The Promise of Socio-Economically Integrated Schools in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the converse of this, I certainly believe the case needs to be made that having poor students with middle class students improves student performance for the middle class students.

I know some like diversity from the middle class perspective so they don't feel so isolated from those who are struggling, but the case for the benefit to the poor would resonate and justify a lot of what might be considered in student assignment.

If someone were only making such a case...

It doesn't, in fact the opposite is true - the middle class students suffer due to more disruptive behavior and discipline problems, along with classes going at a slower pace due to a greater need for remediation.

+1

[Anonymous]

I'm no researcher or stats pro like some on here claim to be, but my 21 years in DC and 7 years in the DC school system have given me some insights. I played the OOB and made it work for me. I was grateful for the lottery. However, I can now see that because of all the lotteries families often transfer their kids from school to school to school and I suspect some of the lack of student progress can be attributed to this. Yes, just one among many variables, but something. We talk about how children aren't tested until 3rd grade...well by then a child may be attending his 3rd school. I see it at my child's WotP school where children leave for private at 3rd so new OOB kids arrive from charters and lower performing schools, both because our school is good but also to get in the pipeline for Deal. I'd hate to see OOB go away, but that's where we're headed. If we could match families with the schools they want earlier, it would help decrease the jumping around.

[Anonymous]

Have an IB system and you stop the jumping around.

[Anonymous]

I was the poster at 18:46. We have NEVER jumped. We got into a school and have stayed there since the first grade offered. Having IB options does not stop the jumping around. Charters facilitate it too. Choice is important but the jumping around I've seen at the elementary level tells my gut it isn't good for the kids. Again, personal opinion only not based in data or studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have an IB system and you stop the jumping around.

Or have good schools that families are happy with. We are at a DCI feeder and my kid have pretty much had the same classmates since preschool and expect the same through high school.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of any studies, the data for DC consistently shows a huge achievement gap regardless of the amount of diversity in the school - it shows minimal beneficial impact to low-SES students.

And even any minimal beneficial impact may be misleading to interpret when comparing low-SES students who went OOB or charters vs. staying in their much higher FARMS IB schools, because the families that went OOB or charter self-selected.

[Anonymous]

Jumping Around is often criticized here and I think it comes from those left behind.

We're at our third school in three years. We went from an Appletree (it was awesome!) to a DCI feeder a block from our house.

Despite the fact that we were all in at both previous schools (we don't have a lot of money but can spend hundreds of volunteer hours), the schools we left are doing just fine without us and we have also improved our family situation from each move.

The PS3-6th grade is a such a quaint, conservative Mayberry ideal that falls to pieces when you look at specific cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree, OP. I have nothing against socioeconomic integration but anyone who thinks it is a high priority issue we must enact policy on, because of some misguided belief that it will benefit the poor or close the achievement gap is seriously mistaken. It would probably cause far more harm than good. There already is far more choice in the system now than there was a decade ago.

There was a study done in MoCo using data from their MPDU initiative that determined that having poor kids integrated into a more affluent school helped the poor kids eliminate about half of the gap. The problem was, this benefit basically disappeared once the percentage of poor kids crossed a threshold of about 20%. My (perhaps wrong) guess is that the peer group effect disappears once the population of poorer children reaches a point where they can easily self-segregate. Unfortunately in MoCo the FARMs rate is about 40%, so even if you wanted to bus or re-district it isn't feasible. DC, I'm sure, is in a much worse situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I'm astonished that OP (who implies she/he is well-educated) is doing such a pathetic job of looking at statistics and then declaring he/she knows whether poor kids benefit from going to school with middle class kids.

First, as someone noted earlier, the testing starts at third grade and there have been any number of changes (or not) going on in the earlier grades. Second, you have to look at whether there has been any noticeable improvement on the part of individual students over time, NOT AT AGGREGATE SCORES THAT COMPARE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF STUDENTS, which is what you're doing now. Third, you have to compare any change (or lack thereof) to a control group of poor students who have gone to school in majority poor schools.

You have done none of these things so you don't know whether poor students on average have benefited from going to school with middle-class students. But go on, continue to interpret the data in a way that makes you feel superior, because I know that nothing I say (even though I'm a senior researcher) will make a difference to you.

FTR, I haven't looked at the research myself but I know enough to know when I don't know the answer to something. You all think you're better educated than you actually are. If you don't want your kids to go to school with a lot of poor students, that's fine. I can accept that. But don't give us some bullshit about test scores when you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously, go back to school and take a research methods course.

So as a "senior researcher", you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion other than a) you're ignorant about this topic and b) everybody else is looking at this the wrong way. Gee, thanks, senior researcher.

Here's one study that does exactly what he's saying needs to be done: http://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

It shows improvements after several years in a school, but only if the number of poor kids stays below about 20%.

[Anonymous]

Plus, MOCo has a generally functional and well regarded school system. DC not so much.

[Anonymous]

Here is an important finding:

"• The academic returns from economic integration diminished as school poverty levels rose. Children who lived in public housing and attended schools where no more than 20 percent of students qualified for a free or reduced price meal did best, whereas those children in public hous- ing who attended schools where as many as 35 percent of students who qualified for a free or reduced price meal performed no better aca- demically over time than public housing children who attended schools where 35 to 85 percent of students qualified for a free or reduced price meal"


This study was done by the 21st Century Fund. Richard Kahlenberg who also works for them was one of the authors of the recent Washington Post OPEd calling for DC to create policies that make sure schools that are now trending affluent use weighted controlled choice lotteries to hold that schools at a 50% FARMS rate. Why would be do that given this study's conclusion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is an important finding:

"• The academic returns from economic integration diminished as school poverty levels rose. Children who lived in public housing and attended schools where no more than 20 percent of students qualified for a free or reduced price meal did best, whereas those children in public hous- ing who attended schools where as many as 35 percent of students who qualified for a free or reduced price meal performed no better aca- demically over time than public housing children who attended schools where 35 to 85 percent of students qualified for a free or reduced price meal"


This study was done by the 21st Century Fund. Richard Kahlenberg who also works for them was one of the authors of the recent Washington Post OPEd calling for DC to create policies that make sure schools that are now trending affluent use weighted controlled choice lotteries to hold that schools at a 50% FARMS rate. Why would be do that given this study's conclusion?

B/c it'll be impossible to have a 20% FARMS rate school in gentrifying neighborhoods. Setting the FARMS rate at 50% may attract more non FARM families so that over time the FARM rate decreases with time and further gentrification is my guess.

[Anonymous]

Goes to show that if anyone ever was to propose a mandate for any school it should a.) not exceed 20% and b.) should not exclude those who are IB.

[Anonymous]

All the more reason for DCPS to not go off half-cocked to implement this policy. If they really want to cling to the "rising tide will lift all boats" theory of helping low income kids succeed academically then they need to wait another decade until gentrification has created a city where 20 to 25% FARMS distribution across all schools is feasible. Because though I like economic diversity, there's no way my kids are going to a 50% FARMs school---for all the reasons outlined above. Until then, use the KIPP style model in the high FARMs school in an effort to intensively remediate the achievement gap.

[Anonymous]

I would choose a school where half or more of the students were eligible for Free and Reduced Meals under two conditions:

--it was really well run with a great principal and talented teacher

---it was an elementary school. No deal at the middle school level.