Why don't all you whiny MOCO parents move out to Howard County? Many of our schools have hardly any FARMS/Hispanic/Black disadvantaged kids, relative to MOCO. I think you'd be a lot happier with the more homogeneous, upper middle class white student body out here.

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Knee jerk accusations of discrimination and racism get us absolutely nowhere. Especially considering that the AA middle class families in DC make schools choices almost identically to the way white middle class families do. Racism is not an issue here.

+1

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.

Growing up, I spent several years in a 99% FARMS inner city school and then we moved across the country to a wealthy 90% white suburban school. And yes, there are pain-in-the-ass wealthy white snobs, spoiled brats, drinking, coke-snorting and bullies, it is a WALK IN THE PARK compared to what I dealt with in an inner city school - the issues at my inner city school were far far worse - gangs, drug dealing, weapons, fights, arrests, pregnancies, knifings, rapes, dropouts, teachers getting attacked, all-out brawls involving dozens of students. This was a regular, daily thing in my inner city school, and I still have some of the scars to show for it - whereas it was rare and shocking for any of this kind of thing to ever happen in suburbia. The wealthy white suburb was a peaceful idyll in comparison. If you think you know it all based on your ideas of "upper middle class white suburbia" and its "problems", then you don't know squat, lady.

I agree with this statement (while also seeing how sad it is). I think this is the reason that people really push for AAP classes.

I graduated from IB and there was a HUGE difference in the behavior, values and willingness to learn between the regular students and IB students.

I agree. Knee jerk accusations of discrimination and racism get us absolutely nowhere. Especially considering that the AA middle class families in DC make schools choices almost identically to the way white middle class families do. Racism is not an issue here.

Anonymous wrote:yeah, sorry to go all "snowflake" but these pro-discrimination threads have gotten to be way too much for me

Please, people, stop conflating the very SPECIFIC issue being discussed, of at-risk kids from troubled households with these repeated broad-based generalizations and strawmen about "discrimination" and "brown faces". It is not the same thing at all and you are only causing even more damage, obfuscation and obstruction when you do this.

Anonymous wrote:yeah, sorry to go all "snowflake" but these pro-discrimination threads have gotten to be way too much for me

Are you suggesting the study is flawed? That lower SES students who are materially disadvantaged do not have extra risk factors (which entitle them to additional Title I funding)? Or that there are no behavioral consequences in the classroom for having high levels of disadvantaged students?

Are you suggesting that there is something inherently bad about parents wanting their children to be in well-run classrooms that are academically on target, in well-run schools that are without social and behavioral chaos?

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.

And where did you send your kids to school? I dare you to tell us truthfully. I can guarantee it wasn't a school with a majority of kids from a poor background. It's one thing to walk the walk yourself and another to expect it of others.

Let's face reality here. Washington has the most educated families and the most educated families all living in very close proximity to one another. The poor kids in DC score lower than poor kids anywhere else in the country, the non-poor kids score higher than kids anywhere else in the country. When these groups meet in the public schools there is an objectively huge difference in the needs and best practices to deal with each group. And, quite frankly, DCPS hasn't demonstrated that it knows how to manage schools eff tively for either group let alone when they are all mixed up in one school. I am not sure that conclusion is discrimination against poor kids or if it is simply facing facts.

We are not talking about parents who rebel at even 1/3 of the class coming from backgrounds that classify them as "disadvantaged". What has people concerned is the discussion of public policy measures that would take away the ability for middle class parents and educationally ambitious families of all backgrounds to find their way to a school where the majority of kids are switched on and ready to learn. You had better believe that caring parents who have the ability to do so will find a school like this every , single time no matter what it takes. In my view it isn't discrimination, it is simply good parenting.

Disadvantage rests even more on the education of the mother. For better or worse it is even more determinative than SES. Paul Tough's blook on the Harlem Children's Zone has a couple of chapters that are informative on what we do and don't know about the impacts of class and poverty.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Plenty of low income kids do not have the "risk factors" identified by the article. Though by some sort of definition low-income kids could be labeled as "disadvantaged," because they are low-income, but they may come from a great home that doesn't also convey the risk factors. That's the disconnect in the article.

I'll bet there are many folks who came from low-income backgrounds, who have since achieved very well, who wouldn't appreciate being labeled as coming from a "high risk" home.

there is this way of funding schools:
not without its problems of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785

The ordinance was also significant for establishing a mechanism for funding public education. Section 16 in each township was reserved for the maintenance of public schools. Many schools today are still located in section sixteen of their respective townships[citation needed], although a great many of the school sections were sold to raise money for public education. In later States, section 36 of each township was also designated as a "school section".[5][6][7]

Countries that have over all high achievement focus resources on poor kids. The American system distinguishes itself for how much more money and resources it redirects towards already well off children. Systems based on real estate taxes are going to be inherently unequal. Sure some kids will make it out but a lot of capacity is still squandered because rich people will focus on their already advantaged kids. I probably would also if I were a rich, but from a macro level it sure does not make sense.

yeah, sorry to go all "snowflake" but these pro-discrimination threads have gotten to be way too much for me

Not the snowfake lady but really, you are talking about segregation and discrimination. Based on SES, not race but it is still against the law of our land.

Might as well do it right:

George Wallace:
I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.