S/O High SES students will perform well no matter their peer group

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’ll do y’all one better. How about you show me a study that shows wealthy white kids are harmed by SES/racial diversity?

Here's something addressing why students at "high poverty" schools are a disadantage.


https://www.thecommonwealthinstitute.org/2017/10/26/unequal-opportunities-fewer-resources-worse-outcomes-for-students-in-schools-with-concentrated-poverty/

I don't know the specifics of the OP's situation, but if studies show that high poverty schools are disadvantageous, are there any studies that show that higher SES students do just as well in high poverty schools as low poverty schools?

That’s high poverty. All studies show ideal is 30-50% low income. Sure, we don’t have enough to make all HS that level, but you start with breaking up Wilson and freeing sets for Coolidge and Roosevelt and then as people opt in, you can go east with Dunbar etc.

I'm not arguing with you about the concept. But if advocating, it would be helpful to have any studies showing that a higher SES Student (maybe one currently in a low poverty school) who is sent to a high poverty school, which I'm going to define as more than 30% FARMS, will do just as well as she would have at the low poverty school. I'm not picking a fight - just wanting to know if there are studies to back it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“research shows that middle-class students tend to do as well academically in economically mixed schools. But more than that, there's emerging research to suggest that, indeed, middle-class students benefit from both economic and racial diversity.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/03/16/5157886...ck-to-improve-student-outcomes

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/19/4460855...enefit-from-integrated-schools


https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-soci...ools-and-classrooms/?session=1

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ995900.pdf

NP here, but the only things the studies cite is that standardized test scores don't dip and kids "might" become more empathtic and work well in groups. The first one is too low and too general a fact to convince me that my particular kids would attend the same colleges they might if they were at Wilson. The second two are not science, but theory and unproven theory at that. Separately, Wilson is very diverse -- a lot more diverse than most other DC highschools.

*diverse for now. Won’t be diverse at all once Hardy is 90% IB and of Shepherd/Bancroft get booted like most want.

I’ll do y’all one better. How about you show me a study that shows wealthy white kids are harmed by SES/racial diversity?

By what definition? Most of these studies talk about standardized test scores and college-readiness. That is not the threshold for success that I want for my kids. I don't want them to aim for a middling college degree. And again, telling me that in general test scores don't dip doesn't convince me that my particular children won't see a difference in achievement if they attend a school like Coolidge where only 62% of freshman complete 9th grade in one year and with 0% of AP performance.

Your rich white kid will do just fine at Coolidge. If these kids can go to good colleges (and they are likely low income themselves) despite going to a school with low graduate rate (BECAUSE they are low income), the your wealthy white can excel too.

https://dcps.dc.gov/node/1411236
https://dcps.dc.gov/node/1410991
https://dcps.dc.gov/node/1409386

*they only featured 2 kids each school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you take the time to read the research linked in that thread or do you just want to start another racist/classist thread? There is a political forum for your type.

I am asking a very specific question. There are two separate points that are often conflated. One, that SES mixed schools (30-50 % disadvantaged) Provide academic benefits to low SES kids and high SES kids do fine (or maybe better). The second, what I am asking about, is that the education of the mother is the factor most correlated with a child’s academic success. The second is often used to support the argument that the success of a school doesn’t matter at all because your child will do well no matter what solely because of who the parents are. What I am asking whether and, if so, how those studies establish causation or otherwise account for the choices an educated mother will make on where she sends her children to school or it is pure correlation?

None of the linked research (to the extent it opens because some links are bad) address my question. Sending my child to a poorly performing school is a different question than sending my kids to an SES mixed school. I have zero problem with the second.

OP, I know people like you in real life. There is no study or analysis that could convince you that "High SES students will perform well no matter their peer group" because you have already made up your mind that you don't want to send your kid to a school where they might have a different peer group. You will find fault or ignore or nitpick any study or analysis that shows otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’ll do y’all one better. How about you show me a study that shows wealthy white kids are harmed by SES/racial diversity?

Here's something addressing why students at "high poverty" schools are a disadantage.


https://www.thecommonwealthinstitute.org/2017/10/26/unequal-opportunities-fewer-resources-worse-outcomes-for-students-in-schools-with-concentrated-poverty/

I don't know the specifics of the OP's situation, but if studies show that high poverty schools are disadvantageous, are there any studies that show that higher SES students do just as well in high poverty schools as low poverty schools?

That’s high poverty. All studies show ideal is 30-50% low income. Sure, we don’t have enough to make all HS that level, but you start with breaking up Wilson and freeing sets for Coolidge and Roosevelt and then as people opt in, you can go east with Dunbar etc.

