Isn't it bad enough that we now have buildings with "Poor" entrances? Do we really need educational segregation as well? Evidently we haven't learned our lesson about "Separate, but Equal". It's time to wake up, America.
I love the "recent studies have shown" rubric. Social studies can and do show whatever the "researcher" wants them to show. The reality is that children raised in poverty have always and will always be at a disadvantage. Those with healthy family support will have a real chance to overcome a lot of the disadvantage. Those coming from dysfunctional, toxic homes will have a high likelihood of not only being unable to rise above their circumstances but of also dragging down those around them with a chance at success, "recent studies" notwithstanding. The beauty of the type of well meaning approach proposed herein to solving our nations ills is that the price is paid by little kids who are politically invisible and powerless to effectively protest. Win-win for the very wise policy makers, but lose-lose for the kids. The schools will never be able to fix the underlying home problem. I wish it were not so.
16
The comments about teenagers having babies reminds me of when I overheard someone remark that no teenager is mature enough to raise a child.
For many people, by the time they are 16 - they are as mature as they are going to get.
For many people, by the time they are 16 - they are as mature as they are going to get.
1
My younger son goes to Helen Owen Carey / Park Slope North Child Development Center, and my older son graduated from it (now in public kindergarten). The economic diversity did / does appeal to me. And even for us "non-subsidized" parents, it's a savings relative to many options. But I can't honestly say I would commit to that goal for all of their education. My older one (finishing kindergarten this year at PS 321) benefits from the private donations we all give to the school, which fund extra classes (music, etc.) and from the involved parents who give time and education. If he could have all that PLUS economic diversity, then I'd be all for it. I'm just not sure that would happen based on the current funding model. The school relies on donations and fund raising to offer much of what makes it "good," and with a greater low income population, I'm not sure they'd be able to keep the same level of service.
It's all very complicated. I don't have solutions. I want the public school model to work. I went to public school, and my children will go to public school at least while we live where we do - but like my parents, we can afford to live in a place with good public schools (of course we have far fewer square feet per family member than I did growing up in the suburbs of Pittsburgh).
It's all very complicated. I don't have solutions. I want the public school model to work. I went to public school, and my children will go to public school at least while we live where we do - but like my parents, we can afford to live in a place with good public schools (of course we have far fewer square feet per family member than I did growing up in the suburbs of Pittsburgh).
4
In our early childhood is the best time for people to learn and appreciate the humanity of all.
It is also the "best" time to learn "otherness."
We choose.
It is also the "best" time to learn "otherness."
We choose.
2
When I attended schools in New York, all I can say is thank goodness for 'special progress' schools and Bronx Science and the other great selective schools at that time. Now, let's mix things up and see if anyone learns anything.
9
I say Ronan Farrow is the best evidence possible that academic intelligence is a product of nurture, less so than nature. (Hint: Sinatra, not Woody).
Who wants to gamble wit their kid's future to fulfill someone else's social theories?
There is a learning gap in performance of kids in school. Until someone knows how to address that, how can you expect people to gamble with their kid's future?
Who wants to gamble wit their kid's future to fulfill someone else's social theories?
There is a learning gap in performance of kids in school. Until someone knows how to address that, how can you expect people to gamble with their kid's future?
8
i saw the use of the word empathy towards the poor a number of times in this article. this country needs less empathy towards the poor., but a go do attitude. the US needs to get its economic house in order. then jobs will be created and people will not live off welfare or government jobs which end up hobbling the private sector through over-regulation..
11
I favor the mayor's initiative, and I favor free, taxpayer paid, pre-k education. Integrating rich-kids with poor-kids may allow poor-kids to progress faster than rich-kids. This may be the equalizer that some have been awaiting. That is, when you add you subtract. However, from where I sit, we should not squander an opportunity to move the most ready students ahead. Our nation's future depends on them.
A causal relationship between wealth and academic achievement might surprise some to find that it runs more from academic achievement to wealth than it does from wealth to academic achievement.
John Little, Sr.
A causal relationship between wealth and academic achievement might surprise some to find that it runs more from academic achievement to wealth than it does from wealth to academic achievement.
John Little, Sr.
2
So easy to prescribe for others. Do the authors have kids in pre-K?
