Studies on "integrated schools"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thhere will never be studies that are "rigorous" enough to satisfy the people (like OP) who insist that there must first be rigorous studies, because

1. People aren't molecules.
2. It's not ethical nor feasible to experiment on children.

Even if the greatest study ever done were cited, they would dispute the conclusions when they didn't like the outcome. It has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with property values and segregation.

Exactly - whenever a well-researched and credible study has been cited showing how low-income children perform worse at schools with high-poverty it devolves into ad hominem attacks and whataboutery largely because they only care about property values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s rigorous study: the students that stay in school, work hard, stay out of trouble, and challenge themselves do better than the students who are absent a lot, don’t study hard, don’t stay out of trouble, and cut corners.

Hilarious, simple, but very true.

Yet, here we are. Here we are with a Central Office and raging SJWs spending significant amounts of time and money trying in vain to somehow demonstrate that redistributing funds, good and bad performing students, and redistributing G£T program seats will make everyone of the same success and achievement.

Only in America. It has lost its way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thhere will never be studies that are "rigorous" enough to satisfy the people (like OP) who insist that there must first be rigorous studies, because

1. People aren't molecules.
2. It's not ethical nor feasible to experiment on children.

Even if the greatest study ever done were cited, they would dispute the conclusions when they didn't like the outcome. It has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with property values and segregation.

Exactly - whenever a well-researched and credible study has been cited showing how low-income children perform worse at schools with high-poverty it devolves into ad hominem attacks and whataboutery largely because they only care about property values.

Or how needed birth control is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thhere will never be studies that are "rigorous" enough to satisfy the people (like OP) who insist that there must first be rigorous studies, because

1. People aren't molecules.
2. It's not ethical nor feasible to experiment on children.

Even if the greatest study ever done were cited, they would dispute the conclusions when they didn't like the outcome. It has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with property values and segregation.

Exactly - whenever a well-researched and credible study has been cited showing how low-income children perform worse at schools with high-poverty it devolves into ad hominem attacks and whataboutery largely because they only care about property values.

Or how needed birth control is.

For people who think that school policy should be about their property values, you mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thhere will never be studies that are "rigorous" enough to satisfy the people (like OP) who insist that there must first be rigorous studies, because

1. People aren't molecules.
2. It's not ethical nor feasible to experiment on children.

Even if the greatest study ever done were cited, they would dispute the conclusions when they didn't like the outcome. It has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with property values and segregation.

Exactly - whenever a well-researched and credible study has been cited showing how low-income children perform worse at schools with high-poverty it devolves into ad hominem attacks and whataboutery largely because they only care about property values.

Oh, great!

When people are showing in details how these "well-researched and credible" studies were not properly cited, you could not come up with anything real to dispute that. Rather you could only talk about "why" people do that?

We don't care "why" you do this. Apparently "how" you do this shows that you don't have the ability for providing reasonable arguments.

[Anonymous]

I would think that MCPS itself provides an excellent test case for the effects of mixing students from low-income families with middle class and wealthier families. For example, there is a large range of fraction of FARMs students in the 27 standard MCPS high schools ranging from <0.5% (Whitman) to ~80% (Kennedy, Watkins Mill). All students are taught with the same curriculum, and presumably most students are with a similar diversity mix from elementary school. Because this is a "natural" experiment, there is no Hawthorne effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect) that might occur with busing.

In particular MCPS has truly diverse schools such as Damascus (30% AA + Hispanic, 29% FARMs) and Northwest (47% AA+Hispanic, 43% FARMs) I could also include Richard Montgomery in this list although I'm not sure how to handle the IB program. If I understand the diversity model correctly, these schools should be near the top in academic achievement because the non-FARMs students are not hurt by the minority of FARMs students, whereas the FARMs students are helped by being with a majority of non-FARMS students. Of course, one can do a much more sophisticated model with the MCPS data to see if it is consistent with the diversity model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would think that MCPS itself provides an excellent test case for the effects of mixing students from low-income families with middle class and wealthier families. For example, there is a large range of fraction of FARMs students in the 27 standard MCPS high schools ranging from <0.5% (Whitman) to ~80% (Kennedy, Watkins Mill). All students are taught with the same curriculum, and presumably most students are with a similar diversity mix from elementary school. Because this is a "natural" experiment, there is no Hawthorne effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect) that might occur with busing.

