Diversity of schools - can this work both ways? Am I being unreasonable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:even in this scenario "low-performing, low-income kids for high-performing, UMC kids" (which is itself a little bit of a stereotype) - there are some long-term socioemotional benefits to growing up in a socioeconomically diverse setting rather than a more sheltered umc bubble with limited income disparity

Is this your opinion or is this peer reviewed research?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My observation is that we are not the only family in this situation. My kid isn't a white kid growing up in a predominantly white city or suburb surrounded by white culture. She does not see whiteness everywhere. As an adult with broader experience I know that this will change, but as a small child who knows she's different than most of her neighbors and friends, she doesn't know that yet. All she knows is that she is different from the other kids in a way that sometimes feels uncomfortable and isolating.

Look, even in the most prosperous suburbs in this area, there is no such thing as "predominantly white suburb surrounded by white culture." My oldest is in AAP in an affluent NOVA suburb. Two thirds of his classmates are brown. Academically, East Asians and Indians are crushing "traditional white" students. So this white-dominated environment just doesn't exist anymore, even in the suburbs. I grant you that the landscape of white-brown relationships in the suburban schools here is different than the white-black relationships in DC schools. But the all-white environment is just no longer there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My observation is that we are not the only family in this situation. My kid isn't a white kid growing up in a predominantly white city or suburb surrounded by white culture. She does not see whiteness everywhere. As an adult with broader experience I know that this will change, but as a small child who knows she's different than most of her neighbors and friends, she doesn't know that yet. All she knows is that she is different from the other kids in a way that sometimes feels uncomfortable and isolating.

Look, even in the most prosperous suburbs in this area, there is no such thing as "predominantly white suburb surrounded by white culture." My oldest is in AAP in an affluent NOVA suburb. Two thirds of his classmates are brown. Academically, East Asians and Indians are crushing "traditional white" students. So this white-dominated environment just doesn't exist anymore, even in the suburbs. I grant you that the landscape of white-brown relationships in the suburban schools here is different than the white-black relationships in DC schools. But the all-white environment is just no longer there.

PP here and it might not exist in the DMV but it absolutely still exists.

But the point is really that while my child does not experience racism (and I get this), she does experience being a racial minority and outsider and that has an impact on her, and it's something I have to account for as a parent. I just took issue with the PP who makes it sound like parents of white kids never even have to consider these issues when of course in certain circumstances we do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:even in this scenario "low-performing, low-income kids for high-performing, UMC kids" (which is itself a little bit of a stereotype) - there are some long-term socioemotional benefits to growing up in a socioeconomically diverse setting rather than a more sheltered umc bubble with limited income disparity

Is this your opinion or is this peer reviewed research?

Not the PP but there is so much research on this out there. See professors Rucker Johnson, Jess Calarco, Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, everything at The Century Foundation, The Problem We All Live With (Nikole Hannah-Jones)

Frankly I'm surprised at how many people are ignorant of the vast benefits of integrated schools. AND for vulnerable kids school integration is less expensive than throwing extra funds at hyper-segregated schools and it produces better results. It's a win/win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:even in this scenario "low-performing, low-income kids for high-performing, UMC kids" (which is itself a little bit of a stereotype) - there are some long-term socioemotional benefits to growing up in a socioeconomically diverse setting rather than a more sheltered umc bubble with limited income disparity

Is this your opinion or is this peer reviewed research?

Not the PP but there is so much research on this out there. See professors Rucker Johnson, Jess Calarco, Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, everything at The Century Foundation, The Problem We All Live With (Nikole Hannah-Jones)

Frankly I'm surprised at how many people are ignorant of the vast benefits of integrated schools. AND for vulnerable kids school integration is less expensive than throwing extra funds at hyper-segregated schools and it produces better results. It's a win/win.

No one questions it's good for vulnerable kids. But is it good for non-vulnerable, high performing kids? The former is a no-brainer. The latter is kind of wishful thinking. And this is why the parents of high performing UMC kids balk at this narrative - because it views their children as tools to use for the benefit of the vulnerable, without any thought as to benefits to the "tool".