11
The rich and poor learn together -- Ah, the democracy idea!
However, it's not gonna happen. The rich get different medical care (VIP suites and private nurses), can shop the healthy food (or if you are richer, have your housekeeper do it), can "audition" for the better schools with the the PS system, get safe transportation for their kids.
While I love de Blasios Utopian zeal, the reality is that no one who has the wherewithall to pay taxes to support public schooling (reference the demolition of Head Start program by the GOP) is going to support their money being spent on the 99%. Private school is their better budget choice.
I do agree that integrated schooling has benefits for both the poor kids AND the rich kids. The nation is a cauldron of all economic flavors. But face it...the credo for the upwardly mobile or those in the ivory tower is to escape the reality of the madding crowd below.
However, it's not gonna happen. The rich get different medical care (VIP suites and private nurses), can shop the healthy food (or if you are richer, have your housekeeper do it), can "audition" for the better schools with the the PS system, get safe transportation for their kids.
While I love de Blasios Utopian zeal, the reality is that no one who has the wherewithall to pay taxes to support public schooling (reference the demolition of Head Start program by the GOP) is going to support their money being spent on the 99%. Private school is their better budget choice.
I do agree that integrated schooling has benefits for both the poor kids AND the rich kids. The nation is a cauldron of all economic flavors. But face it...the credo for the upwardly mobile or those in the ivory tower is to escape the reality of the madding crowd below.
2
I’m old enough to remember when de-segregation did NOT work. Bussing, “allowing” poor blacks to “infiltrate” white schools was a disaster.
I remember my racist parents stating at EVERY neighborhood meeting that “We can’t let those N***** kids in OUR schools! We paid higher taxes for better schools...We don’t want other kids here!” I was only 15 y/o but embarrassed beyond belief hearing my parents and their good Christian friends tear down kids I had played with--on vacant lots with any sports equipment we could dig up. (This was even before uniformed leagues for EVERY sport in and out of schools.) My parents drove by and saw me playing with “darkies” (darkies!!!) and got out of the car screaming at me to get in the car immediately.
I left home, became an emancipated minor and worked while I finished up high school, then went on to college.
It was terrible in the early 1960s. It’s WORSE now.
Have we so quickly forgotten the 2012 presidential campaign? About “taking back OUR WHITE House, OUR government?” The 47% $50,000 a place dinner for Mitt in Boca Raton? Every word out of the mouth of the .01% made it VERY clear that there were TWO Americas and would ALWAYS be two Americas!
It costs NY parents $6,000 for a BROKER just to get your child into the best Kindergartens: New Yorker magazine
"Nowadays, many of the most chilling tales have to do with getting children into the right kindergarten. Manhattan Private School Advisors charges $6,000 to help families!”
I remember my racist parents stating at EVERY neighborhood meeting that “We can’t let those N***** kids in OUR schools! We paid higher taxes for better schools...We don’t want other kids here!” I was only 15 y/o but embarrassed beyond belief hearing my parents and their good Christian friends tear down kids I had played with--on vacant lots with any sports equipment we could dig up. (This was even before uniformed leagues for EVERY sport in and out of schools.) My parents drove by and saw me playing with “darkies” (darkies!!!) and got out of the car screaming at me to get in the car immediately.
I left home, became an emancipated minor and worked while I finished up high school, then went on to college.
It was terrible in the early 1960s. It’s WORSE now.
Have we so quickly forgotten the 2012 presidential campaign? About “taking back OUR WHITE House, OUR government?” The 47% $50,000 a place dinner for Mitt in Boca Raton? Every word out of the mouth of the .01% made it VERY clear that there were TWO Americas and would ALWAYS be two Americas!
It costs NY parents $6,000 for a BROKER just to get your child into the best Kindergartens: New Yorker magazine
"Nowadays, many of the most chilling tales have to do with getting children into the right kindergarten. Manhattan Private School Advisors charges $6,000 to help families!”
6
Looking at the readers' picks, the people have spoken resoundingly against this sort of coercive liberal social engineering. Funny how NYT readers suddenly turn conservative when the negative unintended consequences of a liberal policy (and there are always some) are aimed directly at their kids.
