People who ruin neighborhoods (like tkpk) by putting their kids in private school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are some data for OP:
TPES: BL 29.1%; Hi 16.3%; Wh 45.4%
MCPS: Bl 21.9%; Hi 33.4%; Wh 25.3%.

I understand you only care about Tkpk, but TPES has more white students than MCPS. Do you want more UMC white kids to make the school whiter? Are you for more diversity or just want more white kids in your neighborhood school?

Op here, my primary concern is economic diversity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be blunt, poverty isn’t concentrated enough around here. The school district I was educated in was & is approximately 1.5% low-income. 100% single family homes.

So because some districts are more segregated, MCPS is not highly segregated? Give me a break.

MCPS is not highly segregated.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be schools with less than a 5% FARMS rate and schools with more than 50% FARMS rates. That is segregation.

I wish they would put all the low-income kids in their own school(s). I’ll pay more in taxes for it. Distribute food, vaccines, winter clothing, dinners, medicine, baby clothes, on-site daycare, parenting classes, school supplies etc right there. Very efficient. All the non-FARMs kids should have their own school(s) focused on acceleration & enrichment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be blunt, poverty isn’t concentrated enough around here. The school district I was educated in was & is approximately 1.5% low-income. 100% single family homes.

So because some districts are more segregated, MCPS is not highly segregated? Give me a break.

MCPS is not highly segregated.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be schools with less than a 5% FARMS rate and schools with more than 50% FARMS rates. That is segregation.

Nobody is forcing anyone to live anywhere in particular. [/quote

NP. Of course every are. Most people can only live where they can afford the housing. If your land use policy concentrates low income and impoverished households, then the school populations are going to reflect those policy choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be blunt, poverty isn’t concentrated enough around here. The school district I was educated in was & is approximately 1.5% low-income. 100% single family homes.

So because some districts are more segregated, MCPS is not highly segregated? Give me a break.

MCPS is not highly segregated.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be schools with less than a 5% FARMS rate and schools with more than 50% FARMS rates. That is segregation.

I wish they would put all the low-income kids in their own school(s). I’ll pay more in taxes for it. Distribute food, vaccines, winter clothing, dinners, medicine, baby clothes, on-site daycare, parenting classes, school supplies etc right there. Very efficient. All the non-FARMs kids should have their own school(s) focused on acceleration & enrichment.

pp you are the worst

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be blunt, poverty isn’t concentrated enough around here. The school district I was educated in was & is approximately 1.5% low-income. 100% single family homes.

So because some districts are more segregated, MCPS is not highly segregated? Give me a break.

MCPS is not highly segregated.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be schools with less than a 5% FARMS rate and schools with more than 50% FARMS rates. That is segregation.

I wish they would put all the low-income kids in their own school(s). I’ll pay more in taxes for it. Distribute food, vaccines, winter clothing, dinners, medicine, baby clothes, on-site daycare, parenting classes, school supplies etc right there. Very efficient. All the non-FARMs kids should have their own school(s) focused on acceleration & enrichment.

pp you are the worst

+1 ridiculous

Lots of low income kids are well behaved and high achieving but PP doesn't think they deserve a strong peer cohort

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be blunt, poverty isn’t concentrated enough around here. The school district I was educated in was & is approximately 1.5% low-income. 100% single family homes.

So because some districts are more segregated, MCPS is not highly segregated? Give me a break.

MCPS is not highly segregated.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be schools with less than a 5% FARMS rate and schools with more than 50% FARMS rates. That is segregation.

Nobody is forcing anyone to live anywhere in particular. [/quote

NP. Of course every are. Most people can only live where they can afford the housing. If your land use policy concentrates low income and impoverished households, then the school populations are going to reflect those policy choices.

I hope you realize that many of us view CHIP, SNAP, EBT & subsidized housing as a trap to keep people poor. I say, free yourself from those confines & enter the market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t move to Alexandria City or the nice parts near route one then

This. I live in Alexandria (foolish moved here before we had kids). There is zero chance I am sending my kids to ACPS. My kids are in private. Eat my shorts OP!

Id’ rather not eat them. But you are actually making my point. You didn’t move to an area with reasonably good schools so you feel you have no options. I would probably do the same in your case. The difference in my neighborhood is that the schools are not bad and had been seriously improving over the past 20 years. They are (were?) on a good trend. And I hope it will continue.

