Diversity and "Equity" are each other's enemies... discuss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

Yes, and the vast majority of those women made choices that resulted in that situation. And they then make choices that make that situation permanent. But unless you support the state taking those kids and putting them in foster care, the mothers have made choices that will impact their children's entire lives, despite the best efforts of schools. BTW - the statistic showing children in single parent homes by race exactly mirrors academic performance by race.

+1. Poor choices have consequences, especially if it involves having a child.

Funny how the woman is always blamed.

Did the woman somehow not play any part in it?

Did the man somehow not play any part in it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

Yes, and the vast majority of those women made choices that resulted in that situation. And they then make choices that make that situation permanent. But unless you support the state taking those kids and putting them in foster care, the mothers have made choices that will impact their children's entire lives, despite the best efforts of schools. BTW - the statistic showing children in single parent homes by race exactly mirrors academic performance by race.

+1. Poor choices have consequences, especially if it involves having a child.

Funny how the woman is always blamed.

It takes 2 to tangle yes but you can’t deny all these teenage single mothers who then drop out of school. Or women who have multiple children all with different fathers of which none are around.

Don’t have sex or use birth control, don’t have a kid until you are done with school. Don’t have a kid until you can at least support yourself and have some savings. Don’t have a kid unless you have a partner who also wants to have a child and you are sure will stick around to help raise that child.

Above are all poor choices and are very prevalent choices in some communities.

Meant if you don’t do above then you are making poor choices…

Very easy for you to say.

Increasing access to sex education, abortion and long-term contraception pays dividends down the road.

[Anonymous]

It should be telling loud and clear that men are useless and toxic when increasingly, women of all income levels would rather raise children alone than marry. Women derive no benefit from marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that if you actually care about diversity - diversity of cultures and beliefs - then you can't also take the idea of "equity" seriously.

Different cultures prioritize different things in life, and not all of those choices translate into money at the same rate when comparing (artificial) groups to each other.

In fact, some may translate into other things that are much more valuable than money, but impossible to measure - like close families, robust friend networks, belief in an afterlife, etc.

This seems trivially simple & true, but you don't hear it much.

Am I missing something? It it wrong to apply logic to these ideas?

It’s not wrong to apply logic, just you have the definition of these terms incorrect as they are used by the woke. “Diversity” means having enough POC, particularly Black people, in a particular setting. It largely entered common use in response to the banning of racial quotas in college admissions in Bakke, and you can see that legacy in the way the term is used today. An almost all-Black team in the workplace would be described, correctly in this usage, as “diverse”, and a mostly Asian team would no be so described (Asians being white-adjacent for this purpose.). “Equity” is just tarted-up racial quotas in the distribution of resources or positions in the workplace or colleges, etc.

Logic works if you understand what these terms actually mean to the people who use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

That’s the consequence of poor decision making.

The child has no say in that.

Yep it’s unfortunate. But punishing my kid for the sins of their parents doesn’t fix that problem. Bottom line is that schools can’t fix shitty parents.

Single parent \= “shitty parent”

Especially considering the parent who is the “single parent” is the one who stepped up to the plate.

Agreed, but one of the two parents probably is.

That’s not to say that divorced/unwed parents can’t successfully raise a child to not need equitable measures. It for sure happens.

This. One of the parent is the shitty parent. This is especially true in the poor black communities where many fathers are incarcerated. Those that are not, many abandon their responsibilities to their kid and could care less. I have a good friend in this situation but she is lucky because she has support from her family and they are helping to raise him. These kids have no strong father figures at all.

The single moms with no support are working to support the family so no one is at home watching the kids. They then get into trouble, hang out with the wrong crowd, etc….

The other issue is that some households with 2 parents, they just don’t give a sh’t about the kids and are just unfit to be parents. Ask a teacher in a title 1 school about that and they can easily tell you the percentages and you would be surprised.

