MoCo is diverse, for sure, but MCPS schools are not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:those who complain about not being treated equal in terms of schools, housing etc. never mentioned the inequality in tax paying.

I agree and the illegals don't pay a dime and use up so much of the taxes towards ESOL, FARMS, lower class ratios. But yes, let's do more.

Oh, here we go. Can't people just be poor, or just recent immigrants? Must they be stuck with the epithet "illegal"? People on these threads are so hateful sometimes.

Oh that is right, we don't have any illegal immigrants breaking federal laws and expecting free daycare in our public school system. My bad. They are all recent immigrants. Is that a new liberal term?

Actually they are not all recent immigrants. Half of the adults in the US who are unauthorized immigrants have been in the US for at least 13 years. One-fifth have been in the US for 20 years or more. Only 15% have been in the US for less than 5 years. And almost four in ten live with their US-born children.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/09/03/as-growth-stalls-unauthorized-immigrant-population-becomes-more-settled/

But I'm impressed that the PP has interviewed a representative sample of unauthorized immigrants in order to determine that they send their children to public school because it's free daycare. PP should publish PP's results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not the education it's the lack of intellectually motivated peer group that is objectionable. The school district sets a county wide curriculum and all schools follow it. It's the implementation that differs and the implementation differs because of the student population that the material is presented to. For example, let's say Hamlet is a required read for all 11th graders in MCPS. One school might cover the book in 2 weeks and have a multiple choice exam at the end. Another school might cover the material over 4 weeks, require small group discussions, essays, and class presentations to invoke thoughtful discussion. The material as manadated to be covered is met by both schools. The education that the school board can control is the same. The insights and in depth learning that comes from being surrounded by like motivated peers is not something that the school board controls through its curriculum. For the school system, the curriculum is the education. The education is the same across all schools.

This is like saying that if you go to a fancy restaurant for dinner, the dinner is the same if they put you in the best table in the restaurant vs. the table next to the bathrooms.

It also completely overlooks the proven fact that if you put poor kids in a non-poor school, the poor kids benefit from that intellectually-motivated peer group. That's the whole point. A poor kid does better in a non-poor school than in a high-poverty school. That's why economic segregation is bad for poor kids.

I totally agree that improving the peer group will improve a child's educational achievement. But what's the solution? How many underachieving kids can you move into a high achieving school before the school is no longer high achieving? Will you ever be able to move enough underachieving kids to make a difference in the achievement gap? Or will the high achieving kids' parents decide to pull them out before you get there?

[Anonymous]

I find that study unreliable in measuring classroom diversity.
It separates students into only three classifications, Latino, Black, White.
The white classification in that study includes Asian, Middle Eastern, North African and children of mixed heritage whose skin tone is light, a very diverse group by itself.
They should have separate it by second generation Caucasian Americans. It would have shown if "white" immigration into certain urban areas effected traditional ethnic balance/unbalance in schools and, the effects on scholastic achievement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not the education it's the lack of intellectually motivated peer group that is objectionable. The school district sets a county wide curriculum and all schools follow it. It's the implementation that differs and the implementation differs because of the student population that the material is presented to. For example, let's say Hamlet is a required read for all 11th graders in MCPS. One school might cover the book in 2 weeks and have a multiple choice exam at the end. Another school might cover the material over 4 weeks, require small group discussions, essays, and class presentations to invoke thoughtful discussion. The material as manadated to be covered is met by both schools. The education that the school board can control is the same. The insights and in depth learning that comes from being surrounded by like motivated peers is not something that the school board controls through its curriculum. For the school system, the curriculum is the education. The education is the same across all schools.

This is like saying that if you go to a fancy restaurant for dinner, the dinner is the same if they put you in the best table in the restaurant vs. the table next to the bathrooms.

It also completely overlooks the proven fact that if you put poor kids in a non-poor school, the poor kids benefit from that intellectually-motivated peer group. That's the whole point. A poor kid does better in a non-poor school than in a high-poverty school. That's why economic segregation is bad for poor kids.

