UVA study - private vs. public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming there is only one tipping point and not degrees of degradation. Some might argue 1 bad apple spoils the batch and poor kids have a higher rate of bad apples. I would agree there is a point where everybody is highly impacted but nuance impacts start immediately.

I just don’t know why when no one likes freeloaders as friends, coworkers, neighbors, family or partners we somehow have convinced ourselves that they are a value-add in our children’s school. I get the conundrum that they have to be educated but let’s not kid our selves that they do anything but add weight to the system.

Speaking of bad apples...

+1000

Disgusting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are assuming there is only one tipping point and not degrees of degradation. Some might argue 1 bad apple spoils the batch and poor kids have a higher rate of bad apples. I would agree there is a point where everybody is highly impacted but nuance impacts start immediately.

I just don’t know why when no one likes freeloaders as friends, coworkers, neighbors, family or partners we somehow have convinced ourselves that they are a value-add in our children’s school. I get the conundrum that they have to be educated but let’s not kid our selves that they do anything but add weight to the system.

I appreciate that the tax money from your valuable home has paid to place my "value-added" child from a poor family into a county-wide GT program. Degrees of degradation...!

By the way, you are correct in that value-add is not for the well-off students sharing the classroom with little nerds on FARMs and Medicaid. Value-add is for the country as a whole. That is why you have not been able to re-create segregated public schools despite your best efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inflammatory would be posting it in the private school forum.

That's why I thought there would be a more dispassionate audience here : )

This issue also I think impacts public school choice. In other words, whether or not (and there are arguments on both sides) or the extent to which a kid from a MC/UMC family can have the same opportunities/success at a school where there are challenges not faced to the same degree as other schools (e.g., hunger, resources, English literacy), significant socioeconomic diversity, and so on, due to parental involvement or supplementing. I personally struggle with this as a parent. I know it's been debated ad nauseum here.

I think there is a tipping point at which having too many low income students may become a disadvantage to that MC/UMC child in the form of low income students needing more attention from faculty/staff to possibly not having a big enough academic peer group.

IMO, that tipping point is anything above 25 to 30%. Others may feel differently. I also think some SES diversity is a good thing, however, not from an education perspective, but just from a exposure to diversity perspective.

You are assuming there is only one tipping point and not degrees of degradation. Some might argue 1 bad apple spoils the batch and poor kids have a higher rate of bad apples. I would agree there is a point where everybody is highly impacted but nuance impacts start immediately.

I just don’t know why when no one likes freeloaders as friends, coworkers, neighbors, family or partners we somehow have convinced ourselves that they are a value-add in our children’s school. I get the conundrum that they have to be educated but let’s not kid our selves that they do anything but add weight to the system.

? So you only want public schools to be for the well off? Or you are saying private is better because then no kids are mooching off of you?

I don't expect children of any class to add value to a school. All children are valuable, and all children should be educated, and the US government agrees with that. That's why it's called public school, ie, funded by taxpayers. I guess if you don't like that then certainly go private, but your property taxes are still paying for those poor kids' public school.

This is the common counter point so I’ll take a shot showing the devise.

Of course all kids should be educated In the public schools. The problem is when rich kids get high level results and poor kids get poor results. Notice how I didn’t say rich or poor education. Problem is there is difference in results and there always will be. One side wants to water down the rich bubble schools to make them mirror the lower performaning school which won’t really help the poor kids. The other side wants to leave the poor kids in schools designed for rich kids perpetually failing least not they be accused of providing separate and unequal. Neither plan really is going to make a systematic difference in the outcomes of kids who are truly at risk. Before you trump up some study that shows that sticking 5 poor kids in some rich kid school, truly look at the controls. Not all poor kids are created equally. That and play it out, there aren’t enough Whitmans to absorb what ever magic percentage of Einstein or Kennedy, Wheaton, Gaithersburg, northwood or blair kids you want to redistribute.

Have a rich neighborhood school in a rich neighborhood is not a bad thing, having nice neighborhoods free of homeless and the lower SES hardships is not a bad thing. Shame on people simply trying to stoke class envy or warfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming there is only one tipping point and not degrees of degradation. Some might argue 1 bad apple spoils the batch and poor kids have a higher rate of bad apples. I would agree there is a point where everybody is highly impacted but nuance impacts start immediately.

