Anonymous wrote:

My guess is that the people who are "concerned" about FARMS from a negative perspective aren't ones who live in neighborhoods where it affects them. I live where I live because I don't want my kids at a school where everyone looks the same and everyone wears UGGS to school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poorer people bring down property values and bring crime. Poor people also are more likely to not have time to discipline their kids, have drug or alcohol problems etc...

This P should be embarrased. Unbelievable ignorance.

That "P" should be embarrassed because he told the truth? Or he because he was not politically correct? Do you have your head stuck so far in the sand that you deny that lower class people bring down property values and have a higher rate of crime?

Are you SURE this person is telling the truth? Or is this person just spouting the stereotypical dogma that you hear on Rush Limbaugh? Some of the most undisplined kids running amok that I have seen come from familes that are considered high and middle income. So a family with law firm partner or corporate executive parent would have MORE time to discipline their kids than the maintenance engineer in that building? Really? I would agree that the higher income person would have more access to educational resources, but we are talking about discipline.

I am in public health and there is no credible statistical correlation between SES and substance abuse.

So basically, my impression of the person who made this statement is that this person has very little personal interaction with poor people and pretty much gets their info from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

NP. Being blind to the facts does not make it go away.
Hispanics and Blacks are more than twice as likely to be below the poverty line than whites and asians.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth/poverty.html
Blacks have a higher child injury and mortality rate. Hispanics and white are almost the same. Asians are the lowest.
http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/phy7b.asp
Black youths are more likely to be victimes of violent crime
http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/phy6.asp

I'm a liberal, do not watch Fox news and hate RL. However, ignoring the correlation between poverty and education does not make it go away. Ignoring the correlation between crime and poverty does not make it do away. Ignoring the correlation between poverty and race does not make it go away.

This is not to say that any race is harder working or genetically smarter than another. There are historical inequalities that have led us to where we are today. As much as the U.S. has tried to correct these inequalities, they still exist. Why? There are many theories, but the fact is there is no one right theory or one right answer. There are multiple variables and every thing boils down to individual choices based on lifetime experiences.

People like you, who ignore the problem and label anyone that admits there is an issue as racist, do nothing to solve the problem. In fact, you are part of the problem. There are 3 sides - the far right that think minorities are inferior and thus should be left in poverty and crime as long as its not in their backyard, and many liberals who don't want to admit that there is correlation between race, crime, and poverty. The third group is stuck - the moderates (right and left) who acknowledge there is a correlation but it is not indicative of the potential of any individual or any group. Unfortunately, we get branded racist is we mention the correlation, and we know without a doubt we don't belong with the far right because we think people, regardless of race and background, can overcome obstacles if given the right resources.

Get your head out of the sand. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

People like me, huh? But PLEASE point to anywhere in post where I said anybody was racist. In fact, I read my post again and I did NOT mention race one time in my post. YOU are the one that based your post on race, when it was not mentioned in my post. The PP I responded agreed to a statement that poor people don’t have the time to discipline their kids and said that poor people will more likely to have substance issues. My response was along SES lines, not race! Perhaps you should read my post again, as you seemed to have added stuff I did not say.

Because I am in the public health field, I know more about the working poor and the color of poverty than you think. I could not ignore the problem if I wanted to.

When you tell someone they listen to RL and watch Fox News and believe in stereotypical dogma, you are essentially calling them a racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poorer people bring down property values and bring crime. Poor people also are more likely to not have time to discipline their kids, have drug or alcohol problems etc...

This P should be embarrased. Unbelievable ignorance.

That "P" should be embarrassed because he told the truth? Or he because he was not politically correct? Do you have your head stuck so far in the sand that you deny that lower class people bring down property values and have a higher rate of crime?

Are you SURE this person is telling the truth? Or is this person just spouting the stereotypical dogma that you hear on Rush Limbaugh? Some of the most undisplined kids running amok that I have seen come from familes that are considered high and middle income. So a family with law firm partner or corporate executive parent would have MORE time to discipline their kids than the maintenance engineer in that building? Really? I would agree that the higher income person would have more access to educational resources, but we are talking about discipline.

I am in public health and there is no credible statistical correlation between SES and substance abuse.

