DeBlasio thinks basing admissions on merit is "segregation" and that random chance is better

[Trausti]

Schools are just one piece (a large one) of the puzzle, and represents a portion of the environment for children to do better in education. Schools alone can't fix the poverty issue, but America has been brainwashed into thinking poverty is deserved, so we don't tackle it because those people are lazy, bad decision making fools. And those in poverty be damned if anyone thinks their children deserve a chance at a more stable schooling environment.

No one is saying that. But the reason a school environment is not stable is because of the students who go to that particular school; the walls are not haunted and the teachers are not tormenting the students. ‘Course, it’s verboten to notice that.

Where do you get such silly rhetoric? The staff and administration of a school set the tone, not students.

Lol.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Children who can't read shouldn't be in honors reading classes. Children that struggle recognizing numbers shouldn't be learning division. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be learning, and it certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't be given an opportunity for a potentially more stable learning environment, and it especially doesn't mean that children in poverty are doomed to be stupid!

Schools are just one piece (a large one) of the puzzle, and represents a portion of the environment for children to do better in education. Schools alone can't fix the poverty issue, but America has been brainwashed into thinking poverty is deserved, so we don't tackle it because those people are lazy, bad decision making fools. And those in poverty be damned if anyone thinks their children deserve a chance at a more stable schooling environment.

No one is saying that.

Odd, because...

But the reason a school environment is not stable is because of the students who go to that particular school; the walls are not haunted and the teachers are not tormenting the students. ‘Course, it’s verboten to notice that.

Because you seemingly just did say that.

Poverty is a bitch, and the right-wing solution is blame those in poverty. Sure, it might create a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty, but the second we allow some mongrels into the classroom, our perfect middle class utopia will be ruined.

 

[Emily Lake]

If this were a lottery for elite high schools or colleges, then I would have a bit more hesitation. But since it's middle schools, I think it's a good idea to at least give it a go.

There's pretty strong reason to believe that academic achievement is influenced by a multitude of factors, including (but not limited to) innate capabilities of the child, socioeconomic background of the family, parental involvement in school work outside of class, quality of nutrition, physical security of the child both in school and outside of it, availability of enrichment classes outside of basic core material (art, dance, choir, etc), quality of teachers and their involvement with students, size of class and individual attention.

Some of those can't be controlled for by a school. The home-life aspects are outside of what a school can influence. But other elements can be addressed. An elite school is likely to have better teachers, more enrichment programs, smaller class sizes, less exposure of students to criminality during school hours, more nutritional student lunches and food options, as well as probably having many more options for after-school activities.

High achieving students are likelier to have wealthier parents, in better neighborhoods, with more parental involvement, better overall nutrition, and secure lower-risk home lives. It's very reasonable to assume that those high-achieving students won't be materially harmed by not getting a spot at the elite middle school. They'll still be high performing students in their regular public school, and will still likely be in a more advantageous position going into high school.

Lower achieving students, on the other hand, are likely to be a broader mix from simply less intelligent but otherwise well-positioned students, to students coming from highly disadvantaged home lives with other socioeconomic barriers to their progress. I think it's reasonable to assume that providing access to those disadvantaged students could provide them with a definite leg up and the ability to flourish and become high achieving students by addressing some of those challenges.

It won't work on all kids, sure. But the opportunity to progress for some is very high, whereas the potential reduction in progress to others is minimal. It would at least give us a solid starting basis to determine how much influence the school can have over the socioeconomic and home-life effects that hamper achievement.

 

[Trausti]

Children who can't read shouldn't be in honors reading classes. Children that struggle recognizing numbers shouldn't be learning division. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be learning, and it certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't be given an opportunity for a potentially more stable learning environment, and it especially doesn't mean that children in poverty are doomed to be stupid!
Odd, because...

But the reason a school environment is not stable is because of the students who go to that particular school; the walls are not haunted and the teachers are not tormenting the students. ‘Course, it’s verboten to notice that.

Because you seemingly just did say that.

Poverty is a bitch, and the right-wing solution is blame those in poverty. Sure, it might create a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty, but the second we allow some mongrels into the classroom, our perfect middle class utopia will be ruined.

You are tilting at windmills.

 

[Trausti]

If this were a lottery for elite high schools or colleges, then I would have a bit more hesitation. But since it's middle schools, I think it's a good idea to at least give it a go.

There's pretty strong reason to believe that academic achievement is influenced by a multitude of factors, including (but not limited to) innate capabilities of the child, socioeconomic background of the family, parental involvement in school work outside of class, quality of nutrition, physical security of the child both in school and outside of it, availability of enrichment classes outside of basic core material (art, dance, choir, etc), quality of teachers and their involvement with students, size of class and individual attention.

