The Promise of Socio-Economically Integrated Schools in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On the converse of this, I certainly believe the case needs to be made that having poor students with middle class students improves student performance for the middle class students.

I know some like diversity from the middle class perspective so they don't feel so isolated from those who are struggling, but the case for the benefit to the poor would resonate and justify a lot of what might be considered in student assignment.

If someone were only making such a case...

You could look at Murch vs Janney for something like this, with all the caveats around Murch having more embassy kids etc. I did a cursory check a while ago and I think there was no clear academic benefit based on CAS scores etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the converse of this, I certainly believe the case needs to be made that having poor students with middle class students improves student performance for the middle class students.

I know some like diversity from the middle class perspective so they don't feel so isolated from those who are struggling, but the case for the benefit to the poor would resonate and justify a lot of what might be considered in student assignment.

If someone were only making such a case...

You could look at Murch vs Janney for something like this, with all the caveats around Murch having more embassy kids etc. I did a cursory check a while ago and I think there was no clear academic benefit based on CAS scores etc.

My DC are recent Janney alums. A few years back, I was talking with a parent who has been at the school for over 15 years (lots of kids) and she noted that when the NCLB law mandated the disaggregation of scores by race, gender, SES status, etc. it revealed vast differences in performances between population subgroups. In fact, the current principal made intensive intervention for low-performing African American students a priority when she arrived. The benefits of these interventions were reflected in improved DCCAS scores. However, my younger DC's grade was perhaps the last grade to have any critical number of low-income students in the school.

So it seems that just siting beside a high SES student is insufficient to raise academic performance. Rather, the school needs to make a concerted effort to implement targeted academic interventions on struggling students' behalf.

[Anonymous]

Wow. I'm astonished that OP (who implies she/he is well-educated) is doing such a pathetic job of looking at statistics and then declaring he/she knows whether poor kids benefit from going to school with middle class kids.

First, as someone noted earlier, the testing starts at third grade and there have been any number of changes (or not) going on in the earlier grades. Second, you have to look at whether there has been any noticeable improvement on the part of individual students over time, NOT AT AGGREGATE SCORES THAT COMPARE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF STUDENTS, which is what you're doing now. Third, you have to compare any change (or lack thereof) to a control group of poor students who have gone to school in majority poor schools.

You have done none of these things so you don't know whether poor students on average have benefited from going to school with middle-class students. But go on, continue to interpret the data in a way that makes you feel superior, because I know that nothing I say (even though I'm a senior researcher) will make a difference to you.

FTR, I haven't looked at the research myself but I know enough to know when I don't know the answer to something. You all think you're better educated than you actually are. If you don't want your kids to go to school with a lot of poor students, that's fine. I can accept that. But don't give us some bullshit about test scores when you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously, go back to school and take a research methods course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I'm astonished that OP (who implies she/he is well-educated) is doing such a pathetic job of looking at statistics and then declaring he/she knows whether poor kids benefit from going to school with middle class kids.

First, as someone noted earlier, the testing starts at third grade and there have been any number of changes (or not) going on in the earlier grades. Second, you have to look at whether there has been any noticeable improvement on the part of individual students over time, NOT AT AGGREGATE SCORES THAT COMPARE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF STUDENTS, which is what you're doing now. Third, you have to compare any change (or lack thereof) to a control group of poor students who have gone to school in majority poor schools.

You have done none of these things so you don't know whether poor students on average have benefited from going to school with middle-class students. But go on, continue to interpret the data in a way that makes you feel superior, because I know that nothing I say (even though I'm a senior researcher) will make a difference to you.

FTR, I haven't looked at the research myself but I know enough to know when I don't know the answer to something. You all think you're better educated than you actually are. If you don't want your kids to go to school with a lot of poor students, that's fine. I can accept that. But don't give us some bullshit about test scores when you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously, go back to school and take a research methods course.

So as a "senior researcher", you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion other than a) you're ignorant about this topic and b) everybody else is looking at this the wrong way. Gee, thanks, senior researcher.

[Anonymous]

On the face of it, the acheivement gap shown in those stats is astounding and telling.

[Anonymous]

Sir/Dr. Senior Researcher, I don't OP was claiming that she had done extensive research on this. He/she was just saying that the benefits to low SES students of going to school with higher SES students wasn't obvious from easily available data. I would absolutely love to see someone (yourself perhaps?) dig into this further with better methods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I'm astonished that OP (who implies she/he is well-educated) is doing such a pathetic job of looking at statistics and then declaring he/she knows whether poor kids benefit from going to school with middle class kids.

First, as someone noted earlier, the testing starts at third grade and there have been any number of changes (or not) going on in the earlier grades. Second, you have to look at whether there has been any noticeable improvement on the part of individual students over time, NOT AT AGGREGATE SCORES THAT COMPARE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF STUDENTS, which is what you're doing now. Third, you have to compare any change (or lack thereof) to a control group of poor students who have gone to school in majority poor schools.

You have done none of these things so you don't know whether poor students on average have benefited from going to school with middle-class students. But go on, continue to interpret the data in a way that makes you feel superior, because I know that nothing I say (even though I'm a senior researcher) will make a difference to you.

FTR, I haven't looked at the research myself but I know enough to know when I don't know the answer to something. You all think you're better educated than you actually are. If you don't want your kids to go to school with a lot of poor students, that's fine. I can accept that. But don't give us some bullshit about test scores when you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously, go back to school and take a research methods course.

