty - too scary and beyond the scope of DCPS. DCPS administrators have pinned their paychecks and their puffed up self-perception on teachers being the whole answer to improving achievement -- and if they're wrong -- too bad for the kids.

And there's that attitude again... I'm not making an extreme statement. Nor am I blaming teachers. I'm actually taking you at your word, and repeating to you what the logical extension of your position is.

You blame poverty for poor outcomes. I agree.

You then jump to attack DCPS for imposing a set of objective standards for teachers because it's unfair. After all, we can't expect teachers to get results when the real problem is poverty.

Let's unpack those two assertions: first, if teacher quality is irrelevant, let's get rid of highly trained (and paid) teachers until we lick this poverty problem. After all, it's just pearls before swine at this point. And we can sink the savings into poverty abatement programs.

Secondly, as you put it so eloquently "poverty - too scary and beyond the scope of DCPS". DCPS is designed to create and maintain a public primary education system. Read very carefully: DCPS CAN NOT UNILATERALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF REGIONAL OR NATIONAL POVERTY.

A few other things DCPS can't do:

- Cure cancer.
- End tribal infighting in sub-saharan Africa.
- Stabilize the Afghan tribal regions.
- Resolve the Israel/Palestine Question.
- Monetize cold fusion technology.

Okay, so now that we've got that out of the way, let's take a look at your solution to improving DCPS:

1) DCPS needs to fix the poverty issue.
2) [Whatever you follow with is completely irrelevant.]

GREAT post.

If it's true that the needle cannot be moved with disadvantaged children then let's get rid of all the experienced teachers (read: expensive) and replace them with rookies (read: cheap).

[Anonymous]

then why are all the kids so chubby?

[Anonymous]

Because there are no excercise option in unsafe neighorhoods and because ramen is cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables.

[Anonymous]

I'm surprised to see that the total number of children ages 5 to 17 continues to decline in DC. Judging from posts here, you'd think DC had far more children now than in the past. There may be lots of kids in strollers, but their parents tend to move when they hit school age. DC seems more and more like Seattle: very friendly to singles and dogs, but not too many kids in middle school to be found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And there's that attitude again... I'm not making an extreme statement. Nor am I blaming teachers. I'm actually taking you at your word, and repeating to you what the logical extension of your position is.

You blame poverty for poor outcomes. I agree.

You then jump to attack DCPS for imposing a set of objective standards for teachers because it's unfair. After all, we can't expect teachers to get results when the real problem is poverty.

Let's unpack those two assertions: first, if teacher quality is irrelevant, let's get rid of highly trained (and paid) teachers until we lick this poverty problem. After all, it's just pearls before swine at this point. And we can sink the savings into poverty abatement programs.

Secondly, as you put it so eloquently "poverty - too scary and beyond the scope of DCPS". DCPS is designed to create and maintain a public primary education system. Read very carefully: DCPS CAN NOT UNILATERALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF REGIONAL OR NATIONAL POVERTY.

A few other things DCPS can't do:

- Cure cancer.
- End tribal infighting in sub-saharan Africa.
- Stabilize the Afghan tribal regions.
- Resolve the Israel/Palestine Question.
- Monetize cold fusion technology.

Okay, so now that we've got that out of the way, let's take a look at your solution to improving DCPS:

1) DCPS needs to fix the poverty issue.
2) [Whatever you follow with is completely irrelevant.]

And where's the part about opposing standards for teachers? except in your post, that is?

Notice that nothing in your list of things DCPS can't do relates to education. Poverty does. I don't expect any school system to overcome poverty. I do expect schools to recognize it as a problem that needs to be addressed for educational outcomes to improve.

I do expect school leaders to realize that teachers can't overcome poverty either and that youthful energy and determination, merit pay, evaluations, engaging lessons and strongly held beliefs aren't going to make a significant difference for kids until the effects of poverty are addressed.

Regarding cancer, There are highly trained people working on curing and treating cancer. They haven't been successful yet, but they aren't getting blamed for cancer deaths either. People realize cancer is very complicated and can't be cured overnight by determined amateurs claiming they have a miracle cure.