No matter how many times people say it, the phrase “good schools” will never not be racist/classist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a teacher and longtime public school parent and I absolutely agree “good schools” is a loaded term. We have a racial test score gap everywhere in this country. So while it would be taboo to say “I want a school without black and Hispanic students,” it is perfectly acceptable in polite society to say “I only want a school with the top scores,” which gets you the same segregated outcome. Parents are literally afraid of black and Hispanic children and of low-income children of all colors because they perceive that they lower their own children’s prospects and also lower their home values when they’re in the same district. Frankly I find it morally wrong. I think we will look back in horror someday at how we chose housing prices based on how white a school was.

My own kids have gone to public schools rated 4-6 or so, and have had great experiences. Their education and their experiences have not had anything to do with those “rankings.”

Then you and the OP can enroll your children in the “schools without the top scores.” Put your money where your mouth is.

Then don't judge people who (gasp) put their children in ''schools without the top scores'' as being ''neglectful of their children'' or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Classist, sure. Racist, nah. There are plenty of terrible schools that are all white. But class and valuing education are closely intertwined and it's not surprising that you'd see a correlation in schools.

I went to school with a bunch of low class white kids who sneered at "book learning."

Agree. Good school/bad school is in other words saying high income/low income student majority. It isn’t about race but about socioeconomic status. Poor white school districts are terrible too.

Poor isn't a protected class, so people use race as a proxy when fighting for certain policies.

That's a good point. We aren't very good about talking about class in the U.S. Part of that is surely what you describe: there are tools (legal, rhetorical, social) available for protected classes that aren't available to the merely poor. But also we have a deep mythology about being a classless meritocracy. So, a lot of times discussions of race are proxy wars over what are really issues surrounding socioeconomic class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a teacher and longtime public school parent and I absolutely agree “good schools” is a loaded term. We have a racial test score gap everywhere in this country. So while it would be taboo to say “I want a school without black and Hispanic students,” it is perfectly acceptable in polite society to say “I only want a school with the top scores,” which gets you the same segregated outcome. Parents are literally afraid of black and Hispanic children and of low-income children of all colors because they perceive that they lower their own children’s prospects and also lower their home values when they’re in the same district. Frankly I find it morally wrong. I think we will look back in horror someday at how we chose housing prices based on how white a school was.

My own kids have gone to public schools rated 4-6 or so, and have had great experiences. Their education and their experiences have not had anything to do with those “rankings.”

Then you and the OP can enroll your children in the “schools without the top scores.” Put your money where your mouth is.

Then don't judge people who (gasp) put their children in ''schools without the top scores'' as being ''neglectful of their children'' or whatever.

I’ve never heard anyone say that and neither have you. Stop making up crap to fit your agenda. And by the way, you using that as a reason to not put your child in school without top scores is a cop-out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a teacher and longtime public school parent and I absolutely agree “good schools” is a loaded term. We have a racial test score gap everywhere in this country. So while it would be taboo to say “I want a school without black and Hispanic students,” it is perfectly acceptable in polite society to say “I only want a school with the top scores,” which gets you the same segregated outcome. Parents are literally afraid of black and Hispanic children and of low-income children of all colors because they perceive that they lower their own children’s prospects and also lower their home values when they’re in the same district. Frankly I find it morally wrong. I think we will look back in horror someday at how we chose housing prices based on how white a school was.

My own kids have gone to public schools rated 4-6 or so, and have had great experiences. Their education and their experiences have not had anything to do with those “rankings.”

Then you and the OP can enroll your children in the “schools without the top scores.” Put your money where your mouth is.

Then don't judge people who (gasp) put their children in ''schools without the top scores'' as being ''neglectful of their children'' or whatever.

I’ve never heard anyone say that and neither have you. Stop making up crap to fit your agenda. And by the way, you using that as a reason to not put your child in school without top scores is a cop-out.

NP, WTF you talking about? Variants of that sentiment have been expressed numerous times on this site.

In general, agree that the rankings are mostly just proxies for SES of the school (and SES, generally speaking, as a proxy for race). And the phrase "good school" can be used to indicate exactly that. But it can also be used in a more evaluative sense of how well run a school is... does the administration value and support teachers, and help foster a good environment for kids to maximize their potential? A high SES school will still show high test scores even if the kids are being underserved because they on average have way more supports and advantages outside of school, including in the years prior to school commencing. So yeah, the phrase CAN be racist/classist, but I'm also tired of everyone trying to bucket things into having one and only one meaning, as if context and intent didn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a teacher and longtime public school parent and I absolutely agree “good schools” is a loaded term. We have a racial test score gap everywhere in this country. So while it would be taboo to say “I want a school without black and Hispanic students,” it is perfectly acceptable in polite society to say “I only want a school with the top scores,” which gets you the same segregated outcome. Parents are literally afraid of black and Hispanic children and of low-income children of all colors because they perceive that they lower their own children’s prospects and also lower their home values when they’re in the same district. Frankly I find it morally wrong. I think we will look back in horror someday at how we chose housing prices based on how white a school was.