Not sure why so grumpy. I am the OP and I wasn't putting those stats out there to prove that students weren't benefitting. Only to suggest that we need more robust evidence that they ARE benefitting given the wide acheivement gaps at Watkins after 20 years of socio- economic integration.

That's all. Asking for evidence before big changes occur in student assignment policies. Unknot your panties now.

[Anonymous]

Nah, her panties aren't in a knot. It's the parents of those non-low SES kids that have their drawers in a bunch at the thought of attending a school with a 50 percent FARMS rate.

The poster pointed out some very good points and no one has addressed them.

[Anonymous]

I know those kids are too young for testing, but I've seen numerous Appletree parents rave about how the program manages to teach to students of all backgrounds. What are they doing differently and can it be replicated elsewhere?

[Anonymous]

Most studies show a 80% to 20% FARMS ratio is needed to be of significant benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I'm astonished that OP (who implies she/he is well-educated) is doing such a pathetic job of looking at statistics and then declaring he/she knows whether poor kids benefit from going to school with middle class kids.

First, as someone noted earlier, the testing starts at third grade and there have been any number of changes (or not) going on in the earlier grades. Second, you have to look at whether there has been any noticeable improvement on the part of individual students over time, NOT AT AGGREGATE SCORES THAT COMPARE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF STUDENTS, which is what you're doing now. Third, you have to compare any change (or lack thereof) to a control group of poor students who have gone to school in majority poor schools.

You have done none of these things so you don't know whether poor students on average have benefited from going to school with middle-class students. But go on, continue to interpret the data in a way that makes you feel superior, because I know that nothing I say (even though I'm a senior researcher) will make a difference to you.

FTR, I haven't looked at the research myself but I know enough to know when I don't know the answer to something. You all think you're better educated than you actually are. If you don't want your kids to go to school with a lot of poor students, that's fine. I can accept that. But don't give us some bullshit about test scores when you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously, go back to school and take a research methods course.

Given there's no demonstrable difference in performance by SES grouping in more diverse vs. less diverse student bodies, I really don't see what longitudinal studies would add. I thing they would only be of any value if there were in fact some meaningful difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On the converse of this, I certainly believe the case needs to be made that having poor students with middle class students improves student performance for the middle class students.

I know some like diversity from the middle class perspective so they don't feel so isolated from those who are struggling, but the case for the benefit to the poor would resonate and justify a lot of what might be considered in student assignment.

If someone were only making such a case...

It doesn't, in fact the opposite is true - the middle class students suffer due to more disruptive behavior and discipline problems, along with classes going at a slower pace due to a greater need for remediation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most studies show a 80% to 20% FARMS ratio is needed to be of significant benefit.

Is it possible to link to these studies?

There are two thing that need to be shown before DC should base any changes on this idea, what is the optimal level of integration between middle class/high SES families (as a proxy for prepared kids that will likely succeed academically) and low SES families (as a proxy for kids that need academic help) where (1) all or a significant portion of the students benefit and (2) none of the students are academically worse off.

[Anonymous]

The bottom line is economically disadvantaged kids need to be in school as young as possible- by 3 or even younger. If these children are not in school until K, the gap is already huge and difficult to close. I realize that does not help students in the schools now, but the focus has to be on VERY early education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I'm astonished that OP (who implies she/he is well-educated) is doing such a pathetic job of looking at statistics and then declaring he/she knows whether poor kids benefit from going to school with middle class kids.

First, as someone noted earlier, the testing starts at third grade and there have been any number of changes (or not) going on in the earlier grades. Second, you have to look at whether there has been any noticeable improvement on the part of individual students over time, NOT AT AGGREGATE SCORES THAT COMPARE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF STUDENTS, which is what you're doing now. Third, you have to compare any change (or lack thereof) to a control group of poor students who have gone to school in majority poor schools.

You have done none of these things so you don't know whether poor students on average have benefited from going to school with middle-class students. But go on, continue to interpret the data in a way that makes you feel superior, because I know that nothing I say (even though I'm a senior researcher) will make a difference to you.

FTR, I haven't looked at the research myself but I know enough to know when I don't know the answer to something. You all think you're better educated than you actually are. If you don't want your kids to go to school with a lot of poor students, that's fine. I can accept that. But don't give us some bullshit about test scores when you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously, go back to school and take a research methods course.

Given there's no demonstrable difference in performance by SES grouping in more diverse vs. less diverse student bodies, I really don't see what longitudinal studies would add. I thing they would only be of any value if there were in fact some meaningful difference.

Please reread what I wrote. You are comparing apples and oranges in that you are taking scores from one group of students at time A and comparing them to a different group of students at time B. That is, a group of third graders takes a test and their scores are registered and organized by race, FARMS, whatever. The next year, a different group of third graders takes the test and their scores are organized by race, FARMS, whatever. So when you are comparing the scores from Time A and Time B, you're looking at scores from two different groups of kids. That doesn't tell you anything about whether anyone's performance improved.

And sorry guys this is not my area. I wish I had time to go to google scholar and review the literature for you but I did have other things I had to do today. But you could try it yourself. Go to scholar.google.com and try some search terms and see what comes up. I believe that this theory about kids from low SES benefiting from attending school with kids with high SES comes from James Coleman's work in the 60s. Now what research has been done since then (and I'm sure there's been plenty), I don't know. You may all be right in your views but you need to look at actual rigorous research that confirms them and you haven't done that yet.