MD public schools are segregated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP@15:25 -- "what in the world is majority minority?"

Majority minority is when the majority of people in a subgroup of the population (for example, Montgomery County, or students in Baltimore City public schools) are members of a minority group in the population as a whole (for example, people with Hispanic ethnicity in the US).

PP 15:25 here
I actually do know and "understand" this...I just believe it is as made up and "loaded" a term as "reverse racism"...don't even get me started

[Anonymous]

Ah, the race-baiting article from the oh-so-highly-regarded WaPo.
Well, I don't know about you, but I've worked my @ss off for 15 years so I can now go live in a neighborhood and send my kids to school where there is rampant juvenile crime, drugs, teenage mothers, no English at home, absentee fathers, etc.
Sounds like the right cultural experience for us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can argue that a more culturally diverse school would solve the problem. It won't. The kids, especially at the high school level, will self-segregate. And a lot of what I've observed across the county is not a race issue, it's a class issue. At any rate, as long as we continue to fear being around people other than ourselves, we move nowhere with regard to getting along in this country.

It is a CULTURE and VALUES issue. There are plenty of shared cultures and values in diverse cities. It is the violent, unsafe, unhealthy, unethical, or unproductive values that are passed down which are damaging. And yes, people will avoid (not 'fear') those enclaves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the race-baiting article from the oh-so-highly-regarded WaPo.
Well, I don't know about you, but I've worked my @ss off for 15 years so I can now go live in a neighborhood and send my kids to school where there is rampant juvenile crime, drugs, teenage mothers, no English at home, absentee fathers, etc.
Sounds like the right cultural experience for us!

I'm impressed by the PP's idea that it's the Washington Post article that's race-baiting here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hilarious. Self-segregation is the ultimate goal of just about every parent in DC area. People pay insane amounts for housing and spend hours each day commuting to their jobs so that their kids can go to segregated schools. And when they succeed, someone writes an article denouncing it? Where does the author live? In Anacostia? Or does he simply avoid the issue by sending his kids to St.Albans?

I agree, totally agree.

This is an interesting piece:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/14/_.html

"You can call a facility "public" all you like, but if the only way to gain access to it is to first buy your way into an expensive neighborhood then there's nothing public about it."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can argue that a more culturally diverse school would solve the problem. It won't. The kids, especially at the high school level, will self-segregate. And a lot of what I've observed across the county is not a race issue, it's a class issue. At any rate, as long as we continue to fear being around people other than ourselves, we move nowhere with regard to getting along in this country.

Actually, studies show that mixing poor kids in with wealthier ones raises poor kids' performance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/magazine/who-knew-greenwich-conn-was-a-model-of-equality.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

From a recent study of MCPS: "On average, the poorer children in wealthier schools cut their achievement gap in half compared with their peers in poorer schools."

That's good for the handful of poor kids at schools in Bethesda or Potomac, but what about the poor (and middle-class) kids who make up the bulk of students in East County schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can argue that a more culturally diverse school would solve the problem. It won't. The kids, especially at the high school level, will self-segregate. And a lot of what I've observed across the county is not a race issue, it's a class issue. At any rate, as long as we continue to fear being around people other than ourselves, we move nowhere with regard to getting along in this country.

Actually, studies show that mixing poor kids in with wealthier ones raises poor kids' performance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/magazine/who-knew-greenwich-conn-was-a-model-of-equality.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

From a recent study of MCPS: "On average, the poorer children in wealthier schools cut their achievement gap in half compared with their peers in poorer schools."

That's good for the handful of poor kids at schools in Bethesda or Potomac, but what about the poor (and middle-class) kids who make up the bulk of students in East County schools?

The problem with those studies is that they never ask what happens to the middle to upper middle class kids. I mean, a big part of the fear (and it is fear, not just avoidance) of parents sending their kids to PG County schools is that the supposedly overwhelming number of poor kids will bring their middle class kid's achievement down. If studies investigated this claim, maybe it would provide a counter to that argument. Or, of course, it would only validate it. But needless to say, the question needs to be asked.

