Yes. Poor black kids tend to underperform in school and behave disruptively. You believe otherwise?

Not the PP, but given that Americans in general are that racist, it seems reasonable to assume that American teachers are too.

You really believe that Americans are that racist? Really?

Anonymous wrote:

That DOESN'T mean that they are more likely to be disruptive or to have difficult behavior, though--it just means they are more likely to be punished. (So maybe they are more likely to behave badly, but maybe they are more likely to be punished severely for minor infractions, because institutional racism, or maybe both, or some sort of complex interaction of a bunch of factors.)

Wow. Kind of a strong assumption here. Do your really think American teachers are that racist?

Not the PP, but given that Americans in general are that racist, it seems reasonable to assume that American teachers are too.

That DOESN'T mean that they are more likely to be disruptive or to have difficult behavior, though--it just means they are more likely to be punished. (So maybe they are more likely to behave badly, but maybe they are more likely to be punished severely for minor infractions, because institutional racism, or maybe both, or some sort of complex interaction of a bunch of factors.)

Wow. Kind of a strong assumption here. Do your really think American teachers are that racist?

Anonymous wrote:Poorer kids in general test less well than affluent kids. Poor kids who go to schools in affluent neighborhoods test better than poor kids who go to schools in poorer neighborhoods.

The US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights runs a national survey and estimates the proportion of different groups of students in various civil rights-relevant categories. They don't include socio-economic status, but they do include race/ethnicity.

African-American students, and particularly AA boys, are much more likely than other students to be corporally punished or suspended from school. That DOESN'T mean that they are more likely to be disruptive or to have difficult behavior, though--it just means they are more likely to be punished. (So maybe they are more likely to behave badly, but maybe they are more likely to be punished severely for minor infractions, because institutional racism, or maybe both, or some sort of complex interaction of a bunch of factors.)

Or perhaps it does mean that. What is more likely; suspension rates mirror behavior from students that warrant suspension or that there is a systemic and organized campaign to suspend AA boys? Hmmmmmm.... I don't see why suspension rates is HS wouldn't mirror crime rates for young adults.

My understanding is that Medicaid doesn't cover testing for ADHD. And the schools are not allowed to suggest it.

This combination means that lower class minority students will be disruptive and learn less than their middle class and upper middle class counter parts with educated parents who take their kid to a physician on a regular basis, have access to insurance and are educated enough to read up on the symptoms and understand if they apply.

Poorer kids in general test less well than affluent kids. Poor kids who go to schools in affluent neighborhoods test better than poor kids who go to schools in poorer neighborhoods.

The US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights runs a national survey and estimates the proportion of different groups of students in various civil rights-relevant categories. They don't include socio-economic status, but they do include race/ethnicity.

African-American students, and particularly AA boys, are much more likely than other students to be corporally punished or suspended from school. That DOESN'T mean that they are more likely to be disruptive or to have difficult behavior, though--it just means they are more likely to be punished. (So maybe they are more likely to behave badly, but maybe they are more likely to be punished severely for minor infractions, because institutional racism, or maybe both, or some sort of complex interaction of a bunch of factors.)

True 11:34. I have a few students at my school (Title 1 school) who are malnourished. Everyone at my school gets a free breakfast and lunch. So the food they serve may be "balanced" from the government's point of view but most of the kids don't eat the vegetables. Some might eat the fruit if they like it but most of them eat whatever has the most sugar. For example, our school serves flavored milk for lunch. I would say, out of a class of 25, maybe 1-2 kids might get white milk. The rest get strawberry or chocolate. Thankfully, they got rid of flavored milk at breakfast. The kids won't touch cereal that is like a generic version of plain Cheerios. They just don't eat cereal that doesn't have any sugar in it. So it is possible for a child to be malnourished when they eat 2 meals a day at school.

Anonymous wrote:Is saying "SES status" like saying "ATM machine"?

Yes yes.

Is saying "SES status" like saying "ATM machine"?

Frankly, a bigger part of the nutrition-related bad behavior problem in the schools is less to being hungry and more about eating the wrong things, like with the throngs of kids that you will see outside of places like CVS in the morning, all vying to load up on sugary junk food on the way to school. And just to be perfectly clear, I'm not talking about rich or middle class kids, this is a 99% FARMS neighborhood that I'm talking about.

If the only meals the kid is getting are the free meals coming from the FARMS program and the parents can't be bothered to feed them otherwise (because there are also plenty of programs around the area that help feed poor families outside of schools too), then sorry, but it's time to get children & youth services involved, because it's just plain abuse.

Anonymous wrote:

You go without dinner for 2 weeks, lets see how your behavior is.

In my experience, kids who were truly hungry were in the dull, blank category rather than the disruptive category.

in mine, as a teacher in a very poor school, it can go either way.

You go without dinner for 2 weeks, lets see how your behavior is.

In my experience, kids who were truly hungry were in the dull, blank category rather than the disruptive category.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hungry kids are more disruptive.

I am also grouchy and unfocused when hungry, and my kid is even worse. Fortunately, the money in my pocket means he never goes to school hungry.

Can't really use that as an excuse when free meals are available. http://www.dc.gov/DCPS/Beyond+the+Classroom/Food+Services/Application+for+Free+and+Reduced+Meals

You go without dinner for 2 weeks, lets see how your behavior is.