I would also say, with all my kindness, that the parents of nonwhite or recent immigrant high-performing kids give zero importance to "integrated schools", in my experience. Affluent blacks in DC go to private schools. Educated Indian, Chinese, Russian, Arab parents in the suburbs go directly to the highest-performing schools. They don't ask themselves whether their children will be "surrounded" by others like them (frankly, Indians and Asians no longer have to). They don't care about integration AT ALL. They care about results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly value a diverse environment for my children. I want them to interact with and befriend people from all walks of life - economically, perspective, experience, racially and ethnically. Diversity isn't a buzzword for me - I truly see the value in it, across a variety of contexts.

Is diversity really a value to you or do your just want a pat on the back from black, brown, queer, disabled and poor folks? Upper/middle class white people are always worried about their kids being “the only one” or “uncomfortable.” If you care about diversity, then let your kid experience what it has been like to be a Black or Brown or queer, disabled, fat or low income person in North American culture since it values whiteness, thinness, heterosexuality, physical dominance and wealth. Have them take the bus to school from 30 blocks away, try to be on time and not have anything for dinner for 3 days in a row, have them spend a week navigating the world in a wheel chair, fast for Eid, have them wait tables in an IHOP during the night shift in a working class neighborhood, let them hold hands with their same sex friend while in a Dairy Queen in a small, rural Southern town.

It takes innate courage, grit and joy to thrive and shine in a country when you are not be born part of the dominant white, straight, Judeo-Christian, able-bodied, middle class culture. It doesn’t matter what type of school your kid goes to- what matters is the kaleidoscope of experiences that form the fabric of their life. If their life is the MC/UMC path of school (even in a “diverse” school), pressure cooker academics, tutors, soccer/basketball/football or ballet/lacrosse/softball and college study abroad, then your kid’s worldview will be very small indeed. Good luck to your child on the journey-

I've done like literally everything you've listed other than a wheelchair. Not out of choice. Out of necessity. The dominant result of these experiences was a burning desire to shield myself and my children from anything like this ever happening to them, and insulate from hardships in a blanket of money. Don't romanticize poverty or hardship. Most people who are in the middle of it dream of nothing but ending it.

Yeah, the idea that I'm going to let my child suffer because other people in the world have it tough is asinine.

I mean, if my kid's school has a bunch of non-white kids whose parents are doctors, diplomats, college professors etc., that's cool. But if it was 95%+ white, I'd be fine, too. I'm not interested in having my kids be part of some social experiment at the cost of their education.

Wow. I can’t believe someone is still using the phrase “social experiment” in this context. It’s both ridiculously cliche and rather offensive.

Do you honestly believe that your kid will not thrive — but will instead “suffer” — unless surrounded by children of the upper echelons of society?

NP. PP above responded to poster who said put your kid is predicaments where they will suffer, like walking 30 blocks, going to school hungry, etc..

If you define thrive as reaching their full academic potential like we do then no they won’t.

Ask any teacher in majority low performing school with a very small minority of high performing kids. The kids just cruise along because the teachers are all focused on helping the low performing kids. You don’t have to look far, happens in DC schools in upper elementary.

I don’t need to ask a teacher at some elementary school. My kid currently attends a DCPS Title 1 middle school. He is thriving there — academically, socially and athletically. And he is, in fact, being challenged. I am fully confident that he will do extremely well in life despite not being surrounded by kids from families as rich and as fortunate as we are during his brief time in middle school.

If only more upper-income families in DC had the same confidence in their own kids.

LOL! Your kid is either not high performing or you are living in a low expectation, low achieving bubble.

Get back to us how he does compared to his peers once he is actually in a high performing school from this middle school.

DP. I don’t understand why you are attacking her? Her kid’s scores, grades, and learning do not depend on the other students. My child is at a Title 1 school with lower than acceptable SAT scores. My kid scored very high and has excellent grades. My kid is a great writer and his teacher expect him to write at a more sophisticated level than the other kids in class. Your post is insulting to PP and insulting to teachers. The more I’m on this forum, the more I regret coming here. You’re extremely rude.

LOL to the first bolded. You really think magnet schools for high-performing kids are based on this fairy tales that high performing kids benefit from being surrounded and challenged by OTHER high performing kids?

And just think how much better your kid would have done if he was surrounded by OTHER great writers who could write at a more sophisticated level. Unless you're invested in the idea of your kid standing out in a sea of low performers?

My kid is learning to deal with people from all walks of life. He’s isn’t ensconced around rich people, which gives us folks like Brett Kavanaugh. His peers in school have a wide range of ability and talent, just like life. The content of my kid’s writing will be better around diversity.

