Anonymous wrote:In white parents’ defense, they’ve been told so long that diversity was some kind of educational magic bullet. AA families are often complicit in that messaging.

This series is exposing that it’s not nearly so simple.

Anonymous wrote:P, "prioritizing" something just means you make it top priority. It doesn't mean there are no other things that are important, or that you don't have to figure out how to balance competing priorities.

The problem isn't that people are caring most about their own kids. You can also care about other kids, just not as much. That isn't unfair unless you are accepting of a set of social systems that works for you because other parents have a differnt experience than you when they try to access it and make it work for their kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ I'm curious as to what kind of policies she'd recommend at the end of this.”

+1
I liked both episodes but the message did kind of make me wonder “so what are you saying SHOULD happen?” In one she rails against parents that decided not to send their kids to a certain public school after lobbying for its location (yeah, I get that). In the other she is focusing on shaming parents that opted into that public school but are spending time and money trying to create a program They want there (that would be open to any kids from the school).

Just to add though that the program — French immersion — was not the choice of the original community. They were never engaged in the decision. Had they had a voice they may have wanted Spanish or Arabic based on their population.

I’ll add that both the parents and perhaps most shockingly the kids had a sense of white saviorism — the school was only good when they got there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the DC suburbs, the schools with more poors get smaller classrooms, extra resources, and more attention on a daily basis. Yet somehow the white parents get slandered and accused of opportunity hoarding when their kids (and Asian kids, who are now “white” whether their parents like it or not) perform better in school. Is it really so unreasonable to want your kids to attend schools near their homes rather than be parceled out across the county like they are some sort of precious resource which other schools cannot be denied?

Hilarious. As if every rich parent didn’t pick out their house according to the school.

Specific schools? Not necessarily. Not that much hangs in the balance when you can easily afford good private schools and tutors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a difference between wanting to give your kids a great life and prioritizing them over all others. You can both want your kids to be happy and thriving but understand that “wanting the best for my kid” often comes at the expense of other kids. I want my kids- and all the kids- to be happy, thriving individuals. So no.. I don’t “prioritize” my kids if I know it will detrimentally impact others. My kids can have something less shiny, less perfect... if it means that more kids will have something similar.

Yes, this. I am not so selfish that I need to make sure my middle-class white kids get the absolute best of everything at other kids' expense. They already have a ton of advantages. If it enables schools to be more effective in improving the life trajectories of kids of color, poor kids, other kids who really need it, then I'm totally fine with my kids having longer bus rides or not getting as focused attention from the best teachers or whatever the fear is. I love my kids, but I don't believe they deserve anything more than any other kids (and if we can't get all the kids the very best education, then there are probably a lot of other kids who should be in line before mine to be prioritized.)

This should be a basic, common sense position to take for anyone who believes in common decency and a just society, but somehow it isn't? I'm really troubled and disturbed by the way we normalize the idea that it's okay to prioritize our own kids at the expense of everyone else's kids. It seems pretty darn immoral to me.

I think you’re being a hypocrite.

If you: take vacations, buy books and educational toys, buy organic healthy food, cook healthy dinners every night, read to your kids when young, send them to summer camps, teach them skills like swimming, skiing, tennis, golf, etc. and saving for college, you’re giving them advantages other kids don’t have.

WHAT? Do you have a reading comprehension problem. HOw is the poster being a hypocrite? They are literally saying their kids do not deserve anything more than other kids, and more disadvantaged kids should have priority for many things! Are they then also supposed to also not buy books, feed their kids healthy food or send them to summer camp? Why? I think you are a troll....

DP. I thought she sounded hypocritical too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a difference between wanting to give your kids a great life and prioritizing them over all others. You can both want your kids to be happy and thriving but understand that “wanting the best for my kid” often comes at the expense of other kids. I want my kids- and all the kids- to be happy, thriving individuals. So no.. I don’t “prioritize” my kids if I know it will detrimentally impact others. My kids can have something less shiny, less perfect... if it means that more kids will have something similar.

