How many does it take

[Anonymous]

Is the ability to cope with being surrounded by people who are different from you an inherent genetic trait?

When I hear a parent being persnickety about how many white children need to be at their children's school and how many graduate degrees need to be held by the black parents before they can pass, I try to hear it as, "I have a genetic condition that I expect that I've passed on to my children." We've all got special needs, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rub, none of us want our kids to receive an poor education, most of us in fact believe our children are entitled to receive an excellent education and will fight and sacrifice and maneuver and do whatever the hell we can do it. Most of us that are middle class have numerous resources to do this. Poor and working class parents of any race do not have the same social capital, economic resources or experience. So the not so subtle question is in a school with more of the later group of parents does it weak the opportunities for a a middle class dd. Ideally it is not a zero sum game, but most of us fear that is once number reach beyond 10-15%. However that leaves the poor screwed. So you can just help perpetuate a permanent underclass, advocate for a system that puts lots and I mean lots more resources into these kids and this may affect your DD or maybe you just rant on this board. The fundamental reality is though that these kids are not going to go away and even the crappy jobs they might have been able to get are going away so I am not sure what they are going to do long term.

Are you saying I'm screwing the poor and helping to perpetuate a permanent underclass by not sending my son to a substandard neighborhood school?

I get why you are upset that poor kids get substandard education, we all think it's very sad and all. But I disagree that I have a responsibility to fix this. And especially that I have a responsibility to fix this by throwing my son into the pool where his educational opportunities will not be at their best. My responsibility as a parent is to my son. I don't have any responsibilities to unscrew the poor, or to dismantle the underclass. It just isn't my job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the ability to cope with being surrounded by people who are different from you an inherent genetic trait?

When I hear a parent being persnickety about how many white children need to be at their children's school and how many graduate degrees need to be held by the black parents before they can pass, I try to hear it as, "I have a genetic condition that I expect that I've passed on to my children." We've all got special needs, right?

Is the ability to see differences as inherently good, regardless of nature of differences, a genetic trait too? A special kind of myopia with rose-tinted glasses firmly glued to your face?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rub, none of us want our kids to receive an poor education, most of us in fact believe our children are entitled to receive an excellent education and will fight and sacrifice and maneuver and do whatever the hell we can do it. Most of us that are middle class have numerous resources to do this. Poor and working class parents of any race do not have the same social capital, economic resources or experience. So the not so subtle question is in a school with more of the later group of parents does it weak the opportunities for a a middle class dd. Ideally it is not a zero sum game, but most of us fear that is once number reach beyond 10-15%. However that leaves the poor screwed. So you can just help perpetuate a permanent underclass, advocate for a system that puts lots and I mean lots more resources into these kids and this may affect your DD or maybe you just rant on this board. The fundamental reality is though that these kids are not going to go away and even the crappy jobs they might have been able to get are going away so I am not sure what they are going to do long term.

Are you saying I'm screwing the poor and helping to perpetuate a permanent underclass by not sending my son to a substandard neighborhood school?

I get why you are upset that poor kids get substandard education, we all think it's very sad and all. But I disagree that I have a responsibility to fix this. And especially that I have a responsibility to fix this by throwing my son into the pool where his educational opportunities will not be at their best. My responsibility as a parent is to my son. I don't have any responsibilities to unscrew the poor, or to dismantle the underclass. It just isn't my job.

NP. ITA. And I thought we were doing well by not moving out of DC and sending our kid to a charter. It has nothing to do with the poor and underclass - I wish them the best - but will not be subjecting DC to a substandard education in hopes of raising the bar at our crappy neighborhood school. We'll be going private by 4th or 6th at the latest like the rest of the upper middle class who have inadequate neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Is it not possible to advocate for your children and your community at the same time? In a school system with so much choice it is not necessary to take the harder road of trying to advocate for both, that is definitely true. Too bad for the poor and disadvantaged - all these choices were supposedly meant to help them, yet from reading these posts it seems like it just gives more advantaged families more opportunities to turn a blind eye to society's problems without actually having to move to a new community.

OK, you win. You are a better person than I. You have more of a social conscience. You are a credit to Dr. King's legacy. The reincarnation of the Dali Lama, even.

But you're still using your children as a means to remedy social injustice. In my opinion, that's ridiculous. My first obligation is to my kids - to provide them with the best experience possible. (Note: that's not a lily-white, rich private school, BTW - my kids go to a charter in the city where they're in the minority, but it's a great school, and they're friends with kids from all different SES. And we're not without options.) But that's not what you're talking about - you're talking about doing what is best for the community, despite the fact that it may not be what is best for your kids.

So while you may be a better person, you're a worse parent. At the very least, a more irresponsible one.

^This!

