Second round options for Woodward boundary study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

No worries, they will fix that with the upcoming elementary boundary study

They are fine at elementary and middle school actually. It's the high school they are not fine with. That community will rally. I have friends there who are up in arms

Wow. That's pretty disgusting. I hope for their children's sakes they do Option D because being this fragile is not good for them.

DP
Karen enters the room with disgust. Option D sucks for other reasons. Nobody wants to turn a good school to another crappy DCC ghetto school

Let's be real, you all know a 30% FARMS rate is fine, but you also know it means it will reduce the real estate differential for your neighborhood compared with the 40-50% FARMS school and you can't tolerate losing 5% of your $5 million in wealth

30% is worse than my current situation and my current situation is barely acceptable. So no, I'm not ok with it. Sure it sucks to lose home equity, but having a cruddy school on top of it? No thanks

I can't imagine what on earth about being, what, 20% or 25% FARMS makes a school "barely acceptable." That's not a high FARMS rate or anything like that, not enough to put any meaningful strain on a school's resources. A 30-40% FARMS rate is just a plain vanilla normal school, not a poor one-- if you're down below 30% you're definitely on the richer side of normal. If you don't like your school, fine, but probably the issue is that it's badly run or something like that. What kind of problems could possibly be caused by that low a FARMS rate?

Numerous peer reviewed academic studies state the tipping point is 20%. So you, random Internet person, not being able to "imagine" it mattering is not credible with your esteemed credentials.

Let's see these studies, then, if you're so sure they exist. I couldn't find any. (And no, ones that say that higher-poverty schools are worse for the poor kids doesn't count. Clearly you are only concerned about the effects on your precious UMC or upper-class kids, so please point me in the direction of the studies that say that privileged kids suffer if even a quarter of the kids around them are poor and instead must be largely insulated from them.)

In the meantime, our elementary school is about 40% FARMS and doesn't feel like a "poor school" in any way and I don't see any major problems or challenges caused by it. So I indeed cannot imagine how having a FARMS rate of half that would make someone's school "barely acceptable.". But if I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

DP
Want a handout. Want someone else to do research for you. Typical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP

What value is it to be in school with poor kids? Honestly. What's the value to a non-poor kid's education to being with poor kids?

Unrelated, but on top of, is the economics of property values. It's why Whitman and Churchill are "good". Less poor kids.

There's no value to their learning reading, writing, math, science. None.

The woke will tell you it's value for the social experience. Over rated fluff.

No value. high poverty is bad for a school. Medium poverty not good. Low poverty good. It's simple.

Go away aready.

Me? Go away? You stay put. Stay on that side of the tracks, please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

No worries, they will fix that with the upcoming elementary boundary study

They are fine at elementary and middle school actually. It's the high school they are not fine with. That community will rally. I have friends there who are up in arms

Wow. That's pretty disgusting. I hope for their children's sakes they do Option D because being this fragile is not good for them.

DP
Karen enters the room with disgust. Option D sucks for other reasons. Nobody wants to turn a good school to another crappy DCC ghetto school

Let's be real, you all know a 30% FARMS rate is fine, but you also know it means it will reduce the real estate differential for your neighborhood compared with the 40-50% FARMS school and you can't tolerate losing 5% of your $5 million in wealth

30% is worse than my current situation and my current situation is barely acceptable. So no, I'm not ok with it. Sure it sucks to lose home equity, but having a cruddy school on top of it? No thanks

I can't imagine what on earth about being, what, 20% or 25% FARMS makes a school "barely acceptable." That's not a high FARMS rate or anything like that, not enough to put any meaningful strain on a school's resources. A 30-40% FARMS rate is just a plain vanilla normal school, not a poor one-- if you're down below 30% you're definitely on the richer side of normal. If you don't like your school, fine, but probably the issue is that it's badly run or something like that. What kind of problems could possibly be caused by that low a FARMS rate?

Numerous peer reviewed academic studies state the tipping point is 20%. So you, random Internet person, not being able to "imagine" it mattering is not credible with your esteemed credentials.

Your mom isn’t credible with her esteemed credentials of raising a jackass.

Non sequiturs. Up there with whataboutism as poor debating skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poverty does lead to crime. Prove me wrong.

Of course it does, being hungry and having nothing to lose reduces the amount of Fs one give. Having something to lose is actually more the thing that enforces compliance to society’s norms.

Agree.