Those kids are getting in trouble because police and school administrators are racist. It's not their fault. If you look at arrest and incarceration rates, black males are way overrepresented.

So they are being framed?

NP. There are multiple components to the systemic racism that leads to higher incarceration rates.

Redlining
Lack of generational wealth
Untreated learning disabilities
Harsher consequences at school
Lack of knowledge about education/college
Bias in hiring
Bias in arrests
Harsher sentencing

It’s pretty easy for a kid to make a few mistakes when they are young and then never be able to pull themselves out of that hole.

Where is the personal responsibility?

Generational wealth - shitty parents, a whole bunch of them but realistically, there are tons of normal everyday middle class Americans of all colors without generational wealth.
Untreated learning disabilities - shitty parents
Lack of knowledge about college - shitty parents
Bias in arrests, sentencing - don’t care, stop committing crimes. This isn’t rocket science
Bias in hiring - racist quota systems set up in many institutions now. But remaining bias may also exist because all of the above is true.

So how does removing advanced math/tracking fix any of that? The kids who have bad parents and/or learning disabilities will still get as good an education as the school system is capable of giving. Systemic discrimination of kids with greater learning capabilities seems like a stupid answer to problems created by perceived systemic racism.

That’s not happening.

But go ahead and pretend like systemic racism isn’t happening.

VMPI was all just a dream. thankfully. But the original point of the exchange was that bad parents create bad outcomes, regardless of race. That includes leaving a child to be raised by one parent.

VMPI was never removing advanced math.

Might be tough to be a “good” parent if generations of your ancestors were blocked from becoming “good” parents. People are fundamentally good; everyone wants to be “good” parents. There are just fewer obstacles to being “good” parents for some people.

You are naive if you think VMPI wasn’t removing accelerated paths. I assume you knew as much and are just playing word games.

Nope. Not tough to stay with the mother or father of your child and choose to raise that child because something that happened to your grandparents. Tough to take personal responsibility to do what’s right. I wonder if Va schools are teaching the importance of two parent households, maybe that should be part of the equity model if it isn’t already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

Yes, and the vast majority of those women made choices that resulted in that situation. And they then make choices that make that situation permanent. But unless you support the state taking those kids and putting them in foster care, the mothers have made choices that will impact their children's entire lives, despite the best efforts of schools. BTW - the statistic showing children in single parent homes by race exactly mirrors academic performance by race.

+1. Poor choices have consequences, especially if it involves having a child.

Funny how the woman is always blamed.

Did the woman somehow not play any part in it?

Did the man somehow not play any part in it?

I blame whoever isn’t there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This argument falls apart when you look at why the kid is advanced and consider limited resources.

Your kid is most likely more “advanced” because of a disproportional distribution of limited resources from the the start of his or her life. They are advanced because they had more *advantages* than other children. Not because they are necessarily brighter or smarter. Your kid was born on third and you think he hit a triple. And so long as the system continues to set up these inequities in perpetuity, things won’t get better for the kid who keeps striking out.

Nope, never said my kid hit a triple. The fact remains that for a huge list of reasons some kids have a leg-up whether due to intelligence, race, or simply opportunity and right now school systems like FCPS and APS are not giving them what they equitably need because yes it does mean that for the most part the gap will never close.

I remember reading somewhere when my kids were little that a child whose parents read to them consistently from infancy had been exposed to literally hundreds of thousands more words by K than a child whose parents did not do so. Some show up reading early chapter books, other kids don't even know all their letters. Guess what, those kids aren't getting reading groups with the same amount of time and instruction during the week that meet them where they are.

That's not equity no matter how much you want it to be. You're trying to fix societal inequity by dumbing down the classroom.

