Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread was about why white families avoid all-black schools. All-black schools are not "integrated." They lack diversity.

1. Their test scores won't be any lower.

The federal government just released a report looking at the black-white achievement gap. It found something remarkable: "White student achievement in schools with the highest Black student density did not differ from White student achievement in schools with the lowest density."

Translation: After controlling for socioeconomic status, white students essentially had the same test scores whether they went to a school that was overwhelmingly white or one that was overwhelmingly black.

You should actually read the article before commenting.

They controlled for SES and "other school, teacher and student characteristics". It's easy to put your thumb on the scale when doing this.

Simply stated and to the point while being insightful, I believe they cherry picked their stats to come up with a preconceived conclusion. How many schools are there really with large pockets of equivalent SES minorities? Our country simply isn't constructed like that. What this study glosses over is most schools with large black populations have large SES problems too and truth be told is that sending white kids to minority schools often means sending them to poor(er) schools and all the problems that it entails.

Also DC segregation is almost without exception SES inversely proportional where the all white schools are very rich and the all black schools are very poor which disqualifies the majority of the controls in this test. The few exceptions people like to point out like Wilson and Blair are really the tale of two schools that use size and scale to mask their SES failings. Blair imports 15% of it's students by cherry picking mostly well off high performers masking the 85% and Wilson doesn't graduate almost 25% of its students.

I simply don't buy the premise that you can lesson plan to compensate for peer and environmental influences brought on by being surrounded by low achievers. Elites chose to surround themselves with other elites for a reason, to keep the power close hold. Pick a Supreme Court justice who didn't go to an Ivy league school, pick the last president who didn't. Walk in the halls of any government building and there is painting after painting of old elite white men. Do you think these movers and shakers developed their social network at Dunbar? Now is it fair that the elites for the most part haven't allowed women or minorities, of course not but that doesn't change the fact that there is a huge demographic SES gap and true apples to apples comparisons don't really exit often in the real world.

I will continue to surround my kids in the best private academies and neighborhoods I can afford and welcome all races, creeds and orientations that come or are present but deep down I know there won't be many that it isn't a real representation of the world. I just hope that the voids in perspective and tolerance will be offset by social status and the freedom that only resources can empower. I honestly rather produce an asshole CEO than a balanced landscaper/ art teacher whatever.

How do you fix the schools when the majority of kids don't care, and are prone to violence and low achievement? Until you fix the students, the schools will NOT change. It's not the schools failing the students. It's the students failing the schools. Until this problem, we cannot fix the schools.

Anonymous wrote:Wilson HS is an example of a good school, with white and black (and many other) students, rich kids, poor kids, kids who live in mansions, kids who live in small apartments, kids from all over the world, the whole thing. This is the closest thing DC has to what this article is talking about. And yes, the white kids clearly do quite well, and I think all the kids in that building are have a richer high school experience. So, academics and social benefits come together.

But that only works because the Wilson has all the academic and extracurricular offerings. That's where the article differs from what could apply in DC. No way the schools in DC are even remotely equal in quality and offerings, even schools that are just blocks apart. So, even if there were some social benefit to more diversity, I doubt the academic outcome would remain the same without some serious supplementing. In which case, the inequalities stay the same, even if the classrooms themselves look different.

First you fix the schools. THEN (all caps!) you start talking about moving kids around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would certainly rather produce a well-balanced schoolteacher than a psychopathic CEO (most of them are, imo). I suppose a lot of it depends on whether you aspire to true nobility or the fake one.

You obviously have no clue about executive positions. Quite down and go back to putting the carts away at walmart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would certainly rather produce a well-balanced schoolteacher than a psychopathic CEO (most of them are, imo). I suppose a lot of it depends on whether you aspire to true nobility or the fake one.

You obviously have no clue about executive positions. Quite down and go back to putting the carts away at walmart.

Anonymous wrote:I would certainly rather produce a well-balanced schoolteacher than a psychopathic CEO (most of them are, imo). I suppose a lot of it depends on whether you aspire to true nobility or the fake one.

I will continue to surround my kids in the best private academies and neighborhoods I can afford and welcome all races, creeds and orientations that come or are present but deep down I know there won't be many that it isn't a real representation of the world. I just hope that the voids in perspective and tolerance will be offset by social status and the freedom that only resources can empower. I honestly rather produce an asshole CEO than a balanced landscaper/ art teacher whatever.

Anonymous wrote:

Simply stated and to the point while being insightful, I believe they cherry picked their stats to come up with a preconceived conclusion. How many schools are there really with large pockets of equivalent SES minorities? Our country simply isn't constructed like that. What this study glosses over is most schools with large black populations have large SES problems too and truth be told is that sending white kids to minority schools often means sending them to poor(er) schools and all the problems that it entails.

Also DC segregation is almost without exception SES inversely proportional where the all white schools are very rich and the all black schools are very poor which disqualifies the majority of the controls in this test. The few exceptions people like to point out like Wilson and Blair are really the tale of two schools that use size and scale to mask their SES failings. Blair imports 15% of it's students by cherry picking mostly well off high performers masking the 85% and Wilson doesn't graduate almost 25% of its students.

I simply don't buy the premise that you can lesson plan to compensate for peer and environmental influences brought on by being surrounded by low achievers. Elites chose to surround themselves with other elites for a reason, to keep the power close hold. Pick a Supreme Court justice who didn't go to an Ivy league school, pick the last president who didn't. Walk in the halls of any government building and there is painting after painting of old elite white men. Do you think these movers and shakers developed their social network at Dunbar? Now is it fair that the elites for the most part haven't allowed women or minorities, of course not but that doesn't change the fact that there is a huge demographic SES gap and true apples to apples comparisons don't really exit often in the real world.

I will continue to surround my kids in the best private academies and neighborhoods I can afford and welcome all races, creeds and orientations that come or are present but deep down I know there won't be many that it isn't a real representation of the world. I just hope that the voids in perspective and tolerance will be offset by social status and the freedom that only resources can empower. I honestly rather produce an asshole CEO than a balanced landscaper/ art teacher whatever.

Pick a Supreme Court justice who didn't go to an Ivy league school, pick the last president who didn't.

Pick a Supreme Court justice who didn't go to an Ivy league school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread was about why white families avoid all-black schools. All-black schools are not "integrated." They lack diversity.

1. Their test scores won't be any lower.

The federal government just released a report looking at the black-white achievement gap. It found something remarkable: "White student achievement in schools with the highest Black student density did not differ from White student achievement in schools with the lowest density."

Translation: After controlling for socioeconomic status, white students essentially had the same test scores whether they went to a school that was overwhelmingly white or one that was overwhelmingly black.

You should actually read the article before commenting.

They controlled for SES and "other school, teacher and student characteristics". It's easy to put your thumb on the scale when doing this.

Anonymous wrote:This article is so timely (based on that other thread).

Link: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/19/446085513/the-evidence-that-white-children-benefit-from-integrated-schools?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2044