Disadvantaged children can hurt achievement of others in their classrooms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me that the myth of "more money is spent on ward 3" is so resilient, when it's never been even remotely true. Disadvantaged kids get more money allocated to them than any other student.

Part problem with high-disadvantaged schools is the WAY the money is being spent on education. But I don't blame DCPS for it, really -- those kids need even MORE money spent on them. Their curriculum needs to be different, too. It's a huge problem that must be addressed on the federal level, to increase spending on these kids throughout the country.

The myth that Ward 3 kids get more money must also be part of the problem -- there's some kind of mental block that is preventing some people from seeing the truth.

Really? different curriculum? What are you thinking? 7 hours of remediation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me that the myth of "more money is spent on ward 3" is so resilient, when it's never been even remotely true. Disadvantaged kids get more money allocated to them than any other student.

Part problem with high-disadvantaged schools is the WAY the money is being spent on education. But I don't blame DCPS for it, really -- those kids need even MORE money spent on them. Their curriculum needs to be different, too. It's a huge problem that must be addressed on the federal level, to increase spending on these kids throughout the country.

The myth that Ward 3 kids get more money must also be part of the problem -- there's some kind of mental block that is preventing some people from seeing the truth.

Really? different curriculum? What are you thinking? 7 hours of remediation?

For example, today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/nyregion/new-york-early-champion-of-common-core-standards-joins-critics.html?action=click&contentCollection=Europe®ion=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me that the myth of "more money is spent on ward 3" is so resilient, when it's never been even remotely true. Disadvantaged kids get more money allocated to them than any other student.

Part problem with high-disadvantaged schools is the WAY the money is being spent on education. But I don't blame DCPS for it, really -- those kids need even MORE money spent on them. Their curriculum needs to be different, too. It's a huge problem that must be addressed on the federal level, to increase spending on these kids throughout the country.

The myth that Ward 3 kids get more money must also be part of the problem -- there's some kind of mental block that is preventing some people from seeing the truth.

Really? different curriculum? What are you thinking? 7 hours of remediation?

Not the PP and I wouldn't agree that 7 hours of remediation is needed, but certainly some remediation is needed. If they can't read, write or do math then the remaining options of what you can do with them are going to be pretty damn limited. And, one wonders, WTF was going on in preschool and elementary if they still can't read, write or so very basic math. Stronger intervention needs to happen early on, while kids are still young. For many disadvantaged kids, they probably also could use instruction/mentoring on basic life skills, ethics, values and social skills - since they probably aren't getting that from parents, family and siblings - the things that the rest of us take for granted. That ends up being a specialized curriculum one way or another.

[Anonymous]

That NYT article does point out a repeated problem with new curricula, and that's adequate training of teachers.

It also leads me to believe we should be offering more autonomy to schools and teachers, not less. I was under the impression that Common Core did just that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That NYT article does point out a repeated problem with new curricula, and that's adequate training of teachers.

It also leads me to believe we should be offering more autonomy to schools and teachers, not less. I was under the impression that Common Core did just that.

And where on Earth would you get that impression about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That NYT article does point out a repeated problem with new curricula, and that's adequate training of teachers.

It also leads me to believe we should be offering more autonomy to schools and teachers, not less. I was under the impression that Common Core did just that.

Why do schools keep messing with the curriculum, anyways? Why keep pandering to textbook companies who want to sell new content when little has changed? There are many tried and true things out there. Geometry has been around for thousands of years. Algebra has been around for hundreds of years. There's really no reason why educators couldn't collaborate around a free and open source project for curriculum and teaching materials, and it's high time they did. Core content could be pulled from any number of excellent public domain sources, and then collaboratively curated, maintained and expanded, wiki-style, by a self-vetting group of educators and subject matter experts. New content, for science, history and other areas could be added and updated dynamically. The technologies for doing this already exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:according to a new study.

In other news, the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.

Actually the abstract for the study refers to "high concentrations of children." Since I don't have access to the study I don't know how high we are talking but certainly that is no surprise. What's irritating, though, is that OP titled this thread "Disadvantaged children can hurt achievement" as if the mere presence of a few disadvantaged children can "hurt" other kids. Seriously, OP, you probably consider yourself educated but you don't know how to write a thread title which accurately reflects what this research actually showed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:according to a new study.

In other news, the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.

Actually the abstract for the study refers to "high concentrations of children." Since I don't have access to the study I don't know how high we are talking but certainly that is no surprise. What's irritating, though, is that OP titled this thread "Disadvantaged children can hurt achievement" as if the mere presence of a few disadvantaged children can "hurt" other kids. Seriously, OP, you probably consider yourself educated but you don't know how to write a thread title which accurately reflects what this research actually showed.

Actually, there are studies that show there are diminishing returns and an increasing drag on higher performing students when disadvantaged student percentage exceeds 20%. It's all about critical mass - a critical mass of 80% or greater of higher-performing, non-disadvantaged students is needed to "lift the boats" of the disadvantaged students. If that critical mass isn't there, the performance of ALL students begins to decline more and more, as the percentage of disadvantaged students increases.

This is why the proposals floating around of high quotas for disadvantaged students and wholescale boundary shifts or citywide lotteries don't make sense because they don't consider creating and maintaining an adequate critical mass for it to work. If you were to take the JKLMs and kick all of the current students out and replace them with the most disadvantaged students from the city, their performance would be no better than it was in the "failing" schools they came from. The JKLMs would then be the "failing" schools. However, if you accommodate not-to-exceed 20% disadvantaged in the successful schools, and structure non-disadvantaged and higher performing overflow by putting them into other schools, managing the numbers so that there's enough critical mass, and go school by school by the demographics and numbers, it would have far better chance of working.

