Is “school quality” a code word for “student quality”?

[Anonymous]

I have taught at both title 1 schools and wealthy schools. Far and away the better instruction was at the title 1 schools. It was out of necessity—if teaching wasn’t good, those kids would literally climb out the window and leave, or go to the bathroom and get high, or punch their neighbor to entertain themselves, or start stabbing things with scissors out of boredom. We had to have engaging lessons every single day to keep kids in class.

At the rich school? Teachers were pulling the same worksheets they’d used since 1991 out of a file cabinet, even though they no longer matched standards. They taught things the way they always taught and kids either got it, or parents paid $$$ to tutors so they got it. Staff bragged about their 100% pass rate on state tests when they could have done absolutely nothing and those kids would have passed.

Don’t get me wrong, there were some good teachers at the rich school too, as well as kids getting high in the bathrooms. And the poor school had a few dud teachers and plenty of kids who truly wanted to learn and did all they could to take advantage of opportunities.

All schools I’ve taught at have been very diverse—the difference is $$$$.

I’m now at a middle of the road school and I think this is my happy medium. Kids know the value of education (they aren’t going to inherit millions and be independently wealthy), but also don’t have to worry about not having money for bills, so they can focus on grades instead of stress about being evicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have taught at both title 1 schools and wealthy schools. Far and away the better instruction was at the title 1 schools. It was out of necessity—if teaching wasn’t good, those kids would literally climb out the window and leave, or go to the bathroom and get high, or punch their neighbor to entertain themselves, or start stabbing things with scissors out of boredom. We had to have engaging lessons every single day to keep kids in class.

At the rich school? Teachers were pulling the same worksheets they’d used since 1991 out of a file cabinet, even though they no longer matched standards. They taught things the way they always taught and kids either got it, or parents paid $$$ to tutors so they got it. Staff bragged about their 100% pass rate on state tests when they could have done absolutely nothing and those kids would have passed.

Don’t get me wrong, there were some good teachers at the rich school too, as well as kids getting high in the bathrooms. And the poor school had a few dud teachers and plenty of kids who truly wanted to learn and did all they could to take advantage of opportunities.

All schools I’ve taught at have been very diverse—the difference is $$$$.

I’m now at a middle of the road school and I think this is my happy medium. Kids know the value of education (they aren’t going to inherit millions and be independently wealthy), but also don’t have to worry about not having money for bills, so they can focus on grades instead of stress about being evicted.

Most title 1 schools have terrible test scores and majority of students are chronically absent. It doesn’t matter how good the teaching is. It isn’t about the teaching, it is about the parenting going on at home. My kids go to a title 1 diverse school. The teaching if fine, though the standards are super low. We pretty much have to homeschool. Kids that have involved parents that put in time with them at home and value their education will do fine at any school. The common denominator of successful and smart students are parents that work with them at home and prioritise their enducatipn from an early age. While having money makes that easier to do this, it isn’t a must. My DH’s immigrant single mother who made minimum wage sent three kids to medical school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is a dog whistle for how white a school is?

Just what the world needs right now: another opportunity to reinforce division & hatred. Almost everybody I know who works in a diverse group has no trouble. But that doesn’t fit in with your expectations, so you have to generate friction.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have taught at both title 1 schools and wealthy schools. Far and away the better instruction was at the title 1 schools. It was out of necessity—if teaching wasn’t good, those kids would literally climb out the window and leave, or go to the bathroom and get high, or punch their neighbor to entertain themselves, or start stabbing things with scissors out of boredom. We had to have engaging lessons every single day to keep kids in class.

At the rich school? Teachers were pulling the same worksheets they’d used since 1991 out of a file cabinet, even though they no longer matched standards. They taught things the way they always taught and kids either got it, or parents paid $$$ to tutors so they got it. Staff bragged about their 100% pass rate on state tests when they could have done absolutely nothing and those kids would have passed.

Don’t get me wrong, there were some good teachers at the rich school too, as well as kids getting high in the bathrooms. And the poor school had a few dud teachers and plenty of kids who truly wanted to learn and did all they could to take advantage of opportunities.

All schools I’ve taught at have been very diverse—the difference is $$$$.

