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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because apartments are where section 8 housing vouchers mostly go. While I don't always agree with apartment = poor, our local school's rating dropped when a new apartment complex opened. The apartments aren't even that cheap, but I think they're the cheapest thing that low income people can afford in this area and multiple families are living in each apartment.

The 2 bolded are why people do not want apartments in their school zone.

Multiple families can, and do, also live in houses with yards.

But less likely to.

Says who? To the extent that houses with yards are bigger than apartments, I'd say that they're MORE likely to.

[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??

Yes.

Mom's boyfriend being around is the single biggest risk factor for child molestation and abuse.

Actual statistics from a reputable source, please.

How do you not know the risks? They are well documented.

Children around a live in boyfriend are up to 20 times more likely to be abused than those who do not have a luve in boyfriend around:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Statistics_4_Risk_Factors.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjI_bjhwOjgAhVCd6wKHS_KCrgQFjABegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2fuaE81szTqWTBBVXFl2Ch

The risks increase slightly with a step parent, but significantly with a live in boyfriend:

https://www.cachouston.org/child-sexual-abuse-facts/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693773/&ved=2ahUKEwjI_bjhwOjgAhVCd6wKHS_KCrgQFjAEegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2s4MLW94Fkb3LRKEYdDa9v&cshid=1551703329773

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because apartments are where section 8 housing vouchers mostly go. While I don't always agree with apartment = poor, our local school's rating dropped when a new apartment complex opened. The apartments aren't even that cheap, but I think they're the cheapest thing that low income people can afford in this area and multiple families are living in each apartment.

The 2 bolded are why people do not want apartments in their school zone.

Multiple families can, and do, also live in houses with yards.

But less likely to.

Says who? To the extent that houses with yards are bigger than apartments, I'd say that they're MORE likely to.

Opinion and facts are 2 different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because apartments are where section 8 housing vouchers mostly go. While I don't always agree with apartment = poor, our local school's rating dropped when a new apartment complex opened. The apartments aren't even that cheap, but I think they're the cheapest thing that low income people can afford in this area and multiple families are living in each apartment.

The 2 bolded are why people do not want apartments in their school zone.

Multiple families can, and do, also live in houses with yards.

But less likely to.

Says who? To the extent that houses with yards are bigger than apartments, I'd say that they're MORE likely to.

Opinion and facts are 2 different things.

Yup. So far, only people's opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because apartments are where section 8 housing vouchers mostly go. While I don't always agree with apartment = poor, our local school's rating dropped when a new apartment complex opened. The apartments aren't even that cheap, but I think they're the cheapest thing that low income people can afford in this area and multiple families are living in each apartment.

The 2 bolded are why people do not want apartments in their school zone.

Multiple families can, and do, also live in houses with yards.

But less likely to.

Says who? To the extent that houses with yards are bigger than apartments, I'd say that they're MORE likely to.

Opinion and facts are 2 different things.

Yup. So far, only people's opinions.

Except for the risks of live in boyfriends and abuse and molestation.

Those are very real and very unfortunate facts of the risks to children of having a live in boyfriend around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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??

Yes.

Mom's boyfriend being around is the single biggest risk factor for child molestation and abuse.

Actual statistics from a reputable source, please.

How do you not know the risks? They are well documented.

Children around a live in boyfriend are up to 20 times more likely to be abused than those who do not have a luve in boyfriend around:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Statistics_4_Risk_Factors.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjI_bjhwOjgAhVCd6wKHS_KCrgQFjABegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2fuaE81szTqWTBBVXFl2Ch

The risks increase slightly with a step parent, but significantly with a live in boyfriend:

https://www.cachouston.org/child-sexual-abuse-facts/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693773/&ved=2ahUKEwjI_bjhwOjgAhVCd6wKHS_KCrgQFjAEegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2s4MLW94Fkb3LRKEYdDa9v&cshid=1551703329773

This is misleading. The PP suggested that she did not mind single moms, but she did mind a live-in boy friend. So that is the true comparison, not "single mom with a live-in boyfriend" vs kids living with parents.
The study was showing:

"Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused
than children that live with both biological parents. Children who live with a single parent that has a
live-in partner are at the highest risk; they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse
than children living with both biological parents."

This means, kids with a single parent that has a live-in partner is only twice more likely to be sexually abused than kids living without either parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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??

Yes.

Mom's boyfriend being around is the single biggest risk factor for child molestation and abuse.

Actual statistics from a reputable source, please.

How do you not know the risks? They are well documented.

Children around a live in boyfriend are up to 20 times more likely to be abused than those who do not have a luve in boyfriend around:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Statistics_4_Risk_Factors.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjI_bjhwOjgAhVCd6wKHS_KCrgQFjABegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2fuaE81szTqWTBBVXFl2Ch

The risks increase slightly with a step parent, but significantly with a live in boyfriend:

https://www.cachouston.org/child-sexual-abuse-facts/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693773/&ved=2ahUKEwjI_bjhwOjgAhVCd6wKHS_KCrgQFjAEegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2s4MLW94Fkb3LRKEYdDa9v&cshid=1551703329773

This is misleading. The PP suggested that she did not mind single moms, but she did mind a live-in boy friend. So that is the true comparison, not "single mom with a live-in boyfriend" vs kids living with parents.
The study was showing:

"Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused
than children that live with both biological parents. Children who live with a single parent that has a
live-in partner are at the highest risk; they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse
than children living with both biological parents."