[Anonymous]

This is why the proposals floating around of high quotas for disadvantaged students and wholescale boundary shifts or citywide lotteries don't make sense because they don't consider creating and maintaining an adequate critical mass for it to work. If you were to take the JKLMs and kick all of the current students out and replace them with the most disadvantaged students from the city, their performance would be no better than it was in the "failing" schools they came from. The JKLMs would then be the "failing" schools. However, if you accommodate not-to-exceed 20% disadvantaged in the successful schools, and structure non-disadvantaged and higher performing overflow by putting them into other schools, managing the numbers so that there's enough critical mass, and go school by school by the demographics and numbers, it would have far better chance of working.

There's nothing yet even approaching a proposal, let alone policy. Thus far it's all theory and idea with a healthy dose of conjecture.

And the reason it won't get much further is that it's impossible at this point to "put" or "replace" anyone anywhere. Thanks to charters, choice is built in. Parents will walk en masse if they're forced into this school or that.

It's not impossible to make socioeconomic diversity attractive. Charters have done that. DCPS needs to figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Op eds don't just start showing up on "idea" "theory" and "conjecture". Someone probably actually has an at least halfway serious intent or agenda if it's at the point of putting proposals out into public circulation. But, I suppose the good news is that it's at least out there, for people to rally and swat it down as a bad idea not supported by reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that people come here illegally and have children is also offensive. Yes, they come here to work and make a better life for themselves (and generally are productive and do contribute to the economy).

But that said, the process has so many flaws in it that many illegal aliens are not paying taxes and instead are only making their employers rich without contributing to the rest of society, since many work off of the books or are otherwise being cheated by their employers. Many do not have proper benefits, such as health care and without means to pay, become a drain on the healthcare system and so on. Many illegal immigrants send much of their earnings back to their home country rather than spending it in the local economy. One can't just generalize across the board as the previous poster did, but likewise, to suggest there aren't issues or to overstate contribution of illegal immigrants is likewise intellectually dishonest.

I would much prefer that we have a reasonable, expedited work visa program. Many illegal immigrants are not even interested in staying in the US - they would prefer to be back home. But, when it's a matter of such difficulty and adversity in coming here in the first place, many decide to bring their family here rather than try to go back and forth.

(Also, let's not forget about the elephant on the table - of low-income urban youth who aren't working and the suggestion that there aren't any jobs - when the huge numbers of illegal immigrants working various jobs around the area clearly shows otherwise)

Nothing you have said justifies the idea that educating children of any immigration status is worthless. Every American except native Americans are immigrants from somewhere. You have the luck of your birth and you treat it like you earned that somehow. There are lots of complicated issues surrounding immigration but the idea we should leave any children without educational opportunities is nonsensical and mean spirited.

To be precise, Native Americans are immigrants too -- just a few millennia before the rest of us, based on modern genetic testing.

[Anonymous]

That NYT article does point out a repeated problem with new curricula, and that's adequate training of teachers.

It also leads me to believe we should be offering more autonomy to schools and teachers, not less. I was under the impression that Common Core did just that.

The NYT article has a misleading title. Common Core is not a curriculum. It is a set of standards. Core Knowledge is a curriculum available for addressing the Common Core standards.

Interestingly, on the Core Knowledge website, only three schools in DC (all charters) are listed as using that curriculum. This leaves some question about whether it is possible that implementing the standards without the canned curriculum could, in fact, lead to more autonomy in schools around curriculum. It's doubtful, but I don't think we know enough about the full implementation of the standards to know for sure.

If someone has more solid information on the present state of implementation, please post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually it would probably be beneficial if parents had to show proof of citizenship or paid income taxes in order to enroll kids, but they don't. My friend teaches in a school that is almost a complete drain on the system because all the kids are non-citizens.

I doubt you'll get much support on this site, but I'll give you a big +1001.

It is INSANE that our scarce educational resources are being diverted to families who ARE HERE ILLEGALLY. How can one argue that doing so doesn't harm the children of tax-paying citizens? My wife is one of several ESOL teachers in a school that is 90% immigrant. Obviously, many are here legally, but MANY are not, speak little to no english, and have parents who are near illiterate in their native languages. Any IB english speakers are screwed. Salaries and teachers are focused on dragging kids up to a very low LCD; kids with high-potential looking for challenges whither on the vine... or if their parents can afford it, escape elsewhere.

I love children - who doesn't? But we're creating a huge incentive for all the world's poor to flood in illegally, overwhelming our infrastructure, driving down wages at the lower end and therefore exacerbating urban AA unemployment, and so on.

Why on earth is our IB elementary 84% spanish speaking? WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That NYT article does point out a repeated problem with new curricula, and that's adequate training of teachers.

It also leads me to believe we should be offering more autonomy to schools and teachers, not less. I was under the impression that Common Core did just that.

The NYT article has a misleading title. Common Core is not a curriculum. It is a set of standards. Core Knowledge is a curriculum available for addressing the Common Core standards.

Interestingly, on the Core Knowledge website, only three schools in DC (all charters) are listed as using that curriculum. This leaves some question about whether it is possible that implementing the standards without the canned curriculum could, in fact, lead to more autonomy in schools around curriculum. It's doubtful, but I don't think we know enough about the full implementation of the standards to know for sure.

If someone has more solid information on the present state of implementation, please post.

Also, it should be pointed out that Common Core is an initiative that was originally grass roots and came from the states and from educators. Yet some people act as though it was suddenly dropped onto schools from out of nowhere by space aliens.