Study: 48% of public school students come from low-income households

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In These Times

It feels good to be proven right sometimes.

[barfbag]

This is very mildly surprising. I'd like to see a study from five years ago. If there's more low income children in public schools than before, then things have gotten worse during the Obama Administration. If there's less children from low income families in public schools than before Obama took office, then I fail to see the problem when things are getting better.

[Link]

This is very mildly surprising.

It shouldn't be surprising at all.  I already told you factors outside of school that are not under control of teachers have a huge impact on academic performance.

Before we address healthcare, nutrition, and wages, we should be addressing how to read.

What are you basing this proclamation on?  Every bit of modern social science and medical research says the exact opposite.  At what age do you think the most connections are made and lost in the human brain?

Not a serious analysis? You think a more serious analysis is when teachers pass a student who doesn't know how to read?

I think starting your analysis on a kid's first day of school and ignoring the half decade before that isn't serious.

[memphis]

Only 1/3? I would have thought much more than that! Perhaps they used a very low threshold for low-income, similar to the official poverty numbers.

[barfbag]

This is very mildly surprising.

It shouldn't be surprising at all.  I already told you factors outside of school that are not under control of teachers have a huge impact on academic performance.

Before we address healthcare, nutrition, and wages, we should be addressing how to read.

What are you basing this proclamation on?  Every bit of modern social science and medical research says the exact opposite.  At what age do you think the most connections are made and lost in the human brain?

Not a serious analysis? You think a more serious analysis is when teachers pass a student who doesn't know how to read?

I think starting your analysis on a kid's first day of school and ignoring the half decade before that isn't serious.

They do and it's very important that we focus on schools that are doing poorly and hold them to the same standards. Children deserve an education regardless of their parents' incomes or area they live in. We need to be testing and recertifying teachers every four years. After school programs like Big-Brother and Big-Sister help in their areas too by keeping kids from divorces and bad homes off of the streets after school. I'm going to give an outline. Schools need to be held accountable regardless of how bad of an area they're in. Reading is a civil right!

[DC Al Fine]

It's to be expected. Kids cost a lot and incomes don't jump by 20% when you have a baby.

[Sbane]

Only 1/3? I would have thought much more than that! Perhaps they used a very low threshold for low-income, similar to the official poverty numbers.

The threat title is incorrect. The actual number is 48%. 1/3rd of states have a majority of their public school students in poverty.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Sad.

[Blue3]

I thought it would be over half.

Also, a bit off-topic, but about 1 million students drop out and never graduate from HS each year, and 50% of those students come from just 10% of schools. But if you reach the 10th grade on-track and on-time, you're 400% more likely to graduate from high school. The biggest indicators of a future high school drop-out is being more than 1 grade level behind in either English or Math in 3rd-9th grade, or missing more than 9 days of school during the year in 3rd-9th grade, or a significant behavior problem in 3rd-9th grade. Not saying that it means they will, but any of those indicators significantly increases the risk of becoming a future drop-out.

[barfbag]

Only 1/3? I would have thought much more than that! Perhaps they used a very low threshold for low-income, similar to the official poverty numbers.

The threat title is incorrect. The actual number is 48%. 1/3rd of states have a majority of their public school students in poverty.

If I can afford it when I have kids, I'll pay whatever it takes to keep them out of such an institution.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Only 1/3? I would have thought much more than that! Perhaps they used a very low threshold for low-income, similar to the official poverty numbers.

The threat title is incorrect. The actual number is 48%. 1/3rd of states have a majority of their public school students in poverty.

If I can afford it when I have kids, I'll pay whatever it takes to keep them out of such an institution.

Because people thinking like that on a large scale totally helps.

[Sbane]

Only 1/3? I would have thought much more than that! Perhaps they used a very low threshold for low-income, similar to the official poverty numbers.

The threat title is incorrect. The actual number is 48%. 1/3rd of states have a majority of their public school students in poverty.

If I can afford it when I have kids, I'll pay whatever it takes to keep them out of such an institution.

Ok thanks. Totally not relevant to my post but whatever. Torie should have just let you go when he had the chance.

[barfbag]

Only 1/3? I would have thought much more than that! Perhaps they used a very low threshold for low-income, similar to the official poverty numbers.

The threat title is incorrect. The actual number is 48%. 1/3rd of states have a majority of their public school students in poverty.

If I can afford it when I have kids, I'll pay whatever it takes to keep them out of such an institution.

Because people thinking like that on a large scale totally helps.

You want me to sacrifice my children's education for the sake of big government and free handouts? I'm not surprised.

[MalaspinaGold]

Only 1/3? I would have thought much more than that! Perhaps they used a very low threshold for low-income, similar to the official poverty numbers.

The threat title is incorrect. The actual number is 48%. 1/3rd of states have a majority of their public school students in poverty.

If I can afford it when I have kids, I'll pay whatever it takes to keep them out of such an institution.

Because people thinking like that on a large scale totally helps.

You want me to sacrifice my children's education for the sake of big government and free handouts? I'm not surprised.

He's saying that you not putting your kid in the public school system will not help the "institution". If your kid is not in the public school system, you have no incentive to improve it.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Thanks for pointing out the oversight, Sbane.

Only 1/3? I would have thought much more than that! Perhaps they used a very low threshold for low-income, similar to the official poverty numbers.

