The Real Problem With D.C. Public Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy students who attend public schools don't always change the culture. Their income bracket really don't make the school wealthy in a sense of education and resources. Case in point take a look at Coolidge High School clearly not a wealthy student population but it is ranked high amongst the Washpo data.

Some would say that SWW is probably more income substantial that Banneker but face value doesn't Banneker have the educational edge.

@8:41, you do understand. @10:08, your sources are as close as your neighborhood school.

I understand this much better. Your earlier post was incomprehesible. I don't disagree with your premise, although your example does not follow. Coolidge is not an example of a public school in which wealthy students entered without changing the culture or the quality of education; although I don't know much about Coolidge, it seems that you are saying that it is a good school despite not having a very wealthy population, which is an entirely different issue.

[Anonymous]

Your suggestion is duly noted. May I take the course that you obviously failed. On the other hand, there's this mantra that a high-income earners will guarantee this culture change of success in the public schools. If we could all just rid our schools of FARMS and then we would be honky-dorie in the scheme of things.

When rich parents meet poor teachers, what are the real expectations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy students who attend public schools don't always change the culture. Their income bracket really don't make the school wealthy in a sense of education and resources. Case in point take a look at Coolidge High School clearly not a wealthy student population but it is ranked high amongst the Washpo data.

Some would say that SWW is probably more income substantial that Banneker but face value doesn't Banneker have the educational edge.

@8:41, you do understand. @10:08, your sources are as close as your neighborhood school.

No honey, it doesn't work that way. When you present your opinion as though it were fact, the onus is on you to prove it. The rest of us are under no obligation to go do your homework for you. Pull up your big girl panties, and acknowledge that you yourself exhibit some pretty sloppy scholarship. With that in mind, what kind of example are you setting, and why should anyone take you seriously?

[Anonymous]

Listen here pantaloon Pattie, you are full of yourself. I was making a comment on a blog and that's all it is. For Victoria's Secret sake go commando as your views are being swallowed up in your tight-ass. Loosen-up, Girl it is not all that bad or serious. You mean, you are wanting people to set examples on a blog? Try to find a crotchless wearing panty crochet group to calm your nerves. Gee, if wealth generates this response then let my scholarship be poor.

[Anonymous]

Makes sense. The kids at Mann even though they make arguably come from the wealthiest census tract in the DC area are still getting a bad education because they're tied to the DCPS curriculum and thus are at a disadvantage when compared to their suburban counterparts. However they can all hang out together and swap stories about their future exploits at Landon since that's where all the boys go after puiblic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A hissy fit. Aren't we showing our age?

Why do you care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Makes sense. The kids at Mann even though they make arguably come from the wealthiest census tract in the DC area are still getting a bad education because they're tied to the DCPS curriculum and thus are at a disadvantage when compared to their suburban counterparts. However they can all hang out together and swap stories about their future exploits at Landon since that's where all the boys go after puiblic.

What makes you think that the suburban schools are offering stronger curricula? Is there any basis to this assertion? Can you be mroe specific?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Makes sense. The kids at Mann even though they make arguably come from the wealthiest census tract in the DC area are still getting a bad education because they're tied to the DCPS curriculum and thus are at a disadvantage when compared to their suburban counterparts. However they can all hang out together and swap stories about their future exploits at Landon since that's where all the boys go after puiblic.

What makes you think that the suburban schools are offering stronger curricula? Is there any basis to this assertion? Can you be mroe specific?

Thank you PP for asking that question because that kind of statement is often thrown out there without any evidence. Can someone enlighten us? Please break it down for us: DC versus MoCo versus FCPS versus Arlington. I am not talking about magnet schools either. I want schools that mirror the demographics of JKLMM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Makes sense. The kids at Mann even though they make arguably come from the wealthiest census tract in the DC area are still getting a bad education because they're tied to the DCPS curriculum and thus are at a disadvantage when compared to their suburban counterparts. However they can all hang out together and swap stories about their future exploits at Landon since that's where all the boys go after puiblic.

What makes you think that the suburban schools are offering stronger curricula? Is there any basis to this assertion? Can you be mroe specific?

Thank you PP for asking that question because that kind of statement is often thrown out there without any evidence. Can someone enlighten us? Please break it down for us: DC versus MoCo versus FCPS versus Arlington. I am not talking about magnet schools either. I want schools that mirror the demographics of JKLMM.

No, she can't be more specific. And, if you insist that she needs to cite a source (unless she wants to make this about anything other than her opinion), she will babble on incoherently. It's your job to go find her data for her, you see.

[Anonymous]

The grass is always greener . . . until you move there and enroll your children. Then you find out that what these other school systems have to offer is more of the same mediocre boxed curricula, basal readers, flimsy levelled readers, and a lot of testing.

[Anonymous]

I was at a recent senior celebration at a school where the cash-flow is obvious. The tuition is about 18k a year and there's a waiting list. But this suggestion that wealth produce smartness is a parental myth. I was looking at the class ranking of the 263 seniors. I came to the realization that the person who ranked first and last paid the same amount in tuition. Yet, the when I looked at those seniors future career aspirations. The one ranked first wants to be a teacher and the one ranked last wants to be the first Asian-American President.

If the grass is greener on the otherside doesn't necessarily means you are smarter it just could mean that you're damn good with illusions.

[Anonymous]

It's not about wealth = smartness. Wealth does have a dramatic impact on educational outcomes. It's like a safety net. No parent of means is going to let their children fall too far. These are families who can at the very least, by virtue of their lifestyle, offer exposure to a variety of enriching moments - music, books, travel, high-quality tutoring, like minded peers, etc.

Many of the jurisdictions with high performing schools also have wide pockets of relative wealth. I think the wizardry or the real success in education is when a school is able to effectively educate the children who do not have the same advantages who come from households of under achievement or impoverished communities.

I think many of us, if we are honest with ourselves, are trying to surround our children with more SES peers - the children of the sort who post on these forums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not about wealth = smartness. Wealth does have a dramatic impact on educational outcomes. It's like a safety net. No parent of means is going to let their children fall too far. These are families who can at the very least, by virtue of their lifestyle, offer exposure to a variety of enriching moments - music, books, travel, high-quality tutoring, like minded peers, etc.

Many of the jurisdictions with high performing schools also have wide pockets of relative wealth. I think the wizardry or the real success in education is when a school is able to effectively educate the children who do not have the same advantages who come from households of under achievement or impoverished communities.

I think many of us, if we are honest with ourselves, are trying to surround our children with more SES peers - the children of the sort who post on these forums.

Exactly. Money won't buy you smarts, but it will buy your way out of danger and stupid.

[Anonymous]

Brains are brains. Poverty, race and all the rest of the red herrings that everyone keeps throwing around here have absolutely nothing to do with anything. All other things being equal, a poor child's brain is every bit as capable of learning as a wealthy child's brain, and it doesn't matter if that brain is white, black, latino, asian, or whatever. There is no meaningful difference at the most fundamental level to impede learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brains are brains. Poverty, race and all the rest of the red herrings that everyone keeps throwing around here have absolutely nothing to do with anything. All other things being equal, a poor child's brain is every bit as capable of learning as a wealthy child's brain, and it doesn't matter if that brain is white, black, latino, asian, or whatever. There is no meaningful difference at the most fundamental level to impede learning.

Yes, but in what world are all other things equal? Sure as hell not in DC.