No one is dumbing down the classroom. That’s a trope. The purpose of public education, though, is to meet a baseline for an educated population. So naturally, the focus will be on those who struggle. This was articulated very clearly in “No child left behind.” (The rhetoric, not the policy). It exists as a public good. You are rent seeking for private goods — but public education has no obligation to help further advance the advanced student — the truly gifted and talented are endlessly curious and seek learning opportunities outside the classroom anyway, and the high-achiever has already cleared the baseline. As one school superintendent once explained, private school is a good option. But that isn’t the purpose of public education and never had been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This argument falls apart when you look at why the kid is advanced and consider limited resources.

Your kid is most likely more “advanced” because of a disproportional distribution of limited resources from the the start of his or her life. They are advanced because they had more *advantages* than other children. Not because they are necessarily brighter or smarter. Your kid was born on third and you think he hit a triple. And so long as the system continues to set up these inequities in perpetuity, things won’t get better for the kid who keeps striking out.

Nope, never said my kid hit a triple. The fact remains that for a huge list of reasons some kids have a leg-up whether due to intelligence, race, or simply opportunity and right now school systems like FCPS and APS are not giving them what they equitably need because yes it does mean that for the most part the gap will never close.

I remember reading somewhere when my kids were little that a child whose parents read to them consistently from infancy had been exposed to literally hundreds of thousands more words by K than a child whose parents did not do so. Some show up reading early chapter books, other kids don't even know all their letters. Guess what, those kids aren't getting reading groups with the same amount of time and instruction during the week that meet them where they are.

That's not equity no matter how much you want it to be. You're trying to fix societal inequity by dumbing down the classroom.

No one is dumbing down the classroom. That’s a trope. The purpose of public education, though, is to meet a baseline for an educated population. So naturally, the focus will be on those who struggle. This was articulated very clearly in “No child left behind.” (The rhetoric, not the policy). It exists as a public good. You are rent seeking for private goods — but public education has no obligation to help further advance the advanced student — the truly gifted and talented are endlessly curious and seek learning opportunities outside the classroom anyway, and the high-achiever has already cleared the baseline. As one school superintendent once explained, private school is a good option. But that isn’t the purpose of public education and never had been.

Every school in Baltimore has been dumbed down. Not one kid in the school district can do math at grade level. Admins are making $400,000.
The average, smart and kids who have behave have all been left behind. Restorative justice is destroying safety in schools so that kids can't learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

That’s the consequence of poor decision making.

The child has no say in that.

Yep it’s unfortunate. But punishing my kid for the sins of their parents doesn’t fix that problem. Bottom line is that schools can’t fix shitty parents.

Single parent \= “shitty parent”

Especially considering the parent who is the “single parent” is the one who stepped up to the plate.

Agreed, but one of the two parents probably is.

That’s not to say that divorced/unwed parents can’t successfully raise a child to not need equitable measures. It for sure happens.

This. One of the parent is the shitty parent. This is especially true in the poor black communities where many fathers are incarcerated. Those that are not, many abandon their responsibilities to their kid and could care less. I have a good friend in this situation but she is lucky because she has support from her family and they are helping to raise him. These kids have no strong father figures at all.

The single moms with no support are working to support the family so no one is at home watching the kids. They then get into trouble, hang out with the wrong crowd, etc….

The other issue is that some households with 2 parents, they just don’t give a sh’t about the kids and are just unfit to be parents. Ask a teacher in a title 1 school about that and they can easily tell you the percentages and you would be surprised.

Those kids are getting in trouble because police and school administrators are racist. It's not their fault. If you look at arrest and incarceration rates, black males are way overrepresented.

So they are being framed?

NP. There are multiple components to the systemic racism that leads to higher incarceration rates.

Redlining
Lack of generational wealth
Untreated learning disabilities
Harsher consequences at school
Lack of knowledge about education/college
Bias in hiring
Bias in arrests
Harsher sentencing

It’s pretty easy for a kid to make a few mistakes when they are young and then never be able to pull themselves out of that hole.

Where is the personal responsibility?