I'm not arguing with you about the concept. But if advocating, it would be helpful to have any studies showing that a higher SES Student (maybe one currently in a low poverty school) who is sent to a high poverty school, which I'm going to define as more than 30% FARMS, will do just as well as she would have at the low poverty school. I'm not picking a fight - just wanting to know if there are studies to back it up.

Got you. No. I believe studies show that 50% is the threshold to avoid for that high income student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you take the time to read the research linked in that thread or do you just want to start another racist/classist thread? There is a political forum for your type.

I am asking a very specific question. There are two separate points that are often conflated. One, that SES mixed schools (30-50 % disadvantaged) Provide academic benefits to low SES kids and high SES kids do fine (or maybe better). The second, what I am asking about, is that the education of the mother is the factor most correlated with a child’s academic success. The second is often used to support the argument that the success of a school doesn’t matter at all because your child will do well no matter what solely because of who the parents are. What I am asking whether and, if so, how those studies establish causation or otherwise account for the choices an educated mother will make on where she sends her children to school or it is pure correlation?

None of the linked research (to the extent it opens because some links are bad) address my question. Sending my child to a poorly performing school is a different question than sending my kids to an SES mixed school. I have zero problem with the second.

OP, I know people like you in real life. There is no study or analysis that could convince you that "High SES students will perform well no matter their peer group" because you have already made up your mind that you don't want to send your kid to a school where they might have a different peer group. You will find fault or ignore or nitpick any study or analysis that shows otherwise.

+1. See McKinley, Banneker

[Anonymous]

Your kids will be fine because you are an educated mother. They will do even better in a better school, but the help of the school is not as important as having an educated mother. Peer group might take over at some point, but if your kid wants to learn and do well, he or she can do well in not so good school.
Peace and quiet at home, good food and lots of sleep + educated mother is more important than school.
I remember wanted my parents to be teachers and not farmers. All kids back in old country got the same education since all used same curriculum. Kids whose parents were teacher (code for educated), did a lot better than others in many cases. They had "library" in the house and interesting conversation with parents. I was told that I talk when chicken pees (chickens don't pee). I learned nothing from my parents and it put me way behind in everything, even manners and how to behave in public.

[Anonymous]

I'm not the OP. I'm a different person who genuinely would like to have available any studies to help change minds in my community - to calm fears about higher poverty schools. Any studies would be helpful.

And the PP who said it's all the extra reasources - I agree with you. I'm convinced the schools aren't doing that well with any students. The wealthier kids thrive becaues of the outside help.

Also, some people interested this issue aren't aiming for the top colleges or any other elitist outcome. I know this is taboo here, but some of us have . . . gasp . . . average or slightly above average kids and are looking to assuage our fears about schools with more concentrated poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you take the time to read the research linked in that thread or do you just want to start another racist/classist thread? There is a political forum for your type.

I am asking a very specific question. There are two separate points that are often conflated. One, that SES mixed schools (30-50 % disadvantaged) Provide academic benefits to low SES kids and high SES kids do fine (or maybe better). The second, what I am asking about, is that the education of the mother is the factor most correlated with a child’s academic success. The second is often used to support the argument that the success of a school doesn’t matter at all because your child will do well no matter what solely because of who the parents are. What I am asking whether and, if so, how those studies establish causation or otherwise account for the choices an educated mother will make on where she sends her children to school or it is pure correlation?

None of the linked research (to the extent it opens because some links are bad) address my question. Sending my child to a poorly performing school is a different question than sending my kids to an SES mixed school. I have zero problem with the second.

OP, I know people like you in real life. There is no study or analysis that could convince you that "High SES students will perform well no matter their peer group" because you have already made up your mind that you don't want to send your kid to a school where they might have a different peer group. You will find fault or ignore or nitpick any study or analysis that shows otherwise.

And I know people like you, you do not have the facts so you choose to name call. The unwillingness to engage on the facts and call names speaks volumes about you but it does not further the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you take the time to read the research linked in that thread or do you just want to start another racist/classist thread? There is a political forum for your type.

I am asking a very specific question. There are two separate points that are often conflated. One, that SES mixed schools (30-50 % disadvantaged) Provide academic benefits to low SES kids and high SES kids do fine (or maybe better). The second, what I am asking about, is that the education of the mother is the factor most correlated with a child’s academic success. The second is often used to support the argument that the success of a school doesn’t matter at all because your child will do well no matter what solely because of who the parents are. What I am asking whether and, if so, how those studies establish causation or otherwise account for the choices an educated mother will make on where she sends her children to school or it is pure correlation?

None of the linked research (to the extent it opens because some links are bad) address my question. Sending my child to a poorly performing school is a different question than sending my kids to an SES mixed school. I have zero problem with the second.

OP, I know people like you in real life. There is no study or analysis that could convince you that "High SES students will perform well no matter their peer group" because you have already made up your mind that you don't want to send your kid to a school where they might have a different peer group. You will find fault or ignore or nitpick any study or analysis that shows otherwise.

