Integrated Schools

[Anonymous]

I support all the great social causes but my kid has to be in a school where he can learn at about his level, which usually means the majority of kids should be his level.
I have nothing more to add.
I am ok with paying more taxes, even if I know it won’t help fix the achievement gap. Just for the sake of being left alone and for the opportunity to do what’s best for my child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support all the great social causes but my kid has to be in a school where he can learn at about his level, which usually means the majority of kids should be his level.
I have nothing more to add.
I am ok with paying more taxes, even if I know it won’t help fix the achievement gap. Just for the sake of being left alone and for the opportunity to do what’s best for my child.

And i don’t care what race that majority of kids at his level is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People using their neighborhood schools instead of charters would help. There are plenty of integrated neighborhoods in DC, white people just don’t want to send their kids to the local school.

Our charter (Spanish immersion) is far more integrated than our neighborhood school. If everyone in my neighborhood right now started attending our neighborhood school, it would be pretty diverse, however. So, I get your point. With that said, our charter is truly diverse in terms of SES and race and ethnicity and that's what I want my kids to keep experiencing.

This is what is preventing us from having more integrated schools. Individual families making choices for the benefit of their own child. Opportunity hoarding. I want what is "best" for my child.

Somewhere along the line we as a society decided to condition parents to "want what is best" for their child, at the expense of the community. As a society, we need to value our community above adding one more privilege for our child. We need to consider what is best for all children, more than adding one more benefit to our individual child. For most people on this thread, and many in our community, picking what is best for the community will not hurt our child one bit.

You don't get to have an opinion about what is best for other people's kids. Life is a game of Hungry, Hungry Hippo for resources. I find the argument that the people winning should slow down so others can get some marbles so everyone wins a little bit to have some merit but when you follow it up with the premises that the people who slow down wont miss the marbles they could have had to fly in the face of human nature. At some point poor kids will be reminded that they aren't competing on an even playing field by the cold bitch smack of reality, the sooner the better IMHO. I am not sure if slowing my kids down to give other a chance is a great idea especially when i really want my kids to finish way ahead of them. Considering that I am not enriching them to compete with poor kids anyway, I want them beating fellow high SES kids and i need every marble I can find for that so why is it should I slow down again?

I honestly think that this problem is the combination of college for all track and systemic racism. Making all kids compete for an upper management niche that at most should cover 15-33% of kids is a farce especially when for generations, major sections of kids were exempted from even trying. Problem is if we make a trade or practical based education system again, college will become only for the rich again. Which is sort of is anyways not counting worthless degrees and easy credit.

Integrated schools will never capture rich kids, money buys options. All you can talk about is shuffling the middle class around until you get to what ever theoretical magic ratio you have convinced your self will make a poor hungry kid learn algebra better

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support all the great social causes but my kid has to be in a school where he can learn at about his level, which usually means the majority of kids should be his level.
I have nothing more to add.
I am ok with paying more taxes, even if I know it won’t help fix the achievement gap. Just for the sake of being left alone and for the opportunity to do what’s best for my child.

seems like you're a nice white parent. We're supposed to accept mediocrity for our children because anything else is inherently racist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you define as an integrated school?

Studies I've read define a segregated school as one where >80% of the students are minority. So I interpret that to mean that any school that is more than 20% white is integrated.

Those are odd studies then. All the diversity studies I've read are race neutral and define it along the statistical probablity of encountering someone of a different race.

Yes, PP is obviously mistaken. Under her definition, a 100% white school would be integrated.

Three different terms are being used here, and they do not mean the same thing: segregated, diverse, integrated. Comment one was about a legal term "segregation." Comment 2 was about a sociology term "diversity." Comment 3 was about a policy or legal remedy of "integration" (and so makes no sense).

Read this 2019 report from the Urban Institute; it does a good job of updating how we think about diversity in schools and talks about the isolation index (which is race neutral), though that is different from legal segregation, which is not. However, it likely will become the legal standard when presented to a court in a segregation case.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/101101/when_is_a_school_segregated_making_sense_of_segregation_65_years_after_brown_v._board_of_education_0.pdf

Read this report, linked earlier, for the legal history of segregation in DC: https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/landscape-of-diversity-in-dc-public-schools/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People using their neighborhood schools instead of charters would help. There are plenty of integrated neighborhoods in DC, white people just don’t want to send their kids to the local school.