The same argument that you site is the argument made for section 8 housing, that bringing poor families in to mix with middle class families helps those poor families, but I haven't seen studies back this up. And many people claim that what happens is the middle class areas where the section 8 housing is brought in end up going down hill. Of course, that could just be a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e. the middle class families freak out over the section 8 housing and flee before finding out what happens). But again, it would be helpful in difficult conversations like this to actually have some statistics. That way, perhaps we could figure out what works and what doesn't work to actually help people while maintaining stable neighborhoods.

I feel like so much of the arguments made on both sides -- the people who are primarily interested in helping boost achievement among minority and lower SES kids AS WELL as the people who are concerned about their middle to upper middle class kids and ensuring they aren't negatively impacted by measures designed to help others -- so many of both sets of arguments are based on either ideology or fear, both with a significant helping of assumption. And so we kind of just go in circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilarious. Self-segregation is the ultimate goal of just about every parent in DC area. People pay insane amounts for housing and spend hours each day commuting to their jobs so that their kids can go to segregated schools. And when they succeed, someone writes an article denouncing it? Where does the author live? In Anacostia? Or does he simply avoid the issue by sending his kids to St.Albans?

I agree, totally agree.

This is an interesting piece:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/14/_.html

"You can call a facility "public" all you like, but if the only way to gain access to it is to first buy your way into an expensive neighborhood then there's nothing public about it."

Well, but some would say that it's not the school people are paying all of that money for. They pay to be in an area surrounded by other people -- and other kids -- with money. So that it's not that their kid goes to a school with better facilities and teachers; it's that their kids go to a school surrounded by better students, and that's what makes the difference. Most schools are rated by the performance of the students. Are the students performing so much better at the schools in wealthier neighborhoods because those schools have better teachers or is it that those wealthier neighborhoods and, therefore, the schools attract families with better students. It's an important question, and I don't know the answer. I think people are afraid to ask it, because it might mean that the answer to improving student achievement in low-performing schools isn't just going to be improving the actual school.

[Anonymous]

Hilarious. Self-segregation is the ultimate goal of just about every parent in DC area. People pay insane amounts for housing and spend hours each day commuting to their jobs so that their kids can go to segregated schools. And when they succeed, someone writes an article denouncing it? Where does the author live? In Anacostia? Or does he simply avoid the issue by sending his kids to St.Albans?

I agree, totally agree.

This is an interesting piece:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/14/_.html

"You can call a facility "public" all you like, but if the only way to gain access to it is to first buy your way into an expensive neighborhood then there's nothing public about it."

In South Africa in the last century we called this State ...apartheid.

It sounds like the educational structure/system in the DC area is based on this organization structure/policy...apartheid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilarious. Self-segregation is the ultimate goal of just about every parent in DC area. People pay insane amounts for housing and spend hours each day commuting to their jobs so that their kids can go to segregated schools. And when they succeed, someone writes an article denouncing it? Where does the author live? In Anacostia? Or does he simply avoid the issue by sending his kids to St.Albans?

I agree, totally agree.

This is an interesting piece:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/14/_.html

"You can call a facility "public" all you like, but if the only way to gain access to it is to first buy your way into an expensive neighborhood then there's nothing public about it."

Well, but some would say that it's not the school people are paying all of that money for. They pay to be in an area surrounded by other people -- and other kids -- with money.

Given that it is very clear that SES is tied to school performance, the effect is the same. Saying "I just want to be near other wealthy people just like me" is a cute way of sidestepping the issue/truth.

So that it's not that their kid goes to a school with better facilities and teachers; it's that their kids go to a school surrounded by better students, and that's what makes the difference. Most schools are rated by the performance of the students. Are the students performing so much better at the schools in wealthier neighborhoods because those schools have better teachers or is it that those wealthier neighborhoods and, therefore, the schools attract families with better students. It's an important question, and I don't know the answer. I think people are afraid to ask it, because it might mean that the answer to improving student achievement in low-performing schools isn't just going to be improving the actual school.

Again, higher HHI=better school performance. This has been documented clearly.

(I will also point out that in a county-based system like ours, facilities should be similar county-wide. But they are not. Visit Eastern Middle and you will see what I mean.)