I totally agree that improving the peer group will improve a child's educational achievement. But what's the solution? How many underachieving kids can you move into a high achieving school before the school is no longer high achieving? Will you ever be able to move enough underachieving kids to make a difference in the achievement gap? Or will the high achieving kids' parents decide to pull them out before you get there?

Well, let's see. Both of my kids are currently at schools (one elementary, one middle) with a FARMS rate of about 20%. That seems to be working pretty well. Meanwhile, the FARMS rate at the schools in Bethesda and Potomac generally hovers around <5%. So I think there's plenty of room for economic desegregation before anybody needs to panic about being deluged by the underachieving poors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find that study unreliable in measuring classroom diversity.
It separates students into only three classifications, Latino, Black, White.
The white classification in that study includes Asian, Middle Eastern, North African and children of mixed heritage whose skin tone is light, a very diverse group by itself.
They should have separate it by second generation Caucasian Americans. It would have shown if "white" immigration into certain urban areas effected traditional ethnic balance/unbalance in schools and, the effects on scholastic achievement.

It's not unreliable. Arguably, it's incomplete in very diverse areas, such as Montgomery County. But Asian-Americans are less than 6% of the US population, and the other groups are even smaller. Also, I'm guessing that school districts don't collect data on the skin tone of children of mixed heritage, or on whether or not the parents of white students were born in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find that study unreliable in measuring classroom diversity.
It separates students into only three classifications, Latino, Black, White.
The white classification in that study includes Asian, Middle Eastern, North African and children of mixed heritage whose skin tone is light, a very diverse group by itself.
They should have separate it by second generation Caucasian Americans. It would have shown if "white" immigration into certain urban areas effected traditional ethnic balance/unbalance in schools and, the effects on scholastic achievement.

It's not unreliable. Arguably, it's incomplete in very diverse areas, such as Montgomery County. But Asian-Americans are less than 6% of the US population, and the other groups are even smaller. Also, I'm guessing that school districts don't collect data on the skin tone of children of mixed heritage, or on whether or not the parents of white students were born in the US.

Yes but, Asians are the fastest growing racial/ethnic group in America (2.9%/year). For the first time, half (49.9%) of American children under the age of five are of a racial or ethnic minority, according to the US Census Bureau. The only increases in white population are from immigration of Europe/Middle East.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not the education it's the lack of intellectually motivated peer group that is objectionable. The school district sets a county wide curriculum and all schools follow it. It's the implementation that differs and the implementation differs because of the student population that the material is presented to. For example, let's say Hamlet is a required read for all 11th graders in MCPS. One school might cover the book in 2 weeks and have a multiple choice exam at the end. Another school might cover the material over 4 weeks, require small group discussions, essays, and class presentations to invoke thoughtful discussion. The material as manadated to be covered is met by both schools. The education that the school board can control is the same. The insights and in depth learning that comes from being surrounded by like motivated peers is not something that the school board controls through its curriculum. For the school system, the curriculum is the education. The education is the same across all schools.

This is like saying that if you go to a fancy restaurant for dinner, the dinner is the same if they put you in the best table in the restaurant vs. the table next to the bathrooms.

It also completely overlooks the proven fact that if you put poor kids in a non-poor school, the poor kids benefit from that intellectually-motivated peer group. That's the whole point. A poor kid does better in a non-poor school than in a high-poverty school. That's why economic segregation is bad for poor kids.

I totally agree that improving the peer group will improve a child's educational achievement. But what's the solution? How many underachieving kids can you move into a high achieving school before the school is no longer high achieving? Will you ever be able to move enough underachieving kids to make a difference in the achievement gap? Or will the high achieving kids' parents decide to pull them out before you get there?

Well, let's see. Both of my kids are currently at schools (one elementary, one middle) with a FARMS rate of about 20%. That seems to be working pretty well. Meanwhile, the FARMS rate at the schools in Bethesda and Potomac generally hovers around <5%. So I think there's plenty of room for economic desegregation before anybody needs to panic about being deluged by the underachieving poors.