Oh, so you generously allow that it’s OK for parents to pick a private school if the public option isn’t “reasonably good”.

Who made you the arbiter of what makes a school good enough? Presumably, those parents made the exact same assessment - is the public school good enough? - and came to a different conclusion than you did.

Why are you so salty that you don’t get to make that decision for everyone? Your arrogance is astounding, as is your entitlement. You are not entitled to the presence of your neighbors’ kids in your kids’ classroom. Your neighbors do not owe you a say in their children’s education. They get to make a decision, just as you do.

You seem very angry for someone who is happy and proud of her life choices. Chill? No one is forcing you to do anything.

The US will never be Finland

https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/24/the-only-way-to-end-the-class-divide-the-case-for-abolishing-private-schools

Sahlberg described how Finnish education had evolved, in the postwar period, from a steeply hierarchical one, rather like our own, made up of private, selective and less-well regarded “local” schools, to become a system in which every child attends the “common school”. The long march to educational reform was partly initiated to strengthen the Finnish nation after the second world war, and to defend it against Russian incursions in particular.
Finland’s politicians and educational figures recognised that a profoundly unequal education system did not simply reproduce inequality down the generations, but weakened the fabric of the nation itself. Following a long period of discussion – which drew in figures from the political right and left, educators and academics – Finland abolished its fee-paying schools and instituted a nationwide comprehensive system from the early 1970s onwards. Not only did such reforms lead to the closing of the attainment gap between the richest and poorest students, it also turned Finland into one of the global educational success stories of the modern era.

PP you literally said “I won’t send my kid to “bad” school” then criticize parents not sending their kids to public school!!!!!

Nope, I wished that in neighborhoods where schools are considered good (we can all debate the definition but I think in the end we know which schools they are), where there has been a positive trend for a while, we don’t start to see a reverse. It is countering but I note that when neighborhoods reach a certain level, wealthier people come in, attracted by the good school aura. But in fact have no intention of using the schools. And I think that is damaging for the future of the neighborhood school.

Apparently not, OP. And YOU have set yourself up to be the judge of what a “good enough” school is. Do you truly see no problem with that?

You think the schools are “good enough” and you’re mad that other parents don’t agree with you. That’s the crux of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be blunt, poverty isn’t concentrated enough around here. The school district I was educated in was & is approximately 1.5% low-income. 100% single family homes.

So because some districts are more segregated, MCPS is not highly segregated? Give me a break.

MCPS is not highly segregated.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be schools with less than a 5% FARMS rate and schools with more than 50% FARMS rates. That is segregation.

I wish they would put all the low-income kids in their own school(s). I’ll pay more in taxes for it. Distribute food, vaccines, winter clothing, dinners, medicine, baby clothes, on-site daycare, parenting classes, school supplies etc right there. Very efficient. All the non-FARMs kids should have their own school(s) focused on acceleration & enrichment.

pp you are the worst

+1 ridiculous

Lots of low income kids are well behaved and high achieving but PP doesn't think they deserve a strong peer cohort

Why is anyone entitled to have X number of white people in their school (because we know that’s what you really mean)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be blunt, poverty isn’t concentrated enough around here. The school district I was educated in was & is approximately 1.5% low-income. 100% single family homes.

So because some districts are more segregated, MCPS is not highly segregated? Give me a break.

MCPS is not highly segregated.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be schools with less than a 5% FARMS rate and schools with more than 50% FARMS rates. That is segregation.

I wish they would put all the low-income kids in their own school(s). I’ll pay more in taxes for it. Distribute food, vaccines, winter clothing, dinners, medicine, baby clothes, on-site daycare, parenting classes, school supplies etc right there. Very efficient. All the non-FARMs kids should have their own school(s) focused on acceleration & enrichment.

pp you are the worst

+1 ridiculous

Lots of low income kids are well behaved and high achieving but PP doesn't think they deserve a strong peer cohort

The things low-income families demand from a school (wraparound services) detract from what UMC parents demand in a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be blunt, poverty isn’t concentrated enough around here. The school district I was educated in was & is approximately 1.5% low-income. 100% single family homes.

So because some districts are more segregated, MCPS is not highly segregated? Give me a break.

MCPS is not highly segregated.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be schools with less than a 5% FARMS rate and schools with more than 50% FARMS rates. That is segregation.

