The Evidence That White Children Benefit From Integrated Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article is so timely (based on that other thread).

Link: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/19/446085513/the-evidence-that-white-children-benefit-from-integrated-schools?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2044

No evidence there, just some correlational data that can be used to claim one thing and the opposite.

Evidence would mean a randomized controlled trial -- take 100 white kids from TJ, send them to Anacostia, and see what happens compared to the ones that stayed at TJ. Or take 100 black kids from Anacostia, send them to TJ, and see what happens to scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread was about why white families avoid all-black schools. All-black schools are not "integrated." They lack diversity.

1. Their test scores won't be any lower.

The federal government just released a report looking at the black-white achievement gap. It found something remarkable: "White student achievement in schools with the highest Black student density did not differ from White student achievement in schools with the lowest density."

Translation: After controlling for socioeconomic status, white students essentially had the same test scores whether they went to a school that was overwhelmingly white or one that was overwhelmingly black.

You should actually read the article before commenting.

They controlled for SES and "other school, teacher and student characteristics". It's easy to put your thumb on the scale when doing this.

Simply stated and to the point while being insightful, I believe they cherry picked their stats to come up with a preconceived conclusion. How many schools are there really with large pockets of equivalent SES minorities? Our country simply isn't constructed like that. What this study glosses over is most schools with large black populations have large SES problems too and truth be told is that sending white kids to minority schools often means sending them to poor(er) schools and all the problems that it entails.

Also DC segregation is almost without exception SES inversely proportional where the all white schools are very rich and the all black schools are very poor which disqualifies the majority of the controls in this test. The few exceptions people like to point out like Wilson and Blair are really the tale of two schools that use size and scale to mask their SES failings. Blair imports 15% of it's students by cherry picking mostly well off high performers masking the 85% and Wilson doesn't graduate almost 25% of its students.

I simply don't buy the premise that you can lesson plan to compensate for peer and environmental influences brought on by being surrounded by low achievers. Elites chose to surround themselves with other elites for a reason, to keep the power close hold. Pick a Supreme Court justice who didn't go to an Ivy league school, pick the last president who didn't. Walk in the halls of any government building and there is painting after painting of old elite white men. Do you think these movers and shakers developed their social network at Dunbar? Now is it fair that the elites for the most part haven't allowed women or minorities, of course not but that doesn't change the fact that there is a huge demographic SES gap and true apples to apples comparisons don't really exit often in the real world.

I will continue to surround my kids in the best private academies and neighborhoods I can afford and welcome all races, creeds and orientations that come or are present but deep down I know there won't be many that it isn't a real representation of the world. I just hope that the voids in perspective and tolerance will be offset by social status and the freedom that only resources can empower. I honestly rather produce an asshole CEO than a balanced landscaper/ art teacher whatever.

[Anonymous]

I think that a better understanding of the article is that white kids aren't harmed by being in majority minority schools, rather than benefiting.

However, I will say that I do see some advantages from having my child in an integrated school (50/30/20 B/H/W), and it's a mixed blessing like most blessings.

One one hand, parent involvement in the PTA and other activities is lower, mostly for socioeconomic and language reasons. This leaves a lot of work to a small group of middle-class English-speaking parents.

On the other, the benefit I see is that I feel like my kids are more resilient and independent than their average peers at majority white schools. Again, because of economic issues, parents at the school expect a lot of their kids in terms of walking home alone, helping with siblings, etc. In recognition of this, I feel like the school gives all of the kids more freedom and independence.

[Anonymous]

Pick a Supreme Court justice who didn't go to an Ivy league school

John Paul Stevens, for one.

[Anonymous]

And Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren, Warren Burger, and Huge Black. Many more where that came from. Same with presidents.

My god you are small-minded.

[Anonymous]

Pick a Supreme Court justice who didn't go to an Ivy league school, pick the last president who didn't.

You are absolutely right, but we're not talking about law school here or even undergraduate. We're talking about grade school. So...