So basically, my impression of the person who made this statement is that this person has very little personal interaction with poor people and pretty much gets their info from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

NP. Being blind to the facts does not make it go away.
Hispanics and Blacks are more than twice as likely to be below the poverty line than whites and asians.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth/poverty.html
Blacks have a higher child injury and mortality rate. Hispanics and white are almost the same. Asians are the lowest.
http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/phy7b.asp
Black youths are more likely to be victimes of violent crime
http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/phy6.asp

I'm a liberal, do not watch Fox news and hate RL. However, ignoring the correlation between poverty and education does not make it go away. Ignoring the correlation between crime and poverty does not make it do away. Ignoring the correlation between poverty and race does not make it go away.

This is not to say that any race is harder working or genetically smarter than another. There are historical inequalities that have led us to where we are today. As much as the U.S. has tried to correct these inequalities, they still exist. Why? There are many theories, but the fact is there is no one right theory or one right answer. There are multiple variables and every thing boils down to individual choices based on lifetime experiences.

People like you, who ignore the problem and label anyone that admits there is an issue as racist, do nothing to solve the problem. In fact, you are part of the problem. There are 3 sides - the far right that think minorities are inferior and thus should be left in poverty and crime as long as its not in their backyard, and many liberals who don't want to admit that there is correlation between race, crime, and poverty. The third group is stuck - the moderates (right and left) who acknowledge there is a correlation but it is not indicative of the potential of any individual or any group. Unfortunately, we get branded racist is we mention the correlation, and we know without a doubt we don't belong with the far right because we think people, regardless of race and background, can overcome obstacles if given the right resources.

Get your head out of the sand. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

People like me, huh? But PLEASE point to anywhere in post where I said anybody was racist. In fact, I read my post again and I did NOT mention race one time in my post. YOU are the one that based your post on race, when it was not mentioned in my post. The PP I responded agreed to a statement that poor people don’t have the time to discipline their kids and said that poor people will more likely to have substance issues. My response was along SES lines, not race! Perhaps you should read my post again, as you seemed to have added stuff I did not say.

Because I am in the public health field, I know more about the working poor and the color of poverty than you think. I could not ignore the problem if I wanted to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poorer people bring down property values and bring crime. Poor people also are more likely to not have time to discipline their kids, have drug or alcohol problems etc...

This P should be embarrased. Unbelievable ignorance.

That "P" should be embarrassed because he told the truth? Or he because he was not politically correct? Do you have your head stuck so far in the sand that you deny that lower class people bring down property values and have a higher rate of crime?

Are you SURE this person is telling the truth? Or is this person just spouting the stereotypical dogma that you hear on Rush Limbaugh? Some of the most undisplined kids running amok that I have seen come from familes that are considered high and middle income. So a family with law firm partner or corporate executive parent would have MORE time to discipline their kids than the maintenance engineer in that building? Really? I would agree that the higher income person would have more access to educational resources, but we are talking about discipline.

I am in public health and there is no credible statistical correlation between SES and substance abuse.

So basically, my impression of the person who made this statement is that this person has very little personal interaction with poor people and pretty much gets their info from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

NP. Being blind to the facts does not make it go away.
Hispanics and Blacks are more than twice as likely to be below the poverty line than whites and asians.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth/poverty.html
Blacks have a higher child injury and mortality rate. Hispanics and white are almost the same. Asians are the lowest.
http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/phy7b.asp
Black youths are more likely to be victimes of violent crime
http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/phy6.asp

I'm a liberal, do not watch Fox news and hate RL. However, ignoring the correlation between poverty and education does not make it go away. Ignoring the correlation between crime and poverty does not make it do away. Ignoring the correlation between poverty and race does not make it go away.

This is not to say that any race is harder working or genetically smarter than another. There are historical inequalities that have led us to where we are today. As much as the U.S. has tried to correct these inequalities, they still exist. Why? There are many theories, but the fact is there is no one right theory or one right answer. There are multiple variables and every thing boils down to individual choices based on lifetime experiences.

People like you, who ignore the problem and label anyone that admits there is an issue as racist, do nothing to solve the problem. In fact, you are part of the problem. There are 3 sides - the far right that think minorities are inferior and thus should be left in poverty and crime as long as its not in their backyard, and many liberals who don't want to admit that there is correlation between race, crime, and poverty. The third group is stuck - the moderates (right and left) who acknowledge there is a correlation but it is not indicative of the potential of any individual or any group. Unfortunately, we get branded racist is we mention the correlation, and we know without a doubt we don't belong with the far right because we think people, regardless of race and background, can overcome obstacles if given the right resources.

Get your head out of the sand. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poorer people bring down property values and bring crime. Poor people also are more likely to not have time to discipline their kids, have drug or alcohol problems etc...