I’m now at a middle of the road school and I think this is my happy medium. Kids know the value of education (they aren’t going to inherit millions and be independently wealthy), but also don’t have to worry about not having money for bills, so they can focus on grades instead of stress about being evicted.

Most title 1 schools have terrible test scores and majority of students are chronically absent. It doesn’t matter how good the teaching is. It isn’t about the teaching, it is about the parenting going on at home. My kids go to a title 1 diverse school. The teaching if fine, though the standards are super low. We pretty much have to homeschool. Kids that have involved parents that put in time with them at home and value their education will do fine at any school. The common denominator of successful and smart students are parents that work with them at home and prioritise their enducatipn from an early age. While having money makes that easier to do this, it isn’t a must. My DH’s immigrant single mother who made minimum wage sent three kids to medical school.

IMO schools need to be consulting with people like your MIL.

[Anonymous]

No, it's a code word for "parent quality".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an important question. We need massive investment and reparations in poor non-white communities, to separate poverty from race, so we can get an answer.

Along the same lines but different…
Wards 7 & 8 should get bulldozed and replaced with market rate housing to create more tax revenue. The families receiving assistance should continue receiving assistance but be disbursed and moved around to better neighborhoods.

Exposure to healthier habits and families, better schools/social opportunities, and positive social behavior will rise the tides.

Side note: Parsing out need-based assistance by race is…wait for it…**racist**.

[Anonymous]

It’s a terrible truth that a large portion of intelligence is heritable due in part to assortative mating. Living in poverty no doubt has transgenerational epigenetic effects, but there will never be “school equality” no matter how much money we throw at disadvantaged schools.
Years of math tutoring, science camps and after school robotics club couldn’t make my daughter a STEM major, despite her Mum’s vicarious wishes- too much of my gene expression, evidently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an important question. We need massive investment and reparations in poor non-white communities, to separate poverty from race, so we can get an answer.

Along the same lines but different…
Wards 7 & 8 should get bulldozed and replaced with market rate housing to create more tax revenue. The families receiving assistance should continue receiving assistance but be disbursed and moved around to better neighborhoods.

Exposure to healthier habits and families, better schools/social opportunities, and positive social behavior will rise the tides.

Side note: Parsing out need-based assistance by race is…wait for it…**racist**.

Yes, it is. That's why we need reparations for centuries of racist oppression.

[Anonymous]

To answer the original question, yes of course that’s what it means. But as a parent and teacher I can tell you that the average score of the average student at that school on a standardized test has very, very little to do with my own child’s experience at that school. They are in high school and have always gone to average SES public schools that many people on here criticize. But they’ve also had great teachers, friends, experiences, and plenty of students at their academic caliber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have taught at both title 1 schools and wealthy schools. Far and away the better instruction was at the title 1 schools. It was out of necessity—if teaching wasn’t good, those kids would literally climb out the window and leave, or go to the bathroom and get high, or punch their neighbor to entertain themselves, or start stabbing things with scissors out of boredom. We had to have engaging lessons every single day to keep kids in class.

At the rich school? Teachers were pulling the same worksheets they’d used since 1991 out of a file cabinet, even though they no longer matched standards. They taught things the way they always taught and kids either got it, or parents paid $$$ to tutors so they got it. Staff bragged about their 100% pass rate on state tests when they could have done absolutely nothing and those kids would have passed.

Don’t get me wrong, there were some good teachers at the rich school too, as well as kids getting high in the bathrooms. And the poor school had a few dud teachers and plenty of kids who truly wanted to learn and did all they could to take advantage of opportunities.

All schools I’ve taught at have been very diverse—the difference is $$$$.

I’m now at a middle of the road school and I think this is my happy medium. Kids know the value of education (they aren’t going to inherit millions and be independently wealthy), but also don’t have to worry about not having money for bills, so they can focus on grades instead of stress about being evicted.

Most title 1 schools have terrible test scores and majority of students are chronically absent. It doesn’t matter how good the teaching is. It isn’t about the teaching, it is about the parenting going on at home. My kids go to a title 1 diverse school. The teaching if fine, though the standards are super low. We pretty much have to homeschool. Kids that have involved parents that put in time with them at home and value their education will do fine at any school. The common denominator of successful and smart students are parents that work with them at home and prioritise their enducatipn from an early age. While having money makes that easier to do this, it isn’t a must. My DH’s immigrant single mother who made minimum wage sent three kids to medical school.