Some of those can't be controlled for by a school. The home-life aspects are outside of what a school can influence. But other elements can be addressed. An elite school is likely to have better teachers, more enrichment programs, smaller class sizes, less exposure of students to criminality during school hours, more nutritional student lunches and food options, as well as probably having many more options for after-school activities.

High achieving students are likelier to have wealthier parents, in better neighborhoods, with more parental involvement, better overall nutrition, and secure lower-risk home lives. It's very reasonable to assume that those high-achieving students won't be materially harmed by not getting a spot at the elite middle school. They'll still be high performing students in their regular public school, and will still likely be in a more advantageous position going into high school.

Lower achieving students, on the other hand, are likely to be a broader mix from simply less intelligent but otherwise well-positioned students, to students coming from highly disadvantaged home lives with other socioeconomic barriers to their progress. I think it's reasonable to assume that providing access to those disadvantaged students could provide them with a definite leg up and the ability to flourish and become high achieving students by addressing some of those challenges.

It won't work on all kids, sure. But the opportunity to progress for some is very high, whereas the potential reduction in progress to others is minimal. It would at least give us a solid starting basis to determine how much influence the school can have over the socioeconomic and home-life effects that hamper achievement.

I’m not in any way saying that children be denied the opportunity to learn. I’m saying that it’s erroneous to think that the brick and mortar makes a difference. Placing low achieving students with high achieving students does not benefit either.

 

[Toni]

If this were a lottery for elite high schools or colleges, then I would have a bit more hesitation. But since it's middle schools, I think it's a good idea to at least give it a go.

There's pretty strong reason to believe that academic achievement is influenced by a multitude of factors, including (but not limited to) innate capabilities of the child, socioeconomic background of the family, parental involvement in school work outside of class, quality of nutrition, physical security of the child both in school and outside of it, availability of enrichment classes outside of basic core material (art, dance, choir, etc), quality of teachers and their involvement with students, size of class and individual attention.

Some of those can't be controlled for by a school. The home-life aspects are outside of what a school can influence. But other elements can be addressed. An elite school is likely to have better teachers, more enrichment programs, smaller class sizes, less exposure of students to criminality during school hours, more nutritional student lunches and food options, as well as probably having many more options for after-school activities.

High achieving students are likelier to have wealthier parents, in better neighborhoods, with more parental involvement, better overall nutrition, and secure lower-risk home lives. It's very reasonable to assume that those high-achieving students won't be materially harmed by not getting a spot at the elite middle school. They'll still be high performing students in their regular public school, and will still likely be in a more advantageous position going into high school.

Lower achieving students, on the other hand, are likely to be a broader mix from simply less intelligent but otherwise well-positioned students, to students coming from highly disadvantaged home lives with other socioeconomic barriers to their progress. I think it's reasonable to assume that providing access to those disadvantaged students could provide them with a definite leg up and the ability to flourish and become high achieving students by addressing some of those challenges.

It won't work on all kids, sure. But the opportunity to progress for some is very high, whereas the potential reduction in progress to others is minimal. It would at least give us a solid starting basis to determine how much influence the school can have over the socioeconomic and home-life effects that hamper achievement.

I’m not in any way saying that children be denied the opportunity to learn. I’m saying that it’s erroneous to think that the brick and mortar makes a difference. Placing low achieving students with high achieving students does not benefit either.

Nobody is or was talking about brick and mortar.

But, point in fact, sometimes school buildings do deteriorate so badly that education is affected. Middle school kids can read and understand warning signs posted about dangers substances/situations and are able to comprehend that the adults do not value them enough to provide a safe physical learning environment. This is not based on conjecture or speculation but on cold hard experience.

 

[laughing dog]

If this were a lottery for elite high schools or colleges, then I would have a bit more hesitation. But since it's middle schools, I think it's a good idea to at least give it a go.

There's pretty strong reason to believe that academic achievement is influenced by a multitude of factors, including (but not limited to) innate capabilities of the child, socioeconomic background of the family, parental involvement in school work outside of class, quality of nutrition, physical security of the child both in school and outside of it, availability of enrichment classes outside of basic core material (art, dance, choir, etc), quality of teachers and their involvement with students, size of class and individual attention.

Some of those can't be controlled for by a school. The home-life aspects are outside of what a school can influence. But other elements can be addressed. An elite school is likely to have better teachers, more enrichment programs, smaller class sizes, less exposure of students to criminality during school hours, more nutritional student lunches and food options, as well as probably having many more options for after-school activities.