In my experience, kids surrounded by other high income and high achieving kids (esp. with pushy parents which dominates NWDC) breeds a toxic environment. Some of my kids friends at Walls are extremely toxic and I wish he would drop them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:even in this scenario "low-performing, low-income kids for high-performing, UMC kids" (which is itself a little bit of a stereotype) - there are some long-term socioemotional benefits to growing up in a socioeconomically diverse setting rather than a more sheltered umc bubble with limited income disparity

Is this your opinion or is this peer reviewed research?

Not the PP but there is so much research on this out there. See professors Rucker Johnson, Jess Calarco, Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, everything at The Century Foundation, The Problem We All Live With (Nikole Hannah-Jones)

Frankly I'm surprised at how many people are ignorant of the vast benefits of integrated schools. AND for vulnerable kids school integration is less expensive than throwing extra funds at hyper-segregated schools and it produces better results. It's a win/win.

No one questions it's good for vulnerable kids. But is it good for non-vulnerable, high performing kids? The former is a no-brainer. The latter is kind of wishful thinking. And this is why the parents of high performing UMC kids balk at this narrative - because it views their children as tools to use for the benefit of the vulnerable, without any thought as to benefits to the "tool".

I would also say, with all my kindness, that the parents of nonwhite or recent immigrant high-performing kids give zero importance to "integrated schools", in my experience. Affluent blacks in DC go to private schools. Educated Indian, Chinese, Russian, Arab parents in the suburbs go directly to the highest-performing schools. They don't ask themselves whether their children will be "surrounded" by others like them (frankly, Indians and Asians no longer have to). They don't care about integration AT ALL. They care about results.

Yes! Very much so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:even in this scenario "low-performing, low-income kids for high-performing, UMC kids" (which is itself a little bit of a stereotype) - there are some long-term socioemotional benefits to growing up in a socioeconomically diverse setting rather than a more sheltered umc bubble with limited income disparity

Is this your opinion or is this peer reviewed research?

Not the PP but there is so much research on this out there. See professors Rucker Johnson, Jess Calarco, Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, everything at The Century Foundation, The Problem We All Live With (Nikole Hannah-Jones)

Frankly I'm surprised at how many people are ignorant of the vast benefits of integrated schools. AND for vulnerable kids school integration is less expensive than throwing extra funds at hyper-segregated schools and it produces better results. It's a win/win.

No one questions it's good for vulnerable kids. But is it good for non-vulnerable, high performing kids? The former is a no-brainer. The latter is kind of wishful thinking. And this is why the parents of high performing UMC kids balk at this narrative - because it views their children as tools to use for the benefit of the vulnerable, without any thought as to benefits to the "tool".

I would also say, with all my kindness, that the parents of nonwhite or recent immigrant high-performing kids give zero importance to "integrated schools", in my experience. Affluent blacks in DC go to private schools. Educated Indian, Chinese, Russian, Arab parents in the suburbs go directly to the highest-performing schools. They don't ask themselves whether their children will be "surrounded" by others like them (frankly, Indians and Asians no longer have to). They don't care about integration AT ALL. They care about results.

Yes! Very much so.

What is the evidence for this? Apart from what you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly value a diverse environment for my children. I want them to interact with and befriend people from all walks of life - economically, perspective, experience, racially and ethnically. Diversity isn't a buzzword for me - I truly see the value in it, across a variety of contexts.

Is diversity really a value to you or do your just want a pat on the back from black, brown, queer, disabled and poor folks? Upper/middle class white people are always worried about their kids being “the only one” or “uncomfortable.” If you care about diversity, then let your kid experience what it has been like to be a Black or Brown or queer, disabled, fat or low income person in North American culture since it values whiteness, thinness, heterosexuality, physical dominance and wealth. Have them take the bus to school from 30 blocks away, try to be on time and not have anything for dinner for 3 days in a row, have them spend a week navigating the world in a wheel chair, fast for Eid, have them wait tables in an IHOP during the night shift in a working class neighborhood, let them hold hands with their same sex friend while in a Dairy Queen in a small, rural Southern town.