But what is the solution? If the school is overcrowded (as many are), do you remove students from their neighborhood school and bus kids in? If the school is located in a place that is not close to neighborhoods where the less advantaged kids are, does redistricting make any sense? If you bus, how do you choose who is bused in? How many? It's not that I don't understand the problem, it's that I don't understand what *exactly* you want to have done. What specific process do you propose to achieve desegregation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But what is the solution? If the school is overcrowded (as many are), do you remove students from their neighborhood school and bus kids in? If the school is located in a place that is not close to neighborhoods where the less advantaged kids are, does redistricting make any sense? If you bus, how do you choose who is bused in? How many? It's not that I don't understand the problem, it's that I don't understand what *exactly* you want to have done. What specific process do you propose to achieve desegregation?

Before you start demanding specific solutions, it would be good to reach agreement that the problem actually is a problem. We're not there yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not the education it's the lack of intellectually motivated peer group that is objectionable. The school district sets a county wide curriculum and all schools follow it. It's the implementation that differs and the implementation differs because of the student population that the material is presented to. For example, let's say Hamlet is a required read for all 11th graders in MCPS. One school might cover the book in 2 weeks and have a multiple choice exam at the end. Another school might cover the material over 4 weeks, require small group discussions, essays, and class presentations to invoke thoughtful discussion. The material as manadated to be covered is met by both schools. The education that the school board can control is the same. The insights and in depth learning that comes from being surrounded by like motivated peers is not something that the school board controls through its curriculum. For the school system, the curriculum is the education. The education is the same across all schools.

This is like saying that if you go to a fancy restaurant for dinner, the dinner is the same if they put you in the best table in the restaurant vs. the table next to the bathrooms.

It also completely overlooks the proven fact that if you put poor kids in a non-poor school, the poor kids benefit from that intellectually-motivated peer group. That's the whole point. A poor kid does better in a non-poor school than in a high-poverty school. That's why economic segregation is bad for poor kids.

I totally agree that improving the peer group will improve a child's educational achievement. But what's the solution? How many underachieving kids can you move into a high achieving school before the school is no longer high achieving? Will you ever be able to move enough underachieving kids to make a difference in the achievement gap? Or will the high achieving kids' parents decide to pull them out before you get there?

Well, let's see. Both of my kids are currently at schools (one elementary, one middle) with a FARMS rate of about 20%. That seems to be working pretty well. Meanwhile, the FARMS rate at the schools in Bethesda and Potomac generally hovers around <5%. So I think there's plenty of room for economic desegregation before anybody needs to panic about being deluged by the underachieving poors.

But what is the solution? If the school is overcrowded (as many are), do you remove students from their neighborhood school and bus kids in? If the school is located in a place that is not close to neighborhoods where the less advantaged kids are, does redistricting make any sense? If you bus, how do you choose who is bused in? How many? It's not that I don't understand the problem, it's that I don't understand what *exactly* you want to have done. What specific process do you propose to achieve desegregation?

Let's look at what other options people in similar situations have explored in our area. We know in DC, people that are unhappy try to get into charters. I know MCPS tried one charter and it was not successful, but would bring in charter schools be a solution? The other experience I have is with Balt City schools. When you buy a house in Balt City, if you want a good education, you are most likely going to have to pay for private. You know what the school offers and the school stats are before you buy the house. That your local school is subpar is not a shock when it's time for your kids to enter school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But what is the solution? If the school is overcrowded (as many are), do you remove students from their neighborhood school and bus kids in? If the school is located in a place that is not close to neighborhoods where the less advantaged kids are, does redistricting make any sense? If you bus, how do you choose who is bused in? How many? It's not that I don't understand the problem, it's that I don't understand what *exactly* you want to have done. What specific process do you propose to achieve desegregation?

Before you start demanding specific solutions, it would be good to reach agreement that the problem actually is a problem. We're not there yet.