High achieving students are likelier to have wealthier parents, in better neighborhoods, with more parental involvement, better overall nutrition, and secure lower-risk home lives. It's very reasonable to assume that those high-achieving students won't be materially harmed by not getting a spot at the elite middle school. They'll still be high performing students in their regular public school, and will still likely be in a more advantageous position going into high school.

Lower achieving students, on the other hand, are likely to be a broader mix from simply less intelligent but otherwise well-positioned students, to students coming from highly disadvantaged home lives with other socioeconomic barriers to their progress. I think it's reasonable to assume that providing access to those disadvantaged students could provide them with a definite leg up and the ability to flourish and become high achieving students by addressing some of those challenges.

It won't work on all kids, sure. But the opportunity to progress for some is very high, whereas the potential reduction in progress to others is minimal. It would at least give us a solid starting basis to determine how much influence the school can have over the socioeconomic and home-life effects that hamper achievement.

I’m not in any way saying that children be denied the opportunity to learn. I’m saying that it’s erroneous to think that the brick and mortar makes a difference.

This is the second time you have brought up the straw man of brick and mortar.

Placing low achieving students with high achieving students does not benefit either.

The teachers I know think differently from their experience.

 

[Trausti]

This is the second time you have brought up the straw man of brick and mortar.

Placing low achieving students with high achieving students does not benefit either.

The teachers I know think differently from their experience.

Oh, you're one of those blank slate adherents.

Distrust and Disorder: A Racial Equity Policy Summons Chaos in the St. Paul Schools

A student walks down a Harding High hallway wearing headphones, chanting along to violent rap lyrics. Teacher Erik Brandt taps him on the shoulder. Turn it down, he gestures.

The kid stares at Brandt with chilling intensity. He points at the older man, fingers bent in the shape of a gun, and shoots. Then moves on.

When the bell sounds the start of class, students remain in the halls. Those who tire of lectures simply stand up and leave. They hammer into rooms where they don't belong, inflicting mischief and malice on their peers. Teachers call it "classroom invasion."

Instructors who break up fights get beaten in the process, thrown into bookcases while trying to bar their doors.

"My second-grader's class is the most dysfunctional classroom I have ever witnessed with my own two eyes," she says. "I have never even heard of classrooms like Ms. [Tina] Woods'. She has maybe six extreme behavior students in one class. I've seen them punch her. I've seen them walk around the halls. I've seen her try to read to the class and it took her an hour and a half to read two pages. It's too much."

 

[Trausti]

If this were a lottery for elite high schools or colleges, then I would have a bit more hesitation. But since it's middle schools, I think it's a good idea to at least give it a go.

There's pretty strong reason to believe that academic achievement is influenced by a multitude of factors, including (but not limited to) innate capabilities of the child, socioeconomic background of the family, parental involvement in school work outside of class, quality of nutrition, physical security of the child both in school and outside of it, availability of enrichment classes outside of basic core material (art, dance, choir, etc), quality of teachers and their involvement with students, size of class and individual attention.

Some of those can't be controlled for by a school. The home-life aspects are outside of what a school can influence. But other elements can be addressed. An elite school is likely to have better teachers, more enrichment programs, smaller class sizes, less exposure of students to criminality during school hours, more nutritional student lunches and food options, as well as probably having many more options for after-school activities.

High achieving students are likelier to have wealthier parents, in better neighborhoods, with more parental involvement, better overall nutrition, and secure lower-risk home lives. It's very reasonable to assume that those high-achieving students won't be materially harmed by not getting a spot at the elite middle school. They'll still be high performing students in their regular public school, and will still likely be in a more advantageous position going into high school.

Lower achieving students, on the other hand, are likely to be a broader mix from simply less intelligent but otherwise well-positioned students, to students coming from highly disadvantaged home lives with other socioeconomic barriers to their progress. I think it's reasonable to assume that providing access to those disadvantaged students could provide them with a definite leg up and the ability to flourish and become high achieving students by addressing some of those challenges.

It won't work on all kids, sure. But the opportunity to progress for some is very high, whereas the potential reduction in progress to others is minimal. It would at least give us a solid starting basis to determine how much influence the school can have over the socioeconomic and home-life effects that hamper achievement.

I’m not in any way saying that children be denied the opportunity to learn. I’m saying that it’s erroneous to think that the brick and mortar makes a difference. Placing low achieving students with high achieving students does not benefit either.

Nobody is or was talking about brick and mortar.

But, point in fact, sometimes school buildings do deteriorate so badly that education is affected. Middle school kids can read and understand warning signs posted about dangers substances/situations and are able to comprehend that the adults do not value them enough to provide a safe physical learning environment. This is not based on conjecture or speculation but on cold hard experience.