My own kids have gone to public schools rated 4-6 or so, and have had great experiences. Their education and their experiences have not had anything to do with those “rankings.”

Then you and the OP can enroll your children in the “schools without the top scores.” Put your money where your mouth is.

Then don't judge people who (gasp) put their children in ''schools without the top scores'' as being ''neglectful of their children'' or whatever.

I’ve never heard anyone say that and neither have you. Stop making up crap to fit your agenda. And by the way, you using that as a reason to not put your child in school without top scores is a cop-out.

NP, WTF you talking about? Variants of that sentiment have been expressed numerous times on this site.

In general, agree that the rankings are mostly just proxies for SES of the school (and SES, generally speaking, as a proxy for race). And the phrase "good school" can be used to indicate exactly that. But it can also be used in a more evaluative sense of how well run a school is... does the administration value and support teachers, and help foster a good environment for kids to maximize their potential? A high SES school will still show high test scores even if the kids are being underserved because they on average have way more supports and advantages outside of school, including in the years prior to school commencing. So yeah, the phrase CAN be racist/classist, but I'm also tired of everyone trying to bucket things into having one and only one meaning, as if context and intent didn't matter.

Exactly. Now I'm not saying they're wrong necessarily, but literally in the past hour someone started a thread telling parents not to send their kids to high-poverty schools and that it would be hurting them to do so. Yes, this kind of thing gets posted all the time. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1053867.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a teacher and longtime public school parent and I absolutely agree “good schools” is a loaded term. We have a racial test score gap everywhere in this country. So while it would be taboo to say “I want a school without black and Hispanic students,” it is perfectly acceptable in polite society to say “I only want a school with the top scores,” which gets you the same segregated outcome. Parents are literally afraid of black and Hispanic children and of low-income children of all colors because they perceive that they lower their own children’s prospects and also lower their home values when they’re in the same district. Frankly I find it morally wrong. I think we will look back in horror someday at how we chose housing prices based on how white a school was.

My own kids have gone to public schools rated 4-6 or so, and have had great experiences. Their education and their experiences have not had anything to do with those “rankings.”

Then you and the OP can enroll your children in the “schools without the top scores.” Put your money where your mouth is.

Then don't judge people who (gasp) put their children in ''schools without the top scores'' as being ''neglectful of their children'' or whatever.

I’ve never heard anyone say that and neither have you. Stop making up crap to fit your agenda. And by the way, you using that as a reason to not put your child in school without top scores is a cop-out.

NP, WTF you talking about? Variants of that sentiment have been expressed numerous times on this site.

In general, agree that the rankings are mostly just proxies for SES of the school (and SES, generally speaking, as a proxy for race). And the phrase "good school" can be used to indicate exactly that. But it can also be used in a more evaluative sense of how well run a school is... does the administration value and support teachers, and help foster a good environment for kids to maximize their potential? A high SES school will still show high test scores even if the kids are being underserved because they on average have way more supports and advantages outside of school, including in the years prior to school commencing. So yeah, the phrase CAN be racist/classist, but I'm also tired of everyone trying to bucket things into having one and only one meaning, as if context and intent didn't matter.

Exactly. Now I'm not saying they're wrong necessarily, but literally in the past hour someone started a thread telling parents not to send their kids to high-poverty schools and that it would be hurting them to do so. Yes, this kind of thing gets posted all the time. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1053867.page

KIND OF SEEMS LIKE A COINCIDENCE NO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a teacher and longtime public school parent and I absolutely agree “good schools” is a loaded term. We have a racial test score gap everywhere in this country. So while it would be taboo to say “I want a school without black and Hispanic students,” it is perfectly acceptable in polite society to say “I only want a school with the top scores,” which gets you the same segregated outcome. Parents are literally afraid of black and Hispanic children and of low-income children of all colors because they perceive that they lower their own children’s prospects and also lower their home values when they’re in the same district. Frankly I find it morally wrong. I think we will look back in horror someday at how we chose housing prices based on how white a school was.

My own kids have gone to public schools rated 4-6 or so, and have had great experiences. Their education and their experiences have not had anything to do with those “rankings.”

Then you and the OP can enroll your children in the “schools without the top scores.” Put your money where your mouth is.