Generational wealth - shitty parents, a whole bunch of them but realistically, there are tons of normal everyday middle class Americans of all colors without generational wealth.
Untreated learning disabilities - shitty parents
Lack of knowledge about college - shitty parents
Bias in arrests, sentencing - don’t care, stop committing crimes. This isn’t rocket science
Bias in hiring - racist quota systems set up in many institutions now. But remaining bias may also exist because all of the above is true.

So how does removing advanced math/tracking fix any of that? The kids who have bad parents and/or learning disabilities will still get as good an education as the school system is capable of giving. Systemic discrimination of kids with greater learning capabilities seems like a stupid answer to problems created by perceived systemic racism.

That’s not happening.

But go ahead and pretend like systemic racism isn’t happening.

VMPI was all just a dream. thankfully. But the original point of the exchange was that bad parents create bad outcomes, regardless of race. That includes leaving a child to be raised by one parent.

VMPI was never removing advanced math.

Might be tough to be a “good” parent if generations of your ancestors were blocked from becoming “good” parents. People are fundamentally good; everyone wants to be “good” parents. There are just fewer obstacles to being “good” parents for some people.

You are naive if you think VMPI wasn’t removing accelerated paths. I assume you knew as much and are just playing word games.

Nope. Not tough to stay with the mother or father of your child and choose to raise that child because something that happened to your grandparents. Tough to take personal responsibility to do what’s right. I wonder if Va schools are teaching the importance of two parent households, maybe that should be part of the equity model if it isn’t already.

It was not removing accelerated paths. It always included calculus and IB as options which are accelerated paths.

You don’t know what’s in the VA FLA curriculum? You sound like an external agitator. A privileged, racist external agitator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

That’s the consequence of poor decision making.

The child has no say in that.

Yep it’s unfortunate. But punishing my kid for the sins of their parents doesn’t fix that problem. Bottom line is that schools can’t fix shitty parents.

Single parent \= “shitty parent”

Especially considering the parent who is the “single parent” is the one who stepped up to the plate.

Agreed, but one of the two parents probably is.

That’s not to say that divorced/unwed parents can’t successfully raise a child to not need equitable measures. It for sure happens.

This. One of the parent is the shitty parent. This is especially true in the poor black communities where many fathers are incarcerated. Those that are not, many abandon their responsibilities to their kid and could care less. I have a good friend in this situation but she is lucky because she has support from her family and they are helping to raise him. These kids have no strong father figures at all.

The single moms with no support are working to support the family so no one is at home watching the kids. They then get into trouble, hang out with the wrong crowd, etc….

The other issue is that some households with 2 parents, they just don’t give a sh’t about the kids and are just unfit to be parents. Ask a teacher in a title 1 school about that and they can easily tell you the percentages and you would be surprised.

Those kids are getting in trouble because police and school administrators are racist. It's not their fault. If you look at arrest and incarceration rates, black males are way overrepresented.

So they are being framed?

NP. There are multiple components to the systemic racism that leads to higher incarceration rates.

Redlining
Lack of generational wealth
Untreated learning disabilities
Harsher consequences at school
Lack of knowledge about education/college
Bias in hiring
Bias in arrests
Harsher sentencing

It’s pretty easy for a kid to make a few mistakes when they are young and then never be able to pull themselves out of that hole.

Where is the personal responsibility?

Generational wealth - shitty parents, a whole bunch of them but realistically, there are tons of normal everyday middle class Americans of all colors without generational wealth.
Untreated learning disabilities - shitty parents
Lack of knowledge about college - shitty parents
Bias in arrests, sentencing - don’t care, stop committing crimes. This isn’t rocket science
Bias in hiring - racist quota systems set up in many institutions now. But remaining bias may also exist because all of the above is true.

So how does removing advanced math/tracking fix any of that? The kids who have bad parents and/or learning disabilities will still get as good an education as the school system is capable of giving. Systemic discrimination of kids with greater learning capabilities seems like a stupid answer to problems created by perceived systemic racism.

