Add another

5) They believe that by having their children associate with higher brow peers, that this can serve to push their child to set in his/her own mind, greater expectations of him/her self, and a stronger fire under the belly to "keep up with the jones'"

So back to the fundamental question - why are parents around here so worried about kids who receive a free lunch..

1) They want their own kids to associate with the children of their own social strata for the purposes of social networking at PTA and other school functions.


2) They know "free lunch" is a code word MCPS uses to continue the institutionalization of racist social experiments (ie. Rosemary Hills).

3) They believe, as has been illustrated in the most recent posts that kids who get free lunch come from economically disadvantaged homes. These parents have "connected the dots" and understand that because these homes are economically disadvantaged these children are therefore more likely (though, admittedly, not universally guaranteed) to be subjected to the mal-environment. These same parents realize that being in that type of environment can impact the way a child deals with the world and others around them. These same parents have worked hard to achieve their station in life, or at the very least are working very hard to treat their children properly, don't want THEIR children subjected to those increased odds of associating with kids that come from and are influenced by these environments.

4) Due to the effects of #3 above, the believe of some parents is that it's not just the social experience, but that the classroom learning experience itself is at a greater risk (though again, not a universal guarantee - simply an increased risk) of being compromised by the lower income students.


I do subscribe in part to at least 1 of these bullets, but certainly not all 4. However, I would present these bullets as an answer to the original posters question as to why some parents are so concerned about free meals.


I don't know how things roll these days with the students in the schools, but I will say that as a kid growing up in MCPS in the 80s we couldn't care less about the kids eating a free lunch and breakfast. Relative to the big deal parents make of it, it was one of the furthest things on our minds as we went about our school day.

Every child is not worth the same?

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.

Also a liberal here. The corrosive effects of poverty are well documented. Ignoring them doesn't do anyone any good. Why the fuck do you think eliminating poverty is a desirable thing? We need to do more to fight multi-generational poverty because its consequences are so dire.

No need to fight it, just contain it somewhere and live far away. There are winners and losers in life, without a loser there is no winner.

Of course, it used to be that a fundamental character of the American Experiment was that we didn't have dynasties, that class-mobility was guaranteed, and our public education system was a key component in securing that. Now we score lower than every other developed nation but Italy and Britain in class-mobility.

As you say, we've pursued a policy of racial and economic apartheid for much of our nation's history. Of course, those with morals and a belief in our nation's values have fought that and continue to fight it. My issue was with burying our collective heads in the sand...

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.

Also a liberal here. The corrosive effects of poverty are well documented. Ignoring them doesn't do anyone any good. Why the fuck do you think eliminating poverty is a desirable thing? We need to do more to fight multi-generational poverty because its consequences are so dire.

No need to fight it, just contain it somewhere and live far away. There are winners and losers in life, without a loser there is no winner.

Anonymous wrote:"But what others are saying is that those struggling kids might not be struggling due to lower income, but due to parents who are absent, don't care enough, or drink all night long - and those things are not necessarily correlated with income. "

Yes, they DO correlate w/ income levels. They are not necessarily caused by lower income levels, but it is a statistically accurate statement to recognize that more of the kids that have these issues/challenges are indeed from lower income families.

<blockquote>Some minority children are indeed at greater risk of school failure and more likely to be referred for special services because their families are economically or socially disadvantaged and unable to provide stimulating environments that promote healthy development and school readiness. Poor children, for example, are more likely to be born with low birth weight, have nutritional deficiencies, and suffer from substandard child care in the earliest years of life—problems that may compound school troubles later. These circumstances make a school's learning climate and the nature of classroom instruction all the more important.</blockquote>

(http://sparkaction.org/node/382)

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.

Also a liberal here. The corrosive effects of poverty are well documented. Ignoring them doesn't do anyone any good. Why the fuck do you think eliminating poverty is a desirable thing? We need to do more to fight multi-generational poverty because its consequences are so dire.

"But what others are saying is that those struggling kids might not be struggling due to lower income, but due to parents who are absent, don't care enough, or drink all night long - and those things are not necessarily correlated with income. "

Yes, they DO correlate w/ income levels. They are not necessarily caused by lower income levels, but it is a statistically accurate statement to recognize that more of the kids that have these issues/challenges are indeed from lower income families.