Then don't judge people who (gasp) put their children in ''schools without the top scores'' as being ''neglectful of their children'' or whatever.

I’ve never heard anyone say that and neither have you. Stop making up crap to fit your agenda. And by the way, you using that as a reason to not put your child in school without top scores is a cop-out.

NP, WTF you talking about? Variants of that sentiment have been expressed numerous times on this site.

In general, agree that the rankings are mostly just proxies for SES of the school (and SES, generally speaking, as a proxy for race). And the phrase "good school" can be used to indicate exactly that. But it can also be used in a more evaluative sense of how well run a school is... does the administration value and support teachers, and help foster a good environment for kids to maximize their potential? A high SES school will still show high test scores even if the kids are being underserved because they on average have way more supports and advantages outside of school, including in the years prior to school commencing. So yeah, the phrase CAN be racist/classist, but I'm also tired of everyone trying to bucket things into having one and only one meaning, as if context and intent didn't matter.

Exactly. Now I'm not saying they're wrong necessarily, but literally in the past hour someone started a thread telling parents not to send their kids to high-poverty schools and that it would be hurting them to do so. Yes, this kind of thing gets posted all the time. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1053867.page

KIND OF SEEMS LIKE A COINCIDENCE NO?

Yes, it certainly does seem like nothing more than that. And if you read the comments in that thread you'll read a similar thought expressed several different ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to acknowledge stereotype threat and that standardized tests are culturally biased. Additionally, public school needs are seen as “products” that need to “deliver results.”

Are they biased against first generation Asian immigrants for whom English is a second language and are adapting to a new culture?

No they are not.

Other American demographics have been here hundreds of years and have English as a first language and for whom their parents and grandparents spoke as a first language, which means they are culturally and linguistically privledged over newer demographics.

The cultural bias assertion is easy to take down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to acknowledge stereotype threat and that standardized tests are culturally biased. Additionally, public school needs are seen as “products” that need to “deliver results.”

Are they biased against first generation Asian immigrants for whom English is a second language and are adapting to a new culture?

No they are not.

Other American demographics have been here hundreds of years and have English as a first language and for whom their parents and grandparents spoke as a first language, which means they are culturally and linguistically privledged over newer demographics.

The cultural bias assertion is easy to take down.

+1. Descendants of the enslaved seem to be the only ones that are not making much progress. From what I can see, people of Hispanic or Latino descent are becoming more accepted and integrated and will, sooner or later, go the way of the Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jews, Asians, etc. ... populations who have been discriminated against and oppressed by the established demographics but who, nevertheless, become prosperous citizens.

[Anonymous]

So, under which circumstances would you agree that “good schools” is a racist micro aggression ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, under which circumstances would you agree that “good schools” is a racist micro aggression ?

All of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to acknowledge stereotype threat and that standardized tests are culturally biased. Additionally, public school needs are seen as “products” that need to “deliver results.”

Are they biased against first generation Asian immigrants for whom English is a second language and are adapting to a new culture?

No they are not.

Other American demographics have been here hundreds of years and have English as a first language and for whom their parents and grandparents spoke as a first language, which means they are culturally and linguistically privledged over newer demographics.

The cultural bias assertion is easy to take down.

+1. Descendants of the enslaved seem to be the only ones that are not making much progress. From what I can see, people of Hispanic or Latino descent are becoming more accepted and integrated and will, sooner or later, go the way of the Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jews, Asians, etc. ... populations who have been discriminated against and oppressed by the established demographics but who, nevertheless, become prosperous citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, under which circumstances would you agree that “good schools” is a racist micro aggression ?

All of them.

Victim mentality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to acknowledge stereotype threat and that standardized tests are culturally biased. Additionally, public school needs are seen as “products” that need to “deliver results.”

Are they biased against first generation Asian immigrants for whom English is a second language and are adapting to a new culture?

No they are not.

Other American demographics have been here hundreds of years and have English as a first language and for whom their parents and grandparents spoke as a first language, which means they are culturally and linguistically privledged over newer demographics.

The cultural bias assertion is easy to take down.

+1. Descendants of the enslaved seem to be the only ones that are not making much progress. From what I can see, people of Hispanic or Latino descent are becoming more accepted and integrated and will, sooner or later, go the way of the Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jews, Asians, etc. ... populations who have been discriminated against and oppressed by the established demographics but who, nevertheless, become prosperous citizens.

Do you think:
1. Descendants of enslaved people are making a lot of good progress toward equality?
2. There are other groups who have been equally prevented from improving their situation?
3. It's unseemly to make this observation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, under which circumstances would you agree that “good schools” is a racist micro aggression ?

All of them.

You’d find a racist microagression in a spring breeze.