Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I get it, but I think these parents don't care for a few reasons. First, their home's values is tied up to those test scores. So, they bought into the whole premise that you seem to challenge. Good scores = good schools = good property values. Sure, they could rock the boat and demand more, but I think the effort required and payoff isn't something most parents in these zones see worthwhile. So, they supplement.

Second, if you noticed on this thread a lot of people mentioned "peer groups" or an achievement type culture. What they are saying in code is that they don't want their kids around those chip eating poor kids. I get it, even poor kids can work hard, but they don't want to get any sort of influence on their kids from kids who are in poverty.

Finally, I think a lot of parents don't really care about learning. They want their kids to pass the tests, do well on the college entrance exams, have a good GPA and go to college. How that happens isn't really important.

On this thread, posters were explicit about what they meant by peer groups, and it's not what you've characterized. Read posts, don't just skim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone seems to be using examples of ELEMENTARY schools that are low/high income.

Don't you think things change in HS?

My kids went to a Title 1 elementary school and high FARMS middle and high school. My oldest did all honors in middle and all honors/all IB in high school (did the full IB diploma) and he's now at W&M and says his classroom experience during HS prepared him exceptionally well for the rigor at W&M. My youngest is still in middle school but is in all honors. In the middle and high school, their experience has been they are in a "school within a school." Even more so at the HS in the IB classes. His IB classes had 20 or fewer students - he had 14 in his IB Math class his senior year. The only time he dealt with disruptive, unengaged students was in PE. His cohort of high achieving students was very small - they all ended up at top schools. There was at least one instance he did not get the class he wanted because there was only one section offered and it conflicted with either his band or language class (can't remember which one.)

I don't know what the experience would be like if they were taking Gen Ed classes in middle and high school. My guess is there would be lots of disruption and kids who just don't care.

Sure, you can use the IB program as a way to make your child's school into an "upper tier" school. But, for my kid who is taking a mix of honors and gen. ed. classes, I'm glad we moved to the higher income school where there aren't disruptive kids making the teachers hate coming to school. My friends with kids at our former school have said (independent of each other) that the gen ed classes like Spanish or on-grade math/science have had so many disruptive kids that the teacher either told the 5 kids who wanted to learn to sit in the front of the class or, in another case, quit after telling them that they (the disruptors) were the reason (and the sub said she was going to quit for the same reason). My kid at the upper tier school isn't going to be in all AP classes... but she also says that there aren't disruptive kids taking over her classes.

I agree with you - our experience is my oldest did the full IB diploma at one of the high FARMS school in FCPS. He was not in any Gen Ed classes, so I don't know what that classroom experience is like. But I would imagine the classes would be disruptive, and with kids who don't speak English and don't want to be in school. Our IB school does offer Honors and Dual Enrollment if a student doesn't want to do the full IB diploma. If you have an average student who wants Gen Ed, I might be concerned.

I didn't say our HS was perfect and superior. Far from it - it has a terrible reputation in the community. If I were to move my home to the neighboring HS pyramid a mile away, it would be worth $200,000 more. The HS has very little school spirit. There is almost no parental involvement. The sports team don't compete. A student can "walk onto" almost any of the sports teams (except soccer) with zero prior experience. The cohort of motivated, college bound students is a very small percentage of the total student body. But, for the motivated, high achieving student, who wants to stand out, it offers great opportunities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone seems to be using examples of ELEMENTARY schools that are low/high income.

Don't you think things change in HS?

My kids went to a Title 1 elementary school and high FARMS middle and high school. My oldest did all honors in middle and all honors/all IB in high school (did the full IB diploma) and he's now at W&M and says his classroom experience during HS prepared him exceptionally well for the rigor at W&M. My youngest is still in middle school but is in all honors. In the middle and high school, their experience has been they are in a "school within a school." Even more so at the HS in the IB classes. His IB classes had 20 or fewer students - he had 14 in his IB Math class his senior year. The only time he dealt with disruptive, unengaged students was in PE. His cohort of high achieving students was very small - they all ended up at top schools. There was at least one instance he did not get the class he wanted because there was only one section offered and it conflicted with either his band or language class (can't remember which one.)

I don't know what the experience would be like if they were taking Gen Ed classes in middle and high school. My guess is there would be lots of disruption and kids who just don't care.

Sure, you can use the IB program as a way to make your child's school into an "upper tier" school. But, for my kid who is taking a mix of honors and gen. ed. classes, I'm glad we moved to the higher income school where there aren't disruptive kids making the teachers hate coming to school. My friends with kids at our former school have said (independent of each other) that the gen ed classes like Spanish or on-grade math/science have had so many disruptive kids that the teacher either told the 5 kids who wanted to learn to sit in the front of the class or, in another case, quit after telling them that they (the disruptors) were the reason (and the sub said she was going to quit for the same reason). My kid at the upper tier school isn't going to be in all AP classes... but she also says that there aren't disruptive kids taking over her classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone seems to be using examples of ELEMENTARY schools that are low/high income.

Don't you think things change in HS?

My kids went to a Title 1 elementary school and high FARMS middle and high school. My oldest did all honors in middle and all honors/all IB in high school (did the full IB diploma) and he's now at W&M and says his classroom experience during HS prepared him exceptionally well for the rigor at W&M. My youngest is still in middle school but is in all honors. In the middle and high school, their experience has been they are in a "school within a school." Even more so at the HS in the IB classes. His IB classes had 20 or fewer students - he had 14 in his IB Math class his senior year. The only time he dealt with disruptive, unengaged students was in PE. His cohort of high achieving students was very small - they all ended up at top schools. There was at least one instance he did not get the class he wanted because there was only one section offered and it conflicted with either his band or language class (can't remember which one.)

