I DID mean it, for OP. I do not think the post was meant in the way I took it initially.

As a high SES person with kids of color, this site and many of these highly sought after DC schools are tough to handle. Many people here assume their kids are being pulled down by kids like mine because we dont live on the hill or in ward 2. (Sorry, We dont wear our ivy league degrees on our shoulders.) Schools use achievements of kids like mine to show off their "success" in closing the gap when in reality, my kids would be achieving without their help. I sometimes wish the school would publish some of the test scores from families like mine... so you can see a lot of us "lottery" folks have kids that blow the roof off your kids' test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the more important question is why do you assume everyone from low SES is unable to achieve at grade level?

Where is that stated?

My apologies... it isn't stated. I've just seen so many posts in this forum today alone that infer (or directly state in some cases) that High SES and "gentrifying families" are the saviors for low SES kids/schools. (Some schools like KIPP and DC Prep seem to be doing just fine without this population. So, maybe it isn't WHO goes to the school but more about how the kids are taught, who teaches them, and whether or not people believe in them. Our current school seems to assume kids of color = low SES = low achievement. It's demoralizing.

All over these boards, time and time again. It's horrific and demoralizing.

I don't think you meant this

Neighborhood schools alone without school choice effectively create segregation due to housing costs. School choice enable desegregation.

That assumes minorities are lower SES/inferior

Anonymous wrote:

I think the more important question is why do you assume everyone from low SES is unable to achieve at grade level?

Where is that stated?

My apologies... it isn't stated. I've just seen so many posts in this forum today alone that infer (or directly state in some cases) that High SES and "gentrifying families" are the saviors for low SES kids/schools. (Some schools like KIPP and DC Prep seem to be doing just fine without this population. So, maybe it isn't WHO goes to the school but more about how the kids are taught, who teaches them, and whether or not people believe in them. Our current school seems to assume kids of color = low SES = low achievement. It's demoralizing.

I don't think that low-SES families necessarily all (or even primarily) support integration. Having rich or white families come into the school is NOT seen as a good thing or as a thing that will raise the achievement of lower-performing students.

so I think your premise is flawed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Separate but equal is NOT equal.

Neighborhood schools alone without school choice effectively create segregation due to housing costs. School choice enable desegregation.

As for flexible tracking I am fully in favor since I too believe it is impossible to differentiate enough when students in one class have widely divergent academic abilities. It is not uncommon to have DC students in middle and high school who can barely read or do math. DC also has many students who are years above grade level academically. It is a lie that one teacher can accomadate all their needs in the same classroom.

BS. Do you have an ounce of evidence to support that claim? We have school choice AND largely segregated schools

Anonymous wrote:I think the more important question is why do you assume everyone from low SES is unable to achieve at grade level?

No one has said that but if you look at DCPS schools with almost all students eligible for FARMS then you will most likely see below basic reading and math proficiency for the overwhelming majority of students.

Anonymous wrote:Separate but equal is NOT equal.

Neighborhood schools alone without school choice effectively create segregation due to housing costs. School choice enable desegregation.

As for flexible tracking I am fully in favor since I too believe it is impossible to differentiate enough when students in one class have widely divergent academic abilities. It is not uncommon to have DC students in middle and high school who can barely read or do math. DC also has many students who are years above grade level academically. It is a lie that one teacher can accomadate all their needs in the same classroom.

I think the more important question is why do you assume everyone from low SES is unable to achieve at grade level?

Where is that stated?

I think the more important question is why do you assume everyone from low SES is unable to achieve at grade level?

Separate but equal is NOT equal.

what you do is have a core set of curricula that everyone participates in and then where students need assistance or advancement, different classes. Enough in common for integration, enough breakouts so that no one turns into a dropout or leaves the system to get more choices. I think that's the area of commonality that an integrated system can be built upon.

In some ways, yes, they are at odds. It is pretty difficult to run a classroom and teach kids who vary widely in their academics. Differentiating by +/- one year in grade level is possible, but not much more than that (absent a much larger teaching staff than what is economically feasible for a public school system). I don't believe that it is feasible to teach a class of 7th graders from all SES levels when some are reading at the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th grade levels and others are reading at the 3rd grade level.

I don't know why everyone is making this so complicated

People should just stay in their neighborhood schools and quit trying to game the system

At each school you would have a high medium and low track.

Capitol Hill is the classic case of overcompliaction. If everyone would just go to their zoned school things would be fine

It seems that most meaty topics in this forum break down along a philosophical divide between those who:

1. Emphasize promoting integration between those from varied socioeconomic, racial, and preparatory backgrounds to close the achievement gap, versus:
2. Favor tracking, test-in configurations, and small-scale differentiation (for those with special needs, behavioral issues, need for wraparound services) to promote individual achievement/improvement.

Are these two approaches necessarily at odds with one another? It seems that in general leadership and lower SES parents favor the first method, while higher SES parents generally favor the second (especially when it is their child in question). I wonder if there is a way to accommodate both approaches in a way everyone can be comfortable with and will ultimately lead to better outcomes for everyone. Are any schools out there achieving both currently?