Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The reason that Bethesda and other affluent areas have larger Kindergarten classes is because 95% of the students come from wealthy homes and speak English and are able to help their children In my area of the county 50% of the students are ESOL and 50% are on free and reduced meals. So these students don't come to Kindergarten with all the benefits of those who live in affluent areas and families.
I'm not sure why you are so bitter. If you want smaller class sizes, move to my neighborhood in Silver Spring. It is cheaper, we have great ethnic restaurants and lots of diversity.
Bethesda has plenty of diverstiy - from Nepal to Chile to Rwanda. It's just an educated kind of diversity.
It is skin-color and cultural diversity - not economic diversity. Not the kind that makes people uncomfortable.
So the diversity is now grouped into a "uncomfortable" types? And presumably the "comfortable" one is not sufficient? Must we strive for diversity that makes one uncomfortable?
The original post mentioned English as a native language to explain away the class size. That explanation fails on its face - there is a tremendous number of non-native english speakers in Bethesda.
They learn English, do just fine, and never receive the extra benefits.
They have parents who likely read, write, and speak multiple languages fluently and who work professional jobs; they have food and warm clothing and books and computers at home; they travel during school breaks. They live in print-rich, ready-for-learning environments. They are not taking care of younger siblings after school, or going without meals on weekends because there is no free breakfast and lunch. Their parents are at home in the evenings and not working second or third jobs.
It's not just about language.
It's not about language, and apparently also not about income, since you did not mention it, and since a lot of parents in these international families work as research scientists and frequently have only one (small) salary to support the family. And no, these kids don't travel on spring breaks. And they don't go to summer camp, either, because their families can't afford it. And if they don't have to take care of the younger siblings, it's only because their parents chose to limit their reproductive ambitions to those children they can actually care for themselves. But yes, they do usually live surrounded by books, which are accessible free of charge at any public library to anyone who wishes to read them. So it appears that the real dfference is the love of learning that the family does or does not have. And the educational benefits our county offers should go to the children of families who do not value education? Why?