I just don’t know why when no one likes freeloaders as friends, coworkers, neighbors, family or partners we somehow have convinced ourselves that they are a value-add in our children’s school. I get the conundrum that they have to be educated but let’s not kid our selves that they do anything but add weight to the system.

Speaking of bad apples...

I am sure s/he is a wonderful parent whose kids will learn to be as decent as their parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inflammatory would be posting it in the private school forum.

That's why I thought there would be a more dispassionate audience here : )

This issue also I think impacts public school choice. In other words, whether or not (and there are arguments on both sides) or the extent to which a kid from a MC/UMC family can have the same opportunities/success at a school where there are challenges not faced to the same degree as other schools (e.g., hunger, resources, English literacy), significant socioeconomic diversity, and so on, due to parental involvement or supplementing. I personally struggle with this as a parent. I know it's been debated ad nauseum here.

I think there is a tipping point at which having too many low income students may become a disadvantage to that MC/UMC child in the form of low income students needing more attention from faculty/staff to possibly not having a big enough academic peer group.

IMO, that tipping point is anything above 25 to 30%. Others may feel differently. I also think some SES diversity is a good thing, however, not from an education perspective, but just from a exposure to diversity perspective.

You are assuming there is only one tipping point and not degrees of degradation. Some might argue 1 bad apple spoils the batch and poor kids have a higher rate of bad apples. I would agree there is a point where everybody is highly impacted but nuance impacts start immediately.

I just don’t know why when no one likes freeloaders as friends, coworkers, neighbors, family or partners we somehow have convinced ourselves that they are a value-add in our children’s school. I get the conundrum that they have to be educated but let’s not kid our selves that they do anything but add weight to the system.

? So you only want public schools to be for the well off? Or you are saying private is better because then no kids are mooching off of you?

I don't expect children of any class to add value to a school. All children are valuable, and all children should be educated, and the US government agrees with that. That's why it's called public school, ie, funded by taxpayers. I guess if you don't like that then certainly go private, but your property taxes are still paying for those poor kids' public school.

This is the common counter point so I’ll take a shot showing the devise.

Of course all kids should be educated In the public schools. The problem is when rich kids get high level results and poor kids get poor results. Notice how I didn’t say rich or poor education. Problem is there is difference in results and there always will be. One side wants to water down the rich bubble schools to make them mirror the lower performaning school which won’t really help the poor kids. The other side wants to leave the poor kids in schools designed for rich kids perpetually failing least not they be accused of providing separate and unequal. Neither plan really is going to make a systematic difference in the outcomes of kids who are truly at risk. Before you trump up some study that shows that sticking 5 poor kids in some rich kid school, truly look at the controls. Not all poor kids are created equally. That and play it out, there aren’t enough Whitmans to absorb what ever magic percentage of Einstein or Kennedy, Wheaton, Gaithersburg, northwood or blair kids you want to redistribute.

Have a rich neighborhood school in a rich neighborhood is not a bad thing, having nice neighborhoods free of homeless and the lower SES hardships is not a bad thing. Shame on people simply trying to stoke class envy or warfare.

Thanks for the elitist asshole perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the common counter point so I’ll take a shot showing the devise.

Of course all kids should be educated In the public schools. The problem is when rich kids get high level results and poor kids get poor results. Notice how I didn’t say rich or poor education. Problem is there is difference in results and there always will be. One side wants to water down the rich bubble schools to make them mirror the lower performaning school which won’t really help the poor kids. The other side wants to leave the poor kids in schools designed for rich kids perpetually failing least not they be accused of providing separate and unequal. Neither plan really is going to make a systematic difference in the outcomes of kids who are truly at risk. Before you trump up some study that shows that sticking 5 poor kids in some rich kid school, truly look at the controls. Not all poor kids are created equally. That and play it out, there aren’t enough Whitmans to absorb what ever magic percentage of Einstein or Kennedy, Wheaton, Gaithersburg, northwood or blair kids you want to redistribute.

Have a rich neighborhood school in a rich neighborhood is not a bad thing, having nice neighborhoods free of homeless and the lower SES hardships is not a bad thing. Shame on people simply trying to stoke class envy or warfare.