It takes innate courage, grit and joy to thrive and shine in a country when you are not be born part of the dominant white, straight, Judeo-Christian, able-bodied, middle class culture. It doesn’t matter what type of school your kid goes to- what matters is the kaleidoscope of experiences that form the fabric of their life. If their life is the MC/UMC path of school (even in a “diverse” school), pressure cooker academics, tutors, soccer/basketball/football or ballet/lacrosse/softball and college study abroad, then your kid’s worldview will be very small indeed. Good luck to your child on the journey-

I've done like literally everything you've listed other than a wheelchair. Not out of choice. Out of necessity. The dominant result of these experiences was a burning desire to shield myself and my children from anything like this ever happening to them, and insulate from hardships in a blanket of money. Don't romanticize poverty or hardship. Most people who are in the middle of it dream of nothing but ending it.

Yeah, the idea that I'm going to let my child suffer because other people in the world have it tough is asinine.

I mean, if my kid's school has a bunch of non-white kids whose parents are doctors, diplomats, college professors etc., that's cool. But if it was 95%+ white, I'd be fine, too. I'm not interested in having my kids be part of some social experiment at the cost of their education.

Wow. I can’t believe someone is still using the phrase “social experiment” in this context. It’s both ridiculously cliche and rather offensive.

Do you honestly believe that your kid will not thrive — but will instead “suffer” — unless surrounded by children of the upper echelons of society?

NP. PP above responded to poster who said put your kid is predicaments where they will suffer, like walking 30 blocks, going to school hungry, etc..

If you define thrive as reaching their full academic potential like we do then no they won’t.

Ask any teacher in majority low performing school with a very small minority of high performing kids. The kids just cruise along because the teachers are all focused on helping the low performing kids. You don’t have to look far, happens in DC schools in upper elementary.

I don’t need to ask a teacher at some elementary school. My kid currently attends a DCPS Title 1 middle school. He is thriving there — academically, socially and athletically. And he is, in fact, being challenged. I am fully confident that he will do extremely well in life despite not being surrounded by kids from families as rich and as fortunate as we are during his brief time in middle school.

If only more upper-income families in DC had the same confidence in their own kids.

LOL! Your kid is either not high performing or you are living in a low expectation, low achieving bubble.

Get back to us how he does compared to his peers once he is actually in a high performing school from this middle school.

DP. I don’t understand why you are attacking her? Her kid’s scores, grades, and learning do not depend on the other students. My child is at a Title 1 school with lower than acceptable SAT scores. My kid scored very high and has excellent grades. My kid is a great writer and his teacher expect him to write at a more sophisticated level than the other kids in class. Your post is insulting to PP and insulting to teachers. The more I’m on this forum, the more I regret coming here. You’re extremely rude.

LOL to the first bolded. You really think magnet schools for high-performing kids are based on this fairy tales that high performing kids benefit from being surrounded and challenged by OTHER high performing kids?

And just think how much better your kid would have done if he was surrounded by OTHER great writers who could write at a more sophisticated level. Unless you're invested in the idea of your kid standing out in a sea of low performers?

My kid is learning to deal with people from all walks of life. He’s isn’t ensconced around rich people, which gives us folks like Brett Kavanaugh. His peers in school have a wide range of ability and talent, just like life. The content of my kid’s writing will be better around diversity.

In my experience, kids surrounded by other high income and high achieving kids (esp. with pushy parents which dominates NWDC) breeds a toxic environment. Some of my kids friends at Walls are extremely toxic and I wish he would drop them.

LOL no public school in DC "ensconces" you around rich people. That type of wealth does not attend public schools en masse.

I think you just like the setup where your kid is the most "sophisticated" writer in class. What do you think would happen if say 75% of his class consisted of sophisticated writers?

[Anonymous]

i think some of these are troll posts trying to bait a response

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:even in this scenario "low-performing, low-income kids for high-performing, UMC kids" (which is itself a little bit of a stereotype) - there are some long-term socioemotional benefits to growing up in a socioeconomically diverse setting rather than a more sheltered umc bubble with limited income disparity

Is this your opinion or is this peer reviewed research?

Not the PP but there is so much research on this out there. See professors Rucker Johnson, Jess Calarco, Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, everything at The Century Foundation, The Problem We All Live With (Nikole Hannah-Jones)

Frankly I'm surprised at how many people are ignorant of the vast benefits of integrated schools. AND for vulnerable kids school integration is less expensive than throwing extra funds at hyper-segregated schools and it produces better results. It's a win/win.