18
depends on WHAT they are learning, if it's the same old lies and a white supremacist agenda then Black kids need to be in a curriculum for Black folks. we shouldn't have to send Black kids off to be taught that slavery had some benefits, that white people saved us from ourselves, that North Africa was white, that white people are the best people and Black people are animals. Black people have to know about our achievement here in the USA and in the world, many of whom predates white people even being on the scene.
Black people cannot be restricted as to what areas of education we want/should pursue and not be forcefully guided into areas that don't assist Black communities and become careers for Black students.
Black people cannot be restricted as to what areas of education we want/should pursue and not be forcefully guided into areas that don't assist Black communities and become careers for Black students.
1
The reason that it cost so much to educate American children is because everyone segregates their children into their segregated neighborhood schools. Most other nations education their children together, and that keeps costs significantly lower.
Hate is expensive.
Hate is expensive.
1
So, I hate to nitpick, but when you write "Research also shows that well-off children are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children.", you link to Kahlenberg, who basically cites the Coleman report from 1966.
Does everybody cite Coleman because none of the educational research in the last 50 years - of which there surely is plenty - backs it up? And, paraphrasing Coleman, does "half as much of white pupil performance is attributable to school quality as minority pupil performance" actually logically imply the assertion you make?
Does everybody cite Coleman because none of the educational research in the last 50 years - of which there surely is plenty - backs it up? And, paraphrasing Coleman, does "half as much of white pupil performance is attributable to school quality as minority pupil performance" actually logically imply the assertion you make?
12
"Let Rich and Poor Learn Together"?
But that is not the American way?
But that is not the American way?
If you were wondering who MLK was referring to when he talked about the "white moderate", I present to you this comment section. Lots of people who are much more interested in maintaining a status quo that benefits them than making any sort of sacrifice for the good of others.
1
Been there, seen it. When my daughter was in 4th grade 20 of the 24 students were on the Honor Roll. It wasn't that everyone was so smart, it was because the class moved so slowly. The kids were never pushed as they should have been.
6
Let's be honest for a minute.
The "it's all about the childern" concern about educating 4 year olds is nothing more than a "let's hire more union teachers" payback to the unions.
70,000 kids/25 kids per class = 2,800 more dues paying union teachers who kick back a portion of their (taxpayer paid) salaries to the unions who kick back a portion of those dues to Democrat politicians.
The privaleged Left don't give a rip about the poor, least of all poor children.
The "it's all about the childern" concern about educating 4 year olds is nothing more than a "let's hire more union teachers" payback to the unions.
70,000 kids/25 kids per class = 2,800 more dues paying union teachers who kick back a portion of their (taxpayer paid) salaries to the unions who kick back a portion of those dues to Democrat politicians.
The privaleged Left don't give a rip about the poor, least of all poor children.
9
Most of the new pre-K seats are in existing preschools, not within the public school system. I'd be very surprised if the teachers in these privately-run pre-schools were union members or even able to join the teachers union if they wanted to.
I think universal pre-K is a great goal. My own kids benefited from pre-school a lot (paid for by us). But letting the private day-cares take in pre-K-ers at $10k per pupil makes me a little queasy, all that public money going into private hands. Was anyone expecting that when de Blasio proposed pre-K for all?
I think universal pre-K is a great goal. My own kids benefited from pre-school a lot (paid for by us). But letting the private day-cares take in pre-K-ers at $10k per pupil makes me a little queasy, all that public money going into private hands. Was anyone expecting that when de Blasio proposed pre-K for all?
1
Clinical research reveals that segregation of economically disadvantaged children in school programs presents clear challenges to them, somewhat offset by diversity and exposure to children more economically advantaged.
However, it is shortsighted to say “well-off children are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children”. Perhaps not “harmed academically”, they may well be harmed in their capacity for development of empathy towards populations who are not “like them”. Risk factors for development of character (as opposed to academic achievement) in the wealthy include isolation and segregation, which serve to impede development of understanding of others who are "different". Sadly this leads to polarization, and, in fact, “bad behavior,” almost universal in everyone who objectifies populations unknown to them, projecting and distorting negative qualities onto others whom they do not understand.
