Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please read the study.

If you really believe the study is solid, then let's see what the study does.

It compares students/families being randomly assigned to PUBLIC HOUSING that belongs to different school zones.
E.g. PUBLIC HOUSING A belongs to school A, HOUSING AREA B belongs to school B, etc....

The study did find some difference between student performance going to different schools (with different FARMS rate) (Figs. 6 and 7)

However, one key question is that, is the location of the housing, or the school that they attend that is driving this?

The author in the study tried to address this, however, in a strange approach. See Figs.9 and 10. Here she compares student performance for
kids living in different NEIGHBORHOODS of different poverty levels, and concluded that the poverty levels of neighborhoods only contribute to about
half of the difference compared to the school effects (shown in Figs. 6 and 7).

This is not the right approachWhen you look at the effect of the "NEIGHBORHOOD", you can't use categorize the neighborhood differently than how you do the schools. i.e., in Fig.6 and 7, one may be comparing
children going to schools A+B+D vs schools C+E+F+G; but in Figs.9 and 10, one may be comparing children living in neighborhood A+B+C vs neighborhoods D+E+F+G.
Her study only tells us that the poverty level of neighborhood has less effect on student performance. It does not tell us whether these specific neighborhoods that are associated
with less/more poverty schools have an effect.

The right approach, would be to get students living in neighborhood A, randomly assigned to schools B, C, D, etc... then we will know whether it is the "school" or the "neighborhood" that is
affecting the performance. I think the author knows this, but she does not have the power to perform the experiment because she can't change the housing/school assignment.

Anyway, conclusions (if you believe the data from the report are solid):

Students being assigned to PUBLIC HOUSINGS associated with less poverty schools can probably have an edge in their performance.

However, the report does NOT tell us:
(1) Changing the school assignment of a PUBLIC HOUSING to a less poverty school would have a positive effect.
(2) Changing the school assignment of anyone not in PUBLIC HOUSING to a less poverty school would have a positive effect.

Does that help MCPS? Apparently NO. If MCPS is to follow the report, than it should simply send more kids into those "PUBLIC HOUSINGS" that are "proven" to be good,
instead of changing school boundaries.

Is there something about "PUBLIC HOUSINGS" that somehow invalidates the conclusion that poor kids whose families got randomly assigned to live in areas zoned for low-poverty schools did better in school than kids whose families got randomly assigned to live in areas zoned for high-poverty schools?

As I said: "Students being assigned to PUBLIC HOUSINGS associated with less poverty schools can probably have an edge in their performance" (compared to those
in PUBLIC HOUSINGS associated with high poverty schools). I should probably add "currently" before "associated" to be more accurate.

However, we do not know (i) how much a factor being in PUBLIC HOUSING plays. So this can't be applied to anyone not in public housing.
(ii) how much a factor the neighborhood (note: NOT THE POVERTY LEVEL of the neighborhood, as studied in the report) plays. So this can't be used as evidence supporting the change of school zone assignments (MAYBE IT IS THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD OF PUBLIC HOUSING that makes these students perform better, instead of that particular school).



It is just that simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Please read the study.

If you really believe the study is solid, then let's see what the study does.

It compares students/families being randomly assigned to PUBLIC HOUSING that belongs to different school zones.
E.g. PUBLIC HOUSING A belongs to school A, HOUSING AREA B belongs to school B, etc....

The study did find some difference between student performance going to different schools (with different FARMS rate) (Figs. 6 and 7)

However, one key question is that, is the location of the housing, or the school that they attend that is driving this?

The author in the study tried to address this, however, in a strange approach. See Figs.9 and 10. Here she compares student performance for
kids living in different NEIGHBORHOODS of different poverty levels, and concluded that the poverty levels of neighborhoods only contribute to about
half of the difference compared to the school effects (shown in Figs. 6 and 7).