In particular MCPS has truly diverse schools such as Damascus (30% AA + Hispanic, 29% FARMs) and Northwest (47% AA+Hispanic, 43% FARMs) I could also include Richard Montgomery in this list although I'm not sure how to handle the IB program. If I understand the diversity model correctly, these schools should be near the top in academic achievement because the non-FARMs students are not hurt by the minority of FARMs students, whereas the FARMs students are helped by being with a majority of non-FARMS students. Of course, one can do a much more sophisticated model with the MCPS data to see if it is consistent with the diversity model.

Let's start with the obvious errors: in your premise that the goal is to increase academic achievement (it's not), in your assertion that Damascus is a "truly diverse" school (it's one of the whitest high schools in MCPS), and in your conclusion that all high schools provide the same education (there is a general belief, especially among people who live in Bethesda and Potomac, that they do not, see here: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/798038.page)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s rigorous study: the students that stay in school, work hard, stay out of trouble, and challenge themselves do better than the students who are absent a lot, don’t study hard, don’t stay out of trouble, and cut corners.

Hahaha. Weeping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think that MCPS itself provides an excellent test case for the effects of mixing students from low-income families with middle class and wealthier families. For example, there is a large range of fraction of FARMs students in the 27 standard MCPS high schools ranging from <0.5% (Whitman) to ~80% (Kennedy, Watkins Mill). All students are taught with the same curriculum, and presumably most students are with a similar diversity mix from elementary school. Because this is a "natural" experiment, there is no Hawthorne effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect) that might occur with busing.

In particular MCPS has truly diverse schools such as Damascus (30% AA + Hispanic, 29% FARMs) and Northwest (47% AA+Hispanic, 43% FARMs) I could also include Richard Montgomery in this list although I'm not sure how to handle the IB program. If I understand the diversity model correctly, these schools should be near the top in academic achievement because the non-FARMs students are not hurt by the minority of FARMs students, whereas the FARMs students are helped by being with a majority of non-FARMS students. Of course, one can do a much more sophisticated model with the MCPS data to see if it is consistent with the diversity model.

Let's start with the obvious errors: in your premise that the goal is to increase academic achievement (it's not), in your assertion that Damascus is a "truly diverse" school (it's one of the whitest high schools in MCPS), and in your conclusion that all high schools provide the same education (there is a general belief, especially among people who live in Bethesda and Potomac, that they do not, see here: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/798038.page)

1. I was aiming for economic diversity and Damascus at 29% FARMs is at the intermediate level where the FARMs students should be helped being in a diverse school. In addition the 30% AA + Hispanic fraction of Damascus makes it more diverse than any of the W schools. (Although the white fraction at Damascus is high, the Asian fraction is low, so the white + Asian fraction is much lower than any of the W schools.)

2. Are you saying that MCPS is not interested in improving academic performance to reduce the achievement gap? That would be news to me, but perhaps you can say why you believe this.

3. All MCPS schools provide the same curriculum. There are people in Bethesda and Potomac who believe that their schools provide better education because the students are with high-performing cohorts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s rigorous study: the students that stay in school, work hard, stay out of trouble, and challenge themselves do better than the students who are absent a lot, don’t study hard, don’t stay out of trouble, and cut corners.

OMG. Right?

Save the millions of dollars (that MCPS cannnot spare) and give them to this PP.

