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 cries of "classist" tend to come from the assumptions that are so extreme.
I mean, are all the "inner city" options schools with metal detectors at the doors? Are they all "poor"? Do most poor parents really not care about education? There are usually charter schools in the "inner city" as well, are they all horrible schools? Why does a school that does not exist inside an upper class neighborhood automatically have to be poor and riddled with crime and metal detectors? Is everything not in Shangri-La "low rated"? And why do you have to go to a "poor" school to be "diverse and tolerant"? Different types of kids don't go to other schools? Is the choice really go to school in the rich area or DIE.
My kids go to a school that is within city limits and is 65-70% African-American, and it's one of the best schools in the city with great outcomes. The white/Hispanic/Asian kids there don't get beat up. LOL. They all play together. When I grew up in NYC there were quite a few decent elementary schools in all kinds of neighborhoods. Working class neighborhoods can have good schools to, you know.
Honestly I don't want my kid in a gang AND I don't want my kid popping pills and binge drinking in his rich friend's houses on the weekend either. I'm just saying.
I'm not saying you are racist or classist, but I'm just pointing out how you talk about something can sometimes give the impression that you are making racist and classist assumptions in your thinking.
This is a good post. You just explained what separates someone like treasurecoaster from an actual classist.
I think cries of "classist" tend to come from the assumptions that are so extreme.
I mean, are all the "inner city" options schools with metal detectors at the doors? Are they all "poor"? Do most poor parents really not care about education? There are usually charter schools in the "inner city" as well, are they all horrible schools? Why does a school that does not exist inside an upper class neighborhood automatically have to be poor and riddled with crime and metal detectors? Is everything not in Shangri-La "low rated"? And why do you have to go to a "poor" school to be "diverse and tolerant"? Different types of kids don't go to other schools? Is the choice really go to school in the rich area or DIE.
My kids go to a school that is within city limits and is 65-70% African-American, and it's one of the best schools in the city with great outcomes. The white/Hispanic/Asian kids there don't get beat up. LOL. They all play together. When I grew up in NYC there were quite a few decent elementary schools in all kinds of neighborhoods. Working class neighborhoods can have good schools to, you know.
Honestly I don't want my kid in a gang AND I don't want my kid popping pills and binge drinking in his rich friend's houses on the weekend either. I'm just saying.
I'm not saying you are racist or classist, but I'm just pointing out how you talk about something can sometimes give the impression that you are making racist and classist assumptions in your thinking.
Because I didn't make any of these statements - that these things HAVE to be that way. I said they TEND to be - statistically, typically, often. Not always, no. But you can't deny there's a real, strong association between socio-economic demographics of an area and things like test scores, college attendance, crime, etc. It's a basic socioeconomic principle - the more expensive areas attract affluent families, who are generally highly educated, they drive up the school ratings and prices, lower-income families are pushed out, the good ratings attract more professional, affluent families. It's not classism, it's just capitalism.
Are there exceptions? Of course there are. But most parents who can, even with some stretch, afford to live in a better neighbourhood and district, are not going to play that lottery with their kids, hoping they'll hit the jackpot and find that hidden gem of a fantastic school in a generally low-performing area. They'll play it safe. Those in cities will look for the charter schools, instead of sending their kids to a random zoned school. But these are hard to get into, typically with huge waitlists. Maybe you CAN have a public, non-charter school that's a bubble of books and rainbows in an otherwise bad district or region, but again, people don't want to play those odds, understandably so.
It may be a generalization, but there is data to back it up, and it is similar to my experience. The problem with these affluent schools, is that if you're child doesn't end up performing at the top and getting into a good school, they have a lot of trouble adjusting. Aside from what they mention in the article, I've seen more people in their 20's from affluent schools end up moving back in with their parents and becoming serious drug addicts. Kids from working class backgrounds don't have shame in working a low wage service or blue collar job, and have already learned to live on less.
Interesting. Here in NYC there are very, very few schools that are racially diverse in the way that yours is. IIRC I saw an article recently to the effect that our schools are the most racially segregated in the country. which is presumably a reflection of our high residential segregation. But you make a good point in that it isn't either/or, i.e. a dangerous ghetto school or a lily-white one with the son and daughters of executives and professionals. There is an in-between where kids can do well. But in many cities that in-between thing is becoming harder and harder to find.
My zoned schools were very diverse roughly 30% each of white, Asian, and Hispanic with smaller amounts of the other races. The other schools in the district didn't, though, it was only those three schools due to where they were located in the city.
Looking for a lily-white school won't even find someone the "best" schools in all areas, either. Out here, the "best" schools tend to be highly Asian, not white. In fact, I live in a high income city where lots of people want to live because of safety and education. However, the poor city that I grew up in has a high school that scores as well as, or better than, the high school we're zoned to. It also has a very good junior high and some great elementary schools that feed into it. (Yes, it's a majority Asian school. However, it's also a school with a high English learning population, high immigrant population, and a very high low income population.)
