Hypocrisy about diverse schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much a deal on the so-called "diversity". Diversity is a result, not a goal. As long as a school does not have any policy or practice that directly favors a certain (ethnic/income level etc.) group, I do not see a problem even if the end result is a "non-diverse" school.

Different people have different opinions and place priorities on different things. Some people do see some problems when a school is not diverse enough. There are some schools that don't have any diversity - as a result or as a goal.

I see no problem for parents wanting to choose a school with more or less diversity. However, trying to make a school more or less diverse, is not the same thing.

Depends on the diversity, and the reason, eh?

Doesn't matter at all. That is purely personal choice. I do not need to know why other people make those personal choices, even if their reasons were evil.

Trying to shape a school, is not a personal choice, and that matters. My opinion on that is, do NOT deliberately make schools more or less diverse, and do not use "diversity" as a criteria to judge schools.

But when all the minority majority schools consistently score at the bottom of just about every objective criteria, where do we go from there? Why does inclusion always correspond to a lowering of standards? Until that is truly addressed it is neaive to not expect pushback no matter the fervor of the kumbaya mandate. While easy to label it racism, one might find some benefit to taking a step back and analyzing the dominant party’s struggle to propagate that privilege/dominance. At the very least learning more about the actual mechanics could both assist with emulation and elimination.

What the hell does this mean?

DP. It means that it's the poor people's responsibility to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps by being more like rich people. I think. That's what the "Something something kumbaya something something" post usually mean.

How does a society chose who gets on the lifeboats when there are more people than spots. You exspect rich people to jeopardize their children’s spot for other people kids? Tell you what, let me know how that works out for you. People get well off specifically to provide their children with “advantages”. Advantage means a leg up on someone else, that someone else has only a few options;
1:run faster to make up the ground
2:run the race and complain about how it wasn’t fair and ask for a medal anyway
3:stand there in and complain while everyone else is running

If you change the goal line to help the kids with less, I assure you the rich will change the game.

It's not about changing the goal lines...it's about making sure that every child has the opportunity to succeed. Your description above made me think of this picture. Guess which person you are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How does a society chose who gets on the lifeboats when there are more people than spots. You exspect rich people to jeopardize their children’s spot for other people kids? Tell you what, let me know how that works out for you. People get well off specifically to provide their children with “advantages”. Advantage means a leg up on someone else, that someone else has only a few options;
1:run faster to make up the ground
2:run the race and complain about how it wasn’t fair and ask for a medal anyway
3:stand there in and complain while everyone else is running

If you change the goal line to help the kids with less, I assure you the rich will change the game.

I can remember in the 1980s when people with R after their name were still talking about a rising tide lifting all life(boats) and "growing the pie" instead of fighting over who gets a bigger piece. I guess all rhetoric like that has been abandoned now, and it's all "I've got mine, you're on your own, Jack" all the time.

You have a good point but all that 80s stuff was bullshit. You know that right? Talking point should mirror policy not the other way around. Also to be fair American poor have a very high quality of life comparatively. It’s true that American also have a very high quality of life comparatively and the gap between the two side is huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How does a society chose who gets on the lifeboats when there are more people than spots. You exspect rich people to jeopardize their children’s spot for other people kids? Tell you what, let me know how that works out for you. People get well off specifically to provide their children with “advantages”. Advantage means a leg up on someone else, that someone else has only a few options;
1:run faster to make up the ground
2:run the race and complain about how it wasn’t fair and ask for a medal anyway
3:stand there in and complain while everyone else is running

If you change the goal line to help the kids with less, I assure you the rich will change the game.

I can remember in the 1980s when people with R after their name were still talking about a rising tide lifting all life(boats) and "growing the pie" instead of fighting over who gets a bigger piece. I guess all rhetoric like that has been abandoned now, and it's all "I've got mine, you're on your own, Jack" all the time.

