Except that you can't disentangle issues of race and poverty, at least, not if you're being honest. Just saying it's a confound is a nice out, but it's not going to solve any problems. What solutions are you offering? I mean, what do you think those of us at non-W schools are trying to do but to better them? Plenty of us are involved and thoughtful and care a lot about our kids' education, but we literally cannot afford the wealthier parts of MCPS, at least not without significantly compromising other important aspects of raising children. And then there's the issue of what "the best chance of success" for kids means. I want my kids to be healthy, productive members of our diverse society, and I don't think a largely white, largely wealthy school isd the best way to get them there. I don't want my kids to live in a bubble. Others want different goals for their kids. I know parents of kids at elite private schools complaining that they're too play-based, and bemoaning the lack of homework in early elementary (!). They *want* their kids in a highly competitive, academic setting. I don't want that for my kids because, again, I don't think it's the best way to raise them to be well-rounded adults (and there's a lot of data on the negative effects of chronic stress on development). But you have GOT to stop saying that people who send their kids to non "elite" or whatever school don't want their kids to be successful. That's damaging and unproductive. |
Not paranoid. Just knowledgeable about how information on the Internet can be used. But if it makes some of you post things that are less racist, classist and rotten, so much the better. |
Is it the school or the student /parent? |
Indeed, which usually corresponds to income level. |
Totally agree. I grew up in a large European city where 'diversity' as it's known here just wasn't a issue. Over there, the best schools are located downtown, where the most educated/wealthy sliver of population happen to live. The further out you move, the more dubious the quality of schools become. FWIW, back in the day, it was a uniform curriculum all over the place, down to textbooks, workbooks and schedules! On a given day, every kid in a certain grade was supposed to learn the exact same thing. But in reality, peer cohorts mattered, the quality of instruction mattered, and the overall attitude toward education mattered. When we moved when I started high school, I applied for their equivalent of a COSA and commuted for years for an hour and half each way, although I could have easily transferred to a school within walking distance from our apartment. The curriculum was the same, after all.. however, when it was time to apply to colleges, all the effort became worth it. Just my 2cents. |
+1 lots of well informed, white collar professionals like lawyers, scientists, etc.. in non W schools like RM and Blair clusters. It just so happens that those clusters also have a high % of low income families. |
And even places like Gaithersburg, Watkins Mill, Einstein, Kennedy, Springbrook, Magruder, Seneca Valley, etc. *shock face* |
We must have different definitions of the word "fact", then. Because as I understand it, good schools depend on good administrators, good teachers, good facilities, and a good curriculum. |
More kids go to jail from Blair than all those schools combined, just the facts |
That graphic was from 2012. Do you have an updated one? |
You have never heard as poor drop outs as low quality kids? Pull your head out of your ass It isn’t that all poor kids are bad, just poor kids are much less likely to be successful. Unsuccessful people often resort to doing ratchet stuff in slummy places with dubious results. Even if society is nudging them to those outcomes it is still their truth. |
I think having a peer cohort is important, however, that doesn't mean you can only get it at a W school, and actually, while you can easily find an academic cohort at a W school, those schools also have other issues due to too much wealth and not enough diversity.
It is harder to get that cohort in a school with a very high farms rate, though, simply because of the numbers. I think a school with caring and awesome teachers, great ECs and about a 20% or so FARMs rate is the ideal. There was a study that found that low income students do best in a school that has less than about a 20% FARMs rate. Anything above that, the performance level goes down. A school with too many of either of the extreme income spectrum has too many issues related to that extreme income bracket. |
You don't have a clue about their truths. Some of those kids have been through more hardships in the first two years of their lives than you will ever know in your entire life.
Ignorant. |
Can't find one. You could probably go through every single At A Glance sheet to get updated numbers, but I don't have time to do that, nor the inclination. In any case, I doubt it's all that different. Some schools may have slid a few spaces to the left or right. You could take the 10 to 15 HS from the right going left and check. |
No the Washington post hasn’t revisited the story. That said I bet you will see less white kids in the lower income schools in the east and north with increased FARMS kids back filling them. Schools are the harbinger for white flight |