Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we choose to forget it but there is often a genetic component at work here. Sons and daughters of overachievers are more likely to become overachievers when adults than children of underachievers (even when both are raised by adopted parents). IQ is certainly a factor.
I am a fairly smart guy (though my conservative opinions differ from many of the liberals on this board) but I had to study in college to get As. I knew people who could literally show and take the tests and ace them. One guy at Wash U was a drunk from a broken home who would ace all his exams stoned. He was a physics major, just a genius.
Namom,
You are fortunate to have parents who cared enough to help you with your studies. As you mentioned, many in the underclass are not as fortunate. Though bad parents, the upperclass are at least employing nannies and tutots to help their kids vs the underclass which just has them watch tv all day.
Another thing is that immigrants tend to be overachievers. Educated or not, my guess is that your parents worked hard to give you tools to succeed (not necessarily monetary) and probably had to risk a lot just to come (assuming you are first generation). This comes back to the genetic argument. Sons and daughters of overachievers are more likely to become overachievers.
Basically, most immigrants are the best and brightest (certainly most motivated) of the people from where they come. There are certainly immigrant slackers but as a whole immigrants are some of our soceity's most productive. Some of the best business people I deal with are immigrants. They are aggressive and willing to take risks to get ahead and have a work ethic seldom found among those of us born here.
This may get deleted but I think this immigrant overachiever thing is why we do not have to help immigrants as much as some other groups that have lived here for generations and never gotten ahead.
The numbers for 2009 for "white" students at OPRF are 89.5% for reading and 85.5% for math. This averages out to 87.5% overall. If you have more current 2010 numbers, they are not yet posted online.
It turns out these test score ARE pretty special when you adjust for minorty enrollment. Using test scores as a measuring stick, the only other school in the western suburbs that educates "white" kids better than OPRF is Hinsdale Central (90.5% reading, 89.7% math, 90.1% overall). The Naperville Norths, Hinsdale Souths, and St. Charles Norths of the world come in next with overall scores closer to 83%.
So why is OPRF on a watch list for not making "Adequate Yearly Progress"? Because No Child Left behind tracks scores based on race, and when minority groups don't perform well at a specific school targets are set for this particular group. Minority students at OPRF are not improving their test scores, which are low for one reason or another. Most people would be surprised to know that half of the high schools in the Chicagoland area are on this "watch list", including many excellent schools.
As far as elementary schools are concerned, some are better than others in Oak Park. Mann and Lincoln tend to have the highest test scores, and compare quite well to schools in other upscale suburbs.
I tried to do a comparison of schools for African Americans to see what schools were educating them the best in Chicagoland, but No Child Left Behind only tracks test scores for racial groups if a particular group has 45 or more students at a given school. As you can imagine, many schools in the suburbs have fewer than 45 African American kids--while hardly any have fewer than 45 white kids. And there are barely any public schools that have more than 45 Asian students, so that comparison is meaningless. I do know that Oak Park River Forest High School and Evanston Township High School have pretty pathetic black student performance on test scores, so if I were an African American parent I might want to buck the conventional wisdom that these are good communities for minority students to go to school.
LK, take a look at 09-10 scores. Whittier did almost as well as Mann, and Lincoln and Holmes didn't make AYP due to subgroups' performance. Longfellow did quite well too.
This may sound a little bit selfish, but as long as my kid (from high socio-economic background) has a chance to excel and get an excellent education in OP schools, I don't really care that kids of lower socio-economic background fail to make AYP.
I mean, I do care in a broad public policy sense, but I don't care in the "OMG, OP schools are going down the drain!" sense.
This may sound a little bit selfish, but as long as my kid (from high socio-economic background) has a chance to excel and get an excellent education in OP schools, I don't really care that kids of lower socio-economic background fail to make AYP.
I mean, I do care in a broad public policy sense, but I don't care in the "OMG, OP schools are going down the drain!" sense.
What if your kid befriends a few of these kids who you only care about in the public policy sense?
What if your kid befriends a few of these kids who you only care about in the public policy sense?
Are you implying that I should be afraid of my child(ren) associating with lower SES kids? If I was afraid of rubbing shoulders with the poor I would be in Naperville. I prefer to think of growing up in OP as an early education that there are all sorts in America, rich and poor, black and white, gay and straight, even a few Republicans too.
BTW, I do care passionately about the plight of the poor and disadvantaged, I just don't think I'll be able to solve the problem within the next 10-15 years that my kid(s) will be in the OP schools.
I think we choose to forget it but there is often a genetic component at work here. Sons and daughters of overachievers are more likely to become overachievers when adults than children of underachievers (even when both are raised by adopted parents). IQ is certainly a factor.
I am a fairly smart guy (though my conservative opinions differ from many of the liberals on this board) but I had to study in college to get As. I knew people who could literally show and take the tests and ace them. One guy at Wash U was a drunk from a broken home who would ace all his exams stoned. He was a physics major, just a genius.