Anonymous wrote:PP, I think what folks have been saying is that your mom could pick out kids who were struggling, had no help at home, etc. Of course she could! But what others are saying is that those struggling kids might not be struggling due to lower income, but due to parents who are absent, don't care enough, or drink all night long - and those things are not necessarily correlated with income.

Umm yes it does, low income has a higher change of child neglect as well as abuse

Family Structure
Children living with single parents may be at higher risk of experiencing physical and sexual abuse and neglect than children living with two biological parents. Single parent households are substantially more likely to have incomes below the poverty line. Lower income, the increased stress associated with the sole burden of family responsibilities, and fewer supports are thought to contribute to the risk of single parents maltreating their children. In 1998, 23 percent of children lived in households with a single mother, and 4 percent lived in households with a single father.46 A strong, positive relationship between the child and the father, whether he resides in the home or not, contributes to the child's development and may lessen the risk of abuse.

In addition, studies have found that compared to similar non-neglecting families, neglectful families tend to have more children or greater numbers of people living in the household. Chronically neglecting families often are characterized by a chaotic household with changing constellations of adult and child figures (e.g., a mother and her children who live on and off with various others, such as the mother's mother, the mother's sister, or a boyfriend).

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundatione.cfm

PP, I think what folks have been saying is that your mom could pick out kids who were struggling, had no help at home, etc. Of course she could! But what others are saying is that those struggling kids might not be struggling due to lower income, but due to parents who are absent, don't care enough, or drink all night long - and those things are not necessarily correlated with income.

I'm not 19:48, but my Mother was a teacher and she generally could figure out from what type of a home environment a child had; how much help they did or did not receive at home. She did not use this information in a bad way but she knew the kids who had greater challlenges and did all she could to help them from an educational and a nuturing perspective. I think she also wanted to make sure these kids knew that if they worked hard that they could get good grades and set goals beyond what they might be exposed to at home.

Of course this was before no child left behind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am often offended by those who think "FARMs" children are chic b/c they add flavor to the school or they enhance diversity or they teach the privileged others about tolerance and respect.

blah blah blah

FARMs should only be used by those in education. This term is dangerous in the hands of most parents, as most have already formed an image of a "FARM" student.

It's disgusting.

FWIW, teachers have no FARMs data; that is strictly info. shared with administrators so that they can track down who may need breakfast (or even dinner), who benefits from reduced college fees, who may be eligible for certain programs.

So think before you post, as so many of you sound incredibly ignorant.

Pot meet kettle.

Teachers don't need data in order to figure it out. They are smart that way. Or very good at picking up on the obvious. Sure, there will be a percentage that you can't figure out but for the most part they will know.

I am 19:48. Being smart does not correlate with being prejudice. When I look at my students, I cannot tell if the third child in the 5th row is FARMs. What an absolutely sick way to view the world, PP.

Tell me this (since you seem to be an expert) - What good does it do for a teacher to have that knowledge anyway? I stated earlier that administrators are privy to that information for the reasons mentioned above. but for teachers? Please enlighten me, guru.

You hear that 19:48? Teachers are clairvoyant, already!

22:06, nothing you've stated genuinely undermines the spirit and intent of 19:48, although we do realize that is what you were attempting to do.

Anonymous wrote:I am often offended by those who think "FARMs" children are chic b/c they add flavor to the school or they enhance diversity or they teach the privileged others about tolerance and respect.

blah blah blah

FARMs should only be used by those in education. This term is dangerous in the hands of most parents, as most have already formed an image of a "FARM" student.

It's disgusting.

FWIW, teachers have no FARMs data; that is strictly info. shared with administrators so that they can track down who may need breakfast (or even dinner), who benefits from reduced college fees, who may be eligible for certain programs.

So think before you post. as so many of you sound incredibly ignorant.

Pot meet kettle.

Teachers don't need data in order to figure it out. They are smart that way. Or very good at picking up on the obvious. Sure, there will be a percentage that you can't figure out but for the most part they will know.

I am often offended by those who think "FARMs" children are chic b/c they add flavor to the school or they enhance diversity or they teach the privileged others about tolerance and respect.

blah blah blah

FARMs should only be used by those in education. This term is dangerous in the hands of most parents, as most have already formed an image of a "FARM" student.

It's disgusting.

FWIW, teachers have no FARMs data; that is strictly info. shared with administrators so that they can track down who may need breakfast (or even dinner), who benefits from reduced college fees, who may be eligible for certain programs.

So think before you post. as so many of you sound incredibly ignorant.