Can Gentrifers Use Their Skills and Resources to "Make" a Great School?

[Anonymous]

Who wants to risk their children's education to "fuel the change" for the next crop? No one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here who brought up Saturday school earlier. May be time for a new thread on this, but since teachers are reading this one... What is the one thing that would most help the 2nd grader who's reading A level books get up to grade level? We have a lot of kids like this at our Title I (
I know from the graphs of the kids' reading levels that they hand out at the APTT meetings). I know teachers at our school work very hard, so maybe there isn't nothing more to be done. But it kills me to see how far behind they are already and know its just going to get worse.

It depends on why the kids are behind. Is it related to poverty? Are they second language learners? Both?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here who brought up Saturday school earlier. May be time for a new thread on this, but since teachers are reading this one... What is the one thing that would most help the 2nd grader who's reading A level books get up to grade level? We have a lot of kids like this at our Title I (
I know from the graphs of the kids' reading levels that they hand out at the APTT meetings). I know teachers at our school work very hard, so maybe there isn't nothing more to be done. But it kills me to see how far behind they are already and know its just going to get worse.

It depends on why the kids are behind. Is it related to poverty? Are they second language learners? Both?

Both. I don't think they're going hungry. Parents may not be very literate, though (in English or Spanish).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been at a high FARMS rate school before, here is what I have discovered:

* Active PTA does not translate to much of anything in terms of the actual education, test scores, or student behavior. Sure they put on nice events or have nice after school programs or even get funding for some school extras but it doesn't fix the underlying issues.

* "Involved parents" don;t make a difference because the involved parents have to be involved in order to insure their kids don't fall behind because the regular classroom work is usually a bit behind grade level and the teacher doesn't have time to differentiate, She is too busy dealing with behavior issues and children who are a grade level behind in every subject.

*Principal - has a marginal impact if she/he is good, has a bigger impact if he/she is a poor leader or not well liked by staff.

*Teachers - mixed bag - some will be good some won't. The best skill the teacher needs - behavior management skills.

The only real thing that is going to make a difference - getting enough parents to buy in that you can tip the scale in favor of nonFARMS parents by at least a margin of 60% nonFARMS vs. FARMS. Then you will see a difference.

So, you're saying a prerequisite is that the neighborhood must contain enough high-SES parents or potential parents in which to populate a school, or the possibility of improving the level of academic achievement at the school is pretty much hopeless.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

+1,000 and I have worked in these schools. The sad truth is that a few high minded parents and a wealthy PTA just do not outweigh the negatives that come from multi generational poverty. It is absolutely the norm in a class of 25 to have at least one kid who is homeless, one kid whose parent is in jail, one kid who is abused, one kid that has a major behavioral disorder, and a majority of kids who do not have enough to eat or a safe place to play and sleep. That is DC. Until that changes, the kids are not going to perform well.

[Anonymous]

"the kids" are not going to perform well is not the same as "the poor kids are going to infect my child's brain and prevent her from learning." The truth is "those kids" may not perform well, but yours will. Unless you believe that poverty is a disease and somehow somebody will take away your child's meals and peace at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"the kids" are not going to perform well is not the same as "the poor kids are going to infect my child's brain and prevent her from learning." The truth is "those kids" may not perform well, but yours will. Unless you believe that poverty is a disease and somehow somebody will take away your child's meals and peace at home.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"the kids" are not going to perform well is not the same as "the poor kids are going to infect my child's brain and prevent her from learning." The truth is "those kids" may not perform well, but yours will. Unless you believe that poverty is a disease and somehow somebody will take away your child's meals and peace at home.

Wait are you saying that a big group of poorly performing kids will have no impact on the regular kids?? Seriously? So if, say, 50% of poor kids in DC have school issues - hunger, behaviour, home stress, whatever else (and a nominal percentage of richer kids do), you're saying that if my kid is the only richer kid in the class (so there are 50% poorly performing kids in that class) that my kid is going to have the same experience as when the school size doubles from an influx of richer kids (so now there are only 25% poorly performing kids in his class)? You can't be serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the kids" are not going to perform well is not the same as "the poor kids are going to infect my child's brain and prevent her from learning." The truth is "those kids" may not perform well, but yours will. Unless you believe that poverty is a disease and somehow somebody will take away your child's meals and peace at home.