Antonin Scalia (son of immigrants) went to public elementary school and then an all-boys Jesuit high school

Sonia Sotomayor (daughter of immigrants) lived in a tenement house, and then a multi-ethnic neighborhood. She attended a local parochial school

Samuel Alito (son of immigrants) attended public schools

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (daughter of immigrants) attended public schools

Clarence Thomas (son of a farm worker and a domestic laborer) attended public schools

Stephen Breyer attended a public magnet school


My takeaway from this is that if I want my kids to be friends with future Supreme Court justices, I should send them to public school with working class immigrant families.

[Anonymous]

I would certainly rather produce a well-balanced schoolteacher than a psychopathic CEO (most of them are, imo). I suppose a lot of it depends on whether you aspire to true nobility or the fake one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Simply stated and to the point while being insightful, I believe they cherry picked their stats to come up with a preconceived conclusion. How many schools are there really with large pockets of equivalent SES minorities? Our country simply isn't constructed like that. What this study glosses over is most schools with large black populations have large SES problems too and truth be told is that sending white kids to minority schools often means sending them to poor(er) schools and all the problems that it entails.

Also DC segregation is almost without exception SES inversely proportional where the all white schools are very rich and the all black schools are very poor which disqualifies the majority of the controls in this test. The few exceptions people like to point out like Wilson and Blair are really the tale of two schools that use size and scale to mask their SES failings. Blair imports 15% of it's students by cherry picking mostly well off high performers masking the 85% and Wilson doesn't graduate almost 25% of its students.

I simply don't buy the premise that you can lesson plan to compensate for peer and environmental influences brought on by being surrounded by low achievers. Elites chose to surround themselves with other elites for a reason, to keep the power close hold. Pick a Supreme Court justice who didn't go to an Ivy league school, pick the last president who didn't. Walk in the halls of any government building and there is painting after painting of old elite white men. Do you think these movers and shakers developed their social network at Dunbar? Now is it fair that the elites for the most part haven't allowed women or minorities, of course not but that doesn't change the fact that there is a huge demographic SES gap and true apples to apples comparisons don't really exit often in the real world.

I will continue to surround my kids in the best private academies and neighborhoods I can afford and welcome all races, creeds and orientations that come or are present but deep down I know there won't be many that it isn't a real representation of the world. I just hope that the voids in perspective and tolerance will be offset by social status and the freedom that only resources can empower. I honestly rather produce an asshole CEO than a balanced landscaper/ art teacher whatever.

I'm more interested in raising a happy well-rounded person to be who they choose to be than "producing a CEO" (wtf helicopter mom).

Quick question: would you have gender reassignment surgery to ensure that your progeny only develop into old white men? Your statistics and faulty logic...

[Anonymous]

I will continue to surround my kids in the best private academies and neighborhoods I can afford and welcome all races, creeds and orientations that come or are present but deep down I know there won't be many that it isn't a real representation of the world. I just hope that the voids in perspective and tolerance will be offset by social status and the freedom that only resources can empower. I honestly rather produce an asshole CEO than a balanced landscaper/ art teacher whatever.

Why hope for perspective and tolerance when you obviously don't value or need them? It sounds like a world full of assholes is your ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would certainly rather produce a well-balanced schoolteacher than a psychopathic CEO (most of them are, imo). I suppose a lot of it depends on whether you aspire to true nobility or the fake one.

You obviously have no clue about executive positions. Quite down and go back to putting the carts away at walmart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would certainly rather produce a well-balanced schoolteacher than a psychopathic CEO (most of them are, imo). I suppose a lot of it depends on whether you aspire to true nobility or the fake one.

You obviously have no clue about executive positions. Quite down and go back to putting the carts away at walmart.

LOL, troll. Get back to your executiving, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would certainly rather produce a well-balanced schoolteacher than a psychopathic CEO (most of them are, imo). I suppose a lot of it depends on whether you aspire to true nobility or the fake one.

You obviously have no clue about executive positions. Quite down and go back to putting the carts away at walmart.

Yuck, yuck! I work with them all the time. Puppets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wilson HS is an example of a good school, with white and black (and many other) students, rich kids, poor kids, kids who live in mansions, kids who live in small apartments, kids from all over the world, the whole thing. This is the closest thing DC has to what this article is talking about. And yes, the white kids clearly do quite well, and I think all the kids in that building are have a richer high school experience. So, academics and social benefits come together.