Maybe. But my point in asking for a solution is that even if we are in agreement that poor/underachieving students don't do well in schools with high numbers of other poor/underachieving students, what specifically should or can be done? I am hearing lots of general statements about how it's helpful to those students to be surrounded by high-achieving peers, and that's likely true, but that doesn't mean it's easily accomplished, especially on the scale that people here seem to want it done (i.e. every poor child should be able to have the opportunities that wealthy children have). Busing has been proposed, but I don't see how that necessarily helps, for many of the reasons already given. Shouldn't we focus on ways to improve the schools where they are, with the students they have, rather than trying to figure out how to get all kids into the high-performing schools through busing or redistricting, or some other method of integration? It seems there's a lot of anger directed at those apparently selfish people who live in relatively wealthier areas without much practical purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find that study unreliable in measuring classroom diversity.
It separates students into only three classifications, Latino, Black, White.
The white classification in that study includes Asian, Middle Eastern, North African and children of mixed heritage whose skin tone is light, a very diverse group by itself.
They should have separate it by second generation Caucasian Americans. It would have shown if "white" immigration into certain urban areas effected traditional ethnic balance/unbalance in schools and, the effects on scholastic achievement.

It's not unreliable. Arguably, it's incomplete in very diverse areas, such as Montgomery County. But Asian-Americans are less than 6% of the US population, and the other groups are even smaller. Also, I'm guessing that school districts don't collect data on the skin tone of children of mixed heritage, or on whether or not the parents of white students were born in the US.

Yes but, Asians are the fastest growing racial/ethnic group in America (2.9%/year). For the first time, half (49.9%) of American children under the age of five are of a racial or ethnic minority, according to the US Census Bureau. The only increases in white population are from immigration of Europe/Middle East.

Yes but for the most part, they take pride in their education, learn English, get involved with the school, don't have discipline issues and test well. If Hispanics did this, it wouldn't be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not the education it's the lack of intellectually motivated peer group that is objectionable. The school district sets a county wide curriculum and all schools follow it. It's the implementation that differs and the implementation differs because of the student population that the material is presented to. For example, let's say Hamlet is a required read for all 11th graders in MCPS. One school might cover the book in 2 weeks and have a multiple choice exam at the end. Another school might cover the material over 4 weeks, require small group discussions, essays, and class presentations to invoke thoughtful discussion. The material as manadated to be covered is met by both schools. The education that the school board can control is the same. The insights and in depth learning that comes from being surrounded by like motivated peers is not something that the school board controls through its curriculum. For the school system, the curriculum is the education. The education is the same across all schools.

This is like saying that if you go to a fancy restaurant for dinner, the dinner is the same if they put you in the best table in the restaurant vs. the table next to the bathrooms.

It also completely overlooks the proven fact that if you put poor kids in a non-poor school, the poor kids benefit from that intellectually-motivated peer group. That's the whole point. A poor kid does better in a non-poor school than in a high-poverty school. That's why economic segregation is bad for poor kids.

I totally agree that improving the peer group will improve a child's educational achievement. But what's the solution? How many underachieving kids can you move into a high achieving school before the school is no longer high achieving? Will you ever be able to move enough underachieving kids to make a difference in the achievement gap? Or will the high achieving kids' parents decide to pull them out before you get there?

Well, let's see. Both of my kids are currently at schools (one elementary, one middle) with a FARMS rate of about 20%. That seems to be working pretty well. Meanwhile, the FARMS rate at the schools in Bethesda and Potomac generally hovers around <5%. So I think there's plenty of room for economic desegregation before anybody needs to panic about being deluged by the underachieving poors.

But what is the solution? If the school is overcrowded (as many are), do you remove students from their neighborhood school and bus kids in? If the school is located in a place that is not close to neighborhoods where the less advantaged kids are, does redistricting make any sense? If you bus, how do you choose who is bused in? How many? It's not that I don't understand the problem, it's that I don't understand what *exactly* you want to have done. What specific process do you propose to achieve desegregation?

Let's look at what other options people in similar situations have explored in our area. We know in DC, people that are unhappy try to get into charters. I know MCPS tried one charter and it was not successful, but would bring in charter schools be a solution? The other experience I have is with Balt City schools. When you buy a house in Balt City, if you want a good education, you are most likely going to have to pay for private. You know what the school offers and the school stats are before you buy the house. That your local school is subpar is not a shock when it's time for your kids to enter school.