That’s not happening.

But go ahead and pretend like systemic racism isn’t happening.

VMPI was all just a dream. thankfully. But the original point of the exchange was that bad parents create bad outcomes, regardless of race. That includes leaving a child to be raised by one parent.

VMPI was never removing advanced math.

Might be tough to be a “good” parent if generations of your ancestors were blocked from becoming “good” parents. People are fundamentally good; everyone wants to be “good” parents. There are just fewer obstacles to being “good” parents for some people.

You are naive if you think VMPI wasn’t removing accelerated paths. I assume you knew as much and are just playing word games.

Nope. Not tough to stay with the mother or father of your child and choose to raise that child because something that happened to your grandparents. Tough to take personal responsibility to do what’s right. I wonder if Va schools are teaching the importance of two parent households, maybe that should be part of the equity model if it isn’t already.

It was not removing accelerated paths. It always included calculus and IB as options which are accelerated paths.

You don’t know what’s in the VA FLA curriculum? You sound like an external agitator. A privileged, racist external agitator.

^ plus school districts decide what to offer/accelerate. It never proposed taking that away from school districts across the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This argument falls apart when you look at why the kid is advanced and consider limited resources.

Your kid is most likely more “advanced” because of a disproportional distribution of limited resources from the the start of his or her life. They are advanced because they had more *advantages* than other children. Not because they are necessarily brighter or smarter. Your kid was born on third and you think he hit a triple. And so long as the system continues to set up these inequities in perpetuity, things won’t get better for the kid who keeps striking out.

Nope, never said my kid hit a triple. The fact remains that for a huge list of reasons some kids have a leg-up whether due to intelligence, race, or simply opportunity and right now school systems like FCPS and APS are not giving them what they equitably need because yes it does mean that for the most part the gap will never close.

I remember reading somewhere when my kids were little that a child whose parents read to them consistently from infancy had been exposed to literally hundreds of thousands more words by K than a child whose parents did not do so. Some show up reading early chapter books, other kids don't even know all their letters. Guess what, those kids aren't getting reading groups with the same amount of time and instruction during the week that meet them where they are.

That's not equity no matter how much you want it to be. You're trying to fix societal inequity by dumbing down the classroom.

No one is dumbing down the classroom. That’s a trope. The purpose of public education, though, is to meet a baseline for an educated population. So naturally, the focus will be on those who struggle. This was articulated very clearly in “No child left behind.” (The rhetoric, not the policy). It exists as a public good. You are rent seeking for private goods — but public education has no obligation to help further advance the advanced student — the truly gifted and talented are endlessly curious and seek learning opportunities outside the classroom anyway, and the high-achiever has already cleared the baseline. As one school superintendent once explained, private school is a good option. But that isn’t the purpose of public education and never had been.

Every school in Baltimore has been dumbed down. Not one kid in the school district can do math at grade level. Admins are making $400,000.
The average, smart and kids who have behave have all been left behind. Restorative justice is destroying safety in schools so that kids can't learn.

Those sounds like problems that have zero to do with "diversity and equity" policies.

I do agree restorative justice is a failed system. I mean, conceptually it makes sense, but we aren't the Maori people of New Zealand (which is where the practice originated) and expecting good execution of it by poorly-trained people who don't actually understand what it should achieve is dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This argument falls apart when you look at why the kid is advanced and consider limited resources.

Your kid is most likely more “advanced” because of a disproportional distribution of limited resources from the the start of his or her life. They are advanced because they had more *advantages* than other children. Not because they are necessarily brighter or smarter. Your kid was born on third and you think he hit a triple. And so long as the system continues to set up these inequities in perpetuity, things won’t get better for the kid who keeps striking out.

Nope, never said my kid hit a triple. The fact remains that for a huge list of reasons some kids have a leg-up whether due to intelligence, race, or simply opportunity and right now school systems like FCPS and APS are not giving them what they equitably need because yes it does mean that for the most part the gap will never close.