[Anonymous]

Some of you should (re)read Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

If our society could function with everyone only caring about themselves and their own kids, that would be great. The system does, in fact, work best when it uses this individualistic tendency to try to promote the common good. Perhaps the problem isn't the parents who refuse to send their kids to the underperforming schools, perhaps it's the system that has allowed individualism to run rampant in such a way that the underprivileged have been left without their help and resources. Maybe this is just what happens when we run schools like businesses and not pieces of the community - just another example of the 99% and 1% forming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you should (re)read Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

If our society could function with everyone only caring about themselves and their own kids, that would be great. The system does, in fact, work best when it uses this individualistic tendency to try to promote the common good. Perhaps the problem isn't the parents who refuse to send their kids to the underperforming schools, perhaps it's the system that has allowed individualism to run rampant in such a way that the underprivileged have been left without their help and resources. Maybe this is just what happens when we run schools like businesses and not pieces of the community - just another example of the 99% and 1% forming.

Oy. Pretty sure de Tocqueville would have laughed his cul off at the 99% v. 1% OWS crowd.

The very idea of one person dictating how "the system does in fact work best" is anathema to personal liberty. You're a hell of a lot closer to Napoleon and Snowball than de Tocqueville.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you should (re)read Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

If our society could function with everyone only caring about themselves and their own kids, that would be great. The system does, in fact, work best when it uses this individualistic tendency to try to promote the common good. Perhaps the problem isn't the parents who refuse to send their kids to the underperforming schools, perhaps it's the system that has allowed individualism to run rampant in such a way that the underprivileged have been left without their help and resources. Maybe this is just what happens when we run schools like businesses and not pieces of the community - just another example of the 99% and 1% forming.

Are you a parent? Where do you send your kid(s) to school? Nobody disagrees with your premise and everyone agrees with you on principle. I know I did when I was single, no kids and in college and did not live in DC. So more power to you and good luck!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you should (re)read Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

If our society could function with everyone only caring about themselves and their own kids, that would be great. The system does, in fact, work best when it uses this individualistic tendency to try to promote the common good. Perhaps the problem isn't the parents who refuse to send their kids to the underperforming schools, perhaps it's the system that has allowed individualism to run rampant in such a way that the underprivileged have been left without their help and resources. Maybe this is just what happens when we run schools like businesses and not pieces of the community - just another example of the 99% and 1% forming.

Oy. Pretty sure de Tocqueville would have laughed his cul off at the 99% v. 1% OWS crowd.

The very idea of one person dictating how "the system does in fact work best" is anathema to personal liberty. You're a hell of a lot closer to Napoleon and Snowball than de Tocqueville.

You are right - how dumb of someone to raise the issue of democracy when talking about our schools. You are also right - how dumb for people to try to suggest how to make the system better; I would dare suggest that society works better if we all just ponder this thought and never say aloud how we might try to fix it, but I might be encroaching on your liberties with the mere suggestion to ponder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you should (re)read Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

If our society could function with everyone only caring about themselves and their own kids, that would be great. The system does, in fact, work best when it uses this individualistic tendency to try to promote the common good. Perhaps the problem isn't the parents who refuse to send their kids to the underperforming schools, perhaps it's the system that has allowed individualism to run rampant in such a way that the underprivileged have been left without their help and resources. Maybe this is just what happens when we run schools like businesses and not pieces of the community - just another example of the 99% and 1% forming.

Oy. Pretty sure de Tocqueville would have laughed his cul off at the 99% v. 1% OWS crowd.

The very idea of one person dictating how "the system does in fact work best" is anathema to personal liberty. You're a hell of a lot closer to Napoleon and Snowball than de Tocqueville.

Funny how conservatives love to quote de Tocqueville when he's saying something superficial about American exceptionalism, but don't seem to have ever read the man. Socioeconomic mobility was pretty much the core characteristic he admired. And he found the highest expression of that ideal in the estate tax. Or, as brain-dead conservatives like to call it "the Death Tax".

If de Tocqueville came back today to write an updated edition of Democracy in America, and saw what you've done to this country, he'd never stop throwing up. Fatuous references to Orwell (who'd be equally revolted) won't change that.

[Anonymous]

Quick point: no one sends their child to a school which they think is going to be bad for them. That's pure projection. Instead they evaluate the situation, and send their kid to whatever school they judge best. For some that might be a local 99% FARMS school (though obviously that's not often the case, since, well, it wouldn't be 99% FARMS).

But there are a lot of parents who decided to enroll their kids in the early grades of marginal DCPS elementary schools. And those schools have improved. You may decide some exurban school with a high median HHI is better for your kid. That's great. Meanwhile, there's someone else sending their kid to St Albans or Maret wondering how you can subject your kid to that shithole.

