Anonymous wrote:Until we can get a handle on the epidemic of teen pregnancies in Wards 7 & 8, this whole boundary discussion is like rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. I don't know what the answer is, but this topic has to be part of the conversation.

Teen pregnancies stay stubbornly high in poor D.C. wards

By Robert McCartney,

It was sad and sobering to hear the teenage mothers and mothers-to-be from the District’s poorest neighborhoods discuss why so many in their communities get pregnant so young.

They said they and their friends don’t expect to go to college or have careers, so there’s less reason to delay having children. They said their part of the city east of the Anacostia River lacks restaurants, theaters and other entertainment, so young people are more likely to turn to sex as an alternative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/teen-pregnancies-stay-stubbornly-high-in-poor-dc-wards-low-expectations-are-cited/2014/01/29/0e65b1a4-8927-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

Oh good grief. That's almost literally chicken and egg.

The key quote there is the one about expectations for the future. If a kid believes they have no future and no one around to model what that future should and could be, what's the point of trying? And if every adult around them, incuding educators, also believes they have no future then they are really SOL.

Bridging that aspirational gap is supposed to be one (of many) benefits of socio-economic diversity, but reading here I'm getting feel that traveling to a wealthier neighborhood in this city would be even more detrimental to a lowere SES kid. If the values on display here are passed on to children, I think we're all in trouble, frankly.

I'm also starting to believe that testing is creating more problems than it solves. Scores and affluence are not the only things that make a school "good", but it seems those are the primary--and maybe only factors that are being considered. From what I'm reading, that's all DCPS cares about as well, and THAT'S what needs to get fixed.

Teenage pregnancy is a huge issue - however, I seriously doubt access to theaters and restaurants is the issue. The bigger problem is that the system - and DC in particular - have many policies which incentivize teenage pregnancy by offering benefits. The easiest way for a girl in DC to not bother having to think about a career or college is to get pregnant. From their perspective, it puts them on the map and gets income flowing in. It's certainly by no stretch a lavish or glamorous lifestyle, but for many they feel it beats the trouble of having to find work. And, in fact, the benefits are greater if the girl is unwed than if she were to marry.

This is what is considered "normal". But for middle class America it's a whole different story. Yes, some people delay having kids because they want to first get their college and career started. But many in the lower end of middle class who don't go to college, or who don't try pursuing a high-powered professional life also delay having kids until they are a bit more situated, because they CAN'T AFFORD KIDS on their own.

"Affording it" never even comes into the minds of many of these teen moms, because the expectation is that the system will take care of you and your kids, so it fosters a culture of irresponsibility and carelessness. This is not just some arbitrary opinion or speculation on my part, it is reflected in many studies going back to the 1990s, where a majority of studies did reflect a statistically significant correlation between these types of government policies and teen pregnancy rates.

Bottom line is, there is plenty of incentive for teens to have kids, and little disincentive or real consequence - particularly if they have already made the decision to forego school and work life as so many do.

Until we can get a handle on the epidemic of teen pregnancies in Wards 7 & 8, this whole boundary discussion is like rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. I don't know what the answer is, but this topic has to be part of the conversation.

Teen pregnancies stay stubbornly high in poor D.C. wards

By Robert McCartney,

It was sad and sobering to hear the teenage mothers and mothers-to-be from the District’s poorest neighborhoods discuss why so many in their communities get pregnant so young.

They said they and their friends don’t expect to go to college or have careers, so there’s less reason to delay having children. They said their part of the city east of the Anacostia River lacks restaurants, theaters and other entertainment, so young people are more likely to turn to sex as an alternative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/teen-pregnancies-stay-stubbornly-high-in-poor-dc-wards-low-expectations-are-cited/2014/01/29/0e65b1a4-8927-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

Nothing's going to keep families in poverty more than not having a good set of life skills needed to make it on their own. That is precisely why multi-generational poverty persists.

Nobody in DC ever seems to want to acknowledge that, nobody wants to address that fundamental reality head-on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, OP. I have nothing against socioeconomic integration but anyone who thinks it is a high priority issue we must enact policy on, because of some misguided belief that it will benefit the poor or close the achievement gap is seriously mistaken. It would probably cause far more harm than good. There already is far more choice in the system now than there was a decade ago.

There was a study done in MoCo using data from their MPDU initiative that determined that having poor kids integrated into a more affluent school helped the poor kids eliminate about half of the gap. The problem was, this benefit basically disappeared once the percentage of poor kids crossed a threshold of about 20%. My (perhaps wrong) guess is that the peer group effect disappears once the population of poorer children reaches a point where they can easily self-segregate. Unfortunately in MoCo the FARMs rate is about 40%, so even if you wanted to bus or re-district it isn't feasible. DC, I'm sure, is in a much worse situation.

That's because it's the teachers fault according to most new educational reform, poverty and peer group does not matter. Due to this perspective in DC, robust programs and meeting the students at they're at (their real lexiled reading level and math level) is not allowed, nor is failing students who cannot master content (unless they do not show up for school). As Rhee stated and Henderson has endorsed, if the students are failing it is the "teacher's fault", with that attitude you cannot lift up those students at the bottom and are dumbing down content for those at the top.