It has also been well-documented that putting low-income students into classrooms with high-income students results in better performance from the low-income ones (and continued high-performance from the ones from high-income families).

And yet, we continue with - as a PP put it - this state of apartheid in our county.

It is a disgrace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can argue that a more culturally diverse school would solve the problem. It won't. The kids, especially at the high school level, will self-segregate. And a lot of what I've observed across the county is not a race issue, it's a class issue. At any rate, as long as we continue to fear being around people other than ourselves, we move nowhere with regard to getting along in this country.

Actually, studies show that mixing poor kids in with wealthier ones raises poor kids' performance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/magazine/who-knew-greenwich-conn-was-a-model-of-equality.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

From a recent study of MCPS: "On average, the poorer children in wealthier schools cut their achievement gap in half compared with their peers in poorer schools."

That's good for the handful of poor kids at schools in Bethesda or Potomac, but what about the poor (and middle-class) kids who make up the bulk of students in East County schools?

The problem with those studies is that they never ask what happens to the middle to upper middle class kids. I mean, a big part of the fear (and it is fear, not just avoidance) of parents sending their kids to PG County schools is that the supposedly overwhelming number of poor kids will bring their middle class kid's achievement down. If studies investigated this claim, maybe it would provide a counter to that argument. Or, of course, it would only validate it. But needless to say, the question needs to be asked.

The same argument that you site is the argument made for section 8 housing, that bringing poor families in to mix with middle class families helps those poor families, but I haven't seen studies back this up. And many people claim that what happens is the middle class areas where the section 8 housing is brought in end up going down hill. Of course, that could just be a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e. the middle class families freak out over the section 8 housing and flee before finding out what happens). But again, it would be helpful in difficult conversations like this to actually have some statistics. That way, perhaps we could figure out what works and what doesn't work to actually help people while maintaining stable neighborhoods.

I feel like so much of the arguments made on both sides -- the people who are primarily interested in helping boost achievement among minority and lower SES kids AS WELL as the people who are concerned about their middle to upper middle class kids and ensuring they aren't negatively impacted by measures designed to help others -- so many of both sets of arguments are based on either ideology or fear, both with a significant helping of assumption. And so we kind of just go in circles.

Actually, the studies show that the kids from affluent families continue to do well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can argue that a more culturally diverse school would solve the problem. It won't. The kids, especially at the high school level, will self-segregate. And a lot of what I've observed across the county is not a race issue, it's a class issue. At any rate, as long as we continue to fear being around people other than ourselves, we move nowhere with regard to getting along in this country.

Actually, studies show that mixing poor kids in with wealthier ones raises poor kids' performance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/magazine/who-knew-greenwich-conn-was-a-model-of-equality.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

From a recent study of MCPS: "On average, the poorer children in wealthier schools cut their achievement gap in half compared with their peers in poorer schools."

That's good for the handful of poor kids at schools in Bethesda or Potomac, but what about the poor (and middle-class) kids who make up the bulk of students in East County schools?

The problem with those studies is that they never ask what happens to the middle to upper middle class kids. I mean, a big part of the fear (and it is fear, not just avoidance) of parents sending their kids to PG County schools is that the supposedly overwhelming number of poor kids will bring their middle class kid's achievement down. If studies investigated this claim, maybe it would provide a counter to that argument. Or, of course, it would only validate it. But needless to say, the question needs to be asked.

The same argument that you site is the argument made for section 8 housing, that bringing poor families in to mix with middle class families helps those poor families, but I haven't seen studies back this up. And many people claim that what happens is the middle class areas where the section 8 housing is brought in end up going down hill. Of course, that could just be a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e. the middle class families freak out over the section 8 housing and flee before finding out what happens). But again, it would be helpful in difficult conversations like this to actually have some statistics. That way, perhaps we could figure out what works and what doesn't work to actually help people while maintaining stable neighborhoods.

I feel like so much of the arguments made on both sides -- the people who are primarily interested in helping boost achievement among minority and lower SES kids AS WELL as the people who are concerned about their middle to upper middle class kids and ensuring they aren't negatively impacted by measures designed to help others -- so many of both sets of arguments are based on either ideology or fear, both with a significant helping of assumption. And so we kind of just go in circles.

