S/o why are families that live in apartments looked down on?

[Anonymous]

I don't think they are looked on at all. In fact, I'm jealous and would love to live in a high rise again if we didn't have a big dog. At least in our school which is top rated everyone respects that families put education first. I have far more respect for someone who chooses to live in an apartment in a top school cluster than someone who chooses a master bathroom over their kid's education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Smart people, apartment dwellers. Got ahead of the 10k deductible limit on state and local taxes.

+1 I don't think we would have bought the home we did if we had known that the SALT deduction would be gutted. It really doesn't make sense to buy in many cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if this is in the wrong place. It seems like in every thread in the MD Public School forum, when a school is mentioned people will tell them to avoid it because there’s kids that live in apartments that attend. Why is this an issue? I’m currently living in an apartment and this is disappointing to know that certain parents wouldn’t want their kid around mine just because of her address.

No that’s not true.
Apartments appeal to many people. Just keep the density to less than one family of 5 per bedroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I seriously wish this country had never started this test score obsession, back with No Child Left Behind. It is morally appalling that people are making or losing money based on the test scores of the kids in the local school. “Have a good day today, honey, and try hard on that test because I stand to earn a 10% increase in my property values if you do.” Or, even more appallingly, “Oh no, some Hispanic neighbors moved in. Their kids won’t score high enough on the tests and I’m going to lose 10% of my property values. Time to move out.”

I agree that NCLB and its successor Common Core gutted public school curricula, extracurriculars and demoralized teachers who were used to more autonomy. But this did not translate to property values.
It’s a high stakes endeavor because it directly affects teacher pay and “performance” as well as school district budget as increasing avg standardized tests scores nets the district federal funds (for having signed up for common core).

I mean, look how many backwards changes MCPS made to try to obtain those damning federal Common core funds: they cooked up C2.0, they doubled the daily time of math and ELA in ES and cut specials/PE/science/social studies, they eliminated a grading scale with plusses/minuses, they introduced 3 tracking tests A YESR for k-5 (aka MAP), and they laid Pearson’s $$$$ for PARRC standardized test.

Now here we sit. Taking two years to get rid of C2.0 and who knows what’s replacing PARRC. And we’re over budget is every category - pensions, building, hiring, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree that NCLB and its successor Common Core gutted public school curricula, extracurriculars and demoralized teachers who were used to more autonomy. But this did not translate to property values.
It’s a high stakes endeavor because it directly affects teacher pay and “performance” as well as school district budget as increasing avg standardized tests scores nets the district federal funds (for having signed up for common core).

I mean, look how many backwards changes MCPS made to try to obtain those damning federal Common core funds: they cooked up C2.0, they doubled the daily time of math and ELA in ES and cut specials/PE/science/social studies, they eliminated a grading scale with plusses/minuses, they introduced 3 tracking tests A YESR for k-5 (aka MAP), and they laid Pearson’s $$$$ for PARRC standardized test.

Now here we sit. Taking two years to get rid of C2.0 and who knows what’s replacing PARRC. And we’re over budget is every category - pensions, building, hiring, etc.

Common Core was not NCLB's successor. NCLB's successor was the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Common Core were state math and English standards. If you're following MCPS so closely, I'm surprised that you don't know that.

[Anonymous]

I always assume that people who live in suburban apartments are stupid, because if you want to live in an apartment, why don't you just live in the city, it's much more interesting and diverse there. I lived in city apartments my whole life and recently moved to a house in the suburbs. The suburbs are crap, the only thing going for them is you get to live in a house.

[Anonymous]

Op, what people are worrying about when they say, "apartments" or "rental" is turnover. A neighborhood with a lot of turnover. People moving in and out, transient. Transient, no matter what the income, high or low. Transient is not as appealing for making friends, for kids making friends, for the school community having a strong identity.

I'm not say all of the above is necessarily so bad, but that is what is being said --- that home ownership means people living in the same place longterm, is thought to be more ideal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always assume that people who live in suburban apartments are stupid, because if you want to live in an apartment, why don't you just live in the city, it's much more interesting and diverse there. I lived in city apartments my whole life and recently moved to a house in the suburbs. The suburbs are crap, the only thing going for them is you get to live in a house.

Because...money? I live in a suburban apartment in NoVa because it costs around $1k less than in DC!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op, what people are worrying about when they say, "apartments" or "rental" is turnover. A neighborhood with a lot of turnover. People moving in and out, transient. Transient, no matter what the income, high or low. Transient is not as appealing for making friends, for kids making friends, for the school community having a strong identity.

I'm not say all of the above is necessarily so bad, but that is what is being said --- that home ownership means people living in the same place longterm, is thought to be more ideal

What people are worrying about when they say "apartments" is THOSE people. You know, them. People who aren't like us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really was uncomfortable when my DD had a playdate in middle school and I found out that the single mom's boyfriend was at home during the playdate. I don't mind single moms. I do mind boyfriends.

And this is different than a day or stepdad how??? Does signing a piece of paper magically make someone less likely to sexually assault someone? Do you just not like unrelated men around your child? How about male teachers??

Do you host kids at your home when your husband is around? Are you comfortable with your child at the home of married couples when the dad is home?
I’m another single mom who doesn’t have a boyfriend. But I would like to hear why husbands are ok, but boyfriends aren’t.

because 99% of the time (more when the lady is already a mom) they are just there for meals and sex and will be gone soon. That doesn't lend its self to accountability.

Interesting-and ridiculous- theory. So how do people ever get remarried if they don’t date? Also, you haven’t explained why boyfriends are more problematic than husbands with regard to being around other people’s kids.

[Anonymous]

Everyone divorced is in an apartment or townhome. I never got a bad impression

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always assume that people who live in suburban apartments are stupid, because if you want to live in an apartment, why don't you just live in the city, it's much more interesting and diverse there. I lived in city apartments my whole life and recently moved to a house in the suburbs. The suburbs are crap, the only thing going for them is you get to live in a house.

Because...money? I live in a suburban apartment in NoVa because it costs around $1k less than in DC!

Yup. And space. We rented a 2 bd, 2 ba apartment across the street from a suburban metro station for less than the cost of 1 brs we saw in the district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ah, but it's funny: I've seen the argument made many times here that if those of us in non-wealthy areas *truly* valued our children's education, we'd live in a tiny apartment in a W district, rather than a SFH in the DCC or wherever.

So, really, the only acceptable answer is to be rich enough to afford a SFH in a highly-ranked school district. Unsurprising.

Exactly! IMO, lots of people rent precisely *because* they value their kids' education, so they rent in order to be able to live in a better school district (however they define that) than the one they could afford to buy in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always assume that people who live in suburban apartments are stupid, because if you want to live in an apartment, why don't you just live in the city, it's much more interesting and diverse there. I lived in city apartments my whole life and recently moved to a house in the suburbs. The suburbs are crap, the only thing going for them is you get to live in a house.

Because they want to live where they work? Do you know there area lots of jobs in the burb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, but it's funny: I've seen the argument made many times here that if those of us in non-wealthy areas *truly* valued our children's education, we'd live in a tiny apartment in a W district, rather than a SFH in the DCC or wherever.

So, really, the only acceptable answer is to be rich enough to afford a SFH in a highly-ranked school district. Unsurprising.

Exactly! IMO, lots of people rent precisely *because* they value their kids' education, so they rent in order to be able to live in a better school district (however they define that) than the one they could afford to buy in.

MCPS vs. Frederick County Public Schools, for example?