You have a good point but all that 80s stuff was bullshit. You know that right? Talking point should mirror policy not the other way around. Also to be fair American poor have a very high quality of life comparatively. It’s true that American also have a very high quality of life comparatively and the gap between the two side is huge.

Compared to whom? The US has one of the highest maternal and infant death rates in the developed world, fueled mostly by catastrophically high rates among poor and working class women and babies. The US trails almost all other OECD countries in health, education, and food security, among other metrics.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous

Compared to whom? The US has one of the highest maternal and infant death rates in the developed world, fueled mostly by catastrophically high rates among poor and working class women and babies. The US trails almost all other OECD countries in health, education, and food security, among other metrics.

DP. This is the argument that says that poor people in the US aren't really poor because most poor people have a refrigerator, and also they're not starving.

[Anonymous]

Again no one has a problem with high achieving African american or Hispanic kids in schools

issue around here is most of the poor folks are either African american or hispanic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again no one has a problem with high achieving African american or Hispanic kids in schools

issue around here is most of the poor folks are either African american or hispanic

Actually plenty of people have a problem, starting with the assumption that there aren't any.

But if you're trying to make the point that people aren't trying to exclude black/Hispanic kids from the public schools their kids go to, they're trying to exclude poor kids from the public schools their kids go to - you know what? That's not any better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are making too much a deal on the so-called "diversity". Diversity is a result, not a goal. As long as a school does not have any policy or practice that directly favors a certain (ethnic/income level etc.) group, I do not see a problem even if the end result is a "non-diverse" school.

Different people have different opinions and place priorities on different things. Some people do see some problems when a school is not diverse enough. There are some schools that don't have any diversity - as a result or as a goal.

I see no problem for parents wanting to choose a school with more or less diversity. However, trying to make a school more or less diverse, is not the same thing.

Depends on the diversity, and the reason, eh?

Doesn't matter at all. That is purely personal choice. I do not need to know why other people make those personal choices, even if their reasons were evil.

Trying to shape a school, is not a personal choice, and that matters. My opinion on that is, do NOT deliberately make schools more or less diverse, and do not use "diversity" as a criteria to judge schools.

But when all the minority majority schools consistently score at the bottom of just about every objective criteria, where do we go from there? Why does inclusion always correspond to a lowering of standards? Until that is truly addressed it is neaive to not expect pushback no matter the fervor of the kumbaya mandate. While easy to label it racism, one might find some benefit to taking a step back and analyzing the dominant party’s struggle to propagate that privilege/dominance. At the very least learning more about the actual mechanics could both assist with emulation and elimination.

What the hell does this mean?

DP. It means that it's the poor people's responsibility to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps by being more like rich people. I think. That's what the "Something something kumbaya something something" post usually mean.

How does a society chose who gets on the lifeboats when there are more people than spots. You exspect rich people to jeopardize their children’s spot for other people kids? Tell you what, let me know how that works out for you. People get well off specifically to provide their children with “advantages”. Advantage means a leg up on someone else, that someone else has only a few options;
1:run faster to make up the ground
2:run the race and complain about how it wasn’t fair and ask for a medal anyway
3:stand there in and complain while everyone else is running

If you change the goal line to help the kids with less, I assure you the rich will change the game.

It's not about changing the goal lines...it's about making sure that every child has the opportunity to succeed. Your description above made me think of this picture. Guess which person you are?

I was actually born much closer to the finish line, thank you parents. What part of (affluence is generationally accumulative) don’t you understand? Access to opportunities and equal opportunities are two completely different things. Should we reset every generation? What is your perfect mix of diversity, how much should we handicap the people who are established. Does this humanitarian rebalancing only extend to American or are we going to take the hit and stop exploiting other countries too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again no one has a problem with high achieving African american or Hispanic kids in schools

issue around here is most of the poor folks are either African american or hispanic

Actually plenty of people have a problem, starting with the assumption that there aren't any.

But if you're trying to make the point that people aren't trying to exclude black/Hispanic kids from the public schools their kids go to, they're trying to exclude poor kids from the public schools their kids go to - you know what? That's not any better.