No one questions it's good for vulnerable kids. But is it good for non-vulnerable, high performing kids? The former is a no-brainer. The latter is kind of wishful thinking. And this is why the parents of high performing UMC kids balk at this narrative - because it views their children as tools to use for the benefit of the vulnerable, without any thought as to benefits to the "tool".

I would also say, with all my kindness, that the parents of nonwhite or recent immigrant high-performing kids give zero importance to "integrated schools", in my experience. Affluent blacks in DC go to private schools. Educated Indian, Chinese, Russian, Arab parents in the suburbs go directly to the highest-performing schools. They don't ask themselves whether their children will be "surrounded" by others like them (frankly, Indians and Asians no longer have to). They don't care about integration AT ALL. They care about results.

Asian parents may not care about diversity and only want the best of the best for their kids. BUT the best academic environment may not the best in general. Many Asians kids are pushed too much academically at the expense of social skills and creativity. Diversity fosters a better balance of perspectives. Study geeks have never been too cool after school ends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:even in this scenario "low-performing, low-income kids for high-performing, UMC kids" (which is itself a little bit of a stereotype) - there are some long-term socioemotional benefits to growing up in a socioeconomically diverse setting rather than a more sheltered umc bubble with limited income disparity

Is this your opinion or is this peer reviewed research?

Not the PP but there is so much research on this out there. See professors Rucker Johnson, Jess Calarco, Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, everything at The Century Foundation, The Problem We All Live With (Nikole Hannah-Jones)

Frankly I'm surprised at how many people are ignorant of the vast benefits of integrated schools. AND for vulnerable kids school integration is less expensive than throwing extra funds at hyper-segregated schools and it produces better results. It's a win/win.

No one questions it's good for vulnerable kids. But is it good for non-vulnerable, high performing kids? The former is a no-brainer. The latter is kind of wishful thinking. And this is why the parents of high performing UMC kids balk at this narrative - because it views their children as tools to use for the benefit of the vulnerable, without any thought as to benefits to the "tool".

I would also say, with all my kindness, that the parents of nonwhite or recent immigrant high-performing kids give zero importance to "integrated schools", in my experience. Affluent blacks in DC go to private schools. Educated Indian, Chinese, Russian, Arab parents in the suburbs go directly to the highest-performing schools. They don't ask themselves whether their children will be "surrounded" by others like them (frankly, Indians and Asians no longer have to). They don't care about integration AT ALL. They care about results.

Asian parents may not care about diversity and only want the best of the best for their kids. BUT the best academic environment may not the best in general. Many Asians kids are pushed too much academically at the expense of social skills and creativity. Diversity fosters a better balance of perspectives. Study geeks have never been too cool after school ends.

A white person wrote that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly value a diverse environment for my children. I want them to interact with and befriend people from all walks of life - economically, perspective, experience, racially and ethnically. Diversity isn't a buzzword for me - I truly see the value in it, across a variety of contexts.

Is diversity really a value to you or do your just want a pat on the back from black, brown, queer, disabled and poor folks? Upper/middle class white people are always worried about their kids being “the only one” or “uncomfortable.” If you care about diversity, then let your kid experience what it has been like to be a Black or Brown or queer, disabled, fat or low income person in North American culture since it values whiteness, thinness, heterosexuality, physical dominance and wealth. Have them take the bus to school from 30 blocks away, try to be on time and not have anything for dinner for 3 days in a row, have them spend a week navigating the world in a wheel chair, fast for Eid, have them wait tables in an IHOP during the night shift in a working class neighborhood, let them hold hands with their same sex friend while in a Dairy Queen in a small, rural Southern town.

It takes innate courage, grit and joy to thrive and shine in a country when you are not be born part of the dominant white, straight, Judeo-Christian, able-bodied, middle class culture. It doesn’t matter what type of school your kid goes to- what matters is the kaleidoscope of experiences that form the fabric of their life. If their life is the MC/UMC path of school (even in a “diverse” school), pressure cooker academics, tutors, soccer/basketball/football or ballet/lacrosse/softball and college study abroad, then your kid’s worldview will be very small indeed. Good luck to your child on the journey-

I've done like literally everything you've listed other than a wheelchair. Not out of choice. Out of necessity. The dominant result of these experiences was a burning desire to shield myself and my children from anything like this ever happening to them, and insulate from hardships in a blanket of money. Don't romanticize poverty or hardship. Most people who are in the middle of it dream of nothing but ending it.