Namom,
You are fortunate to have parents who cared enough to help you with your studies. As you mentioned, many in the underclass are not as fortunate. Though bad parents, the upperclass are at least employing nannies and tutots to help their kids vs the underclass which just has them watch tv all day.
Another thing is that immigrants tend to be overachievers. Educated or not, my guess is that your parents worked hard to give you tools to succeed (not necessarily monetary) and probably had to risk a lot just to come (assuming you are first generation). This comes back to the genetic argument. Sons and daughters of overachievers are more likely to become overachievers.
Basically, most immigrants are the best and brightest (certainly most motivated) of the people from where they come. There are certainly immigrant slackers but as a whole immigrants are some of our soceity's most productive. Some of the best business people I deal with are immigrants. They are aggressive and willing to take risks to get ahead and have a work ethic seldom found among those of us born here.
This may get deleted but I think this immigrant overachiever thing is why we do not have to help immigrants as much as some other groups that have lived here for generations and never gotten ahead.
LOL! My parents were born and raised in Chicago (they actually went to Clemente and Orr high school in Chicago in the 70s if that says anything ). I think DNA hasalot to do with it as well. My dad was a genius- just kinda never "broke the cycle" per say-- he left that to me
You are 2nd generation then. It takes several generations before immigrants become less aggressive and overachieving.
The same has been found among hispanic immigrants who migrate to the US where their life expectancy is actually higher than that of whites. This is because the more fit and motivated ones come here. The sedentary and less motivated just stay put. Scientists expect this immigrant effect lasts for the first few generations and then goes away after that.
Same thing with overachieving immigrants. The first generation has to work the hardest and then the 2nd and then the 3rd. I have seen this time and time again among people in Humboldt Park. The first generation comes here with nothing and works hard. The 2nd generation is able to build upon their parent's success or chooses to become lazy and entitled. It also has alot to do with the values instilled in people from an early age.
If you see your father hanging out on a street corner endlessly or working their butt off to feed a family will do a lot to influence young kids and the choices they make.
Glad you were able to "break the cycle", though I would argue that with the values instilled in you from an early age that the cycle was never truly broken, whether your parents or grandparents had money or education.
Folks, the point of the orignal thread is harshly illustrated by this not uncommon post...
I am not going to criticize or do anything to point out I feel pretty much the same way about my local schools and frankly about most "governmental services" which I why I wish more local levels of government were run by people with a more libertarian attitude (small l, not the big L party types, which is for a whole other forum...).
The problem in terms of stability is that folks are unlikely to step up to challenges of a growing minority presence, and unless they do continued decline is hard to see reversing...
The zoning of towns that are small, fully built out, have limited amounts of lower priced housing and no need for 'redevelopment' makes shifts in demographics (which is more than just race -- I am talking income, age, educational background...) a heck of a lot harder and ought to make the stability of those sort of towns a heck of a lot more certain.
Self interest is a funny thing. Most people feel pretty good about helping out someone whose life has been upended by a hurricane or earthquake. I think there are plenty of folks that support things like methadone programs for those trying to get off smack. Ask people how they feel about increases in property taxes to improve the student-to-teacher ratio and if the argument is made so that "all kids have more direct accountability" is twisted into "so the minority kids get extra attention" you are not going to get that referendum passed. Heck, in "Waiting for Superman" I would have loved to give the filmmakers a list of questions to ask the union honcho: Do you support the expansion of para-professionals? Does paying a PE teacher more for a Masters or PhD make sense when many professional healthclubs are paying folks with similar educational a fraction of that salary? Would you support the expaned ranks of teachers if thar meant average salaries did not increase? Should teachers that have proven themselves to deliver superior results be encouraged to move to the most disadvantaged schools through mobility salaries? So many interesting ways to address these problems...
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude
Are you implying that I should be afraid of my child(ren) associating with lower SES kids? If I was afraid of rubbing shoulders with the poor I would be in Naperville. I prefer to think of growing up in OP as an early education that there are all sorts in America, rich and poor, black and white, gay and straight, even a few Republicans too.
BTW, I do care passionately about the plight of the poor and disadvantaged, I just don't think I'll be able to solve the problem within the next 10-15 years that my kid(s) will be in the OP schools.
Was your point this all sounds good but in reality no one will execute on it, particularly given the challenges from the teacher's unions?
I see "waiting for superman" and other hopeful notions as out of whack with reality. Talk is cheap. Action is what I care about. Waiting for superman is an isolated success which also has a lot to do with the improving demographics (not ethnographics) of the area. Charter schools are also touted as a success though in reality most are seldom more successful than public options.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). I think DNA hasalot to do with it as well. My dad was a genius- just kinda never "broke the cycle" per say-- he left that to me 
Namom