I remember reading somewhere when my kids were little that a child whose parents read to them consistently from infancy had been exposed to literally hundreds of thousands more words by K than a child whose parents did not do so. Some show up reading early chapter books, other kids don't even know all their letters. Guess what, those kids aren't getting reading groups with the same amount of time and instruction during the week that meet them where they are.

That's not equity no matter how much you want it to be. You're trying to fix societal inequity by dumbing down the classroom.

No one is dumbing down the classroom. That’s a trope. The purpose of public education, though, is to meet a baseline for an educated population. So naturally, the focus will be on those who struggle. This was articulated very clearly in “No child left behind.” (The rhetoric, not the policy). It exists as a public good. You are rent seeking for private goods — but public education has no obligation to help further advance the advanced student — the truly gifted and talented are endlessly curious and seek learning opportunities outside the classroom anyway, and the high-achiever has already cleared the baseline. As one school superintendent once explained, private school is a good option. But that isn’t the purpose of public education and never had been.

In APS at least they claim to address the whole child and that every child deserves a full year's growth. That absolutely means meeting each child where they are.

To your bolded point, isn't that what everyone is having a hard time with? That those with resources will always find outside sources of enrichment for their children, so the gap will never be closed inside the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This argument falls apart when you look at why the kid is advanced and consider limited resources.

Your kid is most likely more “advanced” because of a disproportional distribution of limited resources from the the start of his or her life. They are advanced because they had more *advantages* than other children. Not because they are necessarily brighter or smarter. Your kid was born on third and you think he hit a triple. And so long as the system continues to set up these inequities in perpetuity, things won’t get better for the kid who keeps striking out.

Nope, never said my kid hit a triple. The fact remains that for a huge list of reasons some kids have a leg-up whether due to intelligence, race, or simply opportunity and right now school systems like FCPS and APS are not giving them what they equitably need because yes it does mean that for the most part the gap will never close.

I remember reading somewhere when my kids were little that a child whose parents read to them consistently from infancy had been exposed to literally hundreds of thousands more words by K than a child whose parents did not do so. Some show up reading early chapter books, other kids don't even know all their letters. Guess what, those kids aren't getting reading groups with the same amount of time and instruction during the week that meet them where they are.

That's not equity no matter how much you want it to be. You're trying to fix societal inequity by dumbing down the classroom.

No one is dumbing down the classroom. That’s a trope. The purpose of public education, though, is to meet a baseline for an educated population. So naturally, the focus will be on those who struggle. This was articulated very clearly in “No child left behind.” (The rhetoric, not the policy). It exists as a public good. You are rent seeking for private goods — but public education has no obligation to help further advance the advanced student — the truly gifted and talented are endlessly curious and seek learning opportunities outside the classroom anyway, and the high-achiever has already cleared the baseline. As one school superintendent once explained, private school is a good option. But that isn’t the purpose of public education and never had been.

In APS at least they claim to address the whole child and that every child deserves a full year's growth. That absolutely means meeting each child where they are.

To your bolded point, isn't that what everyone is having a hard time with? That those with resources will always find outside sources of enrichment for their children, so the gap will never be closed inside the classroom.

No, that's not what "everyone is having a hard time with." It's the foot stomping and demanding the SCHOOL provide those extra resources. But the focus, understandably, needs to be on those who are struggling.

Also, this isn't about parents providing extra enrichment -- that's just social engineering. The parents who do that for their children don't actually have gifted children. Truly gifted children will seek those opportunities out independently -- they don't need mommy booking them into Kahn Academy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

That’s the consequence of poor decision making.

The child has no say in that.

Yep it’s unfortunate. But punishing my kid for the sins of their parents doesn’t fix that problem. Bottom line is that schools can’t fix shitty parents.

Single parent \= “shitty parent”

Especially considering the parent who is the “single parent” is the one who stepped up to the plate.