Yeah, the idea that I'm going to let my child suffer because other people in the world have it tough is asinine.

I mean, if my kid's school has a bunch of non-white kids whose parents are doctors, diplomats, college professors etc., that's cool. But if it was 95%+ white, I'd be fine, too. I'm not interested in having my kids be part of some social experiment at the cost of their education.

Wow. I can’t believe someone is still using the phrase “social experiment” in this context. It’s both ridiculously cliche and rather offensive.

Do you honestly believe that your kid will not thrive — but will instead “suffer” — unless surrounded by children of the upper echelons of society?

NP. PP above responded to poster who said put your kid is predicaments where they will suffer, like walking 30 blocks, going to school hungry, etc..

If you define thrive as reaching their full academic potential like we do then no they won’t.

Ask any teacher in majority low performing school with a very small minority of high performing kids. The kids just cruise along because the teachers are all focused on helping the low performing kids. You don’t have to look far, happens in DC schools in upper elementary.

I don’t need to ask a teacher at some elementary school. My kid currently attends a DCPS Title 1 middle school. He is thriving there — academically, socially and athletically. And he is, in fact, being challenged. I am fully confident that he will do extremely well in life despite not being surrounded by kids from families as rich and as fortunate as we are during his brief time in middle school.

If only more upper-income families in DC had the same confidence in their own kids.

LOL! Your kid is either not high performing or you are living in a low expectation, low achieving bubble.

Get back to us how he does compared to his peers once he is actually in a high performing school from this middle school.

DP. I don’t understand why you are attacking her? Her kid’s scores, grades, and learning do not depend on the other students. My child is at a Title 1 school with lower than acceptable SAT scores. My kid scored very high and has excellent grades. My kid is a great writer and his teacher expect him to write at a more sophisticated level than the other kids in class. Your post is insulting to PP and insulting to teachers. The more I’m on this forum, the more I regret coming here. You’re extremely rude.

LOL to the first bolded. You really think magnet schools for high-performing kids are based on this fairy tales that high performing kids benefit from being surrounded and challenged by OTHER high performing kids?

And just think how much better your kid would have done if he was surrounded by OTHER great writers who could write at a more sophisticated level. Unless you're invested in the idea of your kid standing out in a sea of low performers?

My kid is learning to deal with people from all walks of life. He’s isn’t ensconced around rich people, which gives us folks like Brett Kavanaugh. His peers in school have a wide range of ability and talent, just like life. The content of my kid’s writing will be better around diversity.

In my experience, kids surrounded by other high income and high achieving kids (esp. with pushy parents which dominates NWDC) breeds a toxic environment. Some of my kids friends at Walls are extremely toxic and I wish he would drop them.

LOL no public school in DC "ensconces" you around rich people. That type of wealth does not attend public schools en masse.

I think you just like the setup where your kid is the most "sophisticated" writer in class. What do you think would happen if say 75% of his class consisted of sophisticated writers?

You clearly spent no time around Janney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly value a diverse environment for my children. I want them to interact with and befriend people from all walks of life - economically, perspective, experience, racially and ethnically. Diversity isn't a buzzword for me - I truly see the value in it, across a variety of contexts.

Is diversity really a value to you or do your just want a pat on the back from black, brown, queer, disabled and poor folks? Upper/middle class white people are always worried about their kids being “the only one” or “uncomfortable.” If you care about diversity, then let your kid experience what it has been like to be a Black or Brown or queer, disabled, fat or low income person in North American culture since it values whiteness, thinness, heterosexuality, physical dominance and wealth. Have them take the bus to school from 30 blocks away, try to be on time and not have anything for dinner for 3 days in a row, have them spend a week navigating the world in a wheel chair, fast for Eid, have them wait tables in an IHOP during the night shift in a working class neighborhood, let them hold hands with their same sex friend while in a Dairy Queen in a small, rural Southern town.

