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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Overseas, there are many expat enclaves where Americans tend to live and work. There are "American schools" where their kids go, and businesses that cater to Americans and other English-speakers. I know people who live overseas for years and years, and if their job requires it, they might actually learn the native language. But sometimes they don't. Do you fault them for wanting to live among other English-speakers, in places where businesses cater to American wants and needs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, if only the Hispanic immigrants who come to the US were better-educated, wealthier, and authorized, then they wouldn't have the problems that they have, which result from being uneducated, poor, and unauthorized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Overseas, there are many expat enclaves where Americans tend to live and work. There are "American schools" where their kids go, and businesses that cater to Americans and other English-speakers. I know people who live overseas for years and years, and if their job requires it, they might actually learn the native language. But sometimes they don't. Do you fault them for wanting to live among other English-speakers, in places where businesses cater to American wants and needs?

You do realize expats are different from living in a country forever and intending to become citizens, do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, there's plenty of carping about how people in those communities are not doing their share because their FARMS or minority numbers are too low...why can't they be subject to busing? Why should they be entitled to go to high-performing schools just because they were able to buy houses in the zones?

Anyway, you say that "the way to fix this problem is to lower the school's proportion of students who are poor." How, specifically, do you propose to do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, if only the Hispanic immigrants who come to the US were better-educated, wealthier, and authorized, then they wouldn't have the problems that they have, which result from being uneducated, poor, and unauthorized.

Whose fault is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Overseas, there are many expat enclaves where Americans tend to live and work. There are "American schools" where their kids go, and businesses that cater to Americans and other English-speakers. I know people who live overseas for years and years, and if their job requires it, they might actually learn the native language. But sometimes they don't. Do you fault them for wanting to live among other English-speakers, in places where businesses cater to American wants and needs?

You do realize expats are different from living in a country forever and intending to become citizens, do you?

I know plenty of people who have been overseas as "expats" for decades. At that point, what's the difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, if only the Hispanic immigrants who come to the US were better-educated, wealthier, and authorized, then they wouldn't have the problems that they have, which result from being uneducated, poor, and unauthorized.

Whose fault is that?

Obviously ours because our taxes are sure paying for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, if only the Hispanic immigrants who come to the US were better-educated, wealthier, and authorized, then they wouldn't have the problems that they have, which result from being uneducated, poor, and unauthorized.

Whose fault is that?

Obviously ours because our taxes are sure paying for it.

+1 So true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, if only the Hispanic immigrants who come to the US were better-educated, wealthier, and authorized, then they wouldn't have the problems that they have, which result from being uneducated, poor, and unauthorized.

Whose fault is that?

I don't understand what you're asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, there's plenty of carping about how people in those communities are not doing their share because their FARMS or minority numbers are too low...why can't they be subject to busing? Why should they be entitled to go to high-performing schools just because they were able to buy houses in the zones?

Anyway, you say that "the way to fix this problem is to lower the school's proportion of students who are poor." How, specifically, do you propose to do that?

Or, more accurately, why should they be entitled to go to schools with few or no poor students just because they have a lot of money?

Now, if you're saying that there are no easy answers or quick solutions, I agree -- there aren't. However, that's different from saying that nothing can be done. I think that there are a lot of things that can be done, all the way from small-scale busing and zoning (which MCPS is already doing) to big changes in county housing policy, land use and development policy, and transportation policy. None of these things individually will solve the problem. But each of them will help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, there's plenty of carping about how people in those communities are not doing their share because their FARMS or minority numbers are too low...why can't they be subject to busing? Why should they be entitled to go to high-performing schools just because they were able to buy houses in the zones?

Anyway, you say that "the way to fix this problem is to lower the school's proportion of students who are poor." How, specifically, do you propose to do that?

No, they are not entitled to high-performing schools, and high-performing is a relative term. It seems many would rather have every school being mediocre instead of some being better than others. The problem is that human beings are selfish. Black doctors or lawyers grow out of DC downtown won't raise their kids there for the sake of serving the community as a good influence. When people have resources, they choose what is best for themselves and their kids instead of what would be the best for the whole society. Social liberals might think otherwise, but that's usually when they don't have the resources.

[Anonymous]

"


No, they are not entitled to high-performing schools, and high-performing is a relative term. It seems many would rather have every school being mediocre instead of some being better than others. The problem is that human beings are selfish. Black doctors or lawyers grow out of DC downtown won't raise their kids there for the sake of serving the community as a good influence. When people have resources, they choose what is best for themselves and their kids instead of what would be the best for the whole society. Social liberals might think otherwise, but that's usually when they don't have the resources. "

My 2 year old is selfish too - it's only natural - does that mean I should not try to guide him in a better direction when he's hoarding all the toys & refusing to share?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, there's plenty of carping about how people in those communities are not doing their share because their FARMS or minority numbers are too low...why can't they be subject to busing? Why should they be entitled to go to high-performing schools just because they were able to buy houses in the zones?

Anyway, you say that "the way to fix this problem is to lower the school's proportion of students who are poor." How, specifically, do you propose to do that?

No, they are not entitled to high-performing schools, and high-performing is a relative term. It seems many would rather have every school being mediocre instead of some being better than others. The problem is that human beings are selfish. Black doctors or lawyers grow out of DC downtown won't raise their kids there for the sake of serving the community as a good influence. When people have resources, they choose what is best for themselves and their kids instead of what would be the best for the whole society. Social liberals might think otherwise, but that's usually when they don't have the resources.

Shorter PP: I've got mine, who cares about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, there's plenty of carping about how people in those communities are not doing their share because their FARMS or minority numbers are too low...why can't they be subject to busing? Why should they be entitled to go to high-performing schools just because they were able to buy houses in the zones?

Anyway, you say that "the way to fix this problem is to lower the school's proportion of students who are poor." How, specifically, do you propose to do that?

No, they are not entitled to high-performing schools, and high-performing is a relative term. It seems many would rather have every school being mediocre instead of some being better than others. The problem is that human beings are selfish. Black doctors or lawyers grow out of DC downtown won't raise their kids there for the sake of serving the community as a good influence. When people have resources, they choose what is best for themselves and their kids instead of what would be the best for the whole society. Social liberals might think otherwise, but that's usually when they don't have the resources.

Shorter PP: I've got mine, who cares about you.

even shorter: I'M AN ASS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Shorter PP: I've got mine, who cares about you.
even shorter: I'M AN ASS

Isn't it amazing that all the rich are Asses and the poor are selfless!