That's inconsistent with pretty much everything I hear in terms of reform. The reformers I know of want to meet students needs at levels appropriate to student performance, for example recognizing and working the appropriate remedial reading and math if needed. They also recognize that there are deep cultural issues linked to poverty, which get in the way of education. It's thus not reasonable to just place all blame on teachers but at the same time, teachers should not automatically get a pass, either. For example, by the time a student arrives in middle school, but still can barely read and has barely made a dent in basic math facts, one has to wonder how robust the elementary school teaching was. The problems don't just manifest themselves with one teacher, they are cumulative. If a problem is allowed to slide, it compounds over time. It's a simplistic strawman to just say "it's the teacher's fault" just as it's a simplistic strawman to say "it's the poor students' fault" - but it is however a combination of things which includes both of these.

Not True - Education Reform in it's current reform model Rhee/Henderson purports the opposite. What you say is correct, which is why when a child gets to high school how can I be held responsible for my 4th grade reader not passing the 10th grade DC CAS? Sure, I can be held responsible for growth, which is how is should be and I don't have a problem with that. Why is DCPS more concerned about whether students "like their school" or are "happy" than if they can actually read? Why was DCPS so complacent when it came to the previous reports of cheating? Did they retest the students at the "cheating schools" and provide them with remediation when it was found out that they didn't actually pass the standardized tests? Why do some DCPS schools NOT have any literacy or math coaches, they are supposedly schools "at risk"?

Read this site: http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org for starters.

Rhee and Henderson are not relevant on the reform side of the discussion as Rhee moved on years ago and Henderson is now part of the system and status quo, which the rest of us still want to see changed. As for whether DCPS is concerned about students "liking their school" or "being happy" obviously they are not at all attuned to the fact that over half of the families in DC are unhappy and dislike their schools, so much that they left to go to privates, charters, or leaving the city to move to the burbs. So there's a serious cognitive disconnect even there. And all around, academics takes a back seat everywhere you look. Whether in the fact that there is constant political push back throughout the system against academic rigor, test-in schools, G&T programs, et cetera, or in the things one constantly hears about putting low-SES needs above all else, that many are interested first and foremost that kids are off the streets and getting their free meals rather than whether or not they can read, do math, or have any of the other basic math skills that it takes in order to be a functional person in today's society. Sorry, but schools were never meant to be free daycare. In DC all priorities are completely back-ass-wards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, OP. I have nothing against socioeconomic integration but anyone who thinks it is a high priority issue we must enact policy on, because of some misguided belief that it will benefit the poor or close the achievement gap is seriously mistaken. It would probably cause far more harm than good. There already is far more choice in the system now than there was a decade ago.

There was a study done in MoCo using data from their MPDU initiative that determined that having poor kids integrated into a more affluent school helped the poor kids eliminate about half of the gap. The problem was, this benefit basically disappeared once the percentage of poor kids crossed a threshold of about 20%. My (perhaps wrong) guess is that the peer group effect disappears once the population of poorer children reaches a point where they can easily self-segregate. Unfortunately in MoCo the FARMs rate is about 40%, so even if you wanted to bus or re-district it isn't feasible. DC, I'm sure, is in a much worse situation.

That's because it's the teachers fault according to most new educational reform, poverty and peer group does not matter. Due to this perspective in DC, robust programs and meeting the students at they're at (their real lexiled reading level and math level) is not allowed, nor is failing students who cannot master content (unless they do not show up for school). As Rhee stated and Henderson has endorsed, if the students are failing it is the "teacher's fault", with that attitude you cannot lift up those students at the bottom and are dumbing down content for those at the top.

That's inconsistent with pretty much everything I hear in terms of reform. The reformers I know of want to meet students needs at levels appropriate to student performance, for example recognizing and working the appropriate remedial reading and math if needed. They also recognize that there are deep cultural issues linked to poverty, which get in the way of education. It's thus not reasonable to just place all blame on teachers but at the same time, teachers should not automatically get a pass, either. For example, by the time a student arrives in middle school, but still can barely read and has barely made a dent in basic math facts, one has to wonder how robust the elementary school teaching was. The problems don't just manifest themselves with one teacher, they are cumulative. If a problem is allowed to slide, it compounds over time. It's a simplistic strawman to just say "it's the teacher's fault" just as it's a simplistic strawman to say "it's the poor students' fault" - but it is however a combination of things which includes both of these.

Not True - Education Reform in it's current reform model Rhee/Henderson purports the opposite. What you say is correct, which is why when a child gets to high school how can I be held responsible for my 4th grade reader not passing the 10th grade DC CAS? Sure, I can be held responsible for growth, which is how is should be and I don't have a problem with that. Why is DCPS more concerned about whether students "like their school" or are "happy" than if they can actually read? Why was DCPS so complacent when it came to the previous reports of cheating? Did they retest the students at the "cheating schools" and provide them with remediation when it was found out that they didn't actually pass the standardized tests? Why do some DCPS schools NOT have any literacy or math coaches, they are supposedly schools "at risk"?