It takes innate courage, grit and joy to thrive and shine in a country when you are not be born part of the dominant white, straight, Judeo-Christian, able-bodied, middle class culture. It doesn’t matter what type of school your kid goes to- what matters is the kaleidoscope of experiences that form the fabric of their life. If their life is the MC/UMC path of school (even in a “diverse” school), pressure cooker academics, tutors, soccer/basketball/football or ballet/lacrosse/softball and college study abroad, then your kid’s worldview will be very small indeed. Good luck to your child on the journey-

I've done like literally everything you've listed other than a wheelchair. Not out of choice. Out of necessity. The dominant result of these experiences was a burning desire to shield myself and my children from anything like this ever happening to them, and insulate from hardships in a blanket of money. Don't romanticize poverty or hardship. Most people who are in the middle of it dream of nothing but ending it.

Yeah, the idea that I'm going to let my child suffer because other people in the world have it tough is asinine.

I mean, if my kid's school has a bunch of non-white kids whose parents are doctors, diplomats, college professors etc., that's cool. But if it was 95%+ white, I'd be fine, too. I'm not interested in having my kids be part of some social experiment at the cost of their education.

Wow. I can’t believe someone is still using the phrase “social experiment” in this context. It’s both ridiculously cliche and rather offensive.

Do you honestly believe that your kid will not thrive — but will instead “suffer” — unless surrounded by children of the upper echelons of society?

NP. PP above responded to poster who said put your kid is predicaments where they will suffer, like walking 30 blocks, going to school hungry, etc..

If you define thrive as reaching their full academic potential like we do then no they won’t.

Ask any teacher in majority low performing school with a very small minority of high performing kids. The kids just cruise along because the teachers are all focused on helping the low performing kids. You don’t have to look far, happens in DC schools in upper elementary.

I don’t need to ask a teacher at some elementary school. My kid currently attends a DCPS Title 1 middle school. He is thriving there — academically, socially and athletically. And he is, in fact, being challenged. I am fully confident that he will do extremely well in life despite not being surrounded by kids from families as rich and as fortunate as we are during his brief time in middle school.

If only more upper-income families in DC had the same confidence in their own kids.

LOL! Your kid is either not high performing or you are living in a low expectation, low achieving bubble.

Get back to us how he does compared to his peers once he is actually in a high performing school from this middle school.

DP. I don’t understand why you are attacking her? Her kid’s scores, grades, and learning do not depend on the other students. My child is at a Title 1 school with lower than acceptable SAT scores. My kid scored very high and has excellent grades. My kid is a great writer and his teacher expect him to write at a more sophisticated level than the other kids in class. Your post is insulting to PP and insulting to teachers. The more I’m on this forum, the more I regret coming here. You’re extremely rude.

LOL to the first bolded. You really think magnet schools for high-performing kids are based on this fairy tales that high performing kids benefit from being surrounded and challenged by OTHER high performing kids?

And just think how much better your kid would have done if he was surrounded by OTHER great writers who could write at a more sophisticated level. Unless you're invested in the idea of your kid standing out in a sea of low performers?

My kid is learning to deal with people from all walks of life. He’s isn’t ensconced around rich people, which gives us folks like Brett Kavanaugh. His peers in school have a wide range of ability and talent, just like life. The content of my kid’s writing will be better around diversity.

In my experience, kids surrounded by other high income and high achieving kids (esp. with pushy parents which dominates NWDC) breeds a toxic environment. Some of my kids friends at Walls are extremely toxic and I wish he would drop them.

LOL no public school in DC "ensconces" you around rich people. That type of wealth does not attend public schools en masse.

I think you just like the setup where your kid is the most "sophisticated" writer in class. What do you think would happen if say 75% of his class consisted of sophisticated writers?

You clearly spent no time around Janney.

Take GDP of Janney and compare to GDP of Andover or, say, Sidwell, and you'll see what I mean.

UMC is not wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly value a diverse environment for my children. I want them to interact with and befriend people from all walks of life - economically, perspective, experience, racially and ethnically. Diversity isn't a buzzword for me - I truly see the value in it, across a variety of contexts.

Is diversity really a value to you or do your just want a pat on the back from black, brown, queer, disabled and poor folks? Upper/middle class white people are always worried about their kids being “the only one” or “uncomfortable.” If you care about diversity, then let your kid experience what it has been like to be a Black or Brown or queer, disabled, fat or low income person in North American culture since it values whiteness, thinness, heterosexuality, physical dominance and wealth. Have them take the bus to school from 30 blocks away, try to be on time and not have anything for dinner for 3 days in a row, have them spend a week navigating the world in a wheel chair, fast for Eid, have them wait tables in an IHOP during the night shift in a working class neighborhood, let them hold hands with their same sex friend while in a Dairy Queen in a small, rural Southern town.