Wait are you saying that a big group of poorly performing kids will have no impact on the regular kids?? Seriously? So if, say, 50% of poor kids in DC have school issues - hunger, behaviour, home stress, whatever else (and a nominal percentage of richer kids do), you're saying that if my kid is the only richer kid in the class (so there are 50% poorly performing kids in that class) that my kid is going to have the same experience as when the school size doubles from an influx of richer kids (so now there are only 25% poorly performing kids in his class)? You can't be serious.

Not PP, but I'll take a stab at answering -- it's not the same experience, no, but it's not the devastating threat to your child's academic experience many posters here to seem to think it is.

White kids in DCPS wouldn't be the top-performing group in the nation if the presence of poorly performing kids had as much of an impact as people say they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the kids" are not going to perform well is not the same as "the poor kids are going to infect my child's brain and prevent her from learning." The truth is "those kids" may not perform well, but yours will. Unless you believe that poverty is a disease and somehow somebody will take away your child's meals and peace at home.

Wait are you saying that a big group of poorly performing kids will have no impact on the regular kids?? Seriously? So if, say, 50% of poor kids in DC have school issues - hunger, behaviour, home stress, whatever else (and a nominal percentage of richer kids do), you're saying that if my kid is the only richer kid in the class (so there are 50% poorly performing kids in that class) that my kid is going to have the same experience as when the school size doubles from an influx of richer kids (so now there are only 25% poorly performing kids in his class)? You can't be serious.

Not PP, but I'll take a stab at answering -- it's not the same experience, no, but it's not the devastating threat to your child's academic experience many posters here to seem to think it is.

White kids in DCPS wouldn't be the top-performing group in the nation if the presence of poorly performing kids had as much of an impact as people say they do.

It's not "the presence" of poorly performing kids. It's a substantial majority. At some point, enough poorly performing kids are going to tip the scales.

My suspicion is that the one or two white kids in otherwise poorly performing schools are not exactly contributing to the stats about the amazing performance of white kids in DC. They are likely a net zero effect. Not doing terribly, but not doing as well as they would be in a better school system. Perhaps your threshold for a viable school is "not doing terribly" -- but i have higher hopes for my kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the kids" are not going to perform well is not the same as "the poor kids are going to infect my child's brain and prevent her from learning." The truth is "those kids" may not perform well, but yours will. Unless you believe that poverty is a disease and somehow somebody will take away your child's meals and peace at home.

Wait are you saying that a big group of poorly performing kids will have no impact on the regular kids?? Seriously? So if, say, 50% of poor kids in DC have school issues - hunger, behaviour, home stress, whatever else (and a nominal percentage of richer kids do), you're saying that if my kid is the only richer kid in the class (so there are 50% poorly performing kids in that class) that my kid is going to have the same experience as when the school size doubles from an influx of richer kids (so now there are only 25% poorly performing kids in his class)? You can't be serious.

Not PP, but I'll take a stab at answering -- it's not the same experience, no, but it's not the devastating threat to your child's academic experience many posters here to seem to think it is.

White kids in DCPS wouldn't be the top-performing group in the nation if the presence of poorly performing kids had as much of an impact as people say they do.

It's not "the presence" of poorly performing kids. It's a substantial majority. At some point, enough poorly performing kids are going to tip the scales.

My suspicion is that the one or two white kids in otherwise poorly performing schools are not exactly contributing to the stats about the amazing performance of white kids in DC. They are likely a net zero effect. Not doing terribly, but not doing as well as they would be in a better school system. Perhaps your threshold for a viable school is "not doing terribly" -- but i have higher hopes for my kid.

Are CAS scores within a school, or at least within a ward, ever presented broken down into demographic categories and grade tested, as OSSE presents system-wide results (see link)?
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/2014%20DC%20CAS%20Result%20July%2031%202014...FINAL_.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the kids" are not going to perform well is not the same as "the poor kids are going to infect my child's brain and prevent her from learning." The truth is "those kids" may not perform well, but yours will. Unless you believe that poverty is a disease and somehow somebody will take away your child's meals and peace at home.

Wait are you saying that a big group of poorly performing kids will have no impact on the regular kids?? Seriously? So if, say, 50% of poor kids in DC have school issues - hunger, behaviour, home stress, whatever else (and a nominal percentage of richer kids do), you're saying that if my kid is the only richer kid in the class (so there are 50% poorly performing kids in that class) that my kid is going to have the same experience as when the school size doubles from an influx of richer kids (so now there are only 25% poorly performing kids in his class)? You can't be serious.

Not PP, but I'll take a stab at answering -- it's not the same experience, no, but it's not the devastating threat to your child's academic experience many posters here to seem to think it is.

