Hillrat, is that you?

Anonymous wrote:

I think there is a difference between a child who qualifies for FARM in an area which has a huge newly immigrant community which may not have huge resources but does have a stable family life and values education (disclaimer, when we first immigrated I was a FARMs kid despite my father being a pHD and my mother being college-educated, simply because it took them some time to find jobs; my best friend in college, whose parents immigrated from a different country was in a similar situation. But this was not DC). But DCPS does not have this situation - most kids eligible for FARMs here come from systemic, multi-generational poverty which is not going to go away any time soon. And I don't know how much value that environment places on education but I do know that the stressors and instability that brings are different and harder to overcome when it's not a temporary thing. Those kids are absolutely entitled to a good education but toold to educate them can and should be different than educating little Suzie who has her parents hiring tutors for her to get her ahead.

This is one of the best responses in this whole thread. There is a segment of DC's population that have been stuck in "multi-generational" poverty. We all know the reason why this vicious cycle continues. It starts with a child being born to young mother without an education and without the means to support the child. The child is much more likely then to grow up in single parent, dysfunctional environment where certain values are not instilled in the child. The child can be manageable at 5 or 6 years old, but as the child grows older, the level of dysfunction around the child becomes the child's only reality. It is very difficult for this type of child to be anywhere near the level of a child that comes from an educated two parent household, where they have been nurtured, cared for, and shown the importance of education.

FYI, I'm an black husband and father of two living in Capitol Hill. There is no way I want my children surrounded a classroom full of kids from "multi-generational" poverty families. I want my kids surrounded by kids who come from families like mine. This also has nothing to do with race to me either. I wouldn't want my kids surrounded by "Honey Boo Boo's" family, and I wouldn't want my kids surrounded by families housed in DC General Hospital either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's statistics.

In DC, white= higher probability of being high SES= higher probability of no/low issues in academics in progeny= higher probability that the school attended will be 'good'.

Not because the school is actually good but because the load of issues that school might have to deal with is now significantly lower.

So if you are busy and have no time for deep analysis, a quick look at the demographics of the school will tell you how 'good' the school is.

I used to use FARM for this quick and dirty analysis, but am beginning to wonder about that. My thoughts being that FARM in DC = housing projects & homeless (therefore from families that do no value education highly). However, my current impression is that LT is Title 1, but still a better school than Watkins which is not. I suppose a less than eloquent way to say that of course there is no clear way to judge what school is filled with kids that are primed to learn.

As you can see in what I wrote here, I am saying that FARM is likely not the best yard stick. Not sure what is. Test scores? Maybe not. I just don't know. What I do know is that I do prefer a small, neighborhood school where the parents are civil to each other.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the LT IB community needs a border patrol to prevent LT "illegal aliens" from entering the school. I wonder if President Obama would be willing to participate in a photo op at the LT border.

Maybe the LT IB community needs a border patrol to prevent LT "illegal aliens" from entering the school. I wonder if President Obama would be willing to participate in a photo op at the LT border.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think there is a difference between a child who qualifies for FARM in an area which has a huge newly immigrant community which may not have huge resources but does have a stable family life and values education (disclaimer, when we first immigrated I was a FARMs kid despite my father being a pHD and my mother being college-educated, simply because it took them some time to find jobs; my best friend in college, whose parents immigrated from a different country was in a similar situation. But this was not DC). But DCPS does not have this situation - most kids eligible for FARMs here come from systemic, multi-generational poverty which is not going to go away any time soon. And I don't know how much value that environment places on education but I do know that the stressors and instability that brings are different and harder to overcome when it's not a temporary thing. Those kids are absolutely entitled to a good education but toold to educate them can and should be different than educating little Suzie who has her parents hiring tutors for her to get her ahead.

I would think someone who's experienced low income would be less likely to throw blanket judgements.

The idea that poor kids can't learn, can't behave, and shouldn't be taking up space in a school gets internalized at a pretty early age. It compunds the stress of poverty and may be the biggest blockade to learning ability. I can't blame the former principal if she wanted to prevent that attitude from spreading at her school.

But that is not what I was saying. I was saying that children of systemic poverty have different needs and challenges than children of poor immigrants who have different needs than children of affluent parents. They all deserve a good education but how to get there is often a different path for each (which is why, e.g., KIPP charters are so successful - they tailor their education to a specific population and do not, unlike DCPS, try to do a one-size-fits-all solution). I am not one of the posters who thinks OOB kids should be kicked out of L-T. I do think DCPS in general (and L-T is a good example of it) is very bad at serving needs of its very disparate populations. I want a school that is good for both little Billy who comes from a homeless shelter and little Bobby whose parents have a $1m house and everyone in-between but DCPS has not managed that at all, ever.