Agreed, but one of the two parents probably is.

That’s not to say that divorced/unwed parents can’t successfully raise a child to not need equitable measures. It for sure happens.

This. One of the parent is the shitty parent. This is especially true in the poor black communities where many fathers are incarcerated. Those that are not, many abandon their responsibilities to their kid and could care less. I have a good friend in this situation but she is lucky because she has support from her family and they are helping to raise him. These kids have no strong father figures at all.

The single moms with no support are working to support the family so no one is at home watching the kids. They then get into trouble, hang out with the wrong crowd, etc….

The other issue is that some households with 2 parents, they just don’t give a sh’t about the kids and are just unfit to be parents. Ask a teacher in a title 1 school about that and they can easily tell you the percentages and you would be surprised.

Those kids are getting in trouble because police and school administrators are racist. It's not their fault. If you look at arrest and incarceration rates, black males are way overrepresented.

So they are being framed?

NP. There are multiple components to the systemic racism that leads to higher incarceration rates.

Redlining
Lack of generational wealth
Untreated learning disabilities
Harsher consequences at school
Lack of knowledge about education/college
Bias in hiring
Bias in arrests
Harsher sentencing

It’s pretty easy for a kid to make a few mistakes when they are young and then never be able to pull themselves out of that hole.

Where is the personal responsibility?

Generational wealth - shitty parents, a whole bunch of them but realistically, there are tons of normal everyday middle class Americans of all colors without generational wealth.
Untreated learning disabilities - shitty parents
Lack of knowledge about college - shitty parents
Bias in arrests, sentencing - don’t care, stop committing crimes. This isn’t rocket science
Bias in hiring - racist quota systems set up in many institutions now. But remaining bias may also exist because all of the above is true.

So how does removing advanced math/tracking fix any of that? The kids who have bad parents and/or learning disabilities will still get as good an education as the school system is capable of giving. Systemic discrimination of kids with greater learning capabilities seems like a stupid answer to problems created by perceived systemic racism.

That’s not happening.

But go ahead and pretend like systemic racism isn’t happening.

VMPI was all just a dream. thankfully. But the original point of the exchange was that bad parents create bad outcomes, regardless of race. That includes leaving a child to be raised by one parent.

VMPI was never removing advanced math.

Might be tough to be a “good” parent if generations of your ancestors were blocked from becoming “good” parents. People are fundamentally good; everyone wants to be “good” parents. There are just fewer obstacles to being “good” parents for some people.

You are naive if you think VMPI wasn’t removing accelerated paths. I assume you knew as much and are just playing word games.

Nope. Not tough to stay with the mother or father of your child and choose to raise that child because something that happened to your grandparents. Tough to take personal responsibility to do what’s right. I wonder if Va schools are teaching the importance of two parent households, maybe that should be part of the equity model if it isn’t already.

It was not removing accelerated paths. It always included calculus and IB as options which are accelerated paths.

You don’t know what’s in the VA FLA curriculum? You sound like an external agitator. A privileged, racist external agitator.

Yep you don’t know what was happening in elementary schools in FCPS.

I’m surprised it took you this long to call someone racist. Probably held it as long as you could. Do you feel better? Good. I’m not racist or privileged.

And This doesn’t change the fact that people are abandoning their children and equity measures in va schools will not fix this. Personal responsibility, regardless of race, is always an answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot on DCUM (who have generational wealth and are into all the wordsmith theory going on nowadays) don't realize that the old system did work to raise people up from the bottom if you had a strong support system.

I grew up lower middle class. My parents (yes, I had an involved father) instilled in me a hard work ethic and stressed that only through education would I make more money than them. I didn't have tutors, but I was in honors, ignored all the others trying to get me to skip school in high school, got good grades and now am part of the upper 10%. My children have had an easier start than I did.

If there isn't familial support, the equity steps taken won't matter except on paper by bringing people like my children down.