The "best" schools are often schools we would not send our kids to as they are often pressure cooker environments, which are not healthy for the kids at all. We would, however, send our kids to schools that have the same class offerings but are in a poorer area.
I think cries of "classist" tend to come from the assumptions that are so extreme.
I mean, are all the "inner city" options schools with metal detectors at the doors? Are they all "poor"? Do most poor parents really not care about education? There are usually charter schools in the "inner city" as well, are they all horrible schools? Why does a school that does not exist inside an upper class neighborhood automatically have to be poor and riddled with crime and metal detectors? Is everything not in Shangri-La "low rated"? And why do you have to go to a "poor" school to be "diverse and tolerant"? Different types of kids don't go to other schools? Is the choice really go to school in the rich area or DIE.
My kids go to a school that is within city limits and is 65-70% African-American, and it's one of the best schools in the city with great outcomes. The white/Hispanic/Asian kids there don't get beat up. LOL. They all play together. When I grew up in NYC there were quite a few decent elementary schools in all kinds of neighborhoods. Working class neighborhoods can have good schools to, you know.
Honestly I don't want my kid in a gang AND I don't want my kid popping pills and binge drinking in his rich friend's houses on the weekend either. I'm just saying.
I'm not saying you are racist or classist, but I'm just pointing out how you talk about something can sometimes give the impression that you are making racist and classist assumptions in your thinking.
Especially that stuff about Asian students being the "best" students. Believe me, some of the Asians I know resent this "positive stereotyping" stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravelingBluesBrother
Well, I didn't really start this thread with the intention of getting into class/race issues. I just thought, from my experience, what most people perceive as "good schools" aren't all they're cracked up to be. I don't know, I think we, as a society, have to radically reconsider the purpose of our schools and think about a major overhaul. It seems like all the discussion is around reforms tied to test targets, yet schools are still fundamentally built around the Prussian education model that was designed to turn children into obedient soldiers and industrial workers.
I get sick of hearing about how all suburban schools are "drug malls".
You still are making it seem as if your kid doesn't go to the "best" school, they will end up in a ghetto school.
Not at all. On the contrary I was trying to say than rather than looking at a specific school, even one that's supposed to be fantastic in a bad area, for example, for me personally it was more important to live in a neighbourhood where the majority of the residents share similar values to us and views on education. i wasn't particularly concerned about getting into any specific school as I knew all schools in the area are similarly good and draw from the same pool of the population.
Where I live there is less segregation in housing. Thus the zoned schools are pretty diverse. The elementary school my grandchildren went to is 45% white, 26% hispanic, 17% black, 10% Asian, and 3% two or more races (this includes my grandchildren who are 1/2 Indian Asian and 1/2 white).
The middle school has less whites, more hispanics and a few more blacks. It also has more poverty and more ESL students and is consequently less highly rated. We have, however, found it worked well for my granddaughter and in fact, a bit better than the more highly rated elementary school. Her jr high also has more poverty, but fewer ESL students. It is rated well in terms of academics.
IMO though, when you have a large proportion of unmotivated students, it CAN (not necessarily does but can) have a negative effect on that 20% that actually want to learn. Especially in middle and high school, peer environment and influence are HUGE. That's why I believe, like many, that the type of students in the school are probably more important than teaching quality or anything else. Sure, some can be motivated enough that they don't care, but for a lot of average kids, the peer environment is going to be a crucial factor in whether they're pulled 'up' or dragged down. If there's peer pressure to slack off, skip school, and drink in alleys behind the 7-11, and they see a majority of the 'cool' kids doing that and it looks fun, many will go and join in. Whereas if they're surrounded by kids who are focused primarily on getting good grades and into good colleges, chances are they're going to absorb those values and put effort into their studies to compete. If they know they'll be respected for being straight-A students instead of being ridiculed for being nerds and bookworms, that makes a huge difference.
I may be off-base here, but this is what i've observed from personal experience.
The 20% of kids that want to learn are usually not in the same classes with unmotivated kids in a large school district. I was not at the top of my high school class, but I was mostly in classes with the brightest students. There were many people in my graduation class of 600 with whom I never had a class. Many of these people still went on to college.
The peer environment and influence that you mention would have affected me up until 6th grade since I was in an elementary school with two 6th grade classrooms. Some of these kids were in and out of special education and some had been held back. After 6th grade, I was never in a class with most of the kids from my elementary school. So for me, I could have been pulled down in my first six years of school and pulled up in junior high and high school. You can obviously be exposed to kids from your school outside of classes, but in a large school you tend to become friends with people in the same classes and with people who participate in the same activities such as sports, band, musicals, etc.
Especially that stuff about Asian students being the "best" students. Believe me, some of the Asians I know resent this "positive stereotyping" stuff.
I get sick of hearing about how all suburban schools are "drug malls".
Out here the stereotype is that Asians work the hardest in school, which in my experience (and according to the scores) they generally do. Yes, there are some outliers, but it's a stereotype for a reason.
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.