+1. See McKinley, Banneker

OP here. McKinley and Banneker are high performing application schools, they are exactly what I am not asking about. And they are very different from Roosevelt or Ballou.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“research shows that middle-class students tend to do as well academically in economically mixed schools. But more than that, there's emerging research to suggest that, indeed, middle-class students benefit from both economic and racial diversity.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/03/16/5157886...ck-to-improve-student-outcomes

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/19/4460855...enefit-from-integrated-schools


https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-soci...ools-and-classrooms/?session=1

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ995900.pdf

NP here, but the only things the studies cite is that standardized test scores don't dip and kids "might" become more empathtic and work well in groups. The first one is too low and too general a fact to convince me that my particular kids would attend the same colleges they might if they were at Wilson. The second two are not science, but theory and unproven theory at that. Separately, Wilson is very diverse -- a lot more diverse than most other DC highschools.

*diverse for now. Won’t be diverse at all once Hardy is 90% IB and of Shepherd/Bancroft get booted like most want.

I’ll do y’all one better. How about you show me a study that shows wealthy white kids are harmed by SES/racial diversity?

By what definition? Most of these studies talk about standardized test scores and college-readiness. That is not the threshold for success that I want for my kids. I don't want them to aim for a middling college degree. And again, telling me that in general test scores don't dip doesn't convince me that my particular children won't see a difference in achievement if they attend a school like Coolidge where only 62% of freshman complete 9th grade in one year and with 0% of AP performance.

Your rich white kid will do just fine at Coolidge. If these kids can go to good colleges (and they are likely low income themselves) despite going to a school with low graduate rate (BECAUSE they are low income), the your wealthy white can excel too.

https://dcps.dc.gov/node/1411236
https://dcps.dc.gov/node/1410991
https://dcps.dc.gov/node/1409386

*they only featured 2 kids each school

You are taking 3 people and extrapolating.

But lets poke a little further into these bios:

1) Tenyeh Dixon --- is a football recruit. https://247sports.com/Player/Tenyeh-Dixon-46051046/


2) Betelhem Mekonnen (C’23), an incoming first-year student from Washington, DC, says Georgetown’s pre-college programs prepared her well as she transitions into being a student at a top university...Mekonnen, a valedictorian of Coolidge High School in Northwest DC, took part in Georgetown’s College Exposure-Dual Enrollment Program, which allows high school seniors from DC public schools to enroll in courses at local universities.

-CMEA college preparatory programs join a number of others across campus that reinforce the university’s commitment to improved access to higher education for students from diverse cultural and economic backgrounds.

-- So she's the valedictorian and got into a program designed for students who are disadvantaged.

3) Olinda Rodriguez -- won one of 24 FCBA scholarships given to DC high schoolers. Additionally, GW ranks 70th by USN. Not my goal for my kid.

Thrilled for all these kids, but I don't see how these three kids tell me anything about how my kids will perform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you take the time to read the research linked in that thread or do you just want to start another racist/classist thread? There is a political forum for your type.

I am asking a very specific question. There are two separate points that are often conflated. One, that SES mixed schools (30-50 % disadvantaged) Provide academic benefits to low SES kids and high SES kids do fine (or maybe better). The second, what I am asking about, is that the education of the mother is the factor most correlated with a child’s academic success. The second is often used to support the argument that the success of a school doesn’t matter at all because your child will do well no matter what solely because of who the parents are. What I am asking whether and, if so, how those studies establish causation or otherwise account for the choices an educated mother will make on where she sends her children to school or it is pure correlation?

None of the linked research (to the extent it opens because some links are bad) address my question. Sending my child to a poorly performing school is a different question than sending my kids to an SES mixed school. I have zero problem with the second.

OP, I know people like you in real life. There is no study or analysis that could convince you that "High SES students will perform well no matter their peer group" because you have already made up your mind that you don't want to send your kid to a school where they might have a different peer group. You will find fault or ignore or nitpick any study or analysis that shows otherwise.

+1. See McKinley, Banneker

OP here. McKinley and Banneker are high performing application schools, they are exactly what I am not asking about. And they are very different from Roosevelt or Ballou.

I agree, OP. They are.

I have a friend whose white son attends McKinley and LOVES it. I would never send my kid to coolidge or ballou or Roosevelt, but I would to a test-in school.

[Anonymous]

There are no studies that would show what would happen to your specific child under specific different scenarios. We only have general studies and averages. Your child could end up with the "wrong crowd" at Wilson, could end up a "star pupil" at Coolidge, or "hate school" at McKinley. We cannot see the future, or any number of given circumstances that could impact the way your child turns out.