Why is it okay to say that we don't want our kids to go to a school with lots of wealth and privilege but NOT okay to say that we don't want our kids to go to a school with lots of poor kids? Both of those environments have distinct set of issues that most parents like myself and understandably so, would want to avoid. I'm a minority by the way, in a diverse school that is 28% FARMS. We moved away from a school that was over 50% FARMS and don't feel guilty about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again no one has a problem with high achieving African american or Hispanic kids in schools

issue around here is most of the poor folks are either African american or hispanic

In 2017, according to American FactFinder:

Whites below poverty line: 25,299
Blacks below poverty line: 20,670
Hispanic (of any race) below poverty line: 22,788

Source: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

[Anonymous]

This poll shows that many people really don't want a diverse America. We can never have real progress when we are starting from such fundamentally different values and goals.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/21/what-if-one-party-doesnt-believe-america-is-everyone/?utm_term=.72df8561d3eb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again no one has a problem with high achieving African american or Hispanic kids in schools

issue around here is most of the poor folks are either African american or hispanic

In 2017, according to American FactFinder:

Whites below poverty line: 25,299
Blacks below poverty line: 20,670
Hispanic (of any race) below poverty line: 22,788

Source: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

Um, where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again no one has a problem with high achieving African american or Hispanic kids in schools

issue around here is most of the poor folks are either African american or hispanic

Actually plenty of people have a problem, starting with the assumption that there aren't any.

But if you're trying to make the point that people aren't trying to exclude black/Hispanic kids from the public schools their kids go to, they're trying to exclude poor kids from the public schools their kids go to - you know what? That's not any better.

Why is it okay to say that we don't want our kids to go to a school with lots of wealth and privilege but NOT okay to say that we don't want our kids to go to a school with lots of poor kids? Both of those environments have distinct set of issues that most parents like myself and understandably so, would want to avoid. I'm a minority by the way, in a diverse school that is 28% FARMS. We moved away from a school that was over 50% FARMS and don't feel guilty about it.

Agreed. These are purely the choices of individual families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again no one has a problem with high achieving African american or Hispanic kids in schools

issue around here is most of the poor folks are either African american or hispanic

In 2017, according to American FactFinder:

Whites below poverty line: 25,299
Blacks below poverty line: 20,670
Hispanic (of any race) below poverty line: 22,788

Source: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

Um, where?

Montgomery County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again no one has a problem with high achieving African american or Hispanic kids in schools

issue around here is most of the poor folks are either African american or hispanic

In 2017, according to American FactFinder:

Whites below poverty line: 25,299
Blacks below poverty line: 20,670
Hispanic (of any race) below poverty line: 22,788

Source: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

There are a million people in Montgomery County. The poverty level is a household income of $12,140 for a household of 1, $16,460 for a household of 2, and $20,780 for a household of 3. There are a lot of people who are poor but not below the poverty level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again no one has a problem with high achieving African american or Hispanic kids in schools

issue around here is most of the poor folks are either African american or hispanic

Actually plenty of people have a problem, starting with the assumption that there aren't any.

But if you're trying to make the point that people aren't trying to exclude black/Hispanic kids from the public schools their kids go to, they're trying to exclude poor kids from the public schools their kids go to - you know what? That's not any better.

Why is it okay to say that we don't want our kids to go to a school with lots of wealth and privilege but NOT okay to say that we don't want our kids to go to a school with lots of poor kids? Both of those environments have distinct set of issues that most parents like myself and understandably so, would want to avoid. I'm a minority by the way, in a diverse school that is 28% FARMS. We moved away from a school that was over 50% FARMS and don't feel guilty about it.

Agreed. These are purely the choices of individual families.

Sure, but local government and school boards need to be watching out for the good of the community, not individual families seeking segregated environments. It is better for the community to have integrated schools, which makes it a worthwhile policy goal.

The choices that individual families make within that system are their own.