I don't know what the experience would be like if they were taking Gen Ed classes in middle and high school. My guess is there would be lots of disruption and kids who just don't care.

I'm not talking about "disruptive" as in "likes to talk too much to a friend." I'm talking about "disruptive" as in "making it hard for the teacher to be heard or for the teacher to teach the class."

Sure, you can use the IB program as a way to make your child's school into an "upper tier" school. But, for my kid who is taking a mix of honors and gen. ed. classes, I'm glad we moved to the higher income school where there aren't disruptive kids making the teachers hate coming to school. My friends with kids at our former school have said (independent of each other) that the gen ed classes like Spanish or on-grade math/science have had so many disruptive kids that the teacher either told the 5 kids who wanted to learn to sit in the front of the class or, in another case, quit after telling them that they (the disruptors) were the reason (and the sub said she was going to quit for the same reason). My kid at the upper tier school isn't going to be in all AP classes... but she also says that there aren't disruptive kids taking over her classes.

I hate to break the news, but disruptive kids come in all races, IQ’s, and socioeconomic levels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone seems to be using examples of ELEMENTARY schools that are low/high income.

Don't you think things change in HS?

My kids went to a Title 1 elementary school and high FARMS middle and high school. My oldest did all honors in middle and all honors/all IB in high school (did the full IB diploma) and he's now at W&M and says his classroom experience during HS prepared him exceptionally well for the rigor at W&M. My youngest is still in middle school but is in all honors. In the middle and high school, their experience has been they are in a "school within a school." Even more so at the HS in the IB classes. His IB classes had 20 or fewer students - he had 14 in his IB Math class his senior year. The only time he dealt with disruptive, unengaged students was in PE. His cohort of high achieving students was very small - they all ended up at top schools. There was at least one instance he did not get the class he wanted because there was only one section offered and it conflicted with either his band or language class (can't remember which one.)

I don't know what the experience would be like if they were taking Gen Ed classes in middle and high school. My guess is there would be lots of disruption and kids who just don't care.

Sure, you can use the IB program as a way to make your child's school into an "upper tier" school. But, for my kid who is taking a mix of honors and gen. ed. classes, I'm glad we moved to the higher income school where there aren't disruptive kids making the teachers hate coming to school. My friends with kids at our former school have said (independent of each other) that the gen ed classes like Spanish or on-grade math/science have had so many disruptive kids that the teacher either told the 5 kids who wanted to learn to sit in the front of the class or, in another case, quit after telling them that they (the disruptors) were the reason (and the sub said she was going to quit for the same reason). My kid at the upper tier school isn't going to be in all AP classes... but she also says that there aren't disruptive kids taking over her classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone seems to be using examples of ELEMENTARY schools that are low/high income.

Don't you think things change in HS?

My kids went to a Title 1 elementary school and high FARMS middle and high school. My oldest did all honors in middle and all honors/all IB in high school (did the full IB diploma) and he's now at W&M and says his classroom experience during HS prepared him exceptionally well for the rigor at W&M. My youngest is still in middle school but is in all honors. In the middle and high school, their experience has been they are in a "school within a school." Even more so at the HS in the IB classes. His IB classes had 20 or fewer students - he had 14 in his IB Math class his senior year. The only time he dealt with disruptive, unengaged students was in PE. His cohort of high achieving students was very small - they all ended up at top schools. There was at least one instance he did not get the class he wanted because there was only one section offered and it conflicted with either his band or language class (can't remember which one.)

I don't know what the experience would be like if they were taking Gen Ed classes in middle and high school. My guess is there would be lots of disruption and kids who just don't care.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I get it, but I think these parents don't care for a few reasons. First, their home's values is tied up to those test scores. So, they bought into the whole premise that you seem to challenge. Good scores = good schools = good property values. Sure, they could rock the boat and demand more, but I think the effort required and payoff isn't something most parents in these zones see worthwhile. So, they supplement.

Second, if you noticed on this thread a lot of people mentioned "peer groups" or an achievement type culture. What they are saying in code is that they don't want their kids around those chip eating poor kids. I get it, even poor kids can work hard, but they don't want to get any sort of influence on their kids from kids who are in poverty.

Finally, I think a lot of parents don't really care about learning. They want their kids to pass the tests, do well on the college entrance exams, have a good GPA and go to college. How that happens isn't really important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An equitable distribution of poverty whenever possible will ensure nobody will be able to coast all year.

yes that would be bad for the normal students

No, it wouldn't if the poverty level at each school was not allowed to go higher than 25-30%. I know FCPS' tipping point study said 20% but it can work. I think Federal funding should be pumped in at that point instead of waiting until a school reaches 40%. By then it's too late and too much.

Can you post this study? I thought it had identified 40% as a tipping point at which a concentration of low-income students could adversely affect student performance across-the-board.

Anonymous wrote:Everyone seems to be using examples of ELEMENTARY schools that are low/high income.

Don't you think things change in HS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An equitable distribution of poverty whenever possible will ensure nobody will be able to coast all year.

yes that would be bad for the normal students

No, it wouldn't if the poverty level at each school was not allowed to go higher than 25-30%. I know FCPS' tipping point study said 20% but it can work. I think Federal funding should be pumped in at that point instead of waiting until a school reaches 40%. By then it's too late and too much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An equitable distribution of poverty whenever possible will ensure nobody will be able to coast all year.

yes that would be bad for the normal students