White kids in DCPS wouldn't be the top-performing group in the nation if the presence of poorly performing kids had as much of an impact as people say they do.

It's not "the presence" of poorly performing kids. It's a substantial majority. At some point, enough poorly performing kids are going to tip the scales.

My suspicion is that the one or two white kids in otherwise poorly performing schools are not exactly contributing to the stats about the amazing performance of white kids in DC. They are likely a net zero effect. Not doing terribly, but not doing as well as they would be in a better school system. Perhaps your threshold for a viable school is "not doing terribly" -- but i have higher hopes for my kid.

Are CAS scores within a school, or at least within a ward, ever presented broken down into demographic categories and grade tested, as OSSE presents system-wide results (see link)?
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/2014%20DC%20CAS%20Result%20July%2031%202014...FINAL_.pdf

Responding to myself that yes, they are, here http://osse.dc.gov/publication/2014-dc-cas-results but I don't seem to be able to navigate the data. I expected that if the numbers in a demographic group are too low (e.g. Asian at a Title 1) the data wouldn't be shown, and that what might be making it look buggy to me. Anyway, maybe looking at the CAS scores broken down by demographics within a school might help answer the question of how much does a demographic's score change depending on the environment. Ugh, such a tough tough topic, it feels icky to even contribute a link to it.

[Anonymous]

To answer the original question. Gentrifies simply need to apply the "strength in numbers" theory to add more children from middle and upper-middle income families to a particular school. That's the best, surefire way to "improve" a bad school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"the kids" are not going to perform well is not the same as "the poor kids are going to infect my child's brain and prevent her from learning." The truth is "those kids" may not perform well, but yours will. Unless you believe that poverty is a disease and somehow somebody will take away your child's meals and peace at home.

That is hugely wrong, and it makes me wonder if you have even the faintest clue of what goes on in classrooms - the kids aren't each all just sitting there in a vacuum with a one-on-one connection with the teacher. There are a lot of kids who come from very dysfunctional homes, who have behavior and discipline problems, who have no idea of what socially acceptable and normal behavior is supposed to be like - they end up talking in class, disrupting, getting up and walking around, throwing things, et cetera - lots of constant disruptive behaviors which consume teachers' time and take away from learning - all of this can end up negatively impacting the entire class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That is hugely wrong, and it makes me wonder if you have even the faintest clue of what goes on in classrooms - the kids aren't each all just sitting there in a vacuum with a one-on-one connection with the teacher. There are a lot of kids who come from very dysfunctional homes, who have behavior and discipline problems, who have no idea of what socially acceptable and normal behavior is supposed to be like - they end up talking in class, disrupting, getting up and walking around, throwing things, et cetera - lots of constant disruptive behaviors which consume teachers' time and take away from learning - all of this can end up negatively impacting the entire class.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been at a high FARMS rate school before, here is what I have discovered:

* Active PTA does not translate to much of anything in terms of the actual education, test scores, or student behavior. Sure they put on nice events or have nice after school programs or even get funding for some school extras but it doesn't fix the underlying issues.

* "Involved parents" don;t make a difference because the involved parents have to be involved in order to insure their kids don't fall behind because the regular classroom work is usually a bit behind grade level and the teacher doesn't have time to differentiate, She is too busy dealing with behavior issues and children who are a grade level behind in every subject.

*Principal - has a marginal impact if she/he is good, has a bigger impact if he/she is a poor leader or not well liked by staff.

*Teachers - mixed bag - some will be good some won't. The best skill the teacher needs - behavior management skills.

The only real thing that is going to make a difference - getting enough parents to buy in that you can tip the scale in favor of nonFARMS parents by at least a margin of 60% nonFARMS vs. FARMS. Then you will see a difference.

So, you're saying a prerequisite is that the neighborhood must contain enough high-SES parents or potential parents in which to populate a school, or the possibility of improving the level of academic achievement at the school is pretty much hopeless.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

+1,000 and I have worked in these schools. The sad truth is that a few high minded parents and a wealthy PTA just do not outweigh the negatives that come from multi generational poverty. It is absolutely the norm in a class of 25 to have at least one kid who is homeless, one kid whose parent is in jail, one kid who is abused, one kid that has a major behavioral disorder, and a majority of kids who do not have enough to eat or a safe place to play and sleep. That is DC. Until that changes, the kids are not going to perform well.

I think (overall) this is true, but there's a big difference between Title 1 and High FARMS. Its easier to tip the scales in a middle class neighborhood where the school's IB population is low and slowly effect change. It think that is where the original poster was coming from.