This P should be embarrased. Unbelievable ignorance.

That "P" should be embarrassed because he told the truth? Or he because he was not politically correct? Do you have your head stuck so far in the sand that you deny that lower class people bring down property values and have a higher rate of crime?

Are you SURE this person is telling the truth? Or is this person just spouting the stereotypical dogma that you hear on Rush Limbaugh? Some of the most undisplined kids running amok that I have seen come from familes that are considered high and middle income. So a family with law firm partner or corporate executive parent would have MORE time to discipline their kids than the maintenance engineer in that building? Really? I would agree that the higher income person would have more access to educational resources, but we are talking about discipline.

I am in public health and there is no credible statistical correlation between SES and substance abuse.

So basically, my impression of the person who made this statement is that this person has very little personal interaction with poor people and pretty much gets their info from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poorer people bring down property values and bring crime. Poor people also are more likely to not have time to discipline their kids, have drug or alcohol problems etc...

This P should be embarrased. Unbelievable ignorance.

That "P" should be embarrassed because he told the truth? Or he because he was not politically correct? Do you have your head stuck so far in the sand that you deny that lower class people bring down property values and have a higher rate of crime?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poorer people bring down property values and bring crime. Poor people also are more likely to not have time to discipline their kids, have drug or alcohol problems etc...

This P should be embarrased. Unbelievable ignorance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you actually read any of those threads, you would find that several posters took the time to provide link to studies that showed over all that schools with large concentrations of low income children were not good learning environments and that there were many factors involved for why not. I think one of the most interseting was about Kansas City schools I believe where the schools had a blank check to make improvements and millions of dollars later it had no true effects for the students in terms of gains in test scores or learning.

One would never want one's kid to associate or even know one of those kids. S/he would be ruined for life. No wonder, we have such political divisions in this country. Many Americans have almost no ability to other Americans.

Anonymous wrote:If you actually read any of those threads, you would find that several posters took the time to provide link to studies that showed over all that schools with large concentrations of low income children were not good learning environments and that there were many factors involved for why not. I think one of the most interseting was about Kansas City schools I believe where the schools had a blank check to make improvements and millions of dollars later it had no true effects for the students in terms of gains in test scores or learning.

Anonymous wrote:Poorer people bring down property values and bring crime. Poor people also are more likely to not have time to discipline their kids, have drug or alcohol problems etc...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a child at Montgomery Knolls, which has a very high FARMS rate (64%), and I have to take issue with some of the comments on this thread. DC is not FARMS but loves school and is learning a lot. B/c the FARMS rate is so high, the school's at-a-glance says last year's average class for K was 17.8, smaller for 1 and 2 grades. The at-a-glance also says that 2nd graders who are Caucasian have an 84% composite rate. That's higher than the Caucasian rate at Bethesda Elementary (81%), which had a FARMS rate of 6.7% (and an average 22 kids/class). So, if your assumption is that "poor" kids drag down the performance of kids from homes with more means, these stats, at least, don't show that.

Also, I know 2 kids in my DC's class have behavior issues. One of them is a Caucasian kid with two parents at home, and I'm doubtful the kid is FARMS. So, it may be true in general that poorer kids have more behavioral issues, but wealthier kids can, too. And if you're considering a high FARMS school vs. a low-FARMS school, I'd think you'd have to consider the class size. I understand from DCUM that lots of schools have K classes up to 25 or even 28 kids. Is that classroom easier to manage than one with 18 or 19 kids, 63% of whom are FARMS? I am sure it depends.

Also, FWIW, I am happy to have DC exposed to kids of other backgrounds. To me, there is a benefit in learning that not every kid lives in a house or speaks English at home. DC has made friends across color/economic lines, and DC has shown empathy for kids who are not fluent in English. So, I like that. If behavior issues ever start to overwhlem the classroom or DC's experience, we'll change schools, for sure. But a lot of the anti-FARMS sentiment seems, to me, pretty knee-jerk and unfortunate. There are pros and cons to everything, including being at a high FARMS school.

We are also at a SS school with high FARMS rate (above 50%) and I very much agree with this post.

Me too. My kids are thriving.

For grades 1 and 2, most of the kid's learning is still happening at home. The problem with having a high percentage of FARM kids comes in the later grades, especially middle school. This is when the behavior problems start. This is when they start to have classes that are way below grade level to accommodate these students. If your child ends up in one of these classes, they will not learn anything. Most people want a grammar school with low FARMs because that feeds into Junior and Senior High Schools with low FARMS.