People who ruin neighborhoods (like tkpk) by putting their kids in private school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The length of this thread reflects the state of public schools.

Bizarre to judge private school parents for not wanting a part of this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that putting my (upper class) children in public school aligns with my communitarian/pro-social values. Research verifies that children with advantages suffer no ill effects from being in diverse/lower performing schools, while disadvantaged children experience a lot of benefits from the resources that follow privileged children. Plus the experience helps keep my wealthy children from being snobby, out of touch, unable to relate to others, etc.

My school district did a rezoning a few years back and you should have seen the way that UMC people lost their minds over being sent to a less wealthy/less white school. I'm not saying I was all blase about my kids changing schools - obviously it means a transition for your kids to deal with - but I wasn't going to wail and gnash my teeth. Our children really show us whether we live our values or not.

But this is only true up to a point. When you have high poverty schools (60, 70, 80 percent FARMS), everyone’s performance suffers. Yes the UMC kids may ultimately be ok, but there’s a big difference in the day to day of a school that’s say 30 percent FARMS verses 80.

I guess I take a step back -- why would you put your kids in that environment? I went to a high school that was quite poor performing -- i did fine and that is an understatement. I am sure most UMC kids would be fine. But why would you do it? I would not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throughout the history of education it has been a push and pull between people who believe segregation is better because it makes THEIR lives easier and people who recognize that segregation is terrible for kids.

That's why the IDEA defines the least restrictive environment (LRE) as disabled students learning alongside non-disabled peers. Of course it is easier to have all the disabled kids together so the services can be provided more efficiently, but that is bad for many kids and the law recognizes this.

One of the reasons why kid is in private now. No more having to hear kids scream uncontrollably in class.

I'm starting to understand why my public school classmates are more successful than the private school ones. There is something to be said for learning to deal with difficult situations. Academics isn't everything.in fact I would argue soft skills and resiliency are far more important.

Lol cope

:roll; is not an argument. you don't have one. deep down you know the fact that you shelter your kid so much is hurting them in the end. they will be fine because you can given them lots of advantages. not because you prepared them well for life.

Getting a shit education because of class room disruptions are preparing you well for life.

You don't like that your child was exposed to a child with disabilities. Sorry about that, that must of been really hard for them.

Not PP but where in the response or on this thread was there any discussion of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throughout the history of education it has been a push and pull between people who believe segregation is better because it makes THEIR lives easier and people who recognize that segregation is terrible for kids.

That's why the IDEA defines the least restrictive environment (LRE) as disabled students learning alongside non-disabled peers. Of course it is easier to have all the disabled kids together so the services can be provided more efficiently, but that is bad for many kids and the law recognizes this.

One of the reasons why kid is in private now. No more having to hear kids scream uncontrollably in class.

I'm starting to understand why my public school classmates are more successful than the private school ones. There is something to be said for learning to deal with difficult situations. Academics isn't everything.in fact I would argue soft skills and resiliency are far more important.

Lol cope

:roll; is not an argument. you don't have one. deep down you know the fact that you shelter your kid so much is hurting them in the end. they will be fine because you can given them lots of advantages. not because you prepared them well for life.

Getting a shit education because of class room disruptions are preparing you well for life.

You don't like that your child was exposed to a child with disabilities. Sorry about that, that must of been really hard for them.

Not PP but where in the response or on this thread was there any discussion of that.

You're going to have to scroll up to see what PP was responding to (hint, it was specific to the requirement that children with disabilities learn alongside nondisabled peers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. It’s so blindingly obvious to me that OP and OPs supporters are bizarrely sheltered. I had my kid in a public school that OP would never put a foot in. We pulled my kid to private eventually because of reasons of physical safety. And when I say that, I don’t mean a little shove here and there.

People like OP are cute but so, so naive and sheltered. Sort of amusing and entitled but goodness.

For real. People need to hop over to the threads about the Alexandria public schools. There are kids who won’t drink water all day because they are terrified to use the bathrooms.

[Anonymous]

MoCo is far more diverse & less segregated SL than most U.S. school districts (where you attend school with kids from your town only from k-12). Let’s just saw that the “Scotland” community in Potomac would’ve been sold & developed a long time ago if it were located anywhere else. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it is true.