The threat title is incorrect. The actual number is 48%. 1/3rd of states have a majority of their public school students in poverty.

If I can afford it when I have kids, I'll pay whatever it takes to keep them out of such an institution.

Because people thinking like that on a large scale totally helps.

You want me to sacrifice my children's education for the sake of big government and free handouts? I'm not surprised.

Have you ever considered maybe trying to write one post that has a measly bit of substance to it, rather it's in the form of a question or statement?  What you said doesn't even make sense.

[pbrower2a]

This is very mildly surprising. I'd like to see a study from five years ago. If there's more low income children in public schools than before, then things have gotten worse during the Obama Administration. If there's less children from low income families in public schools than before Obama took office, then I fail to see the problem when things are getting better.

Just remember -- something started about six years ago and lasted about a year and a half.



A hint: it is the blue line, and it in fact went below the gray line for 1929-1932.

After the stimulus that may have kept the blue line from going deeper into horrible areas on the graph, President Obama has been stuck with monetarist economics by default -- cheap money that cheats savers and doesn't so much create jobs as create income for elites.

Blame the right-wingers for continuing to support the offshoring of jobs and the treatment of working people as livestock. But such is in the character of the people who fund right-wing American politics.   

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is very mildly surprising. I'd like to see a study from five years ago. If there's more low income children in public schools than before, then things have gotten worse during the Obama Administration. If there's less children from low income families in public schools than before Obama took office, then I fail to see the problem when things are getting better.

Just remember -- something started about six years ago and lasted about a year and a half.



A hint: it is the blue line, and it in fact went below the gray line for 1929-1932.

After the stimulus that may have kept the blue line from going deeper into horrible areas on the graph, President Obama has been stuck with monetarist economics by default -- cheap money that cheats savers and doesn't so much create jobs as create income for elites.

Blame the right-wingers for continuing to support the offshoring of jobs and the treatment of working people as livestock. But such is in the character of the people who fund right-wing American politics.  

The elite quickly recovered, but job recovery has been awful. This chart is from June.

[barfbag]

This is very mildly surprising. I'd like to see a study from five years ago. If there's more low income children in public schools than before, then things have gotten worse during the Obama Administration. If there's less children from low income families in public schools than before Obama took office, then I fail to see the problem when things are getting better.

Just remember -- something started about six years ago and lasted about a year and a half.



A hint: it is the blue line, and it in fact went below the gray line for 1929-1932.

After the stimulus that may have kept the blue line from going deeper into horrible areas on the graph, President Obama has been stuck with monetarist economics by default -- cheap money that cheats savers and doesn't so much create jobs as create income for elites.

Blame the right-wingers for continuing to support the offshoring of jobs and the treatment of working people as livestock. But such is in the character of the people who fund right-wing American politics.   

Stuck with monetarist economics? Poor guy. I feel so bad. It's so awful he's stuck with monetarist economics.

I wouldn't want to start a business here either with our big government regulations. If our country cared about working people, we'd make our country a work friendly environment starting with low corporate taxes in order to attract companies who have moved offshore. Another thing to remember is how greedy our country is. People expect so much more than the average person in other countries doing the same work. With this either prices have to increase in order to make up for the loss of profit, or companies have to move overseas to keep their profits up.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Only 1/3? I would have thought much more than that! Perhaps they used a very low threshold for low-income, similar to the official poverty numbers.

The threat title is incorrect. The actual number is 48%. 1/3rd of states have a majority of their public school students in poverty.

If I can afford it when I have kids, I'll pay whatever it takes to keep them out of such an institution.

Because people thinking like that on a large scale totally helps.

You want me to sacrifice my children's education for the sake of big government and free handouts? I'm not surprised.

I want you to think of what you can do to help make other people's children's education better along with your own children's, and why bailing on the system that most people--including,  yes, most of your children's future friends and coworkers--use because you can and you've got yours may not be the ideal answer.

Also, public schooling counts as 'big government' now? I'm scared.

[opebo]

How could the majority of children not be living in poverty under capitalism?  Said poverty is the state policy.

[RI]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is some pretty awful analysis based on very flimsy evidence. Do some real statistics before you make a pronouncement like that.

Also, lol at "prove".

[freepcrusher]

I was surprised by Oregon crossing the 50 percent threshold. Anyone see credence in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kSULMV09is

[King]

The more I look, the more I realize a serious minimum wage increase would solve pretty much every problem in the United States

[barfbag]

Only 1/3? I would have thought much more than that! Perhaps they used a very low threshold for low-income, similar to the official poverty numbers.

The threat title is incorrect. The actual number is 48%. 1/3rd of states have a majority of their public school students in poverty.

If I can afford it when I have kids, I'll pay whatever it takes to keep them out of such an institution.

Because people thinking like that on a large scale totally helps.

You want me to sacrifice my children's education for the sake of big government and free handouts? I'm not surprised.

I want you to think of what you can do to help make other people's children's education better along with your own children's, and why bailing on the system that most people--including,  yes, most of your children's future friends and coworkers--use because you can and you've got yours may not be the ideal answer.

Also, public schooling counts as 'big government' now? I'm scared.

No public schooling isn't big government at all. It's not what I was saying either. By big government I meant taking away one's right to choosing where their kids go to school. I'll make an education bill under the individual politics forum. If it's not there it will be under political debate. We need after school programs, school vouchers, standards enforcement, qualified teachers, and smaller classes.