This is not the right approachWhen you look at the effect of the "NEIGHBORHOOD", you can't use categorize the neighborhood differently than how you do the schools. i.e., in Fig.6 and 7, one may be comparing
children going to schools A+B+D vs schools C+E+F+G; but in Figs.9 and 10, one may be comparing children living in neighborhood A+B+C vs neighborhoods D+E+F+G.
Her study only tells us that the poverty level of neighborhood has less effect on student performance. It does not tell us whether these specific neighborhoods that are associated
with less/more poverty schools have an effect.

The right approach, would be to get students living in neighborhood A, randomly assigned to schools B, C, D, etc... then we will know whether it is the "school" or the "neighborhood" that is
affecting the performance. I think the author knows this, but she does not have the power to perform the experiment because she can't change the housing/school assignment.

Anyway, conclusions (if you believe the data from the report are solid):

Students being assigned to PUBLIC HOUSINGS associated with less poverty schools can probably have an edge in their performance.

However, the report does NOT tell us:
(1) Changing the school assignment of a PUBLIC HOUSING to a less poverty school would have a positive effect.
(2) Changing the school assignment of anyone not in PUBLIC HOUSING to a less poverty school would have a positive effect.

Does that help MCPS? Apparently NO. If MCPS is to follow the report, than it should simply send more kids into those "PUBLIC HOUSINGS" that are "proven" to be good,
instead of changing school boundaries.

Is there something about "PUBLIC HOUSINGS" that somehow invalidates the conclusion that poor kids whose families got randomly assigned to live in areas zoned for low-poverty schools did better in school than kids whose families got randomly assigned to live in areas zoned for high-poverty schools?

Anonymous wrote:You guys better hope they don’t really mix up everyone the way this thread is suggesting they might. It will just end up like San Francisco where the high SES families will leave for another district or private and then all you have is every school underperforming.

Nobody wants their kid “learning” the basics over and over when they could be actually learning something somewhere else and they have the means to provide that.

It really seems like the different groups have different needs.

Low SES students really need help with the basic, core educational fundamentals.

If you integrate UMC families into those schools, guess who will run the PTA, and whose issues the school will address? The UMC families.

UMC families want their children to be challenged and pushed, which is a different perspective from low SES families who want their children to grasp the core educational elements the parents may not be able to provide / assist with at home.

If you force UMC families into schools that are focused on just teaching the fundamentals, the UMC will push to change the curriculum to allow for more honors classes to challenge their kids, or they will leave the MCPS system entirely.

It is a real issue that if a student is not challenged (by simply relearning the fundamentals to the common denominator) they will have a hard time in college. They will have never developed the "Grit" needed to work through challenging material on their own. That is a concern to UMC families, more than their concern about their "moral obligation" to help UnRepresented Minorities.

What URM advocates want is for UMC families to attend school with low SES families, donate a bunch of money to the PTA, not get involved with the PTA programs, and to accept a less challenging environment for their student.

I just see that the two populations have very different real needs and wants, and there may be disadvantages in trying to combine both by sprinkling UMC kids into a FARMS school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no such thing as a "definitive" study. This is the social science field; they're currently in the midst of a replication crisis because a large portion of the studies they've done can't be replicated. Do researchers study the effects of this integration on the higher performing students? Most studies I've read don't, and from what I've seen education researchers don't really care. The government tried something like this on a large scale (moving to opportunity) and there were no educational gains. In fact, almost all educational interventions show no lasting gains.

Honestly, if this integration was a magic bullet then the problem would have been solved by now. What are you going to suggest we do once this also fails?

Please actually read the study before you dismiss it: https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

The study is solid as are its conclusions. The segregationists on this board are hellbent on segregation and you can't reason with them.

Please read the study.

If you really believe the study is solid, then let's see what the study does.

It compares students/families being randomly assigned to PUBLIC HOUSING that belongs to different school zones.
E.g. PUBLIC HOUSING A belongs to school A, HOUSING AREA B belongs to school B, etc....

The study did find some difference between student performance going to different schools (with different FARMS rate) (Figs. 6 and 7)

However, one key question is that, is the location of the housing, or the school that they attend that is driving this?

The author in the study tried to address this, however, in a strange approach. See Figs.9 and 10. Here she compares student performance for
kids living in different NEIGHBORHOODS of different poverty levels, and concluded that the poverty levels of neighborhoods only contribute to about
half of the difference compared to the school effects (shown in Figs. 6 and 7).

