Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you can make a school look better if you add 50 high-SES students to 150 low-SES students, but that doesn't make it automatically a better school for the 150 low-SES students who were already there.

Common sense says otherwise. Involve dozens of pesky upper middle-class parents in a school community and good quickly comes of the leadership roles they play there. Well-heeled parents waste no time setting about raising money, identifying and objecting to questionable practices by admins and teachers and pushing to oust the lowest adult performers, organizing school events, creating and sitting on hiring panels, lobbying DCPS for inputs, writing external grant proposals and forming partnerships with supporting organizations, asking for at and above grade-level courses etc. etc. Hence, the school becomes better overall, like Brent has in the last decade. It's worth prioritizing attracting as many well-educated families as possible to a school serving poor kids, period. Just look at studies of the college track records of KIPP graduates versus those of high-performing low SES kids who attended socioeconomically diverse schools all the way up. The KIPP graduates drop out of college at roughly triple the rate of low SES kids who attended high schools that were overwhelmingly high SES. Isolating poor minority kids in economically segregated schools in the name of "fairness" (e.g. not permitting test-in school-within-a-school middle school programs) is a really bad idea. http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/06/kipps-underwhelming-college-completion.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you can make a school look better if you add 50 high-SES students to 150 low-SES students, but that doesn't make it automatically a better school for the 150 low-SES students who were already there.

Common sense says otherwise. Involve dozens of pesky upper middle-class parents in a school community and good quickly comes of the leadership roles they play there. Well-heeled parents waste no time setting about raising money, identifying and objecting to questionable practices by admins and teachers and pushing to oust the lowest adult performers, organizing school events, creating and sitting on hiring panels, lobbying DCPS for inputs, writing external grant proposals and forming partnerships with supporting organizations, asking for at and above grade-level courses etc. etc. Hence, the school becomes better overall, like Brent has in the last decade. It's worth prioritizing attracting as many well-educated families as possible to a school serving poor kids, period. Just look at studies of the college track records of KIPP graduates versus those of high-performing low SES kids who attended socioeconomically diverse schools all the way up. The KIPP graduates drop out of college at roughly triple the rate of low SES kids who attended high schools that were overwhelmingly high SES. Isolating poor minority kids in economically segregated schools in the name of "fairness" (e.g. not permitting test-in school-within-a-school middle school programs) is a really bad idea. http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/06/kipps-underwhelming-college-completion.html

How many upper middle-class parents do you need in a school community to make all of the bolded take place? I am an upper middle-class parent, and I don't do any of the above, other than donate money. I know a small number of parents who do the above, but most I know do not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you can make a school look better if you add 50 high-SES students to 150 low-SES students, but that doesn't make it automatically a better school for the 150 low-SES students who were already there.

Common sense says otherwise. Involve dozens of pesky upper middle-class parents in a school community and good quickly comes of the leadership roles they play there. Well-heeled parents waste no time setting about raising money, identifying and objecting to questionable practices by admins and teachers and pushing to oust the lowest adult performers, organizing school events, creating and sitting on hiring panels, lobbying DCPS for inputs, writing external grant proposals and forming partnerships with supporting organizations, asking for at and above grade-level courses etc. etc. Hence, the school becomes better overall, like Brent has in the last decade. It's worth prioritizing attracting as many well-educated families as possible to a school serving poor kids, period. Just look at studies of the college track records of KIPP graduates versus those of high-performing low SES kids who attended socioeconomically diverse schools all the way up. The KIPP graduates drop out of college at roughly triple the rate of low SES kids who attended high schools that were overwhelmingly high SES. Isolating poor minority kids in economically segregated schools in the name of "fairness" (e.g. not permitting test-in school-within-a-school middle school programs) is a really bad idea. http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/06/kipps-underwhelming-college-completion.html

That's why when Rhee started rewarding schools with high test scores it made no sense, encourage cheating, and did not nothing to want to make teachers work at schools EOTP that also had economically disadvantaged kids and low test scores.

and yet even at the higher performing schools with " pesky upper middle-class parents" an astonishing achievement gap still exists. The overall results only look better as a whole because the struggling students comprise a smaller percentage of the school population.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you can make a school look better if you add 50 high-SES students to 150 low-SES students, but that doesn't make it automatically a better school for the 150 low-SES students who were already there.