This means, kids with a single parent that has a live-in partner is only twice more likely to be sexually abused than kids living without either parent.

Also, this does not address whether kids who go over to a playdate at a house where a live-in boyfriend is present are more likely to be abused which is the opinion in question.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, but what does this all have to do with apartments, or, for that matter, MD public schools?

[Anonymous]

because, in a high performing school, the "apartment kids" are generally underperforming with more behavioral issues.

it's common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:because, in a high performing school, the "apartment kids" are generally underperforming with more behavioral issues.

it's common sense.

Living in an apartment makes a kid do less well on tests and misbehave more? How about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because apartments are where section 8 housing vouchers mostly go. While I don't always agree with apartment = poor, our local school's rating dropped when a new apartment complex opened. The apartments aren't even that cheap, but I think they're the cheapest thing that low income people can afford in this area and multiple families are living in each apartment.

The 2 bolded are why people do not want apartments in their school zone.

Multiple families can, and do, also live in houses with yards.

But less likely to.

Says who? To the extent that houses with yards are bigger than apartments, I'd say that they're MORE likely to.

Home appraiser here - In the high Hispanic areas of the county, there are multiple families living everywhere - house, apartment, townhome, etc. 4-5 mattresses per bedroom is not unusual at all. This is 100% the reason there is overcrowding in schools located in these areas. MCPS doesn't recognize this and it's not a part of their calculations. They still use 25 year old models for estimating growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Says who? To the extent that houses with yards are bigger than apartments, I'd say that they're MORE likely to.

Home appraiser here - In the high Hispanic areas of the county, there are multiple families living everywhere - house, apartment, townhome, etc. 4-5 mattresses per bedroom is not unusual at all. This is 100% the reason there is overcrowding in schools located in these areas. MCPS doesn't recognize this and it's not a part of their calculations. They still use 25 year old models for estimating growth.

And the reason in Bethesda is...?

As for your statement that this is an unrecognized, unaccounted-for phenomenon: it's not.

Every other year, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) provides the Planning Department with a dataset that includes the address and grade of every MCPS student (with all other identifying information scrubbed from the dataset). The Planning Department then cross-references this information with parcel data that identifies the type of housing at the relevant address (single-family home, townhouse, high-rise multifamily, etc.).

Using this information, the Planning Department calculates how many elementary, middle and high school students are generated by different types of housing across different parts of the county. When the rates were last calculated using 2016 enrollment data, housing type information was matched to the addresses of 99.1 percent of the more than 159,000 MCPS students. This means that the resulting generation rates are based on a nearly-complete picture of exactly how many kids live in each category of housing across the entire county.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/blog-design/2019/02/schools-and-growth-part-two-student-generation-rates-and-children-who-live-in-apartments/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Says who? To the extent that houses with yards are bigger than apartments, I'd say that they're MORE likely to.

Home appraiser here - In the high Hispanic areas of the county, there are multiple families living everywhere - house, apartment, townhome, etc. 4-5 mattresses per bedroom is not unusual at all. This is 100% the reason there is overcrowding in schools located in these areas. MCPS doesn't recognize this and it's not a part of their calculations. They still use 25 year old models for estimating growth.

And the reason in Bethesda is...?

As for your statement that this is an unrecognized, unaccounted-for phenomenon: it's not.

Every other year, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) provides the Planning Department with a dataset that includes the address and grade of every MCPS student (with all other identifying information scrubbed from the dataset). The Planning Department then cross-references this information with parcel data that identifies the type of housing at the relevant address (single-family home, townhouse, high-rise multifamily, etc.).

Using this information, the Planning Department calculates how many elementary, middle and high school students are generated by different types of housing across different parts of the county. When the rates were last calculated using 2016 enrollment data, housing type information was matched to the addresses of 99.1 percent of the more than 159,000 MCPS students. This means that the resulting generation rates are based on a nearly-complete picture of exactly how many kids live in each category of housing across the entire county.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/blog-design/2019/02/schools-and-growth-part-two-student-generation-rates-and-children-who-live-in-apartments/


Yup and then they say that Oakland Terrace will see an increase of 10 students next year. Next year comes and there is an increase of 100 students. They then say that it was unexpected/unexplained because their growth models didn't pick it up. I've seen it year after year.

[Anonymous]

How bizarre that a pp just cited Oakland Terrace. It is, and has been, underenrolled for years and has a very stable population. The school has fewer than 500 kids. It’s obviously not increasing by 100 kids (?!).

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous
Yup and then they say that Oakland Terrace will see an increase of 10 students next year. Next year comes and there is an increase of 100 students. They then say that it was unexpected/unexplained because their growth models didn't pick it up. I've seen it year after year.

When and where did who say that Oakland Terrace enrollment would increase by 10 students but it actually increased by 100 students?

Also, Oakland Terrace is mostly houses with yards.