Do you want to own some slaves, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is the common counter point so I’ll take a shot showing the devise.

Of course all kids should be educated In the public schools. The problem is when rich kids get high level results and poor kids get poor results. Notice how I didn’t say rich or poor education. Problem is there is difference in results and there always will be. One side wants to water down the rich bubble schools to make them mirror the lower performaning school which won’t really help the poor kids. The other side wants to leave the poor kids in schools designed for rich kids perpetually failing least not they be accused of providing separate and unequal. Neither plan really is going to make a systematic difference in the outcomes of kids who are truly at risk. Before you trump up some study that shows that sticking 5 poor kids in some rich kid school, truly look at the controls. Not all poor kids are created equally. That and play it out, there aren’t enough Whitmans to absorb what ever magic percentage of Einstein or Kennedy, Wheaton, Gaithersburg, northwood or blair kids you want to redistribute.

Have a rich neighborhood school in a rich neighborhood is not a bad thing, having nice neighborhoods free of homeless and the lower SES hardships is not a bad thing. Shame on people simply trying to stoke class envy or warfare.

Yes, indeed, PP. Shame on people who do that.

[Anonymous]

Why would you include Einstein in your diatribe? My kids went there and now my grandkids. Folks who grew up here and had their own families purposely move back to the Einstein cluster/neighborhood so their kids can attend. WTF is wrong with you, poster at 18:24?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would you include Einstein in your diatribe? My kids went there and now my grandkids. Folks who grew up here and had their own families purposely move back to the Einstein cluster/neighborhood so their kids can attend. WTF is wrong with you, poster at 18:24?

That's the part you object to? Not the idea that poor kids are a drag on society who should, at best, be kept segregated in their own schools for poor kids -- but that the person advocating for this includes Einstein in the list of schools that poor kids should be segregated to?

[Anonymous]

omg! I don't think exactly like you!

[Anonymous]

It's clear that poorer students in MoCo should be better integrated into low-FARMS schools like the W's to improve outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's clear that poorer students in MoCo should be better integrated into low-FARMS schools like the W's to improve outcomes.

Yes, and bring back tracking so all children have the opportunity to excel.

[Anonymous]

Tracking: As a teacher with 30+ years experience in Montgomery County, and as a student who grew up with tracking, it is the best method for average and high-achieving kids. We cannot sacrifice those smart/super-smart kids for the lower achievers who rarely make it out of the SES class anyway. Sorry to break the news to you. They rarely come from families who value education. You cannot just wish that that they did and it becomes true.

I have seen MoCo dilute and dilute the curriculum for 30 years, and so has every teacher who has been here for decades. I sent my own kids to private schools starting in middle (junior high) schools. Many, many public school teachers do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tracking: As a teacher with 30+ years experience in Montgomery County, and as a student who grew up with tracking, it is the best method for average and high-achieving kids. We cannot sacrifice those smart/super-smart kids for the lower achievers who rarely make it out of the SES class anyway. Sorry to break the news to you. They rarely come from families who value education. You cannot just wish that that they did and it becomes true.

I have seen MoCo dilute and dilute the curriculum for 30 years, and so has every teacher who has been here for decades. I sent my own kids to private schools starting in middle (junior high) schools. Many, many public school teachers do the same.

The "SES class" is what, specifically? SES stands for socioeconomic status. You have an SES, I have an SES, Ike Leggett has an SES, my kid's friend who lives in an MPDU has an SES, everybody has an SES. Did you know that?

Also, given your attitude that poor kids are going to do badly anyway so what's the point, I sure hope that you (a) haven't taught my kids and (b) are one of the teachers who frequently posts on DCUM about quitting MCPS and moving elsewhere. Maybe the Mountain Brook school district or the Bedford Central school district.

[Anonymous]

Meh. Neither Private nor Public schools are great. Our kids go to magnet programs and we supplement heavily. I can't let my kids education be dragged down to the pathetic levels of K-12 education in this country. We are already seeing the decline of US. We need to see where the future jobs are going to be. US kids are no longer competitive globally. Everywhere you see it is the kids of new immigrants who are succeeding.