I think it's also naïve to think that a lot of children who aren’t sure where their next meal will come from and how safe their neighborhood is have the same pressures, concerns and priorities than children whose biggest worry is whether they will get the new video game at Christmas. Can the former kid be as smart or smarter than the latter? Of course. Does their environment affect their ability to learn? Yes, of course. Hard to concentrate on studying when you are worried about whether you will get dinner and whether you parent will come home.

I actually think DCPS does a horrible job in general helping its poor population at every stage of life and schools are only a symptom of that, but that’s for another thread.

There's no doubt that a higher number of poor kids means greater challenges for a school. So I can understand parents who make a value judgement based on FARM population, but it's not a fair assessment of a school's quality. More important, and to the original point being made, it is plain and simply false to assume that the parents of poor kids don't value education.

In fact, more often than not, the inverse is true: poor parents see education as the best possible shot their kids have at changing their situation. Sure, there are bad parents in poor communities, but there are some pretty awful wealthy parents, too.

The attitudes of the overall community at a school - administration, staff, parents and students - make a huge difference and it's interesting that you raise KIPP as an example of success because it IS one size fits all. That community has a consensus belief that all kids can succeed, no matter their background, and all agree to the rigorous programming and rigid behavior standards to get in and make that happen. What's more, the extraordinarily long wait list there completely negates this false assumption that poor families don't value education. As with higher-SES kids, a good many of the FARMs kids in DCPS just didn't have good lottery numbers. And as with higher-SES kids, they should NOT be judged by their parents' attitudes (some of which, as exhibited here, are pretty foul), by their wealth or lack thereof. When you talk about environment affecting ability to learn, you have to consider that many kids in DCPS are burdened with the belief within their own school community that there is nothing that can help them.

I've read many reports here on DCUM from parents whose kids actually attend L-T, that it's an orderly school with highly qualified staff and kids who are doing well. The CAS scores rival those of charters where parents are clamoring to get in - Cap City, Cap Hill Montessori at Logan, DC Bilingual, EL Haynes, KIPP Promise, Inspired Teaching, Two Rivers. And the scores also rival DCPS schools, with equally diverse student populations, that are growing in popularity and wait lists - Cleveland, Hearst, Marie Reed, Maury, Powell, West.

So many of your assumptions about the quality of schools and prospects of teaching socioeconomically diverse populations are disproved. There's still a lot of room for improvement, of course, but spreading misinformation based on faulty assumptions (FARMs = parents who don't value education) is pretty detrimental to schools trying to turn things around. They need more parents who absolutely believe that kids can succeed, no matter their income.

You guys are really helping dull the enthusiasm of those of us who are excited about being enrolled at Ludlow-Taylor for the first time this fall. Can you wear Pink on Wednesdays or something so we know to avoid you?

Maybe, but the unvarnished truth seeps in here and there. Somebody might want to put the link on a postcard and send it to the new principal. No idea if she'll arrive wearing rose-colored classes, but I wouldn't rule it out. One way or another, the gentrifiers, who already have a firm foothold at L-T, are going to carry the day in the long-run. I've learned not to underestimate the resolve of patient urban pioneers with multiple graduate degrees. I don't see Title I in Ludlow's future for many more years.

This thread is nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

I think there is a difference between a child who qualifies for FARM in an area which has a huge newly immigrant community which may not have huge resources but does have a stable family life and values education (disclaimer, when we first immigrated I was a FARMs kid despite my father being a pHD and my mother being college-educated, simply because it took them some time to find jobs; my best friend in college, whose parents immigrated from a different country was in a similar situation. But this was not DC). But DCPS does not have this situation - most kids eligible for FARMs here come from systemic, multi-generational poverty which is not going to go away any time soon. And I don't know how much value that environment places on education but I do know that the stressors and instability that brings are different and harder to overcome when it's not a temporary thing. Those kids are absolutely entitled to a good education but toold to educate them can and should be different than educating little Suzie who has her parents hiring tutors for her to get her ahead.

I would think someone who's experienced low income would be less likely to throw blanket judgements.

The idea that poor kids can't learn, can't behave, and shouldn't be taking up space in a school gets internalized at a pretty early age. It compunds the stress of poverty and may be the biggest blockade to learning ability. I can't blame the former principal if she wanted to prevent that attitude from spreading at her school.

But that is not what I was saying. I was saying that children of systemic poverty have different needs and challenges than children of poor immigrants who have different needs than children of affluent parents. They all deserve a good education but how to get there is often a different path for each (which is why, e.g., KIPP charters are so successful - they tailor their education to a specific population and do not, unlike DCPS, try to do a one-size-fits-all solution). I am not one of the posters who thinks OOB kids should be kicked out of L-T. I do think DCPS in general (and L-T is a good example of it) is very bad at serving needs of its very disparate populations. I want a school that is good for both little Billy who comes from a homeless shelter and little Bobby whose parents have a $1m house and everyone in-between but DCPS has not managed that at all, ever.