Sooo...charter (not available in MCPS) or private? In other words, opt out entirely?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PSA:

MoCo has had a very progressive affordable housing initiative by law which has been considered a model across the nation. MPDUs are part of it. And developers are required to include affordable housing units in their developments.

Betcha didn't know those units often aren't sold and get diverted to homeless service providers. So, you have some formerly homeless individuals living in swanky condos up and down Rockville Pike. But I digress.

Yes, housing policies back in the day created this situation (big houses in wealthy areas with very few apartment complexes vs. a gazillion garden apartments in the Wheaton, Glenmont and Aspen Hill areas where you have a plethora of Title I schools with very few white kids). We have had an aggressive affordable housing program in the county for decades, but it only affects NEW construction. Thus, "It is what it is."

And how do I know that people love Weller Road Elementary? Because I know families who go there, and they love it. I know someone who moved from DC to that area specifically to be near family and friends and have a big Spanish speaking support system in their neighborhood (replete with businesses and churches that cater to them). Not a paternalistic statement; rather, a fact.

Bussing won't ever happen. Never ever. Too costly. And quite frankly, it doesn't net the results you think it will. Dig a little deeper into the research, data and literature and you will see that low income minority children do better when they LIVE in higher income areas and are surrounded by stable two parent families and essentially interact with those people at school and in the community (after school activities, church, etc) regularly. They grow up in a solidly middle-upper class environment, adopt those cultural norms, the educational and classroom behavioral bar is set higher, and they achieve. Not: making sure the housing is stable as are other critical items like food and safety are essential. This isn't rocket science.

In short: if all the kids in MS and HS are expected to go onto college, then the majority of kids succeed. When attending a school where there are big groups of kids who aren't expected to succeed and other routes are accepted (teen pregnancy, dropping out, dealing, etc) then more kids fail. Duh.

If I see anymore federal or private funding going towards more studies to demonstrate what data already supports and what teachers, social workers, homeless service providers and policy wonks already know, I think my head will explode.

Invest millions on bussing blacks and Latinos to white schools if you want, but you won't get the results you hope to. Sorry.

Aren't they actually enabling them by speaking their language instead of insisting they learn English? I don't understand that. We have many cultures, many languages and a huge wonderful melting pot. Yet, we have to start pressing 1 for English. Shouldn't they learn English instead? All other cultures seem to. Why can't they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe. But my point in asking for a solution is that even if we are in agreement that poor/underachieving students don't do well in schools with high numbers of other poor/underachieving students, what specifically should or can be done? I am hearing lots of general statements about how it's helpful to those students to be surrounded by high-achieving peers, and that's likely true, but that doesn't mean it's easily accomplished, especially on the scale that people here seem to want it done (i.e. every poor child should be able to have the opportunities that wealthy children have). Busing has been proposed, but I don't see how that necessarily helps, for many of the reasons already given. Shouldn't we focus on ways to improve the schools where they are, with the students they have, rather than trying to figure out how to get all kids into the high-performing schools through busing or redistricting, or some other method of integration? It seems there's a lot of anger directed at those apparently selfish people who live in relatively wealthier areas without much practical purpose.

We've been trying that. It's not enough. One reason it's not enough is that the schools' main problem are that a high proportion of their students are poor. The way to fix this problem is to lower the school's proportion of students who are poor.

And, really, I'm not seeing a lot of anger directed at people who live in Bethesda, Potomac, and Chevy Chase. I am seeing a lot of defensiveness from people who live in Bethesda, Potomac, and Chevy Chase, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Aren't they actually enabling them by speaking their language instead of insisting they learn English? I don't understand that. We have many cultures, many languages and a huge wonderful melting pot. Yet, we have to start pressing 1 for English. Shouldn't they learn English instead? All other cultures seem to. Why can't they?

You're saying that the businesses whose customers are Spanish-speakers and the churches whose members are Spanish-speakers shouldn't enable the Spanish-speakers by doing things in Spanish? The businesses should insist that their customers speak English when patronizing their businesses, and the churches should insist that their members speak English when doing church activities?