NYT article on easing academic pressure and a cultural divide

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In the article, it sounds like the Asian parents who had their kids in advanced math classes wanted it to continue. Not sure why people who did not have their kid in the program should have any say in the matter.

The administrators of a public school district do not base their policy decisions solely on parents' stated desires. Nor should they.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm Asian, and I don't like the uber competitiveness and stress that some of these kids are going through. Having stated that, I do find it curious that many white parents are now complaining about this type of competitive culture that Asian American kids bring to the table, but all was ok when the wealthier white kids were able to succeed, but the poorer kids (mostly minorities) couldn't keep up. This reminds me a bit of the recent article about how the public wants to treat drug addicts differently now that it's affecting more affluent white kids.

Ding Ding Ding.

I'm the poster who grew up in this district. Had one Asian American classmate who committed suicide when he got a B on his report card(this was in high school). Not clear from the article the ethnicity of the kid who drew a cartoon of his parent telling him getting an A instead of A plus on a calculus test was a "disgrace" but don't think it is correct that the pressure cooker atmosphere only negatively affects white kids. This school district is affluent and has never had an issue with disadvantaged kids being hurt by community standa dis being too high. Nice attempt to try to avoid the real issues though.

I'm the PPP. I'm not talking about just this one area, but in general. It's human nature to feel threatened when you hold all the cards and now are threatened. This is how the WASPS felt when Jews started to increase their numbers in the Ivies. What did the WASPS do? They decided to change the admission criteria to weed more of the Jews out.

You have to be living under a rock to think that lower income kids are not disadvantaged compared to the wealthy kids in terms of schooling. We live in a very mixed SES area. A lot if not all of the writing HW, and some in class work, in my kids' ES are done on the computer. I was volunteering one day in my DC's 2nd grade class when they were doing research on the computer. One kid couldn't finish the research so I said something like "You can try to finish it at home if you want." The kid said, "I don't have a computer at home". You don't think this curriculum that required access to a computer affected this kid's ability to keep up in school? And now adays, so much of the standardized tests are on computers. My 2nd grader is pretty good on the computer now... knows where all the letters/numbers are on the keyboard. For kids that don't have computers, it takes them a looong time to type anything. This alone affects their ability to be competitive.

That's sad! In my hometown when I was visiting this fall, I noticed that the public library has great kids' computer kiosks and seemed to function as an after school center for older kids (looked like 2nd grade on up). Too bad DC doesn't have similar.

All DC public libraries have computers for children use only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely accurate, with one exception. The reason the Asian parents support the competitive schooling is because that's how it works in Korea and some other countries. It's not because they are immigrants. Apparently, even the competition and stress described in the article are nothing compared to the stress of going to school in Korea. It's a kind of imported culture that has filtered into the schools. However, I have a hard time believing that all the Asian parents support it - I know many Asian parents here in the DC area who agree that the stress and competition is not good for kids. They just don't see a way to opt out without disadvantaging their children.

My son has two Korean kids in his class, whose families moved here "solely" to get away from the brutal competition in Korean schools. It must be crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In the article, it sounds like the Asian parents who had their kids in advanced math classes wanted it to continue. Not sure why people who did not have their kid in the program should have any say in the matter.

The administrators of a public school district do not base their policy decisions solely on parents' stated desires. Nor should they.

Thus the article and controversy in Princeton. Getting rid of a program that is 90% Asian smells of politics. Kind of similar to why DC does not have a gifted and talented test-in (not application) program because the kids in it will be mostly white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In the article, it sounds like the Asian parents who had their kids in advanced math classes wanted it to continue. Not sure why people who did not have their kid in the program should have any say in the matter.

The administrators of a public school district do not base their policy decisions solely on parents' stated desires. Nor should they.

Thus the article and controversy in Princeton. Getting rid of a program that is 90% Asian smells of politics. Kind of similar to why DC does not have a gifted and talented test-in (not application) program because the kids in it will be mostly white.

Not necessarily. Or, it depends on what you mean by "politics".

What are the demographics of this particular school district, and what does "Asian" mean, in this particular context?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In the article, it sounds like the Asian parents who had their kids in advanced math classes wanted it to continue. Not sure why people who did not have their kid in the program should have any say in the matter.

The administrators of a public school district do not base their policy decisions solely on parents' stated desires. Nor should they.

Thus the article and controversy in Princeton. Getting rid of a program that is 90% Asian smells of politics. Kind of similar to why DC does not have a gifted and talented test-in (not application) program because the kids in it will be mostly white.

the students there are overburdened, stressed out and juggling too many demands. Apparently, this doesn't bother the Asian parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm Asian, and I don't like the uber competitiveness and stress that some of these kids are going through. Having stated that, I do find it curious that many white parents are now complaining about this type of competitive culture that Asian American kids bring to the table, but all was ok when the wealthier white kids were able to succeed, but the poorer kids (mostly minorities) couldn't keep up. This reminds me a bit of the recent article about how the public wants to treat drug addicts differently now that it's affecting more affluent white kids.

Ding Ding Ding.

I'm the poster who grew up in this district. Had one Asian American classmate who committed suicide when he got a B on his report card(this was in high school). Not clear from the article the ethnicity of the kid who drew a cartoon of his parent telling him getting an A instead of A plus on a calculus test was a "disgrace" but don't think it is correct that the pressure cooker atmosphere only negatively affects white kids. This school district is affluent and has never had an issue with disadvantaged kids being hurt by community standa dis being too high. Nice attempt to try to avoid the real issues though.

I'm the PPP. I'm not talking about just this one area, but in general. It's human nature to feel threatened when you hold all the cards and now are threatened. This is how the WASPS felt when Jews started to increase their numbers in the Ivies. What did the WASPS do? They decided to change the admission criteria to weed more of the Jews out.