This is not the right approachWhen you look at the effect of the "NEIGHBORHOOD", you can't use categorize the neighborhood differently than how you do the schools. i.e., in Fig.6 and 7, one may be comparing
children going to schools A+B+D vs schools C+E+F+G; but in Figs.9 and 10, one may be comparing children living in neighborhood A+B+C vs neighborhoods D+E+F+G.
Her study only tells us that the poverty level of neighborhood has less effect on student performance. It does not tell us whether these specific neighborhoods that are associated
with less/more poverty schools have an effect.


The right approach, would be to get students living in neighborhood A, randomly assigned to schools B, C, D, etc... then we will know whether it is the "school" or the "neighborhood" that is
affecting the performance. I think the author knows this, but she does not have the power to perform the experiment because she can't change the housing/school assignment.




Anyway, conclusions (if you believe the data from the report are solid):

Students being assigned to PUBLIC HOUSINGS associated with less poverty schools can probably have an edge in their performance.

However, the report does NOT tell us:
(1) Changing the school assignment of a PUBLIC HOUSING to a less poverty school would have a positive effect.
(2) Changing the school assignment of anyone not in PUBLIC HOUSING to a less poverty school would have a positive effect.

Does that help MCPS? Apparently NO. If MCPS is to follow the report, than it should simply send more kids into those "PUBLIC HOUSINGS" that are "proven" to be good,
instead of changing school boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No it doesn’t. Chapter 220 bussing program of inner city blacks to suburbs did not show any statistically significant change in gpa, graduation rates, college mattriculations. Ran out of money, low uptake by year 20. No one wanted their URM kid on a bus so long and so far.

How, specifically, is this relevant to MCPS?

Montgomery County isn't Milwaukee, Maryland isn't Wisconsin, nobody is proposing a "busing program", nobody is proposing "school choice" except the people who want the boundaries to stay the same, there are no "inner city blacks", there is no "inner city", Montgomery County has one school district, the outcomes you list are not the only possible or relevant outcomes, and "statistically significant" is not a synonym for "meaningful".

https://www.wuwm.com/post/history-and-impact-wisconsins-only-school-integration-program#stream/0

I agree. MCPS is not Milwaukee -- it is a much larger school system than Milwaukee by population. MCPS is the largest school system in Maryland and 14th largest in the country.

Anonymous wrote:Diversity busing seems like a perfectly legitimate means to help desegregate this county.

Nobody is talking about "diversity busing" except you. Find a new hobby.

Diversity busing seems like a perfectly legitimate means to help desegregate this county.

Anonymous wrote:What would be the traffic impact with these plans? I mean, don't we all want ti say that we are within walking distance of this and that? Has anyone seen the traffic mess that we have now? Environment?

Boundary adjustments could well increase the proportion of students in the schools' walk zones.

Another thing that would increase walking: making the streets safe for walking. MCPS practices hazard busing - providing bus service within 1/1.5/2 miles of the school (for ES/MS/HS, respectively) if it's too dangerous to walk.

What would be the traffic impact with these plans? I mean, don't we all want ti say that we are within walking distance of this and that? Has anyone seen the traffic mess that we have now? Environment?

Anonymous wrote:

No it doesn’t. Chapter 220 bussing program of inner city blacks to suburbs did not show any statistically significant change in gpa, graduation rates, college mattriculations. Ran out of money, low uptake by year 20. No one wanted their URM kid on a bus so long and so far.

How, specifically, is this relevant to MCPS?

Montgomery County isn't Milwaukee, Maryland isn't Wisconsin, nobody is proposing a "busing program", nobody is proposing "school choice" except the people who want the boundaries to stay the same, there are no "inner city blacks", there is no "inner city", Montgomery County has one school district, the outcomes you list are not the only possible or relevant outcomes, and "statistically significant" is not a synonym for "meaningful".

https://www.wuwm.com/post/history-and-impact-wisconsins-only-school-integration-program#stream/0

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why it is not racist when the blacks think mixing black and white students could improve black students’ acadamic performance? Doesnt that indicate black students cannot learn in schools by themselves?