It takes innate courage, grit and joy to thrive and shine in a country when you are not be born part of the dominant white, straight, Judeo-Christian, able-bodied, middle class culture. It doesn’t matter what type of school your kid goes to- what matters is the kaleidoscope of experiences that form the fabric of their life. If their life is the MC/UMC path of school (even in a “diverse” school), pressure cooker academics, tutors, soccer/basketball/football or ballet/lacrosse/softball and college study abroad, then your kid’s worldview will be very small indeed. Good luck to your child on the journey-

I've done like literally everything you've listed other than a wheelchair. Not out of choice. Out of necessity. The dominant result of these experiences was a burning desire to shield myself and my children from anything like this ever happening to them, and insulate from hardships in a blanket of money. Don't romanticize poverty or hardship. Most people who are in the middle of it dream of nothing but ending it.

Yeah, the idea that I'm going to let my child suffer because other people in the world have it tough is asinine.

I mean, if my kid's school has a bunch of non-white kids whose parents are doctors, diplomats, college professors etc., that's cool. But if it was 95%+ white, I'd be fine, too. I'm not interested in having my kids be part of some social experiment at the cost of their education.

Wow. I can’t believe someone is still using the phrase “social experiment” in this context. It’s both ridiculously cliche and rather offensive.

Do you honestly believe that your kid will not thrive — but will instead “suffer” — unless surrounded by children of the upper echelons of society?

NP. PP above responded to poster who said put your kid is predicaments where they will suffer, like walking 30 blocks, going to school hungry, etc..

If you define thrive as reaching their full academic potential like we do then no they won’t.

Ask any teacher in majority low performing school with a very small minority of high performing kids. The kids just cruise along because the teachers are all focused on helping the low performing kids. You don’t have to look far, happens in DC schools in upper elementary.

I don’t need to ask a teacher at some elementary school. My kid currently attends a DCPS Title 1 middle school. He is thriving there — academically, socially and athletically. And he is, in fact, being challenged. I am fully confident that he will do extremely well in life despite not being surrounded by kids from families as rich and as fortunate as we are during his brief time in middle school.

If only more upper-income families in DC had the same confidence in their own kids.

LOL! Your kid is either not high performing or you are living in a low expectation, low achieving bubble.

Get back to us how he does compared to his peers once he is actually in a high performing school from this middle school.

DP. I don’t understand why you are attacking her? Her kid’s scores, grades, and learning do not depend on the other students. My child is at a Title 1 school with lower than acceptable SAT scores. My kid scored very high and has excellent grades. My kid is a great writer and his teacher expect him to write at a more sophisticated level than the other kids in class. Your post is insulting to PP and insulting to teachers. The more I’m on this forum, the more I regret coming here. You’re extremely rude.

LOL to the first bolded. You really think magnet schools for high-performing kids are based on this fairy tales that high performing kids benefit from being surrounded and challenged by OTHER high performing kids?

And just think how much better your kid would have done if he was surrounded by OTHER great writers who could write at a more sophisticated level. Unless you're invested in the idea of your kid standing out in a sea of low performers?

My kid is learning to deal with people from all walks of life. He’s isn’t ensconced around rich people, which gives us folks like Brett Kavanaugh. His peers in school have a wide range of ability and talent, just like life. The content of my kid’s writing will be better around diversity.

In my experience, kids surrounded by other high income and high achieving kids (esp. with pushy parents which dominates NWDC) breeds a toxic environment. Some of my kids friends at Walls are extremely toxic and I wish he would drop them.

LOL no public school in DC "ensconces" you around rich people. That type of wealth does not attend public schools en masse.

I think you just like the setup where your kid is the most "sophisticated" writer in class. What do you think would happen if say 75% of his class consisted of sophisticated writers?

You clearly spent no time around Janney.

Take GDP of Janney and compare to GDP of Andover or, say, Sidwell, and you'll see what I mean.

UMC is not wealth.

The point was the vibe with a primarily UMC student body population is very different than an economically diverse one. Leave it to DCUM to argue whether UMC can be called rich. Such a bubble you live in, lady.