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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i've heard some good things re jefferson middle school in particular. "Jefferson offers accelerated and intervention courses for students at all levels, as well as a variety of enrichment courses - including Project Lead the Way and Coding." i don't myself really understand why in-bound dcps elementary school families often choose to commute to really far to latin or to attend basis instead.

Because of the high school path, duh. And most of the students and families at these schools appear satisfied with their children’s education.
Is that quote from Jefferson? Beware marketing speak, the reality rarely measures up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re a smarty pants, use the google. It’s all out there for the reading. Im not wasting my time linking articles because you are clearly entrenched in your opinion and no amount of data would change your mind.

[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.

I believe most research says that it is “not bad” for the high-performing students, not that it “ver much so” good for them. Also, studies are generally talking about schools they are strong majority (like 70%+) not-vulnerable students.

[Anonymous]

I have no idea what this thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i've heard some good things re jefferson middle school in particular. "Jefferson offers accelerated and intervention courses for students at all levels, as well as a variety of enrichment courses - including Project Lead the Way and Coding." i don't myself really understand why in-bound dcps elementary school families often choose to commute to really far to latin or to attend basis instead.

Because of the high school path, duh. And most of the students and families at these schools appear satisfied with their children’s education.
Is that quote from Jefferson? Beware marketing speak, the reality rarely measures up.

+1 it doesn't matter how much people will report good experiences at Jefferson, S-H, or E-H, many families will opt out for charters or other options because very few parents actually want to send their kid to Eastern and you have no guarantee of getting a spot at an application HS (all of which also require a long commute anyway). So it's charters, privates, or moving if you go to one of the Ward 6 MSs. Of those three, charters is the only one that doesn't cost money or totally uproot your lives, it's no wonder many families choose them if they are lucky enough to get spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I believe most research says that it is “not bad” for the high-performing students, not that it “ver much so” good for them. Also, studies are generally talking about schools they are strong majority (like 70%+) not-vulnerable students.

Doesn’t mean it’s bad, means there’s no data.

[Anonymous]

correction: most research says “not bad” academically. the above posts said their are further some socioemotional positives

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I believe most research says that it is “not bad” for the high-performing students, not that it “ver much so” good for them. Also, studies are generally talking about schools they are strong majority (like 70%+) not-vulnerable students.

Which school do your kids attend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re a smarty pants, use the google. It’s all out there for the reading. Im not wasting my time linking articles because you are clearly entrenched in your opinion and no amount of data would change your mind.

Claims offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Anonymous]

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-

1) Judeo-Christian is not a thing. Judaism and Christianity are not the same.

2) Studying abroad = a small worldview? Excuse me, what?

[Anonymous]

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-

1) Judeo-Christian is not a thing. Judaism and Christianity are not the same.

2) Studying abroad = a small worldview? Excuse me, what?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

[Anonymous]

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-

1) Judeo-Christian is not a thing. Judaism and Christianity are not the same.

2) Studying abroad = a small worldview? Excuse me, what?

This might be the single dumbest thing ever posted to DCUM.

[Anonymous]

This is a weird comment: "Claims offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Unless you just rank schools by test score or something, the evidence that one school is "better" than another will always be fraught and imperfect, as well as based on impressions and word of mouth etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a weird comment: "Claims offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Unless you just rank schools by test score or something, the evidence that one school is "better" than another will always be fraught and imperfect, as well as based on impressions and word of mouth etc.

PP was too lazy to use the google. UMC kids benefit from economically and racially diverse schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are ZERO schools that are more than 80% white.

The idea that sending your kid to a school of 70% white kids is somehow racist makes me chortle. Meanwhile, good luck finding a school with a decent cohort of Asian students. But of course, Asians don’t count.

I’m the OP. My (public) high school was about 90% white. About 10% Asian, less than 1% black, less than 1% Latino. This was in a wealthy suburb of a major US city (not DC).

I do it want that for my children.

DO NOT! Sorry, bad typo.

Can you state what racial percentages you would be comfortable with? 80% white and 20 % other? 70 % white and 30% other? 20% white and 80% other?