You were privileged to grow up in a 2-parent household.

For some races, 69% of kids are born to unwed mothers:
https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

That’s the consequence of poor decision making.

The child has no say in that.

Yep it’s unfortunate. But punishing my kid for the sins of their parents doesn’t fix that problem. Bottom line is that schools can’t fix shitty parents.

Single parent \= “shitty parent”

Especially considering the parent who is the “single parent” is the one who stepped up to the plate.

Agreed, but one of the two parents probably is.

That’s not to say that divorced/unwed parents can’t successfully raise a child to not need equitable measures. It for sure happens.

This. One of the parent is the shitty parent. This is especially true in the poor black communities where many fathers are incarcerated. Those that are not, many abandon their responsibilities to their kid and could care less. I have a good friend in this situation but she is lucky because she has support from her family and they are helping to raise him. These kids have no strong father figures at all.

The single moms with no support are working to support the family so no one is at home watching the kids. They then get into trouble, hang out with the wrong crowd, etc….

The other issue is that some households with 2 parents, they just don’t give a sh’t about the kids and are just unfit to be parents. Ask a teacher in a title 1 school about that and they can easily tell you the percentages and you would be surprised.

Those kids are getting in trouble because police and school administrators are racist. It's not their fault. If you look at arrest and incarceration rates, black males are way overrepresented.

So they are being framed?

NP. There are multiple components to the systemic racism that leads to higher incarceration rates.

Redlining
Lack of generational wealth
Untreated learning disabilities
Harsher consequences at school
Lack of knowledge about education/college
Bias in hiring
Bias in arrests
Harsher sentencing

It’s pretty easy for a kid to make a few mistakes when they are young and then never be able to pull themselves out of that hole.

Where is the personal responsibility?

Generational wealth - shitty parents, a whole bunch of them but realistically, there are tons of normal everyday middle class Americans of all colors without generational wealth.
Untreated learning disabilities - shitty parents
Lack of knowledge about college - shitty parents
Bias in arrests, sentencing - don’t care, stop committing crimes. This isn’t rocket science
Bias in hiring - racist quota systems set up in many institutions now. But remaining bias may also exist because all of the above is true.

So how does removing advanced math/tracking fix any of that? The kids who have bad parents and/or learning disabilities will still get as good an education as the school system is capable of giving. Systemic discrimination of kids with greater learning capabilities seems like a stupid answer to problems created by perceived systemic racism.

That’s not happening.

But go ahead and pretend like systemic racism isn’t happening.

VMPI was all just a dream. thankfully. But the original point of the exchange was that bad parents create bad outcomes, regardless of race. That includes leaving a child to be raised by one parent.

VMPI was never removing advanced math.

Might be tough to be a “good” parent if generations of your ancestors were blocked from becoming “good” parents. People are fundamentally good; everyone wants to be “good” parents. There are just fewer obstacles to being “good” parents for some people.

You are naive if you think VMPI wasn’t removing accelerated paths. I assume you knew as much and are just playing word games.

Nope. Not tough to stay with the mother or father of your child and choose to raise that child because something that happened to your grandparents. Tough to take personal responsibility to do what’s right. I wonder if Va schools are teaching the importance of two parent households, maybe that should be part of the equity model if it isn’t already.

It was not removing accelerated paths. It always included calculus and IB as options which are accelerated paths.

You don’t know what’s in the VA FLA curriculum? You sound like an external agitator. A privileged, racist external agitator.

Yep you don’t know what was happening in elementary schools in FCPS.

I’m surprised it took you this long to call someone racist. Probably held it as long as you could. Do you feel better? Good. I’m not racist or privileged.

And This doesn’t change the fact that people are abandoning their children and equity measures in va schools will not fix this. Personal responsibility, regardless of race, is always an answer.

VMPI wasn’t removing advanced math/accelerated paths.

Interesting that you are self-aware enough to recognize that your comments are racist - and you are ok with that.