[Anonymous]

I giggle when I read people applauding kids going from low-income public schools to private colleges like Yale. Using OP’s logic, shouldn’t those kids be going to Salisbury or Towson instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again, my kid is not your kids social worker/social experiment. My kid, like your kid, gets one shot at it, one childhood. It is my job as a parent to maximize his/her potential so they can go on to be productive and positive citizens in this country, and ultimately, and most importantly, lead a fulfilling life. I find that people like Op are all for a less rigorous curriculum, as an example, in the name of equality. This has never been about economic diversity, it has always been about making everyone equal on the academic level. Too bad if a kid is gifted in math, they need to sit there and take what math is provided to all students and deal with it, no reaching that child's potential. Complete bs.

What does productive mean? What is a positive citizen? How is someone raised in a bubble of privilege supposed to be a positive influence on others? What is a fulfilling life? I suspect we have very different definitions of these things. I believe we're all connected. I believe that "producing" isn't the goal in a world that's quickly burning through its resources.

My kid is gifted and in under-resourced urban schools. Yeah, she's ahead of her classmates in math, so she has moved on to future lessons. Her teacher has them all uploaded on Google classroom for this reason. When she was in elementary school, a student moved here from a foreign country and didn't speak English. The teacher gave my child a foreign language dictionary and had her sit with this student and help him with English. These experiences help create a person who is self-directed, kind, etc.

It's natural to want to provide your children with the best . . . it's a literal survival instinct. But it's good to interrogate what "the best" really means. It would be a shame to spend a lot of money just to make your child less well-rounded, less empathetic, and less suited to a diverse workforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MoCo is far more diverse & less segregated SL than most U.S. school districts (where you attend school with kids from your town only from k-12). Let’s just saw that the “Scotland” community in Potomac would’ve been sold & developed a long time ago if it were located anywhere else. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it is true.

MoCo schools are very segregated. You can't deny that based on one very small community that was grudgingly protected after decades of neglect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throughout the history of education it has been a push and pull between people who believe segregation is better because it makes THEIR lives easier and people who recognize that segregation is terrible for kids.

That's why the IDEA defines the least restrictive environment (LRE) as disabled students learning alongside non-disabled peers. Of course it is easier to have all the disabled kids together so the services can be provided more efficiently, but that is bad for many kids and the law recognizes this.

One of the reasons why kid is in private now. No more having to hear kids scream uncontrollably in class.

I'm starting to understand why my public school classmates are more successful than the private school ones. There is something to be said for learning to deal with difficult situations. Academics isn't everything.in fact I would argue soft skills and resiliency are far more important.

Lol cope

:roll; is not an argument. you don't have one. deep down you know the fact that you shelter your kid so much is hurting them in the end. they will be fine because you can given them lots of advantages. not because you prepared them well for life.

Getting a shit education because of class room disruptions are preparing you well for life.

You don't like that your child was exposed to a child with disabilities. Sorry about that, that must of been really hard for them.

Cut the virtue signaling. You know damn well that there's a world of difference between being "exposed to a child with disabilities" and a classroom subject to constant disruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, my kid is not your kids social worker/social experiment. My kid, like your kid, gets one shot at it, one childhood. It is my job as a parent to maximize his/her potential so they can go on to be productive and positive citizens in this country, and ultimately, and most importantly, lead a fulfilling life. I find that people like Op are all for a less rigorous curriculum, as an example, in the name of equality. This has never been about economic diversity, it has always been about making everyone equal on the academic level. Too bad if a kid is gifted in math, they need to sit there and take what math is provided to all students and deal with it, no reaching that child's potential. Complete bs.

What does productive mean? What is a positive citizen? How is someone raised in a bubble of privilege supposed to be a positive influence on others? What is a fulfilling life? I suspect we have very different definitions of these things. I believe we're all connected. I believe that "producing" isn't the goal in a world that's quickly burning through its resources.

My kid is gifted and in under-resourced urban schools. Yeah, she's ahead of her classmates in math, so she has moved on to future lessons. Her teacher has them all uploaded on Google classroom for this reason. When she was in elementary school, a student moved here from a foreign country and didn't speak English. The teacher gave my child a foreign language dictionary and had her sit with this student and help him with English. These experiences help create a person who is self-directed, kind, etc.

It's natural to want to provide your children with the best . . . it's a literal survival instinct. But it's good to interrogate what "the best" really means. It would be a shame to spend a lot of money just to make your child less well-rounded, less empathetic, and less suited to a diverse workforce.

