No matter how many times people say it, the phrase “good schools” will never not be racist/classist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why it has to be classist? DH went to schools in a very, very blue collar town where everyone sort of worked at the local plant. HHI there is about 30k-70k. They have excellent schools, AAP and AP courses. Teachers are super involved and there's rarely school disruptions.

Compare that to my kid's school in Loudoun County where the median HHI is 147k and there's 3.2% poverty. My kid's school is a mess because there's no differentiation. Some kids still don't know their letters in K and others are reading chapter books.

I'll take a wild guess and say that the town where your DH went to school had a town-based school system rather than a large county-based one?

I really don't know. The surrounding areas are very rural.

PP here. I went to school in a very blue collar area too. Even if not town based, the overall population was fairly homogenous. There's less stress on the system when most students are on the same level, with outliers above and below the vast majority. That's not what we have in these large county-based systems.

Wouldn't it make sense to have different classrooms then? So everyone can be taught to the best of their ability? Instead it seems like none of the 4 classrooms learns. You'd think it would be easier to have a full classroom of kids learning their letters so they could do it at the same time.

Thats fine for the advanced kids and very illegal if you're talking about mainstreamed kids with IEPs or ELL kids being pushed to a slower level. It's one of the reasons that not getting AAP at certain FCPS schools ensures a pretty terrible education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh my goodness! Yes! Yes! Yes!!! We left DC 1/10 "bad" schools for California suburbia 10/10 "good" schools and I have 100% learned that "good" is just code for white. And not in a good way -- in a "we-are-better-than-you" way. I WISH I understood this when I was at DC "bad" schools and I would have never left! DC schools actually offered better education, more involved teachers, more whole-child mentality and more leadership skills/opportunities. "Good" schools are teaching to the test, privileged kids who all get a BMW (or similar) at 16 years old. Luckily we live in an area with some (minimal) diversity so our minority kids are not the only ones but it has been VERY hard. And whenever I raise any issues of racism/classism, I'm attacked as the one with the problem. And I feel like screaming, GET OUT OF THIS SMALL TOWN SO YOU CAN SEE HOW THE REST OF THE WORLD LIVES.

Thank you for letting me get this off the chest.

That's pretty amazing to find, given that only 21% of students in California are white and 55% are hispanic.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/ceffingertipfacts.asp

My kid's school is rated 10/10 and its 46% Asian and 38% white.

The top HS in the country and DC area happens to be majority Asian, same for the 8 elite NYC public HS which differs in that the majority of those students qualify for free/reduced lunch. To me this means that good schools are full of high achievers with involved parents and high expectations rather than code for "white" or wealthy.

So what you are saying is that it's actually code for "Asian and white." Duh. Everyone knows that.

No, if you dive into the data, it means that even poor Asians attend good schools, thus at least for Asians family income/class is not a factor that determines a good school. Poke around the data for great schools for Flushing in NYC where one of the Chinatowns are and you will find 10/10s with 64% poverty ratings.

Yes if you cherry pick one city in the US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on how you define good/bad schools right? Define them by test scores, parent involvement, teaching quality? Then that isn't racist.
Base it on the racial make up of the school?
That would racism.

Can we stop canceling words and phrases now?

And stop with judging people for being "classist." There is plenty of literature demonstrating the challenges faced by students and teachers at high-poverty schools. These challenges are reasons why people want to balance schools by SES to make sure that there aren't certain schools with highly concentrated poverty, which creates another obstacle to the success of economically disadvantaged students.

You can't argue for change by noting that schools with highly concentrated poverty tend to have characteristics that are less desirable for student success, including higher levels of student absenteeism, less experienced teachers, less stability, and less parental involvement, and then say that it's "classist" to worry about sending your child to a high-poverty school.

Meh, but plenty of people will say a school that's 10-20% FARMS is "high poverty" as an excuse for why they don't want their kids to attend. The majority of research usually sets 30-40% as the threshold for where those problematic effects of concentrated poverty really take hold. If people were actually worrying about sending their kids to a true high-poverty school you'd have a point, but most of the time that's not the case.

No, thank you.

So, I am assuming you don't want any other children to have to attend such a school, either.

I’m not responsible for other children, are you responsible for my child? Hell no and I wouldn’t want you to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on how you define good/bad schools right? Define them by test scores, parent involvement, teaching quality? Then that isn't racist.
Base it on the racial make up of the school?
That would racism.

Can we stop canceling words and phrases now?