Generally speaking, your child will be "fine." Fine means a happy, healthy, fully functioning adult with a college education, capable of supporting themselves/their family and contributing to society. For most people, this scenario is all you could want for a child.

If you want "more" than that, then yes, you probably need to figure out some different ways to give your kids more of an advantage. Maybe that is private tutoring, sports coaching, art lessons, music school, etc. Maybe that is a different High School, Private School, Homeschool, etc. Maybe it is Harvard or bust. Maybe it is the Olympics or failure. But those types of goals are not what most people expect for their kids. And therefore, most studies will not tell you whether your future Harvard/Olympian/Presidential candidate/Supreme Court Justice/etc will be "fine" at any high school in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you take the time to read the research linked in that thread or do you just want to start another racist/classist thread? There is a political forum for your type.

I am asking a very specific question. There are two separate points that are often conflated. One, that SES mixed schools (30-50 % disadvantaged) Provide academic benefits to low SES kids and high SES kids do fine (or maybe better). The second, what I am asking about, is that the education of the mother is the factor most correlated with a child’s academic success. The second is often used to support the argument that the success of a school doesn’t matter at all because your child will do well no matter what solely because of who the parents are. What I am asking whether and, if so, how those studies establish causation or otherwise account for the choices an educated mother will make on where she sends her children to school or it is pure correlation?

None of the linked research (to the extent it opens because some links are bad) address my question. Sending my child to a poorly performing school is a different question than sending my kids to an SES mixed school. I have zero problem with the second.

OP, I know people like you in real life. There is no study or analysis that could convince you that "High SES students will perform well no matter their peer group" because you have already made up your mind that you don't want to send your kid to a school where they might have a different peer group. You will find fault or ignore or nitpick any study or analysis that shows otherwise.

+1. See McKinley, Banneker

OP here. McKinley and Banneker are high performing application schools, they are exactly what I am not asking about. And they are very different from Roosevelt or Ballou.

Wasn’t referring to the OP, but the PP. I agree with him/her. Adding why white folks don’t apply to Banneker. But best believe they will start in 5/6 years when the city does Cjoice Sets for high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are no studies that would show what would happen to your specific child under specific different scenarios. We only have general studies and averages. Your child could end up with the "wrong crowd" at Wilson, could end up a "star pupil" at Coolidge, or "hate school" at McKinley. We cannot see the future, or any number of given circumstances that could impact the way your child turns out.

Generally speaking, your child will be "fine." Fine means a happy, healthy, fully functioning adult with a college education, capable of supporting themselves/their family and contributing to society. For most people, this scenario is all you could want for a child.

If you want "more" than that, then yes, you probably need to figure out some different ways to give your kids more of an advantage. Maybe that is private tutoring, sports coaching, art lessons, music school, etc. Maybe that is a different High School, Private School, Homeschool, etc. Maybe it is Harvard or bust. Maybe it is the Olympics or failure. But those types of goals are not what most people expect for their kids. And therefore, most studies will not tell you whether your future Harvard/Olympian/Presidential candidate/Supreme Court Justice/etc will be "fine" at any high school in DC.

I like you. Also +1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you take the time to read the research linked in that thread or do you just want to start another racist/classist thread? There is a political forum for your type.

I am asking a very specific question. There are two separate points that are often conflated. One, that SES mixed schools (30-50 % disadvantaged) Provide academic benefits to low SES kids and high SES kids do fine (or maybe better). The second, what I am asking about, is that the education of the mother is the factor most correlated with a child’s academic success. The second is often used to support the argument that the success of a school doesn’t matter at all because your child will do well no matter what solely because of who the parents are. What I am asking whether and, if so, how those studies establish causation or otherwise account for the choices an educated mother will make on where she sends her children to school or it is pure correlation?

None of the linked research (to the extent it opens because some links are bad) address my question. Sending my child to a poorly performing school is a different question than sending my kids to an SES mixed school. I have zero problem with the second.

OP, I know people like you in real life. There is no study or analysis that could convince you that "High SES students will perform well no matter their peer group" because you have already made up your mind that you don't want to send your kid to a school where they might have a different peer group. You will find fault or ignore or nitpick any study or analysis that shows otherwise.

+1. See McKinley, Banneker

There's a world of difference between sending your white kid to Banneker, and sending them to say Ballou with 65% 1s on the PARCC ELA. I get why we're having this conversation, and I agree that white parents are often racist, but I don't think it helps to deny the truth that most parents, period, would wish for a better school than Ballou. I also think it can be counter-productive to deny the problems in these schools, because upper SES parents freak out and over-react when they start to see some of the difficulties and develop even more entrenched prejudices (saw this in action with our zoned middle school.) Better to acknowledge that, to a degree, high-poverty/all-black schools can be very difficult and poorly resources places because they are, of course, the product of our existing inequalities.