My point is the physical location does not matter. A high-achieving kid will be a high-achieving kid wherever he goes. What makes an elite school elite is that it has a lot of high-achieving kids.

 

[Toni]

Nobody is or was talking about brick and mortar.

But, point in fact, sometimes school buildings do deteriorate so badly that education is affected. Middle school kids can read and understand warning signs posted about dangers substances/situations and are able to comprehend that the adults do not value them enough to provide a safe physical learning environment. This is not based on conjecture or speculation but on cold hard experience.

My point is the physical location does not matter. A high-achieving kid will be a high-achieving kid wherever he goes. What makes an elite school elite is that it has a lot of high-achieving kids.

No. It doesn't. Frankly, a lot of the test scores that mark a high achieving student as high achieving are merely proxies for parental wealth and education.

You are correct, mostly, that physical location is not important--assuming that the physical location is safe and that students don't have to travel hours each way or travel through dangerous neighborhoods to get there.

But it isn't the presence of one or many students with this test score or that test score that 'makes' the school good or bad. It is the resources within the school, the classes that students are offered, the experience and qualification of teachers and staff, other resources that help students to excel.

True story. I did not grow up in the town where I now live but I have friends who did. What was true for my friend, when she was a kid was that the only way that any student could get into college prep classes at the high school was if they were in marching band. Now, if you attended one of the K-8 schools in town: you had access to marching band in grades 6-8. If you grew up in the other end of town, the Polish end, you did not have access to marching band. Oh, you could get into it IF your parents could come up with some extra money to pay for private lessons and the instrument rental that was provided through the schools on the other end of town. I'm talking all white kids here, but on one end of town, mostly kids with Polish grandparents or great grandparents. A few Germans thrown in. On the other end of town, mostly Norwegian ancestry, with a few Germans and a handful of British or French great grandparents. Polish end of town: mostly factory workers who were not paid well, so it was really, really, really hard to come up with the money to pay for band lessons and to rent a clarinet or sax or whatever. And if you were not musically inclined or your parents had no money, then too bad for you. If this makes no sense to you, then you are not alone. But it was truly the case for kids who went through the schools here up until at least the 80's.

This marching band thing is no longer true in my town, BUT marching band still holds outsized sway in the public school system. It is still assumed that marching band kids are smarter than say, the kids in orchestra or choir, all of whom are assumed to be smarter than kids who are in art classes. Or science and math, for that matter. Marching band kids get first shot at seats in college prep classes still, because 'it's so hard to schedule otherwise.' It's ridiculous but it shows that there can be criteria that has zero to do with academic ability that plays an outsized role in determining which, if any, college prep classes students can access in a not terribly good public school system.

It gets worse if your last name does not end in -son or maybe -sen, and worse if you were not born here and much, much, much worse if your skin is not white. Not that the last is much of an issue in this town but there are a handful of black and brown students.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nobody is or was talking about brick and mortar.

But, point in fact, sometimes school buildings do deteriorate so badly that education is affected. Middle school kids can read and understand warning signs posted about dangers substances/situations and are able to comprehend that the adults do not value them enough to provide a safe physical learning environment. This is not based on conjecture or speculation but on cold hard experience.

My point is the physical location does not matter. A high-achieving kid will be a high-achieving kid wherever he goes. What makes an elite school elite is that it has a lot of high-achieving kids.

Lots of under-achievers or not as high-achiever students have gone to elite schools. The schools remained elite because they were called elite.

Why should opportunities be stricken from the non-high-achieving kids? What is the threshold for you?

 

[laughing dog]

Oh, you're one of those blank slate adherents.

No. Is it possible for you to address the actual content in a post instead of pulling this nonsense out of your ass?

The rest of your post is more of your inability to actually stay on topic. No one is talking about misbehavior at school - why even bring it up?

You seem to unable to distinguish between high-ability and high achievement: the two are not the same.

The notion that schools are good only because of the students is nonsense. Without a good staff and a commitment to educate, even very intelligent students will not reach their potential.

 

[Emily Lake]

I’m not in any way saying that children be denied the opportunity to learn. I’m saying that it’s erroneous to think that the brick and mortar makes a difference. Placing low achieving students with high achieving students does not benefit either.

I really feel like you didn't read my post at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nobody is or was talking about brick and mortar.

But, point in fact, sometimes school buildings do deteriorate so badly that education is affected. Middle school kids can read and understand warning signs posted about dangers substances/situations and are able to comprehend that the adults do not value them enough to provide a safe physical learning environment. This is not based on conjecture or speculation but on cold hard experience.

