Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What qualifies as a high poverty school? My kid is at a 40 per cent farms school, and we haven’t had the level of issues discussed here. Some disruption, sure, but overall my kid is pretty happy and seems to be learning a lot. I quite like the teachers we’ve had so far and have been pretty impressed with how well they seem to know the kids and how much they care about them. We are early elementary and here in close in DMV. This thread has me worried that I’m missing something….
When FCPS did their study they found that 20% and 40% where the two tipping points. Of course they followed it up with zero action.
That tipping point study should have gotten a lot more attention.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What qualifies as a high poverty school? My kid is at a 40 per cent farms school, and we haven’t had the level of issues discussed here. Some disruption, sure, but overall my kid is pretty happy and seems to be learning a lot. I quite like the teachers we’ve had so far and have been pretty impressed with how well they seem to know the kids and how much they care about them. We are early elementary and here in close in DMV. This thread has me worried that I’m missing something….
NP I don't think they should let the number go above 30. And poverty rates aren't all the same and won't affect the school the same. Some kids have wonderful family support but don't speak English and the kid doesn't speak English, whereas other students could be homeless.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes this is what limousine liberals don’t get and why they seem out of touch. Most families in these schools would love school choice.
We’ve got plenty of underperforming charters, too. No “voucher” will ever allow your child to go to Sidwell. I hope you realize that.
Lots of great parochial schools that actually teach kids grammar, writing and math.
And myths, legends, and lies.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If your parents are well educated and connected, and supplement at home and pay attention to what the school is providing, the kids will probably be fine.
It's all the parents who send their kids to school and don't care who are the problem. And, yes, there are LMC and MC parents who don't pay that much attention or care, because they don't think school is important.
But why would you send your child to a place where they sit on a Chromebook all day playing mindless games, and then school them at night?
Anonymous wrote:If your parents are well educated and connected, and supplement at home and pay attention to what the school is providing, the kids will probably be fine.
It's all the parents who send their kids to school and don't care who are the problem. And, yes, there are LMC and MC parents who don't pay that much attention or care, because they don't think school is important.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, not everyone wants to be house poor. Home ownership is much more pleasant for most than being a perpetual renter.
I’d rather live in a small house or commute longer than send my kid to a bad school.
Your decision.
Yep and your decision is to throw your kids’ academics out the window. To each their own.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, not everyone wants to be house poor. Home ownership is much more pleasant for most than being a perpetual renter.
I’d rather live in a small house or commute longer than send my kid to a bad school.
Your decision.
Yep and your decision is to throw your kids’ academics out the window. To each their own.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If your parents are well educated and connected, and supplement at home and pay attention to what the school is providing, the kids will probably be fine.
It's all the parents who send their kids to school and don't care who are the problem. And, yes, there are LMC and MC parents who don't pay that much attention or care, because they don't think school is important.
I respectfully disagree, as an elementary teacher. You are willfully exposing your child to near toxic levels of stress that NO child should experience. But children who have not had stable homes nor witnessed healthy relationships bring those traumas through the school door every day. Your child will hear language, see behaviors, and possibly receive physical aggression that is confusing and harmful. I would maybe be more okay with it in later high school when they have some ability to understand it. But no way in hell would I put my child into this environment before then. And let me be clear that it’s not okay for ANY child, not just those whose parents can afford better schools/neighborhoods.
Wealthy families have trauma, neglect, drug abuse and sex abuse too... its just more hidden.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, not everyone wants to be house poor. Home ownership is much more pleasant for most than being a perpetual renter.
I’d rather live in a small house or commute longer than send my kid to a bad school.
Your decision.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, not everyone wants to be house poor. Home ownership is much more pleasant for most than being a perpetual renter.
I’d rather live in a small house or commute longer than send my kid to a bad school.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The issue is we need better teachers and school staff. We go where there is affordable housing that is not a stretch...
They need better kids and parents in the schools. That’s the biggest issue. Who wants to work in a crazy school full of disruptive kids with parents that don’t care. Every good teacher wants to leave that loony town