At the end of the day, kids of mothers with high educational attainment, and whose parents are involved tend to have similar outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you should (re)read Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

If our society could function with everyone only caring about themselves and their own kids, that would be great. The system does, in fact, work best when it uses this individualistic tendency to try to promote the common good. Perhaps the problem isn't the parents who refuse to send their kids to the underperforming schools, perhaps it's the system that has allowed individualism to run rampant in such a way that the underprivileged have been left without their help and resources. Maybe this is just what happens when we run schools like businesses and not pieces of the community - just another example of the 99% and 1% forming.

That's a pretty non-controversial statement - of course it does. But you're still using your kids to promote that common good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quick point: no one sends their child to a school which they think is going to be bad for them. That's pure projection. Instead they evaluate the situation, and send their kid to whatever school they judge best. For some that might be a local 99% FARMS school (though obviously that's not often the case, since, well, it wouldn't be 99% FARMS).

But there are a lot of parents who decided to enroll their kids in the early grades of marginal DCPS elementary schools. And those schools have improved. You may decide some exurban school with a high median HHI is better for your kid. That's great. Meanwhile, there's someone else sending their kid to St Albans or Maret wondering how you can subject your kid to that shithole.

At the end of the day, kids of mothers with high educational attainment, and whose parents are involved tend to have similar outcomes.

Well, I agree with this statement generally. Except that there's one poster who is repeatedly advocating that parents should send their kids to the school that will help "the system." I haven't seen one time where she's included the welfare of HER OWN child int he calculation.

But you're right that she's likely being intentionally obtuse and hyperbolic - which just makes me an idior for engaging her. I should just go back to egging on Bannaker-hating McKinley parent instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the posters who say it's about SES, not race (although I wouldn't want my kid to be the only white in his class, either). Let me explain.

I work for the World Bank, arguably the most diverse employer in Washington, DC and possibly in the US. We are all colors, all languages, all ethnicities. We are very diverse.

And yet we are very not. Because regardless of color or national origin, we share the following characteristics: everyone has a graduate degree, at least. Everyone speaks 2+ languages. Everyone has traveled to dozens of countries. Everyone has gone to a handful of top universities internationally. Everyone is highly literate. Most people come from solid families that cared about education. Many come from their country elites.

So our kids get along very well regardless of their color. And I wouldn't feel comfortable putting my mixed-race son into a classroom of kids from poor, uneducated, untraveled families, no matter what their skin color is. At the WB we became completely color-blind, but inferior schooling or manner of speaking or insufficient worldliness would make you an outsider just as efficiently as the wrong skin color somewhere else.

And truth be told, we give lip service to diversity, but we want diversity only of a particular kind, especially for our children, because we want them to learn only one kind of normal - highly educated, international and literate. We are OK with them getting exposed to other lifestyles, but only after they learn what normal is.

So the long answer is that it doesn't matter what the majority/minority proportion is, as long as they don't come from poor, uneducated background. As a side note, in DC diversity tends to be framed as Black/White mix, but in real life there are many other shades and colors, so sometimes neither Black nor White are majorities.

Very well said. I think living in DC, sometimes I do become color blind. I don't notice what color someone is...but I do notice if someone is Ghetto. Or if someone is poor. I don't think I would mind if my DD was the only white face in a school full of rich black kids or brown kids or purple kids. But, mix in the poor kids.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rub, none of us want our kids to receive an poor education, most of us in fact believe our children are entitled to receive an excellent education and will fight and sacrifice and maneuver and do whatever the hell we can do it. Most of us that are middle class have numerous resources to do this. Poor and working class parents of any race do not have the same social capital, economic resources or experience. So the not so subtle question is in a school with more of the later group of parents does it weak the opportunities for a a middle class dd. Ideally it is not a zero sum game, but most of us fear that is once number reach beyond 10-15%. However that leaves the poor screwed. So you can just help perpetuate a permanent underclass, advocate for a system that puts lots and I mean lots more resources into these kids and this may affect your DD or maybe you just rant on this board. The fundamental reality is though that these kids are not going to go away and even the crappy jobs they might have been able to get are going away so I am not sure what they are going to do long term.

Are you saying I'm screwing the poor and helping to perpetuate a permanent underclass by not sending my son to a substandard neighborhood school?

I get why you are upset that poor kids get substandard education, we all think it's very sad and all. But I disagree that I have a responsibility to fix this. And especially that I have a responsibility to fix this by throwing my son into the pool where his educational opportunities will not be at their best. My responsibility as a parent is to my son. I don't have any responsibilities to unscrew the poor, or to dismantle the underclass. It just isn't my job.

No it is not your job as a parent. What is your job/obligation as a citizen? Frankly I agree I am the poster who wrote the first post you quote and I left one of these high farm schools and moved to a much more successful read wealthier school because I could not save the world. But as a citizen I don't ignore that my individual choice, like most of our choices have consequences both for democracy and the economy. At some point the underinvestment in poor kids will hav consequences.