Yet some crazy people on here think it's good for my kid to go to school with other kids who are more prone to comit crime

No one wants you around our kids. No one works even suggest it but you. We just want equal courses, clubs, sports and other offerings for all students, not just yours. Why should our taxes just to to benefit your kids and not all?

Because poor kids like yours are stupid. Why are we going to invest when they'll tap out at grocery store clerk? We should invest in the future doctors, lawyers, and engineers. More efficient use of societal resources. You like socialism after all.

Except it sound like mine are achieving far more than yours. So, I guess your kids will be the ones at the store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

No worries, they will fix that with the upcoming elementary boundary study

They are fine at elementary and middle school actually. It's the high school they are not fine with. That community will rally. I have friends there who are up in arms

Wow. That's pretty disgusting. I hope for their children's sakes they do Option D because being this fragile is not good for them.

DP
Karen enters the room with disgust. Option D sucks for other reasons. Nobody wants to turn a good school to another crappy DCC ghetto school

Let's be real, you all know a 30% FARMS rate is fine, but you also know it means it will reduce the real estate differential for your neighborhood compared with the 40-50% FARMS school and you can't tolerate losing 5% of your $5 million in wealth

30% is worse than my current situation and my current situation is barely acceptable. So no, I'm not ok with it. Sure it sucks to lose home equity, but having a cruddy school on top of it? No thanks

I can't imagine what on earth about being, what, 20% or 25% FARMS makes a school "barely acceptable." That's not a high FARMS rate or anything like that, not enough to put any meaningful strain on a school's resources. A 30-40% FARMS rate is just a plain vanilla normal school, not a poor one-- if you're down below 30% you're definitely on the richer side of normal. If you don't like your school, fine, but probably the issue is that it's badly run or something like that. What kind of problems could possibly be caused by that low a FARMS rate?

Numerous peer reviewed academic studies state the tipping point is 20%. So you, random Internet person, not being able to "imagine" it mattering is not credible with your esteemed credentials.

Let's see these studies, then, if you're so sure they exist. I couldn't find any. (And no, ones that say that higher-poverty schools are worse for the poor kids doesn't count. Clearly you are only concerned about the effects on your precious UMC or upper-class kids, so please point me in the direction of the studies that say that privileged kids suffer if even a quarter of the kids around them are poor and instead must be largely insulated from them.)

In the meantime, our elementary school is about 40% FARMS and doesn't feel like a "poor school" in any way and I don't see any major problems or challenges caused by it. So I indeed cannot imagine how having a FARMS rate of half that would make someone's school "barely acceptable.". But if I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

DP
Want a handout. Want someone else to do research for you. Typical.

DP

The other PP made a claim and this PP is asking them to defend that claim. It is far easier to make false claims than it is to refute them. The person making the claim has the burden of defending it. When people claim "research says" but don't mention any specific studies I am always skeptical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poverty does lead to crime. Prove me wrong.

Of course it does, being hungry and having nothing to lose reduces the amount of Fs one give. Having something to lose is actually more the thing that enforces compliance to society’s norms.

Agree.

Yet some crazy people on here think it's good for my kid to go to school with other kids who are more prone to comit crime

No one wants you around our kids. No one works even suggest it but you. We just want equal courses, clubs, sports and other offerings for all students, not just yours. Why should our taxes just to to benefit your kids and not all?

Because poor kids like yours are stupid. Why are we going to invest when they'll tap out at grocery store clerk? We should invest in the future doctors, lawyers, and engineers. More efficient use of societal resources. You like socialism after all.

Except it sound like mine are achieving far more than yours. So, I guess your kids will be the ones at the store.

Nope

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

No worries, they will fix that with the upcoming elementary boundary study

They are fine at elementary and middle school actually. It's the high school they are not fine with. That community will rally. I have friends there who are up in arms

Wow. That's pretty disgusting. I hope for their children's sakes they do Option D because being this fragile is not good for them.

DP
Karen enters the room with disgust. Option D sucks for other reasons. Nobody wants to turn a good school to another crappy DCC ghetto school

Let's be real, you all know a 30% FARMS rate is fine, but you also know it means it will reduce the real estate differential for your neighborhood compared with the 40-50% FARMS school and you can't tolerate losing 5% of your $5 million in wealth

30% is worse than my current situation and my current situation is barely acceptable. So no, I'm not ok with it. Sure it sucks to lose home equity, but having a cruddy school on top of it? No thanks

I can't imagine what on earth about being, what, 20% or 25% FARMS makes a school "barely acceptable." That's not a high FARMS rate or anything like that, not enough to put any meaningful strain on a school's resources. A 30-40% FARMS rate is just a plain vanilla normal school, not a poor one-- if you're down below 30% you're definitely on the richer side of normal. If you don't like your school, fine, but probably the issue is that it's badly run or something like that. What kind of problems could possibly be caused by that low a FARMS rate?