Yes, this. I am not so selfish that I need to make sure my middle-class white kids get the absolute best of everything at other kids' expense. They already have a ton of advantages. If it enables schools to be more effective in improving the life trajectories of kids of color, poor kids, other kids who really need it, then I'm totally fine with my kids having longer bus rides or not getting as focused attention from the best teachers or whatever the fear is. I love my kids, but I don't believe they deserve anything more than any other kids (and if we can't get all the kids the very best education, then there are probably a lot of other kids who should be in line before mine to be prioritized.)

This should be a basic, common sense position to take for anyone who believes in common decency and a just society, but somehow it isn't? I'm really troubled and disturbed by the way we normalize the idea that it's okay to prioritize our own kids at the expense of everyone else's kids. It seems pretty darn immoral to me.

I think you’re being a hypocrite.

If you: take vacations, buy books and educational toys, buy organic healthy food, cook healthy dinners every night, read to your kids when young, send them to summer camps, teach them skills like swimming, skiing, tennis, golf, etc. and saving for college, you’re giving them advantages other kids don’t have.

WHAT? Do you have a reading comprehension problem. HOw is the poster being a hypocrite? They are literally saying their kids do not deserve anything more than other kids, and more disadvantaged kids should have priority for many things! Are they then also supposed to also not buy books, feed their kids healthy food or send them to summer camp? Why? I think you are a troll....

DP. I thought she sounded hypocritical too.

Anonymous wrote:Why is it wrong for parents to prioritize their own children?

My question is, why do these schools have such low test scores? It's established fact that cities often spend more (often much more) per student than suburbs do. Why does that extra money do nothing to raise test scores?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a difference between wanting to give your kids a great life and prioritizing them over all others. You can both want your kids to be happy and thriving but understand that “wanting the best for my kid” often comes at the expense of other kids. I want my kids- and all the kids- to be happy, thriving individuals. So no.. I don’t “prioritize” my kids if I know it will detrimentally impact others. My kids can have something less shiny, less perfect... if it means that more kids will have something similar.

Yes, this. I am not so selfish that I need to make sure my middle-class white kids get the absolute best of everything at other kids' expense. They already have a ton of advantages. If it enables schools to be more effective in improving the life trajectories of kids of color, poor kids, other kids who really need it, then I'm totally fine with my kids having longer bus rides or not getting as focused attention from the best teachers or whatever the fear is. I love my kids, but I don't believe they deserve anything more than any other kids (and if we can't get all the kids the very best education, then there are probably a lot of other kids who should be in line before mine to be prioritized.)

This should be a basic, common sense position to take for anyone who believes in common decency and a just society, but somehow it isn't? I'm really troubled and disturbed by the way we normalize the idea that it's okay to prioritize our own kids at the expense of everyone else's kids. It seems pretty darn immoral to me.

I think you’re being a hypocrite.

If you: take vacations, buy books and educational toys, buy organic healthy food, cook healthy dinners every night, read to your kids when young, send them to summer camps, teach them skills like swimming, skiing, tennis, golf, etc. and saving for college, you’re giving them advantages other kids don’t have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a difference between wanting to give your kids a great life and prioritizing them over all others. You can both want your kids to be happy and thriving but understand that “wanting the best for my kid” often comes at the expense of other kids. I want my kids- and all the kids- to be happy, thriving individuals. So no.. I don’t “prioritize” my kids if I know it will detrimentally impact others. My kids can have something less shiny, less perfect... if it means that more kids will have something similar.

Yes, this. I am not so selfish that I need to make sure my middle-class white kids get the absolute best of everything at other kids' expense. They already have a ton of advantages. If it enables schools to be more effective in improving the life trajectories of kids of color, poor kids, other kids who really need it, then I'm totally fine with my kids having longer bus rides or not getting as focused attention from the best teachers or whatever the fear is. I love my kids, but I don't believe they deserve anything more than any other kids (and if we can't get all the kids the very best education, then there are probably a lot of other kids who should be in line before mine to be prioritized.)

This should be a basic, common sense position to take for anyone who believes in common decency and a just society, but somehow it isn't? I'm really troubled and disturbed by the way we normalize the idea that it's okay to prioritize our own kids at the expense of everyone else's kids. It seems pretty darn immoral to me.