+1

It's mostly about the parenting unless the kid has a disability or a disorder. Self-motivated kids are going to do well almost anywhere, but those kids are few and far between. The rest need good parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an important question. We need massive investment and reparations in poor non-white communities, to separate poverty from race, so we can get an answer.

Along the same lines but different…
Wards 7 & 8 should get bulldozed and replaced with market rate housing to create more tax revenue. The families receiving assistance should continue receiving assistance but be disbursed and moved around to better neighborhoods.

Exposure to healthier habits and families, better schools/social opportunities, and positive social behavior will rise the tides.

Side note: Parsing out need-based assistance by race is…wait for it…**racist**.

Yes, it is. That's why we need reparations for centuries of racist oppression.

Lol. Thank you. I needed a good laugh this evening.

[Anonymous]

Yep but this is what impacts the level the teachers teach at, how disruptive kids are, etc. So it still matters.
Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, yes, 1,000x yes! I wish I'd realized this when my kids were little, and I bragged about how great the schools in Arlington are. They're just rich and white; there's nothing else special about them.

x100 Yes, these measures are misleading since they reward a lack of economic diversity. The irony is a kid can get a great education at almost any school provided they have the same curriculum. Sure one school may have 4 sections of AP English while another only has 2 but AP English is the same everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, yes, 1,000x yes! I wish I'd realized this when my kids were little, and I bragged about how great the schools in Arlington are. They're just rich and white; there's nothing else special about them.

x100 Yes, these measures are misleading since they reward a lack of economic diversity. The irony is a kid can get a great education at almost any school provided they have the same curriculum. Sure one school may have 4 sections of AP English while another only has 2 but AP English is the same everywhere.

Lol. If this was true progressives wouldn't want busing so badly like they do in MoCo and already did in HoCo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have taught at both title 1 schools and wealthy schools. Far and away the better instruction was at the title 1 schools. It was out of necessity—if teaching wasn’t good, those kids would literally climb out the window and leave, or go to the bathroom and get high, or punch their neighbor to entertain themselves, or start stabbing things with scissors out of boredom. We had to have engaging lessons every single day to keep kids in class.

At the rich school? Teachers were pulling the same worksheets they’d used since 1991 out of a file cabinet, even though they no longer matched standards. They taught things the way they always taught and kids either got it, or parents paid $$$ to tutors so they got it. Staff bragged about their 100% pass rate on state tests when they could have done absolutely nothing and those kids would have passed.

Don’t get me wrong, there were some good teachers at the rich school too, as well as kids getting high in the bathrooms. And the poor school had a few dud teachers and plenty of kids who truly wanted to learn and did all they could to take advantage of opportunities.

All schools I’ve taught at have been very diverse—the difference is $$$$.

I’m now at a middle of the road school and I think this is my happy medium. Kids know the value of education (they aren’t going to inherit millions and be independently wealthy), but also don’t have to worry about not having money for bills, so they can focus on grades instead of stress about being evicted.

Agree with this. Teachers at Title 1 schools have to be really good at their jobs or they will wash out fast. If you aren't effective, it will be too demoralizing. Whereas teaching at a school with really well-resourced families allows for a much greater variety of teacher quality. There are gems, but the duds can skate by and people just kind of accept stuff like "oh the second grade cohort is pretty mediocre" or "oh, you got Ms. Dawson for 5th? bummer -- you'll need to supplement before MS math."

Also, at a title 1, if you are good at your job and get results, you will get some leeway in how you teach without having to deal with a ton of parent pushback. There's less parent involvement period, and those that are involved tend to be more respectful and appreciative for what teachers do. If you are good at your job, it will be noticed and you will get freedom to do it. Different story at a wealthy school. Parents are very involved but also often arrogant and don't really respect the work that teachers do. Sometimes teachers at these schools get kind of browbeaten and choose to just play it safe and not make waves. Parents will still complain ("Joey isn't being challenged enough" "Vivian is bored in class") but they complain no matter what, so why innovate or put your heart into it?