Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, it's not quite fair to say the only thing you could do to help kids in poverty is give them new parents. I thought the research was pretty clear on the benefits of putting disadvantaged kids in smaller classes, and in schools not completely full of other disadvantaged kids.

By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

I just disagree that it would be bad for your child. Poverty is not contagious. Young children are smart and adaptable. Someone is bound on come on here and tell about how difficult it was for their middle class kid at a school that was 90% FARMs. There's the point exactly. Schools that are 90% FARMs aren't good for anyone.

If you disagree, then just substitute "black" for "disadvantaged." So your quote above would read "putting your black kid in the same class as my kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential." It sounds archaic and objectionable. Saying it about poor kids in general sounds no different to me.

"If you were to say something you didn't say, then you'd be a racist. I find that objectionable and archaic."

Anonymous wrote:I support Dan Reed in trying to promote more equity in the county, but I do think he is a little behind the times. The truth is that, with the skyrocketing housing costs of 2000-2007 or so, and with the current continued recession, there seem to be many more middle and upper middle class families in some of the formerly "red zone" schools. Even on DCUM, there was a time a few years ago when it seemed hardly anyone said anything positive about Silver Spring schools, and now you see lots of people touting Flora Singer, Forest Knolls, Oakland Terrace, etc. I'm not saying everything has been fixed, but when it costs half a million dollars to buy a basic home in the county, you are going to see more middle and upper middle class folks on the "wrong" side of the county, and the schools will likely improve.

this is at least partly because the "red zone" schools have always been closer-in and in the East of the county. The same dynamics that have seen an influx of younger, wealthier residents into DC has brought the same cohort into areas like Mt Rainier, Takoma, Hyattsville, etc... You're going to continue to see close-in neighborhoods gentrify, and mid-county neighborhoods de-gentrify. Look at the demographic change in Rockville high schools over the last decade or so.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/booming/desegregation-and-the-public-schools.html

"...Researchers like Prof. Roslyn Mickelson at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, conducted studies concluding that children of any race who attended diverse schools were more likely to succeed, in areas like graduating, avoiding crime and attending college....

Notice the emphasis she puts in the video on "middle class students" from all races benefiting when they attend schools that have middle class students from diverse races.

Also - When the AA principal talks about the "White Flight" and the "Bright Flight", it reminds me of my own neighborhood, where our ES students are bused to a Title 1 school, when there are 8 ES closer to us. As a result, ES age students from our neighborhood are going to HGC or private schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, it's not quite fair to say the only thing you could do to help kids in poverty is give them new parents. I thought the research was pretty clear on the benefits of putting disadvantaged kids in smaller classes, and in schools not completely full of other disadvantaged kids.

By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

I just disagree that it would be bad for your child. Poverty is not contagious. Young children are smart and adaptable. Someone is bound on come on here and tell about how difficult it was for their middle class kid at a school that was 90% FARMs. There's the point exactly. Schools that are 90% FARMs aren't good for anyone.

If you disagree, then just substitute "black" for "disadvantaged." So your quote above would read "putting your black kid in the same class as my kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential." It sounds archaic and objectionable. Saying it about poor kids in general sounds no different to me.

+1

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/booming/desegregation-and-the-public-schools.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, it's not quite fair to say the only thing you could do to help kids in poverty is give them new parents. I thought the research was pretty clear on the benefits of putting disadvantaged kids in smaller classes, and in schools not completely full of other disadvantaged kids.

By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

I just disagree that it would be bad for your child. Poverty is not contagious. Young children are smart and adaptable. Someone is bound on come on here and tell about how difficult it was for their middle class kid at a school that was 90% FARMs. There's the point exactly. Schools that are 90% FARMs aren't good for anyone.

If you disagree, then just substitute "black" for "disadvantaged." So your quote above would read "putting your black kid in the same class as my kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential." It sounds archaic and objectionable. Saying it about poor kids in general sounds no different to me.

I did not say "BLACK" kid - I did not say "POVERTY" ...this is your mindset, your perception and the chip on your shoulder - so you can deal with it or wallow in it - your choice. I am talking about parenting as a factor in the success of students. Something that MCPS cannot replicate on an institutional basis.

I do not have a problem with a child from a "poor" family or any other minority group sitting in the same classroom as my child - since I am a minority too whose kids have gone to the bottom of the heap ES and MS in MCPS. I have a problem with disruptive students who are below grade level and who hamper my kid from being challenged academically in school. That is the kind of "disadvantaged student" I am seeing. Not Black not Hispanic, but a disruptive child who does not do assigned work or homework, who sucks up the time of the teacher. Pity the teachers as well, since they cannot even complain about such students because they get dinged in their evaluation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

You are assuming that middle-class/rich = high-achiever. It does not.