I wonder this too. I'd honestly feel so embarrassed to be black and know that my only option for a decent education was to escape the people of my own color or to at least bring in enough white people to dilute them.

I'm a woman in a technical field and it annoys me to no end when there are events like "math for girls" and "IT for girls", as if we're second class citizens who can't keep up with the real stuff. No thanks.

The relevant people for providing useful information about what it feels like to be [something - in this case, black] are: people who are [that thing].

Here is a list of people who do not provide useful information about what it feels like to be [that thing]: people who are not [that thing].

So tell us, PP. What does it feel like to be a black person and to know that apparently the only hope for people of your color to get a decent education is to mix in some white kids? (Genuine question.) And what exactly do you think is happening in that case? Is it so the white kids can teach the black kids stuff in class, or so the entire class isn't full of disciplinary problems so the teacher has a fighting chance of keeping some control because you see white kids as better behaved, or so the white kids can show the black kids what doing homework is like, or so white kids can show black kids what it's like to sit down and do their work, or something else? And is it any white kid that would do, or it needs to be an UMC white kid for this idea to work?

If we can understand what the reason is that you think you need white kids in your classes for the black kids to be able to learn to read and write and count the way the white kids seem to be able to do, maybe we can come up with some other ideas that can help. But I'm honestly at a loss right now, and I imagine that other people probably are as well.

Oh, and I have a PhD and do not buy into that "definitive study" referenced above. Please give an actual reason, even if it's just a guess.

Glad you have a PhD.

The study above lays out that the factor most affecting student achievement for the positive is economic integration. It also looks.at race independently, and it is.more than fair to say that 50 years later we can see how those can intersect.

My theory, backed up by experience and studies? Concentrated poverty in schools harms student achievement, denies those students opportunities, and is u unjust and unjustified. This county's income segregation, which manifests itself in the racial composition, farms rates, and esol rates of the schools promotes that injustice. We have a moral obligation to change that.

It isn't "sprinkling white kids." It is working to dismantle the segregation of schools to improve achievement for all students.

First, the study you are talking about is unscientific BS.

Second, you didn't answer the question. What is the actual REASON? As in, the cause. Not the effects and the correlations and observations and your feelings about our moral obligations.

What is the actual REASON why black people need white people in the class? The only thing resembling an actual reason in your ramblings was a vague reference to a lack of "opportunities" if there are not enough white kids in the class. What do you mean by that, specifically?

What study? If mcps is 40% underperformers and climbing, putting 20% of underperformers in each school does not change that. What is that?. C2.0 conceptual math garbage?

Mcps doesn’t even have a real k-8 curriculum in place since 2011 and they’re wasting time on this junk? Or is it just one unemployed SJW chirping one liners all week here?

Exactly the county needs to balance SES across schools to help level the playing field and ensure all children have access to a hgih-quality education not just those few in the segregated schools.

Exactly nothing. Nice joke.

Honey, you can go put the underperforming student with illiterate uneducated parents in Hotchkiss, and s/he will still underperform. Perhaps drastically more when s/he sees the mental horsepower and work ethic of an over-achiever with educated, strict parents.

The data shows the complete opposite. The student outcomes/educational achievement for lower income kids in an integrated or high ses school are better than in a school with more concept grated low ses.

No it doesn’t. Chapter 220 bussing program of inner city blacks to suburbs did not show any statistically significant change in gpa, graduation rates, college mattriculations. Ran out of money, low uptake by year 20. No one wanted their URM kid on a bus so long and so far.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How do the few segregated schools offer better education? It is MCPS and every school use the same curriculum. Do you think the teachers in whitman are better than the teachers in Northwood? Please show data to support your statement.

Ask the people whose property values will apparently fall by hundreds of thousands of dollars if their schools become less segregated.

Exactly. Our school is 80% farms and Hispanics. Very segregated. Not sure what will be left if my old colonial falls by hundreds of thousands of dollars. What?

Why would your property value go DOWN if your school becomes less segregated?