Read this site: http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org for starters.

Actually there is not. I doubt a one percent gap on reading is statistically significant. No gap on math.

Anonymous wrote:No achievent gap at Hyde!

Actually there is, it's just not nearly as pronounced as at other places in the city.

Anonymous wrote:No achievent gap at Hyde!

That's great! Small elementary with FARMS rate closer to 20% that the 21st century Foundation study suggests is the magic number.

This does seem to suggest that DCPS should do everything it can to recruit middle class families in the short term and then mandate these percentages in as many schools as it can in the long term. I think most gentrifying schools would go for and welcome that.

This 50% idea on schools that recently struggled to attract any middle class parents at all is going to have the opposite effect if it is ever seriously considered here.

That is impressive. 23% FARMS. Not sure what this does to dispel the assertions that achievement gaps persist with higher levels of FARMS though.

No achievent gap at Hyde!

FARM kids doing much better at schools such as Hyde, Eaton and Ross. Eg.
http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/2013_Equity_Report_DCPS_External_Hyde-Addison%20Elementary%20School.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, OP. I have nothing against socioeconomic integration but anyone who thinks it is a high priority issue we must enact policy on, because of some misguided belief that it will benefit the poor or close the achievement gap is seriously mistaken. It would probably cause far more harm than good. There already is far more choice in the system now than there was a decade ago.

There was a study done in MoCo using data from their MPDU initiative that determined that having poor kids integrated into a more affluent school helped the poor kids eliminate about half of the gap. The problem was, this benefit basically disappeared once the percentage of poor kids crossed a threshold of about 20%. My (perhaps wrong) guess is that the peer group effect disappears once the population of poorer children reaches a point where they can easily self-segregate. Unfortunately in MoCo the FARMs rate is about 40%, so even if you wanted to bus or re-district it isn't feasible. DC, I'm sure, is in a much worse situation.

That's because it's the teachers fault according to most new educational reform, poverty and peer group does not matter. Due to this perspective in DC, robust programs and meeting the students at they're at (their real lexiled reading level and math level) is not allowed, nor is failing students who cannot master content (unless they do not show up for school). As Rhee stated and Henderson has endorsed, if the students are failing it is the "teacher's fault", with that attitude you cannot lift up those students at the bottom and are dumbing down content for those at the top.

That's inconsistent with pretty much everything I hear in terms of reform. The reformers I know of want to meet students needs at levels appropriate to student performance, for example recognizing and working the appropriate remedial reading and math if needed. They also recognize that there are deep cultural issues linked to poverty, which get in the way of education. It's thus not reasonable to just place all blame on teachers but at the same time, teachers should not automatically get a pass, either. For example, by the time a student arrives in middle school, but still can barely read and has barely made a dent in basic math facts, one has to wonder how robust the elementary school teaching was. The problems don't just manifest themselves with one teacher, they are cumulative. If a problem is allowed to slide, it compounds over time. It's a simplistic strawman to just say "it's the teacher's fault" just as it's a simplistic strawman to say "it's the poor students' fault" - but it is however a combination of things which includes both of these.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, OP. I have nothing against socioeconomic integration but anyone who thinks it is a high priority issue we must enact policy on, because of some misguided belief that it will benefit the poor or close the achievement gap is seriously mistaken. It would probably cause far more harm than good. There already is far more choice in the system now than there was a decade ago.

There was a study done in MoCo using data from their MPDU initiative that determined that having poor kids integrated into a more affluent school helped the poor kids eliminate about half of the gap. The problem was, this benefit basically disappeared once the percentage of poor kids crossed a threshold of about 20%. My (perhaps wrong) guess is that the peer group effect disappears once the population of poorer children reaches a point where they can easily self-segregate. Unfortunately in MoCo the FARMs rate is about 40%, so even if you wanted to bus or re-district it isn't feasible. DC, I'm sure, is in a much worse situation.

That's because it's the teachers fault according to most new educational reform, poverty and peer group does not matter. Due to this perspective in DC, robust programs and meeting the students at they're at (their real lexiled reading level and math level) is not allowed, nor is failing students who cannot master content (unless they do not show up for school). As Rhee stated and Henderson has endorsed, if the students are failing it is the "teacher's fault", with that attitude you cannot lift up those students at the bottom and are dumbing down content for those at the top.

The magic number is "not to exceed 20% FARMS".

For that to work, some numbers would need to start balancing out - DC will need to pull in a whole lot more upper middle class and have a lot more gentrification, rather than the pushback that often happens from the community, together with the constant pandering to the lowest common denominator.

It will need a lot more focus on reasonable residential offerings for more professionals with families, rather than being so focused on things like efficiency apartments for single young professionals.

It will need flexibility in the school system in order to allow that critical mass to build up.

It will take a concerted, committed, and coordinated effort by the Mayor, by Council, and by DCPS and the Charter School Board. And, it will take time.

What won't work is some simplistic mandate of school quotas put on schools. That would be a disaster.