Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no schools where the majority of the kids "don't care." Although, I'm also sure that the kids in Potomac who had the bright idea to speed faster than traffic cameras were geniuses who loved school. With bright futures. Cruelly cut short, by that horrible, mean car they were speeding in.

You are probably a person who would bristle at blaming a rape victim, because probably at Duke or Wellesley, you were told that was wrong.

But you have no issue blaming a bunch of minor children for their circumstance.

You are a disgusting piece of garbage.

I believe in rainbows and smiles too, I just consider them irrelevant to strategic planning. At the end of the day I am a pragmatic actualist who believes that intent and greater good are fine variables but shouldn't interfere with actual results. At the end of the day arguments about fair, balance and equitable distribution are really only distractions from natural order where none of those apply. Life is only as fair as you can make it, diverse is only relevant against the commonality and most people will end up only a few degrees plus or minus socially from where the start and or where placed.

If your butter cup is special or lucky they will rise, if they are marginal or unlucky they will fall but most of everyone reading this kids will stay lock step in line with their environment that fostered them. Degrading ones environment for the sake of commute or urban idealism seems short sighted to me. The sad thing is most people actually agree with me and wouldn't put their kids in a really bad place like suitland high school but then they kid them selves about the shades of grey inbetween as a coping mechanism to rationalize/justify sending their kids to where they compromised when they bought. Who doesn't want to send their kids to the best schools but everybody can't go. It isn't surprising that those people figure the grapes were sour anyway and "wouldn't eat them even if they could".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no schools where the majority of the kids "don't care." Although, I'm also sure that the kids in Potomac who had the bright idea to speed faster than traffic cameras were geniuses who loved school. With bright futures. Cruelly cut short, by that horrible, mean car they were speeding in.

You are probably a person who would bristle at blaming a rape victim, because probably at Duke or Wellesley, you were told that was wrong.

But you have no issue blaming a bunch of minor children for their circumstance.

You are a disgusting piece of garbage.

I believe in rainbows and smiles too, I just consider them irrelevant to strategic planning. At the end of the day I am a pragmatic actualist who believes that intent and greater good are fine variables but shouldn't interfere with actual results. At the end of the day arguments about fair, balance and equitable distribution are really only distractions from natural order where none of those apply. Life is only as fair as you can make it, diverse is only relevant against the commonality and most people will end up only a few degrees plus or minus socially from where the start and or where placed.

If your butter cup is special or lucky they will rise, if they are marginal or unlucky they will fall but most of everyone reading this kids will stay lock step in line with their environment that fostered them. Degrading ones environment for the sake of commute or urban idealism seems short sighted to me. The sad thing is most people actually agree with me and wouldn't put their kids in a really bad place like suitland high school but then they kid them selves about the shades of grey inbetween as a coping mechanism to rationalize/justify sending their kids to where they compromised when they bought. Who doesn't want to send their kids to the best schools but everybody can't go. It isn't surprising that those people figure the grapes were sour anyway and "wouldn't eat them even if they could".

Anonymous wrote:There are no schools where the majority of the kids "don't care." Although, I'm also sure that the kids in Potomac who had the bright idea to speed faster than traffic cameras were geniuses who loved school. With bright futures. Cruelly cut short, by that horrible, mean car they were speeding in.

You are probably a person who would bristle at blaming a rape victim, because probably at Duke or Wellesley, you were told that was wrong.

But you have no issue blaming a bunch of minor children for their circumstance.

You are a disgusting piece of garbage.

Anonymous wrote:I want my kids going to school in an integrated environment where kids more or less want to learn, obey the rules and participate in activities. I have no interest in a school where studying and class participation are derided as "acting white" and where the social pathologies of the street are brought into the school

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:

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.

Boy, this rankles me, but I appreciate your honesty, and, I have a feeling many people share your view (even if just a little bit), although I'll bet they'd never admit it. I'm the Wilson PP, and I think my point still stands; it's the overall blend that works. Total success? No, but I'm sure the Brooklyn school doesn't have it either. But those 25% that don't graduate don't seem to affect the success of those that do and go on to do great things (Warren Buffett, CEO: Wilson HS).

Incidentally, I do think you can find success in many environments, but it is a rare thing to find it in low achieving school. I think what you are describing is basically a risk analysis, and you are not willing to bet on your kid coming out a well-connected Supreme Court justice out of Dunbar.

I'm going to take your words as meaning you are doing what every one of us is doing: looking at all the factors and making your best judgment based on your experiences, concerns, and goals. We don't have to all agree on which factors are more important than others.

the PP here you responded to. I agree with just about everything you said although I weight peer pressure more then I suspect you do. That said my entire stance is based on trend analysis and probability. There will be great kids coming out of bad schools and bad kids coming out of great schools. The percentages and the ceilings and cellars for the corresponding aptitude being the difference.

A somewhat dimwit minimal effort kind of kid with low maturity at the Potomac school ends up partying out of state school and getting a job with their parents or connections basically by default. That same kid at Dunbar ends up in jail almost be default, it comes down to which you want your kid hanging out with considering most kids trend towards avg and like to hangout with similar kids. I would be terrifyied putting an avg kid in a bad school there is simply not enough other avg kids being pushed through for them to align with.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. Another article had the complete opposite take from the same source material: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/09/25/study-st...-with-large-black-populations/

From the atricle: "The report found that achievement was lower for both black and white students in schools where more than 40 percent of the student body was black, compared to schools where less than 20 percent of the student body was black."

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Boy, this rankles me, but I appreciate your honesty, and, I have a feeling many people share your view (even if just a little bit), although I'll bet they'd never admit it. I'm the Wilson PP, and I think my point still stands; it's the overall blend that works. Total success? No, but I'm sure the Brooklyn school doesn't have it either. But those 25% that don't graduate don't seem to affect the success of those that do and go on to do great things (Warren Buffett, CEO: Wilson HS).

Incidentally, I do think you can find success in many environments, but it is a rare thing to find it in low achieving school. I think what you are describing is basically a risk analysis, and you are not willing to bet on your kid coming out a well-connected Supreme Court justice out of Dunbar.

I'm going to take your words as meaning you are doing what every one of us is doing: looking at all the factors and making your best judgment based on your experiences, concerns, and goals. We don't have to all agree on which factors are more important than others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is this sarcasm?

Why would it be sarcasm?

Well, I sure hope "fixing the students" doesn't mean artificially plunking in a bunch of higher achieving kids, so it "looks" like the fewer kids are problems even though it's the same number. Or is the plan to have the well-behaved kids model correct behavior in the hopes the others will pick it up? Because that's not my kid's job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is this sarcasm?

Why would it be sarcasm?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is this sarcasm?