Our charter (Spanish immersion) is far more integrated than our neighborhood school. If everyone in my neighborhood right now started attending our neighborhood school, it would be pretty diverse, however. So, I get your point. With that said, our charter is truly diverse in terms of SES and race and ethnicity and that's what I want my kids to keep experiencing.

This is what is preventing us from having more integrated schools. Individual families making choices for the benefit of their own child. Opportunity hoarding. I want what is "best" for my child.

Somewhere along the line we as a society decided to condition parents to "want what is best" for their child, at the expense of the community. As a society, we need to value our community above adding one more privilege for our child. We need to consider what is best for all children, more than adding one more benefit to our individual child. For most people on this thread, and many in our community, picking what is best for the community will not hurt our child one bit.

You don't get to have an opinion about what is best for other people's kids. Life is a game of Hungry, Hungry Hippo for resources. I find the argument that the people winning should slow down so others can get some marbles so everyone wins a little bit to have some merit but when you follow it up with the premises that the people who slow down wont miss the marbles they could have had to fly in the face of human nature. At some point poor kids will be reminded that they aren't competing on an even playing field by the cold bitch smack of reality, the sooner the better IMHO. I am not sure if slowing my kids down to give other a chance is a great idea especially when i really want my kids to finish way ahead of them. Considering that I am not enriching them to compete with poor kids anyway, I want them beating fellow high SES kids and i need every marble I can find for that so why is it should I slow down again?

I honestly think that this problem is the combination of college for all track and systemic racism. Making all kids compete for an upper management niche that at most should cover 15-33% of kids is a farce especially when for generations, major sections of kids were exempted from even trying. Problem is if we make a trade or practical based education system again, college will become only for the rich again. Which is sort of is anyways not counting worthless degrees and easy credit.

Integrated schools will never capture rich kids, money buys options. All you can talk about is shuffling the middle class around until you get to what ever theoretical magic ratio you have convinced your self will make a poor hungry kid learn algebra better

Think about tossing a marble to someone else's kid when you can and someone tossing a marble to your kid when they can. Makes for a society as opposed to the greed fest you're describing. Both types of systems exist in this country (world too), but which would you rather live in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support all the great social causes but my kid has to be in a school where he can learn at about his level, which usually means the majority of kids should be his level.
I have nothing more to add.
I am ok with paying more taxes, even if I know it won’t help fix the achievement gap. Just for the sake of being left alone and for the opportunity to do what’s best for my child.

FWIW my kid has been best supported in advanced work in a school with overall many fewer kids on their level. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you define as an integrated school?

Studies I've read define a segregated school as one where >80% of the students are minority. So I interpret that to mean that any school that is more than 20% white is integrated.

Those are odd studies then. All the diversity studies I've read are race neutral and define it along the statistical probablity of encountering someone of a different race.

Yes, PP is obviously mistaken. Under her definition, a 100% white school would be integrated.

Three different terms are being used here, and they do not mean the same thing: segregated, diverse, integrated. Comment one was about a legal term "segregation." Comment 2 was about a sociology term "diversity." Comment 3 was about a policy or legal remedy of "integration" (and so makes no sense).

Read this 2019 report from the Urban Institute; it does a good job of updating how we think about diversity in schools and talks about the isolation index (which is race neutral), though that is different from legal segregation, which is not. However, it likely will become the legal standard when presented to a court in a segregation case.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/101101/when_is_a_school_segregated_making_sense_of_segregation_65_years_after_brown_v._board_of_education_0.pdf

Read this report, linked earlier, for the legal history of segregation in DC: https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/landscape-of-diversity-in-dc-public-schools/

True, but "segregated" implies that the separation is being done by the State. Therefore the OP was likely talking about diversity since it's no a sociologic and not legal issue.