What's more, putting poor kids in the same class as middle-class/rich kids actually does not hurt the academic achievement of the middle-class/rich kids.

+1
Research backs this up.
On a personal level, we attend a VA Title I school and our teachers have been fantastic. Went out of their way to provide differentiation in the classroom so my son, who turned out to be highly gifted, got the challenge that he needed.
It can be done.
As a VA observer to the issues over in MCPS. I think the writer of the column was correct. It can be done, but everyone needs to recognize the new normal in terms of population and demographics and plan accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

You are assuming that middle-class/rich = high-achiever. It does not.

What's more, putting poor kids in the same class as middle-class/rich kids actually does not hurt the academic achievement of the middle-class/rich kids.

keep telling yourself that

http://www.teach-nology.com/tutorials/teaching/poverty/

Anonymous wrote:

It is laughable that MCPS talks about closing the achievement gap ... but all it seeks to do is lower the standards by which these students will be measured. HS students failing in Math final exams are a result of such smoke and mirror practices that MCPS administrators undertake to justify their budgets.

How, specifically, is MCPS "lowering standards" to make it seem like they've closed the achievement gap? Examples, please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, it's not quite fair to say the only thing you could do to help kids in poverty is give them new parents. I thought the research was pretty clear on the benefits of putting disadvantaged kids in smaller classes, and in schools not completely full of other disadvantaged kids.

Yes. Despite what the PP said, throwing money and resources at the problem actually can work.

But that's what MCPS has been doing till date, and it has not worked.

The stuff MCPS has been doing to close the achievement gap has not eliminated the achievement gap; therefore the stuff MCPS has been doing to close the achievement gap doesn't work? This is not a logical argument.

What would the achievement gap be now if MCPS had not decided to allocate more money and resources to the schools that need it more?

Anonymous wrote:
By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

You are assuming that middle-class/rich = high-achiever. It does not.

What's more, putting poor kids in the same class as middle-class/rich kids actually does not hurt the academic achievement of the middle-class/rich kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, it's not quite fair to say the only thing you could do to help kids in poverty is give them new parents. I thought the research was pretty clear on the benefits of putting disadvantaged kids in smaller classes, and in schools not completely full of other disadvantaged kids.

By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

I just disagree that it would be bad for your child. Poverty is not contagious. Young children are smart and adaptable. Someone is bound on come on here and tell about how difficult it was for their middle class kid at a school that was 90% FARMs. There's the point exactly. Schools that are 90% FARMs aren't good for anyone.

If you disagree, then just substitute "black" for "disadvantaged." So your quote above would read "putting your black kid in the same class as my kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential." It sounds archaic and objectionable. Saying it about poor kids in general sounds no different to me.

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, it's not quite fair to say the only thing you could do to help kids in poverty is give them new parents. I thought the research was pretty clear on the benefits of putting disadvantaged kids in smaller classes, and in schools not completely full of other disadvantaged kids.

By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, it's not quite fair to say the only thing you could do to help kids in poverty is give them new parents. I thought the research was pretty clear on the benefits of putting disadvantaged kids in smaller classes, and in schools not completely full of other disadvantaged kids.

Yes. Despite what the PP said, throwing money and resources at the problem actually can work.

But that's what MCPS has been doing till date, and it has not worked.

If money needs to be thrown ...then throw the money at the problem (if you have the money!). You have Title 1 ES schools - model MS and HS like these schools too.

But I have serious objection to MCPS lowering standards to improve their own report cards. I have objections to not improving the abilities of individual low performing students within a school but instead of thinking of ways to changes the population of that school -- so the school report card looks good.

BTW - Overcrowding in the classrooms happen in schools that are performing well, not in poor performing schools or Title 1 schools. What else can MCPS do to raise the score of individual students (and do that by not lowering standards but actually instructing them well) ?

It is laughable that MCPS talks about closing the achievement gap ... but all it seeks to do is lower the standards by which these students will be measured. HS students failing in Math final exams are a result of such smoke and mirror practices that MCPS administrators undertake to justify their budgets.

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, it's not quite fair to say the only thing you could do to help kids in poverty is give them new parents. I thought the research was pretty clear on the benefits of putting disadvantaged kids in smaller classes, and in schools not completely full of other disadvantaged kids.

Yes. Despite what the PP said, throwing money and resources at the problem actually can work.