Numerous peer reviewed academic studies state the tipping point is 20%. So you, random Internet person, not being able to "imagine" it mattering is not credible with your esteemed credentials.

Let's see these studies, then, if you're so sure they exist. I couldn't find any. (And no, ones that say that higher-poverty schools are worse for the poor kids doesn't count. Clearly you are only concerned about the effects on your precious UMC or upper-class kids, so please point me in the direction of the studies that say that privileged kids suffer if even a quarter of the kids around them are poor and instead must be largely insulated from them.)

In the meantime, our elementary school is about 40% FARMS and doesn't feel like a "poor school" in any way and I don't see any major problems or challenges caused by it. So I indeed cannot imagine how having a FARMS rate of half that would make someone's school "barely acceptable.". But if I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

DP
Want a handout. Want someone else to do research for you. Typical.

DP

The other PP made a claim and this PP is asking them to defend that claim. It is far easier to make false claims than it is to refute them. The person making the claim has the burden of defending it. When people claim "research says" but don't mention any specific studies I am always skeptical.

DP

I actually agree with the jerk on here. Poverty doesn't help a school. It's obvious.

This was posted during the first round on DCUM. P 7 https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/9DG4KP71B0DB/$file/fcps_tipping-point.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all can compare MCAP math and ELA proficiency rates for White kids between Einstein and Walter Johnson, Churchill etc. on the MD school report card spoiler alert: it's not worth paying a premium for the "good" high schools. You are better off supplementing at home.

Or pay for Russian School of Mathematics on the weekend.

True. Einstein doesn't do awesome in math - 61% of White kids proficient. For comparison at BCC 74% of White kids are proficient in math. But everyone should supplement. 74% isn't exactly amazing either. At Whitman it's 79%.

In ELA, Einstein has 85% of White kids proficient compared with BCC which only has a 78% proficiency rate for White kids.

They all do poorly on math with Black, EML and FARMS kids. There are much larger differences between schools for these groups than the differences between White kids at different schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all can compare MCAP math and ELA proficiency rates for White kids between Einstein and Walter Johnson, Churchill etc. on the MD school report card spoiler alert: it's not worth paying a premium for the "good" high schools. You are better off supplementing at home.

Or pay for Russian School of Mathematics on the weekend.

True. Einstein doesn't do awesome in math - 61% of White kids proficient. For comparison at BCC 74% of White kids are proficient in math. But everyone should supplement. 74% isn't exactly amazing either. At Whitman it's 79%.

In ELA, Einstein has 85% of White kids proficient compared with BCC which only has a 78% proficiency rate for White kids.

They all do poorly on math with Black, EML and FARMS kids. There are much larger differences between schools for these groups than the differences between White kids at different schools.

This public school won't exactly produce the next Archimedes. Gotta pay to play

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

No worries, they will fix that with the upcoming elementary boundary study

They are fine at elementary and middle school actually. It's the high school they are not fine with. That community will rally. I have friends there who are up in arms

Wow. That's pretty disgusting. I hope for their children's sakes they do Option D because being this fragile is not good for them.

DP
Karen enters the room with disgust. Option D sucks for other reasons. Nobody wants to turn a good school to another crappy DCC ghetto school

Let's be real, you all know a 30% FARMS rate is fine, but you also know it means it will reduce the real estate differential for your neighborhood compared with the 40-50% FARMS school and you can't tolerate losing 5% of your $5 million in wealth

30% is worse than my current situation and my current situation is barely acceptable. So no, I'm not ok with it. Sure it sucks to lose home equity, but having a cruddy school on top of it? No thanks

I can't imagine what on earth about being, what, 20% or 25% FARMS makes a school "barely acceptable." That's not a high FARMS rate or anything like that, not enough to put any meaningful strain on a school's resources. A 30-40% FARMS rate is just a plain vanilla normal school, not a poor one-- if you're down below 30% you're definitely on the richer side of normal. If you don't like your school, fine, but probably the issue is that it's badly run or something like that. What kind of problems could possibly be caused by that low a FARMS rate?