I think it's also naïve to think that a lot of children who aren’t sure where their next meal will come from and how safe their neighborhood is have the same pressures, concerns and priorities than children whose biggest worry is whether they will get the new video game at Christmas. Can the former kid be as smart or smarter than the latter? Of course. Does their environment affect their ability to learn? Yes, of course. Hard to concentrate on studying when you are worried about whether you will get dinner and whether you parent will come home.

I actually think DCPS does a horrible job in general helping its poor population at every stage of life and schools are only a symptom of that, but that’s for another thread.

I think there is a difference between a child who qualifies for FARM in an area which has a huge newly immigrant community which may not have huge resources but does have a stable family life and values education (disclaimer, when we first immigrated I was a FARMs kid despite my father being a pHD and my mother being college-educated, simply because it took them some time to find jobs; my best friend in college, whose parents immigrated from a different country was in a similar situation. But this was not DC). But DCPS does not have this situation - most kids eligible for FARMs here come from systemic, multi-generational poverty which is not going to go away any time soon. And I don't know how much value that environment places on education but I do know that the stressors and instability that brings are different and harder to overcome when it's not a temporary thing. Those kids are absolutely entitled to a good education but toold to educate them can and should be different than educating little Suzie who has her parents hiring tutors for her to get her ahead.

I would think someone who's experienced low income would be less likely to throw blanket judgements.

The idea that poor kids can't learn, can't behave, and shouldn't be taking up space in a school gets internalized at a pretty early age. It compunds the stress of poverty and may be the biggest blockade to learning ability. I can't blame the former principal if she wanted to prevent that attitude from spreading at her school.

What I have witnessed with my own eyes working in DCPS is that there is a small portion of the FARM population that is recent-immigrant based, with intact families that value education. The rest are almost certainly as described above - coming from shattered families with unstable housing and poor discipline. In fact, when you interview with DCPS it is made clear that this is the population you should be prepared to serve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This belief - accepted as fact by so many - that poor and minority people simply can't or don't want to learn is where the achievement gap starts.

–-----

The stressors of poverty are well known and they do impose a big burden on a child brain development - almost equivalent to PTSD. It is much harder to learn when you don't know if you'll have a place to stay that night or food on the table, or maybe you'll go home to see your mum passed out drunk on the couch and no dinner in sight

Yeah, thanks, I read Paul Tough's book as well.

Not every student who qualifies for FARMs is facing that kind of situation and being low income does not equate with placing a low value on education. It's like saying high-SES = callous bigot. It may apply in some, and even many cases but should never be assumed of everyone in the class.

I think there is a difference between a child who qualifies for FARM in an area which has a huge newly immigrant community which may not have huge resources but does have a stable family life and values education (disclaimer, when we first immigrated I was a FARMs kid despite my father being a pHD and my mother being college-educated, simply because it took them some time to find jobs; my best friend in college, whose parents immigrated from a different country was in a similar situation. But this was not DC). But DCPS does not have this situation - most kids eligible for FARMs here come from systemic, multi-generational poverty which is not going to go away any time soon. And I don't know how much value that environment places on education but I do know that the stressors and instability that brings are different and harder to overcome when it's not a temporary thing. Those kids are absolutely entitled to a good education but toold to educate them can and should be different than educating little Suzie who has her parents hiring tutors for her to get her ahead.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This belief - accepted as fact by so many - that poor and minority people simply can't or don't want to learn is where the achievement gap starts.

–-----

The stressors of poverty are well known and they do impose a big burden on a child brain development - almost equivalent to PTSD. It is much harder to learn when you don't know if you'll have a place to stay that night or food on the table, or maybe you'll go home to see your mum passed out drunk on the couch and no dinner in sight

I think there's a significant difference between acknowledging the impact of those stressors on learning and saying families with kids receiving FARMs don't value education.

Also, in general there doesn't see to be much concern around here for helping poor children/families overcome these stressor; rather the emphasis is on moving them out of LT so their struggles don't adversely affect higher SES IB kids.

Tell me, great oracle of DCUM, how do I help help with a domestic situation faced by an OOB student at my school whose mom is passed out and dinner is missing from the table. How would I even know this is taking place? And arent their social workers and other professionals at schools who are trained to deal with these circumstances? You might find this callous, but I have my own children to raise, support and educate.

I'm not even at the school that often, and I know there are specific families facing specific issues, and cases where families at LT have helped out. So it's not as far-fetched as you seem to think.

But at the very least, I think it's a good start to stop complaining about OOB kids, making them feel unwelcome and urging they be removed from LT (a supportive environment many of them have been attending since PK-3).