I think you’re being a hypocrite.

If you: take vacations, buy books and educational toys, buy organic healthy food, cook healthy dinners every night, read to your kids when young, send them to summer camps, teach them skills like swimming, skiing, tennis, golf, etc. and saving for college, you’re giving them advantages other kids don’t have.

WHAT? Do you have a reading comprehension problem. HOw is the poster being a hypocrite? They are literally saying their kids do not deserve anything more than other kids, and more disadvantaged kids should have priority for many things! Are they then also supposed to also not buy books, feed their kids healthy food or send them to summer camp? Why? I think you are a troll....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a difference between wanting to give your kids a great life and prioritizing them over all others. You can both want your kids to be happy and thriving but understand that “wanting the best for my kid” often comes at the expense of other kids. I want my kids- and all the kids- to be happy, thriving individuals. So no.. I don’t “prioritize” my kids if I know it will detrimentally impact others. My kids can have something less shiny, less perfect... if it means that more kids will have something similar.

Yes, this. I am not so selfish that I need to make sure my middle-class white kids get the absolute best of everything at other kids' expense. They already have a ton of advantages. If it enables schools to be more effective in improving the life trajectories of kids of color, poor kids, other kids who really need it, then I'm totally fine with my kids having longer bus rides or not getting as focused attention from the best teachers or whatever the fear is. I love my kids, but I don't believe they deserve anything more than any other kids (and if we can't get all the kids the very best education, then there are probably a lot of other kids who should be in line before mine to be prioritized.)

This should be a basic, common sense position to take for anyone who believes in common decency and a just society, but somehow it isn't? I'm really troubled and disturbed by the way we normalize the idea that it's okay to prioritize our own kids at the expense of everyone else's kids. It seems pretty darn immoral to me.

I think you’re being a hypocrite.

If you: take vacations, buy books and educational toys, buy organic healthy food, cook healthy dinners every night, read to your kids when young, send them to summer camps, teach them skills like swimming, skiing, tennis, golf, etc. and saving for college, you’re giving them advantages other kids don’t have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a difference between wanting to give your kids a great life and prioritizing them over all others. You can both want your kids to be happy and thriving but understand that “wanting the best for my kid” often comes at the expense of other kids. I want my kids- and all the kids- to be happy, thriving individuals. So no.. I don’t “prioritize” my kids if I know it will detrimentally impact others. My kids can have something less shiny, less perfect... if it means that more kids will have something similar.

Yes, this. I am not so selfish that I need to make sure my middle-class white kids get the absolute best of everything at other kids' expense. They already have a ton of advantages. If it enables schools to be more effective in improving the life trajectories of kids of color, poor kids, other kids who really need it, then I'm totally fine with my kids having longer bus rides or not getting as focused attention from the best teachers or whatever the fear is. I love my kids, but I don't believe they deserve anything more than any other kids (and if we can't get all the kids the very best education, then there are probably a lot of other kids who should be in line before mine to be prioritized.)

This should be a basic, common sense position to take for anyone who believes in common decency and a just society, but somehow it isn't? I'm really troubled and disturbed by the way we normalize the idea that it's okay to prioritize our own kids at the expense of everyone else's kids. It seems pretty darn immoral to me.

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a difference between wanting to give your kids a great life and prioritizing them over all others. You can both want your kids to be happy and thriving but understand that “wanting the best for my kid” often comes at the expense of other kids. I want my kids- and all the kids- to be happy, thriving individuals. So no.. I don’t “prioritize” my kids if I know it will detrimentally impact others. My kids can have something less shiny, less perfect... if it means that more kids will have something similar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it wrong for parents to prioritize their own children?

My question is, why do these schools have such low test scores? It's established fact that cities often spend more (often much more) per student than suburbs do. Why does that extra money do nothing to raise test scores?!

It’s not wrong for you to put your kids first.

Money will never fix test scores when education is not prioritized at home. The schools can’t fix that.

Anonymous wrote:Why is it wrong for parents to prioritize their own children?

My question is, why do these schools have such low test scores? It's established fact that cities often spend more (often much more) per student than suburbs do. Why does that extra money do nothing to raise test scores?!