Common sense says otherwise. Involve dozens of pesky upper middle-class parents in a school community and good quickly comes of the leadership roles they play there. Well-heeled parents waste no time setting about raising money, identifying and objecting to questionable practices by admins and teachers and pushing to oust the lowest adult performers, organizing school events, creating and sitting on hiring panels, lobbying DCPS for inputs, writing external grant proposals and forming partnerships with supporting organizations, asking for at and above grade-level courses etc. etc. Hence, the school becomes better overall, like Brent has in the last decade. It's worth prioritizing attracting as many well-educated families as possible to a school serving poor kids, period. Just look at studies of the college track records of KIPP graduates versus those of high-performing low SES kids who attended socioeconomically diverse schools all the way up. The KIPP graduates drop out of college at roughly triple the rate of low SES kids who attended high schools that were overwhelmingly high SES. Isolating poor minority kids in economically segregated schools in the name of "fairness" (e.g. not permitting test-in school-within-a-school middle school programs) is a really bad idea. http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/06/kipps-underwhelming-college-completion.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you can make a school look better if you add 50 high-SES students to 150 low-SES students, but that doesn't make it automatically a better school for the 150 low-SES students who were already there.

Common sense says otherwise. Involve dozens of pesky upper middle-class parents in a school community and good quickly comes of the leadership roles they play there. Well-heeled parents waste no time setting about raising money, identifying and objecting to questionable practices by admins and teachers and pushing to oust the lowest adult performers, organizing school events, creating and sitting on hiring panels, lobbying DCPS for inputs, writing external grant proposals and forming partnerships with supporting organizations, asking for at and above grade-level courses etc. etc. Hence, the school becomes better overall, like Brent has in the last decade. It's worth prioritizing attracting as many well-educated families as possible to a school serving poor kids, period. Just look at studies of the college track records of KIPP graduates versus those of high-performing low SES kids who attended socioeconomically diverse schools all the way up. The KIPP graduates drop out of college at roughly triple the rate of low SES kids who attended high schools that were overwhelmingly high SES. Isolating poor minority kids in economically segregated schools in the name of "fairness" (e.g. not permitting test-in school-within-a-school middle school programs) is a really bad idea. http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/06/kipps-underwhelming-college-completion.html

That's why when Rhee started rewarding schools with high test scores it made no sense, encourage cheating, and did not nothing to want to make teachers work at schools EOTP that also had economically disadvantaged kids and low test scores.

and yet even at the higher performing schools with " pesky upper middle-class parents" an astonishing achievement gap still exists. The overall results only look better as a whole because the struggling students comprise a smaller percentage of the school population.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you can make a school look better if you add 50 high-SES students to 150 low-SES students, but that doesn't make it automatically a better school for the 150 low-SES students who were already there.

Common sense says otherwise. Involve dozens of pesky upper middle-class parents in a school community and good quickly comes of the leadership roles they play there. Well-heeled parents waste no time setting about raising money, identifying and objecting to questionable practices by admins and teachers and pushing to oust the lowest adult performers, organizing school events, creating and sitting on hiring panels, lobbying DCPS for inputs, writing external grant proposals and forming partnerships with supporting organizations, asking for at and above grade-level courses etc. etc. Hence, the school becomes better overall, like Brent has in the last decade. It's worth prioritizing attracting as many well-educated families as possible to a school serving poor kids, period. Just look at studies of the college track records of KIPP graduates versus those of high-performing low SES kids who attended socioeconomically diverse schools all the way up. The KIPP graduates drop out of college at roughly triple the rate of low SES kids who attended high schools that were overwhelmingly high SES. Isolating poor minority kids in economically segregated schools in the name of "fairness" (e.g. not permitting test-in school-within-a-school middle school programs) is a really bad idea. http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/06/kipps-underwhelming-college-completion.html

Anonymous wrote:you can make a school look better if you add 50 high-SES students to 150 low-SES students, but that doesn't make it automatically a better school for the 150 low-SES students who were already there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her departure is neither here nor there for me. No principal, no matter how strong, can make a middle school with proficiency pass rates in the teens and twenties work for an elementary school population with one of the highest proficiency pass rates in the city (and rising as high SES lower grades families steadily replace low SES higher grades families) without a full menu of at grade-level classes already in place. Things are going to have to get worse at Jefferson before the school could be reinvented to serve Brent, a lot worse.

you do realize the school does not exist on the glimmer of hope that Brent students will save it? They serve the students who enroll.

They serve the students who enroll.

Or they don't, as in the case of DCPS who despite the highest per pupil spending in the country, can not figure out how to educate the majority of poor children to achieve at grade level. Instead, they engage in social promotion and continue the cycle of poverty, underemployment and functional illiteracy.

you may disagree on effectiveness of educating students at Jefferson or scores of other schools but the focus is on educating the students they have not the hypothetical students they do not.