My point is the physical location does not matter. A high-achieving kid will be a high-achieving kid wherever he goes. What makes an elite school elite is that it has a lot of high-achieving kids.

Well, no, that's not the only thing. I think you're conflating cause and effect.

 

[Trausti]

Nobody is or was talking about brick and mortar.

But, point in fact, sometimes school buildings do deteriorate so badly that education is affected. Middle school kids can read and understand warning signs posted about dangers substances/situations and are able to comprehend that the adults do not value them enough to provide a safe physical learning environment. This is not based on conjecture or speculation but on cold hard experience.

My point is the physical location does not matter. A high-achieving kid will be a high-achieving kid wherever he goes. What makes an elite school elite is that it has a lot of high-achieving kids.

Well, no, that's not the only thing. I think you're conflating cause and effect.

Any elite school can become a remedial school if you swap out the student population.

 

[Toni]

Well, no, that's not the only thing. I think you're conflating cause and effect.

Any elite school can become a remedial school if you swap out the student population.

Any remedial school can become an elite school if you swap out the programming, staffing and expectations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yet another non-sequitur.

My point was the rationale of avoiding punishing the high achievers is vapid.

In terms of policy, I think the idea of "selective" grade or middle schools is rather silly. The goal ought to be high quality schools for all children, not some.

Where is the evidence that NYC funds it’s selective schools differently?

It may or may not be a function of funding so much as one of design.

When teachers are told that the students in their class are above average, even gifted, they teach the students as though they are indeed above average or even gifted. And the student's achievement is so excellerated.

If teachers believe that a student or a class is behind or less than average ability, they treat those student as though they are of lesser ability--and the students underperform. I've observed this to happen.

Students, especially young students, very often live up to what is expected of them. Expect the best. And give your best.

Yes, but you're missing the other side of the coin.

If the teacher thinks they have accelerated students but have the dullards they'll leave them behind.

If the teacher thinks they have the dullards but actually have the accelerated ones they'll be very bored and not learn much.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What the heck, Loren? You're ready to write off kids at age 11?

Academically gifted students can languish in poor schools and internalize the message that they are not very smart because their brains are bored by being expected to do endless worksheets for two grade levels behind.

Which is the result of mixing students of different ability levels.

No, it's the result of poor schools. And of schools not recognizing talent and ability. Often because of the color of a kid's skin or his parent's profession or his address.

Mediocre students can be taught to excel, students who are behind can be brought up to grade level and beyond.

Sometimes, but usually not. Whatever made them get behind usually persists. Putting them in good schools provides no benefit.

Bullshit

No one, least of all me, is talking about holding any student back so that those are behind can catch up.

No, you're talking fantasy. In the real world you hold back the gifted students by mixing them with the ones who are behind.

Bullshit, Loren.

Providing good schools to all students is NOT mixing gifted students with those who are behind. What is wrong with you that you think that there is only a small number of elite students who 'deserve' good schools? What is wrong with you that you think that a child's potential is already obvious and unchangeable at age 11?

The child's potential is pretty much fixed well before age 11--it's based in the family and the community, not the schools. Putting the lesser students in the more advanced classes provides no benefit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's commonly claimed the white schools get more money, but it's more that white schools can spend more money on education rather than security and they have fewer troublemakers.

I am sceptical of that claim, because I have read that schools in predominantly white areas in the USA do get more money per student, and vice versa for schools in predominantly black areas. Do you have evidence that this is false?

It depends on how wide your viewpoint. Education is funded at no higher than state level. A lot of the states with lots of blacks have worse economies--of course the schools there are going to be funded at a lower level! It used to be a big deal at the city level but many places have gone to statewide funding to avoid this problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I take very strong exception to the notion that poverty/low SES condemns children to low achievement and that we cannot expect more from such students and so we should not even attempt to provide an education equal to provided children with wealthy parents.

Partially, that is because I grew up barely middle class, raised by parents who grew up in poverty during the Great Depression. Nonetheless, my father tremendously exceeded all expectations set for him and raised his children to expect to excel in school and college, although his own father fought with him bitterly because my father refused to drop out of school when he was 16 and could do so legally.

Key: Great depression.

I've made the point several times over the years: There is a big difference between a lack of money due to circumstances and a lack of money due to not applying oneself enough.

People who are artificially held down, say by the Great Depression, tend to bounce back when the situation improves. People who are not being held down don't bounce.

It's like the right wing consistently thinks that if you're currently unemployed, especially if you have been out for a while, you're not worth hiring. In good economic times that's pretty much true, but it's wildly wrong when something like 2008 hits.