But that only works because the Wilson has all the academic and extracurricular offerings. That's where the article differs from what could apply in DC. No way the schools in DC are even remotely equal in quality and offerings, even schools that are just blocks apart. So, even if there were some social benefit to more diversity, I doubt the academic outcome would remain the same without some serious supplementing. In which case, the inequalities stay the same, even if the classrooms themselves look different.

First you fix the schools. THEN (all caps!) you start talking about moving kids around.

How do you fix the schools when the majority of kids don't care, and are prone to violence and low achievement? Until you fix the students, the schools will NOT change. It's not the schools failing the students. It's the students failing the schools. Until this problem, we cannot fix the schools.

[Anonymous]

How do you fix the schools when the majority of kids don't care, and are prone to violence and low achievement? Until you fix the students, the schools will NOT change. It's not the schools failing the students. It's the students failing the schools. Until this problem, we cannot fix the schools.

Is this sarcasm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread was about why white families avoid all-black schools. All-black schools are not "integrated." They lack diversity.

1. Their test scores won't be any lower.

The federal government just released a report looking at the black-white achievement gap. It found something remarkable: "White student achievement in schools with the highest Black student density did not differ from White student achievement in schools with the lowest density."

Translation: After controlling for socioeconomic status, white students essentially had the same test scores whether they went to a school that was overwhelmingly white or one that was overwhelmingly black.

You should actually read the article before commenting.

They controlled for SES and "other school, teacher and student characteristics". It's easy to put your thumb on the scale when doing this.

Simply stated and to the point while being insightful, I believe they cherry picked their stats to come up with a preconceived conclusion. How many schools are there really with large pockets of equivalent SES minorities? Our country simply isn't constructed like that. What this study glosses over is most schools with large black populations have large SES problems too and truth be told is that sending white kids to minority schools often means sending them to poor(er) schools and all the problems that it entails.

Also DC segregation is almost without exception SES inversely proportional where the all white schools are very rich and the all black schools are very poor which disqualifies the majority of the controls in this test. The few exceptions people like to point out like Wilson and Blair are really the tale of two schools that use size and scale to mask their SES failings. Blair imports 15% of it's students by cherry picking mostly well off high performers masking the 85% and Wilson doesn't graduate almost 25% of its students.

I simply don't buy the premise that you can lesson plan to compensate for peer and environmental influences brought on by being surrounded by low achievers. Elites chose to surround themselves with other elites for a reason, to keep the power close hold. Pick a Supreme Court justice who didn't go to an Ivy league school, pick the last president who didn't. Walk in the halls of any government building and there is painting after painting of old elite white men. Do you think these movers and shakers developed their social network at Dunbar? Now is it fair that the elites for the most part haven't allowed women or minorities, of course not but that doesn't change the fact that there is a huge demographic SES gap and true apples to apples comparisons don't really exit often in the real world.

I will continue to surround my kids in the best private academies and neighborhoods I can afford and welcome all races, creeds and orientations that come or are present but deep down I know there won't be many that it isn't a real representation of the world. I just hope that the voids in perspective and tolerance will be offset by social status and the freedom that only resources can empower. I honestly rather produce an asshole CEO than a balanced landscaper/ art teacher whatever.

Boy, this rankles me, but I appreciate your honesty, and, I have a feeling many people share your view (even if just a little bit), although I'll bet they'd never admit it. I'm the Wilson PP, and I think my point still stands; it's the overall blend that works. Total success? No, but I'm sure the Brooklyn school doesn't have it either. But those 25% that don't graduate don't seem to affect the success of those that do and go on to do great things (Warren Buffett, CEO: Wilson HS).

Incidentally, I do think you can find success in many environments, but it is a rare thing to find it in low achieving school. I think what you are describing is basically a risk analysis, and you are not willing to bet on your kid coming out a well-connected Supreme Court justice out of Dunbar.

I'm going to take your words as meaning you are doing what every one of us is doing: looking at all the factors and making your best judgment based on your experiences, concerns, and goals. We don't have to all agree on which factors are more important than others.