The but-my-property-values posters! are zoned for schools that have very FEW poor kids (and very few Latino kids, and very few black kids). They paid hundreds of thousands of dollars extra for that. If the school gets to have more poor kids, the premium for houses in that area may decrease. I.e., they may not be able to sell their house for as much, when they go to sell, as they might have if the school had kept on having very few poor kids.

But that's the opposite of your situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why it is not racist when the blacks think mixing black and white students could improve black students’ acadamic performance? Doesnt that indicate black students cannot learn in schools by themselves?

I wonder this too. I'd honestly feel so embarrassed to be black and know that my only option for a decent education was to escape the people of my own color or to at least bring in enough white people to dilute them.

I'm a woman in a technical field and it annoys me to no end when there are events like "math for girls" and "IT for girls", as if we're second class citizens who can't keep up with the real stuff. No thanks.

The relevant people for providing useful information about what it feels like to be [something - in this case, black] are: people who are [that thing].

Here is a list of people who do not provide useful information about what it feels like to be [that thing]: people who are not [that thing].

So tell us, PP. What does it feel like to be a black person and to know that apparently the only hope for people of your color to get a decent education is to mix in some white kids? (Genuine question.) And what exactly do you think is happening in that case? Is it so the white kids can teach the black kids stuff in class, or so the entire class isn't full of disciplinary problems so the teacher has a fighting chance of keeping some control because you see white kids as better behaved, or so the white kids can show the black kids what doing homework is like, or so white kids can show black kids what it's like to sit down and do their work, or something else? And is it any white kid that would do, or it needs to be an UMC white kid for this idea to work?

If we can understand what the reason is that you think you need white kids in your classes for the black kids to be able to learn to read and write and count the way the white kids seem to be able to do, maybe we can come up with some other ideas that can help. But I'm honestly at a loss right now, and I imagine that other people probably are as well.

Oh, and I have a PhD and do not buy into that "definitive study" referenced above. Please give an actual reason, even if it's just a guess.

Glad you have a PhD.

The study above lays out that the factor most affecting student achievement for the positive is economic integration. It also looks.at race independently, and it is.more than fair to say that 50 years later we can see how those can intersect.

My theory, backed up by experience and studies? Concentrated poverty in schools harms student achievement, denies those students opportunities, and is u unjust and unjustified. This county's income segregation, which manifests itself in the racial composition, farms rates, and esol rates of the schools promotes that injustice. We have a moral obligation to change that.

It isn't "sprinkling white kids." It is working to dismantle the segregation of schools to improve achievement for all students.

First, the study you are talking about is unscientific BS.

Second, you didn't answer the question. What is the actual REASON? As in, the cause. Not the effects and the correlations and observations and your feelings about our moral obligations.

What is the actual REASON why black people need white people in the class? The only thing resembling an actual reason in your ramblings was a vague reference to a lack of "opportunities" if there are not enough white kids in the class. What do you mean by that, specifically?

What study? If mcps is 40% underperformers and climbing, putting 20% of underperformers in each school does not change that. What is that?. C2.0 conceptual math garbage?

Mcps doesn’t even have a real k-8 curriculum in place since 2011 and they’re wasting time on this junk? Or is it just one unemployed SJW chirping one liners all week here?

Exactly the county needs to balance SES across schools to help level the playing field and ensure all children have access to a hgih-quality education not just those few in the segregated schools.

Exactly nothing. Nice joke.

Honey, you can go put the underperforming student with illiterate uneducated parents in Hotchkiss, and s/he will still underperform. Perhaps drastically more when s/he sees the mental horsepower and work ethic of an over-achiever with educated, strict parents.

The data shows the complete opposite. The student outcomes/educational achievement for lower income kids in an integrated or high ses school are better than in a school with more concept grated low ses.

Yep. Same in LA

You guys better hope they don’t really mix up everyone the way this thread is suggesting they might. It will just end up like San Francisco where the high SES families will leave for another district or private and then all you have is every school underperforming.

Nobody wants their kid “learning” the basics over and over when they could be actually learning something somewhere else and they have the means to provide that.