MCPS wastes so much money on stupid studies that yield little actual improvement in student achievement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
1. I was aiming for economic diversity and Damascus at 29% FARMs is at the intermediate level where the FARMs students should be helped being in a diverse school. In addition the 30% AA + Hispanic fraction of Damascus makes it more diverse than any of the W schools. (Although the white fraction at Damascus is high, the Asian fraction is low, so the white + Asian fraction is much lower than any of the W schools.)

2. Are you saying that MCPS is not interested in improving academic performance to reduce the achievement gap? That would be news to me, but perhaps you can say why you believe this.

3. All MCPS schools provide the same curriculum. There are people in Bethesda and Potomac who believe that their schools provide better education because the students are with high-performing cohorts.

Right.

When it's an issue that benefits people who own property in Bethesda and Potomac, it's, "The high schools in Bethesda and Potomac are better!"

When it's an issue that doesn't benefit people who own property in Bethesda and Potomac, it's, "All of the high schools in MCPS have the same curriculum!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. I was aiming for economic diversity and Damascus at 29% FARMs is at the intermediate level where the FARMs students should be helped being in a diverse school. In addition the 30% AA + Hispanic fraction of Damascus makes it more diverse than any of the W schools. (Although the white fraction at Damascus is high, the Asian fraction is low, so the white + Asian fraction is much lower than any of the W schools.)

2. Are you saying that MCPS is not interested in improving academic performance to reduce the achievement gap? That would be news to me, but perhaps you can say why you believe this.

3. All MCPS schools provide the same curriculum. There are people in Bethesda and Potomac who believe that their schools provide better education because the students are with high-performing cohorts.

Right.

When it's an issue that benefits people who own property in Bethesda and Potomac, it's, "The high schools in Bethesda and Potomac are better!"

When it's an issue that doesn't benefit people who own property in Bethesda and Potomac, it's, "All of the high schools in MCPS have the same curriculum!"

Some people consider those schools better because of various reasons NOT including BETTER CURRICULUM.

I don't think anyone would really have problems understanding these simple arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. I was aiming for economic diversity and Damascus at 29% FARMs is at the intermediate level where the FARMs students should be helped being in a diverse school. In addition the 30% AA + Hispanic fraction of Damascus makes it more diverse than any of the W schools. (Although the white fraction at Damascus is high, the Asian fraction is low, so the white + Asian fraction is much lower than any of the W schools.)

2. Are you saying that MCPS is not interested in improving academic performance to reduce the achievement gap? That would be news to me, but perhaps you can say why you believe this.

3. All MCPS schools provide the same curriculum. There are people in Bethesda and Potomac who believe that their schools provide better education because the students are with high-performing cohorts.

Right.

When it's an issue that benefits people who own property in Bethesda and Potomac, it's, "The high schools in Bethesda and Potomac are better!"

When it's an issue that doesn't benefit people who own property in Bethesda and Potomac, it's, "All of the high schools in MCPS have the same curriculum!"

Some people consider those schools better because of various reasons NOT including BETTER CURRICULUM.

I don't think anyone would really have problems understanding these simple arguments.

So, the schools are better? They're not all the same?

[Anonymous]

Schools are far less integrated than they were in the 1960s and 1970s. There is little evidence this is going to change. Even integrated schools are segregating according to skill (see AAP), creating white/asian/jewish subgroups that are segregated from peers in the same school.

[Anonymous]

The Coleman report is considered the definitive study on these factors. Conducted after the civil rights act of 1964 (and published 12 years after Brown) it looked comprehensively at the factors driving student achievement.

Of all the factors, school composition (racial and socioeconomic ) had the highest relationship.

Whole study: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf
Relevant summary section: 1.4
Relevant data and how they define: 2.4
Impacts of school composition on student achievement: section 3


Here is an even easier to digest more recent summary of studies from Ohio State: http://www.kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/reports/2009/02_2009_EducationIntegrationBenefitsReport.pdf

I don’t know why I’m doing this - this data and this information has been out there for *50* years. Yet parents have been fighting against this data for *50* years with the anecdotal data and verve we’ve seen on all these threads.