And stop with judging people for being "classist." There is plenty of literature demonstrating the challenges faced by students and teachers at high-poverty schools. These challenges are reasons why people want to balance schools by SES to make sure that there aren't certain schools with highly concentrated poverty, which creates another obstacle to the success of economically disadvantaged students.

You can't argue for change by noting that schools with highly concentrated poverty tend to have characteristics that are less desirable for student success, including higher levels of student absenteeism, less experienced teachers, less stability, and less parental involvement, and then say that it's "classist" to worry about sending your child to a high-poverty school.

Meh, but plenty of people will say a school that's 10-20% FARMS is "high poverty" as an excuse for why they don't want their kids to attend. The majority of research usually sets 30-40% as the threshold for where those problematic effects of concentrated poverty really take hold. If people were actually worrying about sending their kids to a true high-poverty school you'd have a point, but most of the time that's not the case.

No, thank you.

So, I am assuming you don't want any other children to have to attend such a school, either.

If you don’t like it, pay for those kids that you falsely claim to care about and pay for a private education. Are you mentoring and tutoring at these schools?
What are you doing about it? Not a damn thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on how you define good/bad schools right? Define them by test scores, parent involvement, teaching quality? Then that isn't racist.
Base it on the racial make up of the school?
That would racism.

Can we stop canceling words and phrases now?

And stop with judging people for being "classist." There is plenty of literature demonstrating the challenges faced by students and teachers at high-poverty schools. These challenges are reasons why people want to balance schools by SES to make sure that there aren't certain schools with highly concentrated poverty, which creates another obstacle to the success of economically disadvantaged students.

You can't argue for change by noting that schools with highly concentrated poverty tend to have characteristics that are less desirable for student success, including higher levels of student absenteeism, less experienced teachers, less stability, and less parental involvement, and then say that it's "classist" to worry about sending your child to a high-poverty school.

Meh, but plenty of people will say a school that's 10-20% FARMS is "high poverty" as an excuse for why they don't want their kids to attend. The majority of research usually sets 30-40% as the threshold for where those problematic effects of concentrated poverty really take hold. If people were actually worrying about sending their kids to a true high-poverty school you'd have a point, but most of the time that's not the case.

No, thank you.

So, I am assuming you don't want any other children to have to attend such a school, either.

People don’t want a lot of things, what do you want random people to do about it? I don’t want any children to get cavities, am I responsible for other children’s dental care? Can I not send my child to the dentist because another child cannot go? Screw yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh my goodness! Yes! Yes! Yes!!! We left DC 1/10 "bad" schools for California suburbia 10/10 "good" schools and I have 100% learned that "good" is just code for white. And not in a good way -- in a "we-are-better-than-you" way. I WISH I understood this when I was at DC "bad" schools and I would have never left! DC schools actually offered better education, more involved teachers, more whole-child mentality and more leadership skills/opportunities. "Good" schools are teaching to the test, privileged kids who all get a BMW (or similar) at 16 years old. Luckily we live in an area with some (minimal) diversity so our minority kids are not the only ones but it has been VERY hard. And whenever I raise any issues of racism/classism, I'm attacked as the one with the problem. And I feel like screaming, GET OUT OF THIS SMALL TOWN SO YOU CAN SEE HOW THE REST OF THE WORLD LIVES.

Thank you for letting me get this off the chest.

That's pretty amazing to find, given that only 21% of students in California are white and 55% are hispanic.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/ceffingertipfacts.asp

My kid's school is rated 10/10 and its 46% Asian and 38% white.

The top HS in the country and DC area happens to be majority Asian, same for the 8 elite NYC public HS which differs in that the majority of those students qualify for free/reduced lunch. To me this means that good schools are full of high achievers with involved parents and high expectations rather than code for "white" or wealthy.

So what you are saying is that it's actually code for "Asian and white." Duh. Everyone knows that.

No, if you dive into the data, it means that even poor Asians attend good schools, thus at least for Asians family income/class is not a factor that determines a good school. Poke around the data for great schools for Flushing in NYC where one of the Chinatowns are and you will find 10/10s with 64% poverty ratings.

Yes if you cherry pick one city in the US

Pick west coast cities and you see the same thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:to me. I just find it so grating and exclusionary. Does anyone else feel this way?

Every choice you make in life is exclusionary. As to schools, you owe it to your kids to do the best for them. Not the best for others. There may be good reasons to go to a low performing school. In high school could make you kid stand out. Also good reasons not to go there.

I guess why do you feel this way? Bad schools are really bad. You kid is not going to help anyone.

[Anonymous]

This thread has brought out the worst in some.