I wish they would put all the low-income kids in their own school(s). I’ll pay more in taxes for it. Distribute food, vaccines, winter clothing, dinners, medicine, baby clothes, on-site daycare, parenting classes, school supplies etc right there. Very efficient. All the non-FARMs kids should have their own school(s) focused on acceleration & enrichment.

pp you are the worst

Nope that post is accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be blunt, poverty isn’t concentrated enough around here. The school district I was educated in was & is approximately 1.5% low-income. 100% single family homes.

So because some districts are more segregated, MCPS is not highly segregated? Give me a break.

MCPS is not highly segregated.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be schools with less than a 5% FARMS rate and schools with more than 50% FARMS rates. That is segregation.

I wish they would put all the low-income kids in their own school(s). I’ll pay more in taxes for it. Distribute food, vaccines, winter clothing, dinners, medicine, baby clothes, on-site daycare, parenting classes, school supplies etc right there. Very efficient. All the non-FARMs kids should have their own school(s) focused on acceleration & enrichment.

pp you are the worst

+1 ridiculous

Lots of low income kids are well behaved and high achieving but PP doesn't think they deserve a strong peer cohort

I’ll pay $25,000/year in property taxes if you’ll leave my kid out of your social experiments (incl. busing & rezoning).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be blunt, poverty isn’t concentrated enough around here. The school district I was educated in was & is approximately 1.5% low-income. 100% single family homes.

So because some districts are more segregated, MCPS is not highly segregated? Give me a break.

MCPS is not highly segregated.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be schools with less than a 5% FARMS rate and schools with more than 50% FARMS rates. That is segregation.

I wish they would put all the low-income kids in their own school(s). I’ll pay more in taxes for it. Distribute food, vaccines, winter clothing, dinners, medicine, baby clothes, on-site daycare, parenting classes, school supplies etc right there. Very efficient. All the non-FARMs kids should have their own school(s) focused on acceleration & enrichment.

pp you are the worst

DP. I don’t agree with this approach, but I have heard advocates making the argument that it’s easier to deliver services if all the low-income kids are together. And these are people who live and work in the communities they serve. I do believe they mean well. But I don’t agree with this approach and this is when we realized we needed to pull our kids from the school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be blunt, poverty isn’t concentrated enough around here. The school district I was educated in was & is approximately 1.5% low-income. 100% single family homes.

So because some districts are more segregated, MCPS is not highly segregated? Give me a break.

MCPS is not highly segregated.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be schools with less than a 5% FARMS rate and schools with more than 50% FARMS rates. That is segregation.

I wish they would put all the low-income kids in their own school(s). I’ll pay more in taxes for it. Distribute food, vaccines, winter clothing, dinners, medicine, baby clothes, on-site daycare, parenting classes, school supplies etc right there. Very efficient. All the non-FARMs kids should have their own school(s) focused on acceleration & enrichment.

pp you are the worst

PP here. I want my child’s school’s PTA to spend money on field trips, science equipment, extra teachers, foreign language & art classes and sports. Not coat drives, winter break food backpacks or medical testing devices (i.e. thermometers). I would be happy to pay a boatload in property taxes for those goods & services to be distributed in another school designed for those kids.

[Anonymous]

This rant by OP is one of the most bizarre I have ever seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be blunt, poverty isn’t concentrated enough around here. The school district I was educated in was & is approximately 1.5% low-income. 100% single family homes.

So because some districts are more segregated, MCPS is not highly segregated? Give me a break.

MCPS is not highly segregated.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be schools with less than a 5% FARMS rate and schools with more than 50% FARMS rates. That is segregation.

I wish they would put all the low-income kids in their own school(s). I’ll pay more in taxes for it. Distribute food, vaccines, winter clothing, dinners, medicine, baby clothes, on-site daycare, parenting classes, school supplies etc right there. Very efficient. All the non-FARMs kids should have their own school(s) focused on acceleration & enrichment.

pp you are the worst

DP. I don’t agree with this approach, but I have heard advocates making the argument that it’s easier to deliver services if all the low-income kids are together. And these are people who live and work in the communities they serve. I do believe they mean well. But I don’t agree with this approach and this is when we realized we needed to pull our kids from the school system.

It's easier FOR THEM to deliver services to one place, obviously, just as its easier for MCPS to deal with discipline issues if there are SROs in the schools. Doesn't mean it's what's best for the kids. Everyone is self-serving.