Numerous peer reviewed academic studies state the tipping point is 20%. So you, random Internet person, not being able to "imagine" it mattering is not credible with your esteemed credentials.

Your mom isn’t credible with her esteemed credentials of raising a jackass.

Non sequiturs. Up there with whataboutism as poor debating skills.

Your mom debated leaving you on the loading dock Whitman for the staff to raise but she decided they didn’t deserve that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all can compare MCAP math and ELA proficiency rates for White kids between Einstein and Walter Johnson, Churchill etc. on the MD school report card spoiler alert: it's not worth paying a premium for the "good" high schools. You are better off supplementing at home.

Or pay for Russian School of Mathematics on the weekend.

True. Einstein doesn't do awesome in math - 61% of White kids proficient. For comparison at BCC 74% of White kids are proficient in math. But everyone should supplement. 74% isn't exactly amazing either. At Whitman it's 79%.

In ELA, Einstein has 85% of White kids proficient compared with BCC which only has a 78% proficiency rate for White kids.

They all do poorly on math with Black, EML and FARMS kids. There are much larger differences between schools for these groups than the differences between White kids at different schools.

This public school won't exactly produce the next Archimedes. Gotta pay to play

I’d love to see how many adults would be considered proficient in math. Let’s get a cohort of parents taking that test and find out if anyone retained the math skills that schools claim are critical for success in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all can compare MCAP math and ELA proficiency rates for White kids between Einstein and Walter Johnson, Churchill etc. on the MD school report card spoiler alert: it's not worth paying a premium for the "good" high schools. You are better off supplementing at home.

Or pay for Russian School of Mathematics on the weekend.

True. Einstein doesn't do awesome in math - 61% of White kids proficient. For comparison at BCC 74% of White kids are proficient in math. But everyone should supplement. 74% isn't exactly amazing either. At Whitman it's 79%.

In ELA, Einstein has 85% of White kids proficient compared with BCC which only has a 78% proficiency rate for White kids.

They all do poorly on math with Black, EML and FARMS kids. There are much larger differences between schools for these groups than the differences between White kids at different schools.

This public school won't exactly produce the next Archimedes. Gotta pay to play

I’d love to see how many adults would be considered proficient in math. Let’s get a cohort of parents taking that test and find out if anyone retained the math skills that schools claim are critical for success in life.

The math obsession is unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all can compare MCAP math and ELA proficiency rates for White kids between Einstein and Walter Johnson, Churchill etc. on the MD school report card spoiler alert: it's not worth paying a premium for the "good" high schools. You are better off supplementing at home.

Or pay for Russian School of Mathematics on the weekend.

True. Einstein doesn't do awesome in math - 61% of White kids proficient. For comparison at BCC 74% of White kids are proficient in math. But everyone should supplement. 74% isn't exactly amazing either. At Whitman it's 79%.

In ELA, Einstein has 85% of White kids proficient compared with BCC which only has a 78% proficiency rate for White kids.

They all do poorly on math with Black, EML and FARMS kids. There are much larger differences between schools for these groups than the differences between White kids at different schools.

This public school won't exactly produce the next Archimedes. Gotta pay to play

I’d love to see how many adults would be considered proficient in math. Let’s get a cohort of parents taking that test and find out if anyone retained the math skills that schools claim are critical for success in life.

The math obsession is unhinged.

I mean we are told Whitman is producing the next generation of geniuses so if 20% are not even proficient in math I am guessing Whitman kids that are successful, aren't getting there because of the amazing math instruction at Whitman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

No worries, they will fix that with the upcoming elementary boundary study

They are fine at elementary and middle school actually. It's the high school they are not fine with. That community will rally. I have friends there who are up in arms

Wow. That's pretty disgusting. I hope for their children's sakes they do Option D because being this fragile is not good for them.

DP
Karen enters the room with disgust. Option D sucks for other reasons. Nobody wants to turn a good school to another crappy DCC ghetto school

Let's be real, you all know a 30% FARMS rate is fine, but you also know it means it will reduce the real estate differential for your neighborhood compared with the 40-50% FARMS school and you can't tolerate losing 5% of your $5 million in wealth

30% is worse than my current situation and my current situation is barely acceptable. So no, I'm not ok with it. Sure it sucks to lose home equity, but having a cruddy school on top of it? No thanks

I can't imagine what on earth about being, what, 20% or 25% FARMS makes a school "barely acceptable." That's not a high FARMS rate or anything like that, not enough to put any meaningful strain on a school's resources. A 30-40% FARMS rate is just a plain vanilla normal school, not a poor one-- if you're down below 30% you're definitely on the richer side of normal. If you don't like your school, fine, but probably the issue is that it's badly run or something like that. What kind of problems could possibly be caused by that low a FARMS rate?

