Anonymous wrote:Oh christ - I am an upper middle class white lady who went to school in upper middle class white suburbia. There was PLENTY of wasted time in every classroom of my childhood taken up with pain in the ass kids - WHITE wealthy kids. I constantly had teachers who had to deal with these kids to the detriment of all the other kids. This happens everywhere, not just 90% FARMS schools. I know my story is just an anecdote but we are way over obsessing about how the brown kids harm our little special white snowflakes aren't we! Way to blame the browns though. If only we could get them all out of 1) neighborhood, 2) city, 3) country.

Hahahahaha! That's not even REMOTELY credible to anyone who actually has experience with these schools. The disruption problem is FAR worse with the 99% FARMS schools as compared to wealthier suburban schools (unless you want to count the fact that a chunk of those 99% kids eventually "won't disrupt class" because they are such hard cases that they drop out altogether... Ever been to Ballou, lady? I sure doubt it.) Either you are completely full of crap or you are completely, obliviously ignorant.

And as for "brown kids" - you are the ONLY ONE here constantly bringing up race. Nobody else here does that. Nobody here is complaining about the fact that there are "brown faces" in schools. Nor are they "talking in code" when they talk about FARMS. Hell, lady - even the most exclusive schools in the area like Sidwell and Maret are only 60% white. So get a friggin' grip already.

Give it a rest, "snowflake" lady. Nobody here is buying what you are selling and frankly we are sick and tired of your delusions.

segregation yesterday, segregation today, segregation forevah!

Oh christ - I am an upper middle class white lady who went to school in upper middle class white suburbia. There was PLENTY of wasted time in every classroom of my childhood taken up with pain in the ass kids - WHITE wealthy kids. I constantly had teachers who had to deal with these kids to the detriment of all the other kids. This happens everywhere, not just 90% FARMS schools. I know my story is just an anecdote but we are way over obsessing about how the brown kids harm our little special white snowflakes aren't we! Way to blame the browns though. If only we could get them all out of 1) neighborhood, 2) city, 3) country.

There was already a similar thread, relating to a 20% low-SES threshold. Once you start getting more than 20% low-SES and at-risk students in a school, any positive modeling that the higher achieving kids might be able to provide gets negated, and disruption and other issues start tearing down the high-achievers more and more as the numbers increase.

Which private school has 15% FARMS in the DC area? Even the nicer DCPS schools aren't that high.

I have toured most of the "nicer" privates and you might have one or two working class students in an entire grade, at best.

Working class and lower class students are two totally different things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F u.

I was disadvantaged. I have a doctorate, earn 230K/yr, enjoy the respect of colleagues and have many friends.

and am usually happy except when the anti-poor posters post.

Then unless you never had to take stats, you should be aware that population studies don't apply on the individual level. It's nothing but admirable that you personally overcame adverse circumstances. It's also, as you well know, the exception and not the rule. The presence of a significant number of students with high risk factors (many of which apply to lower SES students) has been proven to negatively impact other students in the classroom. In other words, when the teacher has to waste time instructing Johnny on remedial reading and basic behavior, that comes at the opportunity cost of Mary and Andrew getting attention for their advanced learning.

The problem comes in when every mid-SES parent thinks they that their kid is a Mary and Andrew. In reality, high SES parents rarely go to school with lower SES students.

That's not true. They just don't send their DCs to schools where lower SES students are a significant percentage. Even the areas most elite private schools have a certain percentage of lower SES students, and everyone takes pride in that (even if only in a self-congratulatory kind of way). Many higher SES families don't object to the presence of lower SES students per se, they just want to minimize the number/percentage of them so as to minimize their impact. There's a big difference between 15% FARMS and 50% FARMS (Ken Archer and his assertions regarding "controlled choice" notwithstanding).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F u.

I was disadvantaged. I have a doctorate, earn 230K/yr, enjoy the respect of colleagues and have many friends.

and am usually happy except when the anti-poor posters post.

Then unless you never had to take stats, you should be aware that population studies don't apply on the individual level. It's nothing but admirable that you personally overcame adverse circumstances. It's also, as you well know, the exception and not the rule. The presence of a significant number of students with high risk factors (many of which apply to lower SES students) has been proven to negatively impact other students in the classroom. In other words, when the teacher has to waste time instructing Johnny on remedial reading and basic behavior, that comes at the opportunity cost of Mary and Andrew getting attention for their advanced learning.

The problem comes in when every mid-SES parent thinks they that their kid is a Mary and Andrew. In reality, high SES parents rarely go to school with lower SES students.

Anonymous wrote:That's why my BF in MoCo is pulling her kid out of MCPS. 90%+ of the school is FARMS and her son cannot take anything advanced thanks to 2.0. He now takes all courses with mostly english as a second language students and learns nothing.

But hey, we cannot hurt any parents' feelings - we must all live in our utopian fantasy in MoCo, all join hands in the classroom and sing kumbayaa, and if nobody learns anything, who cares. At least everyone gets equal instruction. Learning isnt important.

Tell her to move across the county if she doesn't want her child in classes with poor Hispanic children

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between "low income" and "disadvantaged" and "high risk factor." The Article should be titled, "Children With Risk Factors Can Hurt Achievement of Others in Their Classrooms."

Somebody at the Wash Post screwed up by either failing to read and understand the article, or was very careless in giving it a title. The whole thing is misleading unless you realize it was given an incorrect title.

Are you saying you really need to have the dots connected from low-income to high risk factors? As in "Large numbers of low-income children who begin formal schooling with many disadvantages - poor medical care, homelessness, an uneducated mother, for example..." Do you also the rationale explained for Title I funding being given to schools with high concentrations of lower SES students, specifically to mitigate the disadvantages of wide-scale poverty?

Anonymous wrote:F u.

I was disadvantaged. I have a doctorate, earn 230K/yr, enjoy the respect of colleagues and have many friends.

and am usually happy except when the anti-poor posters post.

Then unless you never had to take stats, you should be aware that population studies don't apply on the individual level. It's nothing but admirable that you personally overcame adverse circumstances. It's also, as you well know, the exception and not the rule. The presence of a significant number of students with high risk factors (many of which apply to lower SES students) has been proven to negatively impact other students in the classroom. In other words, when the teacher has to waste time instructing Johnny on remedial reading and basic behavior, that comes at the opportunity cost of Mary and Andrew getting attention for their advanced learning.

That's why my BF in MoCo is pulling her kid out of MCPS. 90%+ of the school is FARMS and her son cannot take anything advanced thanks to 2.0. He now takes all courses with mostly english as a second language students and learns nothing.

But hey, we cannot hurt any parents' feelings - we must all live in our utopian fantasy in MoCo, all join hands in the classroom and sing kumbayaa, and if nobody learns anything, who cares. At least everyone gets equal instruction. Learning isnt important.

There is a difference between "low income" and "disadvantaged" and "high risk factor." The Article should be titled, "Children With Risk Factors Can Hurt Achievement of Others in Their Classrooms."

Somebody at the Wash Post screwed up by either failing to read and understand the article, or was very careless in giving it a title. The whole thing is misleading unless you realize it was given an incorrect title.

Anonymous wrote:F u.

I was disadvantaged. I have a doctorate, earn 230K/yr, enjoy the respect of colleagues and have many friends.

and am usually happy except when the anti-poor posters post.

I agree with you but I'm not sure it has anything to do with poverty

F u.

I was disadvantaged. I have a doctorate, earn 230K/yr, enjoy the respect of colleagues and have many friends.

and am usually happy except when the anti-poor posters post.

according to a new study.

In other news, the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.