So much sanctimonious bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, my kid is not your kids social worker/social experiment. My kid, like your kid, gets one shot at it, one childhood. It is my job as a parent to maximize his/her potential so they can go on to be productive and positive citizens in this country, and ultimately, and most importantly, lead a fulfilling life. I find that people like Op are all for a less rigorous curriculum, as an example, in the name of equality. This has never been about economic diversity, it has always been about making everyone equal on the academic level. Too bad if a kid is gifted in math, they need to sit there and take what math is provided to all students and deal with it, no reaching that child's potential. Complete bs.

What does productive mean? What is a positive citizen? How is someone raised in a bubble of privilege supposed to be a positive influence on others? What is a fulfilling life? I suspect we have very different definitions of these things. I believe we're all connected. I believe that "producing" isn't the goal in a world that's quickly burning through its resources.

My kid is gifted and in under-resourced urban schools. Yeah, she's ahead of her classmates in math, so she has moved on to future lessons. Her teacher has them all uploaded on Google classroom for this reason. When she was in elementary school, a student moved here from a foreign country and didn't speak English. The teacher gave my child a foreign language dictionary and had her sit with this student and help him with English. These experiences help create a person who is self-directed, kind, etc.

It's natural to want to provide your children with the best . . . it's a literal survival instinct. But it's good to interrogate what "the best" really means. It would be a shame to spend a lot of money just to make your child less well-rounded, less empathetic, and less suited to a diverse workforce.

Talk to me when “progressive” leftists in power send their kids to public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throughout the history of education it has been a push and pull between people who believe segregation is better because it makes THEIR lives easier and people who recognize that segregation is terrible for kids.

That's why the IDEA defines the least restrictive environment (LRE) as disabled students learning alongside non-disabled peers. Of course it is easier to have all the disabled kids together so the services can be provided more efficiently, but that is bad for many kids and the law recognizes this.

One of the reasons why kid is in private now. No more having to hear kids scream uncontrollably in class.

I'm starting to understand why my public school classmates are more successful than the private school ones. There is something to be said for learning to deal with difficult situations. Academics isn't everything.in fact I would argue soft skills and resiliency are far more important.

Lol cope

:roll; is not an argument. you don't have one. deep down you know the fact that you shelter your kid so much is hurting them in the end. they will be fine because you can given them lots of advantages. not because you prepared them well for life.

Getting a shit education because of class room disruptions are preparing you well for life.

You don't like that your child was exposed to a child with disabilities. Sorry about that, that must of been really hard for them.

Cut the virtue signaling. You know damn well that there's a world of difference between being "exposed to a child with disabilities" and a classroom subject to constant disruption.

I mean the above PP (you?) equated those two things and said they pulled their child out of public school specifically because public schools are required to educate children with disabilities alongside nondisabled peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I live in your neighborhood if I don’t have any kids? According to you, is that allowed?

+1 blaming neighbors for not sending kids to public school, whether they have kids or not, is really bizarre and none of your business

People without kids do not have the same impact. People with kids who choose to take their kids out of public school and send them to private have an impact on their neighbors, the more they are, the more they put pressure on their neighbors to not send their kids to public school. Because parents start to worry that they are not doing the right thing and if Larla and Larlo don’t go to public school it means it is not good enough.

Look, I understand the posters who say they do not care at all because the fate of public schools don’t matter to them. They have been pretty vocal on this thread and very clear about why they think public school is not something worth investing in.

But posters who think it has no impact when a growing number of UMC kids are not going to the local public schools are disingenuous or ignoring facts. Again if you don’t care, fine. But please don’t ignore the fact that it does have an impact.

Complete nonsense. My parenting decisions should have no impact on anyone else. If you care what I do, that is your problem.

This is the most reasonable response on here.

Worry about your own kids. End of story.

[Anonymous]

I can't be bothered to read all 25 pages but I get the gist of the argument and theme of OP's post and why it's so controversial.

There is a strong belief among the progressive left that everything will be made much better and utopia achieved if we all come together and work together and share together for the betterment of all. In a way it's admirable, but it also rests strongly upon the principe that YOU WILL DO WHAT I TELL YOU TO DO. And therein lies the problem. And it's also why the progressive left feels deeply betrayed when they see people who don't conform to their worldview, such as families in Takoma Park enrolling children into private schools. And it also poses a tension between the concept of self choice that is the traditional heart of liberalism with the desired outcome of the bold new world of progressives, which requires overruling, often quite extensively, the freedom of self-choice.

Nothing is going to convince the OP otherwise. She is a confirmed progressive left. Anything that differs from what she decides is right or wrong is a betrayal of her values, and as such horrible and evil. Someone like me just rolls my eyes and ignores her and does what I want to do, whether that is moving for schools or picking private schools.