Numerous peer reviewed academic studies state the tipping point is 20%. So you, random Internet person, not being able to "imagine" it mattering is not credible with your esteemed credentials.

Let's see these studies, then, if you're so sure they exist. I couldn't find any. (And no, ones that say that higher-poverty schools are worse for the poor kids doesn't count. Clearly you are only concerned about the effects on your precious UMC or upper-class kids, so please point me in the direction of the studies that say that privileged kids suffer if even a quarter of the kids around them are poor and instead must be largely insulated from them.)

In the meantime, our elementary school is about 40% FARMS and doesn't feel like a "poor school" in any way and I don't see any major problems or challenges caused by it. So I indeed cannot imagine how having a FARMS rate of half that would make someone's school "barely acceptable.". But if I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

DP
Want a handout. Want someone else to do research for you. Typical.

DP

The other PP made a claim and this PP is asking them to defend that claim. It is far easier to make false claims than it is to refute them. The person making the claim has the burden of defending it. When people claim "research says" but don't mention any specific studies I am always skeptical.

DP

I actually agree with the jerk on here. Poverty doesn't help a school. It's obvious.

This was posted during the first round on DCUM. P 7 https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/9DG4KP71B0DB/$file/fcps_tipping-point.pdf

That PDF cited many studies that illustrate 20% FARMS is tipping point. Guess I want my school to have less poverty too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

No worries, they will fix that with the upcoming elementary boundary study

They are fine at elementary and middle school actually. It's the high school they are not fine with. That community will rally. I have friends there who are up in arms

Wow. That's pretty disgusting. I hope for their children's sakes they do Option D because being this fragile is not good for them.

DP
Karen enters the room with disgust. Option D sucks for other reasons. Nobody wants to turn a good school to another crappy DCC ghetto school

Let's be real, you all know a 30% FARMS rate is fine, but you also know it means it will reduce the real estate differential for your neighborhood compared with the 40-50% FARMS school and you can't tolerate losing 5% of your $5 million in wealth

30% is worse than my current situation and my current situation is barely acceptable. So no, I'm not ok with it. Sure it sucks to lose home equity, but having a cruddy school on top of it? No thanks

I can't imagine what on earth about being, what, 20% or 25% FARMS makes a school "barely acceptable." That's not a high FARMS rate or anything like that, not enough to put any meaningful strain on a school's resources. A 30-40% FARMS rate is just a plain vanilla normal school, not a poor one-- if you're down below 30% you're definitely on the richer side of normal. If you don't like your school, fine, but probably the issue is that it's badly run or something like that. What kind of problems could possibly be caused by that low a FARMS rate?

Numerous peer reviewed academic studies state the tipping point is 20%. So you, random Internet person, not being able to "imagine" it mattering is not credible with your esteemed credentials.

Let's see these studies, then, if you're so sure they exist. I couldn't find any. (And no, ones that say that higher-poverty schools are worse for the poor kids doesn't count. Clearly you are only concerned about the effects on your precious UMC or upper-class kids, so please point me in the direction of the studies that say that privileged kids suffer if even a quarter of the kids around them are poor and instead must be largely insulated from them.)

In the meantime, our elementary school is about 40% FARMS and doesn't feel like a "poor school" in any way and I don't see any major problems or challenges caused by it. So I indeed cannot imagine how having a FARMS rate of half that would make someone's school "barely acceptable.". But if I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

DP
Want a handout. Want someone else to do research for you. Typical.

DP

The other PP made a claim and this PP is asking them to defend that claim. It is far easier to make false claims than it is to refute them. The person making the claim has the burden of defending it. When people claim "research says" but don't mention any specific studies I am always skeptical.

DP

I actually agree with the jerk on here. Poverty doesn't help a school. It's obvious.

This was posted during the first round on DCUM. P 7 https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/9DG4KP71B0DB/$file/fcps_tipping-point.pdf

That PDF cited many studies that illustrate 20% FARMS is tipping point. Guess I want my school to have less poverty too

I want society to have less poverty. Turning certain schools into gated communities for rich kids won’t achieve that.