Anonymous wrote:

That NYT article does point out a repeated problem with new curricula, and that's adequate training of teachers.

It also leads me to believe we should be offering more autonomy to schools and teachers, not less. I was under the impression that Common Core did just that.

The NYT article has a misleading title. Common Core is not a curriculum. It is a set of standards. Core Knowledge is a curriculum available for addressing the Common Core standards.

Interestingly, on the Core Knowledge website, only three schools in DC (all charters) are listed as using that curriculum. This leaves some question about whether it is possible that implementing the standards without the canned curriculum could, in fact, lead to more autonomy in schools around curriculum. It's doubtful, but I don't think we know enough about the full implementation of the standards to know for sure.

If someone has more solid information on the present state of implementation, please post.

Anonymous wrote:

Actually it would probably be beneficial if parents had to show proof of citizenship or paid income taxes in order to enroll kids, but they don't. My friend teaches in a school that is almost a complete drain on the system because all the kids are non-citizens.

That NYT article does point out a repeated problem with new curricula, and that's adequate training of teachers.

It also leads me to believe we should be offering more autonomy to schools and teachers, not less. I was under the impression that Common Core did just that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that people come here illegally and have children is also offensive. Yes, they come here to work and make a better life for themselves (and generally are productive and do contribute to the economy).

But that said, the process has so many flaws in it that many illegal aliens are not paying taxes and instead are only making their employers rich without contributing to the rest of society, since many work off of the books or are otherwise being cheated by their employers. Many do not have proper benefits, such as health care and without means to pay, become a drain on the healthcare system and so on. Many illegal immigrants send much of their earnings back to their home country rather than spending it in the local economy. One can't just generalize across the board as the previous poster did, but likewise, to suggest there aren't issues or to overstate contribution of illegal immigrants is likewise intellectually dishonest.

I would much prefer that we have a reasonable, expedited work visa program. Many illegal immigrants are not even interested in staying in the US - they would prefer to be back home. But, when it's a matter of such difficulty and adversity in coming here in the first place, many decide to bring their family here rather than try to go back and forth.

(Also, let's not forget about the elephant on the table - of low-income urban youth who aren't working and the suggestion that there aren't any jobs - when the huge numbers of illegal immigrants working various jobs around the area clearly shows otherwise)

Nothing you have said justifies the idea that educating children of any immigration status is worthless. Every American except native Americans are immigrants from somewhere. You have the luck of your birth and you treat it like you earned that somehow. There are lots of complicated issues surrounding immigration but the idea we should leave any children without educational opportunities is nonsensical and mean spirited.

This is why the proposals floating around of high quotas for disadvantaged students and wholescale boundary shifts or citywide lotteries don't make sense because they don't consider creating and maintaining an adequate critical mass for it to work. If you were to take the JKLMs and kick all of the current students out and replace them with the most disadvantaged students from the city, their performance would be no better than it was in the "failing" schools they came from. The JKLMs would then be the "failing" schools. However, if you accommodate not-to-exceed 20% disadvantaged in the successful schools, and structure non-disadvantaged and higher performing overflow by putting them into other schools, managing the numbers so that there's enough critical mass, and go school by school by the demographics and numbers, it would have far better chance of working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:according to a new study.

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

Actually the abstract for the study refers to "high concentrations of children." Since I don't have access to the study I don't know how high we are talking but certainly that is no surprise. What's irritating, though, is that OP titled this thread "Disadvantaged children can hurt achievement" as if the mere presence of a few disadvantaged children can "hurt" other kids. Seriously, OP, you probably consider yourself educated but you don't know how to write a thread title which accurately reflects what this research actually showed.

Anonymous wrote:according to a new study.

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

Anonymous wrote:That NYT article does point out a repeated problem with new curricula, and that's adequate training of teachers.

It also leads me to believe we should be offering more autonomy to schools and teachers, not less. I was under the impression that Common Core did just that.

Anonymous wrote:That NYT article does point out a repeated problem with new curricula, and that's adequate training of teachers.

It also leads me to believe we should be offering more autonomy to schools and teachers, not less. I was under the impression that Common Core did just that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me that the myth of "more money is spent on ward 3" is so resilient, when it's never been even remotely true. Disadvantaged kids get more money allocated to them than any other student.

Part problem with high-disadvantaged schools is the WAY the money is being spent on education. But I don't blame DCPS for it, really -- those kids need even MORE money spent on them. Their curriculum needs to be different, too. It's a huge problem that must be addressed on the federal level, to increase spending on these kids throughout the country.

The myth that Ward 3 kids get more money must also be part of the problem -- there's some kind of mental block that is preventing some people from seeing the truth.

Really? different curriculum? What are you thinking? 7 hours of remediation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me that the myth of "more money is spent on ward 3" is so resilient, when it's never been even remotely true. Disadvantaged kids get more money allocated to them than any other student.

Part problem with high-disadvantaged schools is the WAY the money is being spent on education. But I don't blame DCPS for it, really -- those kids need even MORE money spent on them. Their curriculum needs to be different, too. It's a huge problem that must be addressed on the federal level, to increase spending on these kids throughout the country.

The myth that Ward 3 kids get more money must also be part of the problem -- there's some kind of mental block that is preventing some people from seeing the truth.

Really? different curriculum? What are you thinking? 7 hours of remediation?

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me that the myth of "more money is spent on ward 3" is so resilient, when it's never been even remotely true. Disadvantaged kids get more money allocated to them than any other student.

Part problem with high-disadvantaged schools is the WAY the money is being spent on education. But I don't blame DCPS for it, really -- those kids need even MORE money spent on them. Their curriculum needs to be different, too. It's a huge problem that must be addressed on the federal level, to increase spending on these kids throughout the country.

The myth that Ward 3 kids get more money must also be part of the problem -- there's some kind of mental block that is preventing some people from seeing the truth.