You have to be living under a rock to think that lower income kids are not disadvantaged compared to the wealthy kids in terms of schooling. We live in a very mixed SES area. A lot if not all of the writing HW, and some in class work, in my kids' ES are done on the computer. I was volunteering one day in my DC's 2nd grade class when they were doing research on the computer. One kid couldn't finish the research so I said something like "You can try to finish it at home if you want." The kid said, "I don't have a computer at home". You don't think this curriculum that required access to a computer affected this kid's ability to keep up in school? And now adays, so much of the standardized tests are on computers. My 2nd grader is pretty good on the computer now... knows where all the letters/numbers are on the keyboard. For kids that don't have computers, it takes them a looong time to type anything. This alone affects their ability to be competitive.

This has nothing to do with what the article is about, not saying it isn't a valid issue, just not relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I don't understand is cutting out advanced math until 6th grade in the article. If some parents don't want their darling "pressured" don't they have the option to opt out?!? The school system got rid of a program that was 90% Asian when it sounds like the people who were utilizing it, wanted it.

Taking college courses for advanced credit is voluntary. But they got rid of that too.

Crazy.

Maybe the school system thought it was not a good idea for the 9-year-olds to have such advanced math under such high pressure. In fact, that is what the article says. Did you read it?

MCPS got rid of math acceleration until fourth grade, in a math progression where grade-level math gets you to Calculus AB in 12th grade, and from reading DCUM, you'd think the world was coming to an end and MCPS IS DELIBERATELY TRYING TO RUIN THE LIVES OF SMART CHILDREN!1!!1.

In the article, it sounds like the Asian parents who had their kids in advanced math classes wanted it to continue. Not sure why people who did not have their kid in the program should have any say in the matter.

They can still continue, it's not like the district got rid of advanced math entirely, it just starts two years later. Most of those kids are getting outside enrichment anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^messed up the quotation marks.

The question is, what does "care deeply about education" mean?

Everyone has a different definition thus the culture wars at Princeton.

It's not Princeton, it's Princeton Junction, entirely different school system. Princeton is actually far less of a pressure cooker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In the article, it sounds like the Asian parents who had their kids in advanced math classes wanted it to continue. Not sure why people who did not have their kid in the program should have any say in the matter.

The administrators of a public school district do not base their policy decisions solely on parents' stated desires. Nor should they.

Thus the article and controversy in Princeton. Getting rid of a program that is 90% Asian smells of politics. Kind of similar to why DC does not have a gifted and talented test-in (not application) program because the kids in it will be mostly white.

Not necessarily. Or, it depends on what you mean by "politics".

What are the demographics of this particular school district, and what does "Asian" mean, in this particular context?

In the article, the school is 65% Asian and the controversy is along racial lines. Asian meaning children of recent highly trained professional Asian immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In the article, the school is 65% Asian and the controversy is along racial lines. Asian meaning children of recent highly trained professional Asian immigrants.

65% of the school district is children of recent, highly-trained professional immigrants from Asia (where in Asia? it's a big continent)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^messed up the quotation marks.

The question is, what does "care deeply about education" mean?

Everyone has a different definition thus the culture wars at Princeton.

It's not Princeton, it's Princeton Junction, entirely different school system. Princeton is actually far less of a pressure cooker.

Yes, Princeton Junction - We have relatives who live there. They are Jewish, their adopted Asian son attends HS there. They like the school system as is but their daughter graduated and their son is almost done. Haven't heard any "pressure cooker" complaints but we are an Asian + Jewish family and culturally don't complain about academics being too rigorous.

The log jam seems completely divided along racial lines, Asians and whites (not necessarily Jews).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In the article, it sounds like the Asian parents who had their kids in advanced math classes wanted it to continue. Not sure why people who did not have their kid in the program should have any say in the matter.

The administrators of a public school district do not base their policy decisions solely on parents' stated desires. Nor should they.

Thus the article and controversy in Princeton. Getting rid of a program that is 90% Asian smells of politics. Kind of similar to why DC does not have a gifted and talented test-in (not application) program because the kids in it will be mostly white.

I wonder if people ever bother to read the article before commenting on it. The superintendent was worried about the recent suicide clusters at schools in Palo Alto and Newton, schools with similar demographics, i.e. affluent with high percentage of Asian. In Palo Alto, a number of the suicides were Asian males. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-silicon-valley-suicides/413140/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In the article, the school is 65% Asian and the controversy is along racial lines. Asian meaning children of recent highly trained professional Asian immigrants.

65% of the school district is children of recent, highly-trained professional immigrants from Asia (where in Asia? it's a big continent)?

Read the article sounds mostly like Chinese, Kirean, Taiwanese

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In the article, it sounds like the Asian parents who had their kids in advanced math classes wanted it to continue. Not sure why people who did not have their kid in the program should have any say in the matter.

The administrators of a public school district do not base their policy decisions solely on parents' stated desires. Nor should they.

Thus the article and controversy in Princeton. Getting rid of a program that is 90% Asian smells of politics. Kind of similar to why DC does not have a gifted and talented test-in (not application) program because the kids in it will be mostly white.

I wonder if people ever bother to read the article before commenting on it. The superintendent was worried about the recent suicide clusters at schools in Palo Alto and Newton, schools with similar demographics, i.e. affluent with high percentage of Asian. In Palo Alto, a number of the suicides were Asian males. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-silicon-valley-suicides/413140/

PP again, in addition, teachers were spotting suicidal thoughts in a number of the student's writing in Princeton Junction. Seems like the administration is more concerned with the whole child than the parents.