Actually, the studies show that the kids from affluent families continue to do well.

Well, but here's the question, what is the threshold? If it helps to put low-income kids in with high-income kids, how many low-income kids can you put into a high-income area before it shifts? Are those studies based on putting a small number of low-income kids into a school with high-income kids? If that is the case, then there isn't enough high-income schools areas to adequately disperse the low-income kids. That is the problem. And I believe that is what has happened with Section 8. They start with just one or two families, and it works well for those families, so then they create more Section 8 in an area. What happens is the wealthier people move out, more Section 8 is added, and then you're back to the same problem -- concentrated poverty.

So let's say we embrace this concept that low-income kids benefit from being mixed in with high-income kids, well, what is the ideal ratio? Because obviously, the suggestion is that low-income kids do poorly when they're concentrated in one area. so you establish the appropriate mix of SES. Then you try to create that. Well, if there are greater numbers of SES kids in a county, then it is impossible to create that ideal. You move too many low SES kids to a high SES school, and the high SES parents start pulling their kids out. Then the ratio shifts.

That's the problem with that approach. I think that it has been tried, and it only works when you do it on a small scale. The problem is that we still have all of these predominantly low-SES schools. So what do we do with them? Move high SES kids to those schools? I don't think you're going to get the parents to agree to that.

In fact, the article specifically says that PG County tried that, and the high SES people pulled their kids out and sent them to private school.

I don't know if I'm comfortable with the suggestion (or as you claim, statistical fact) that poor kids need to be around rich kids to succeed. Perhaps that does work, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other things that will work. It doesn't mean that the only way to improve performance among poor kids is to put them with rich kids.

[Anonymous]

12:37 here again.

I would add that in Maryland, the only way that will work (mixing low SES kids with high SES kids) is if you do it across county lines. I think that's partly how the current situation was create; people fled PG county and Baltimore city for that reason. So, now, there's an inequitable concentration of poverty in PG county and Baltimore City compared to MOCO, AA county and Baltimore County. So it won't help moving kids around within PG or Baltimore City if most of those schools have a disproportionate concentration of low SES. You'd have to start moving PG County and Baltimore City kids into AA, MOCO and Baltimore County schools.

Judging by the reaction just within MOCO when that happens, I don't think it would go over well. Residents of the higher SES counties would fight it, vehemently.

[Anonymous]

A big reason why the performance of poor kids improves is because those middle and upper income families have their voices heard and can lobby for the things needed to make a school successful. It is no secret that the voices of the poor are largely ignored in this country. Why would we think the school system is different? Without trying to integrate schools by SES, the only other option I see is for more people to lobby for quality public school education across the board. That will never happen though because as you can see from this board that many feel that the more exclusive the school the better leg up they can give their child. See the discussions of the "others" coming into their good school cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A big reason why the performance of poor kids improves is because those middle and upper income families have their voices heard and can lobby for the things needed to make a school successful. It is no secret that the voices of the poor are largely ignored in this country. Why would we think the school system is different? Without trying to integrate schools by SES, the only other option I see is for more people to lobby for quality public school education across the board. That will never happen though because as you can see from this board that many feel that the more exclusive the school the better leg up they can give their child. See the discussions of the "others" coming into their good school cluster.

Well, I don't know if you're right about the reason why the performance of poor kids improves. Do you have any basis for that? In PG county, for example, I don't think the issue is the parents of the low SES kids don't have their voices heard.

I've read that the reason why the performance of poor kids improves when they are around rich kids is because they're in an environment where other kids are ambitious and value education. Most rich kids are aspiring to go to college. So it ups the level of competition among peers. Whereas, if a kid is in an environment where most of the kids aren't planning on going to college, so don't care as much about greats, the level of what is acceptable drops. That's why some have concluded that the problem in low-performing schools isn't necessarily the teachers or the resources, but it's the fact that kids are heavily influenced by their peers. If they're peers don't think it's important to get a high GPA, they won't either. The level of what is acceptable drops.