As important as are measurements of academic achievement, development of character, values, and empathy are equally great, if not greater determinants of ultimate outcome of all children.
Segregation in school for every societal segment of children is an absolute lose - lose. We must be mindful of empathy inequality, the prejudices many hold towards the wealthy. To lose an opportunity to engender character in children at both ends of the economic spectrum is absolutely key to development of a society in which aspiration for social justice is shared by all.
However, it is shortsighted to say “well-off children are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children”. Perhaps not “harmed academically”, they may well be harmed in their capacity for development of empathy towards populations who are not “like them”. Risk factors for development of character (as opposed to academic achievement) in the wealthy include isolation and segregation, which serve to impede development of understanding of others who are "different". Sadly this leads to polarization, and, in fact, “bad behavior,” almost universal in everyone who objectifies populations unknown to them, projecting and distorting negative qualities onto others whom they do not understand.
As important as are measurements of academic achievement, development of character, values, and empathy are equally great, if not greater determinants of ultimate outcome of all children.
Segregation in school for every societal segment of children is an absolute lose - lose. We must be mindful of empathy inequality, the prejudices many hold towards the wealthy. To lose an opportunity to engender character in children at both ends of the economic spectrum is absolutely key to development of a society in which aspiration for social justice is shared by all.
Nice idea, but not going to happen.
The reason the North is more racially segregated than the South is largely because people in the North can (and do) move to the best public schools available. In the South, where there are fewer good public schools, the wealthy simply stay put and pay for private.
If you put upper-middle-class, stable kids in a classroom with high-needs kids with chaotic home lives, the upper-middle-class kids will vanish to private school (and then, with little regret, probably defund the local public schools, which they now have no stake in.) That's what happened in the South already.
I think it's better to build the poor neighborhoods up from the ground up, starting with educational programs for expectant parents, family support, and better pay for workers.
Asking people to sacrifice their kids for this cause is not going to happen. It just isn't going to happen. That's the one thing people won't sacrifice, period.
The reason the North is more racially segregated than the South is largely because people in the North can (and do) move to the best public schools available. In the South, where there are fewer good public schools, the wealthy simply stay put and pay for private.
If you put upper-middle-class, stable kids in a classroom with high-needs kids with chaotic home lives, the upper-middle-class kids will vanish to private school (and then, with little regret, probably defund the local public schools, which they now have no stake in.) That's what happened in the South already.
I think it's better to build the poor neighborhoods up from the ground up, starting with educational programs for expectant parents, family support, and better pay for workers.
Asking people to sacrifice their kids for this cause is not going to happen. It just isn't going to happen. That's the one thing people won't sacrifice, period.
25
This prescription is spot on. It takes commitment to "build the poor neighborhoods from the ground up," but it would be worth the cost to avoid social conflict later, and the process doesn't automatically generate white flight, defunded public schools, charter schools and vouchers.
I would add that there needs to be some place in their growing up for children of poor and rich to associate and learn, by rubbing elbows, that there are good people of all hues, faiths, economic backgrounds. It doesn't have to be K-12, but it ought to be certain. Maybe in WWII such an experience often happened in the military.
I would add that there needs to be some place in their growing up for children of poor and rich to associate and learn, by rubbing elbows, that there are good people of all hues, faiths, economic backgrounds. It doesn't have to be K-12, but it ought to be certain. Maybe in WWII such an experience often happened in the military.
Some truth there. Basically, in the North the school districts are done by City which can be a lot more exclusive than in the South where the school districts are done by County.
1
I support the underlying principles but I am concerned about the execution approach. The information about impacts related to associations I agree with but I also believe studies show that teaching approaches that work well with children from higher economic groups don't work well with children from lower ones. They also show that teaching approaches that work well with children from lower economic groups work well with all children. Does anyone know if that is good or bad?
1
"Decades of research show that poor children do much better academically in economically mixed classes than they do if they attend school only with other poor children."
Got to love the NYTimes for making grand claims to mobilize readers without one ounce of data. The 'decades' of research are very limited to short term measurements, and certainly not pre-K. They show that poor and rich children that attend 'great' schools do well; poor and rich do well together. But those schools are not our mainstream public schools. They are 'test' cases for social re-engineering.
This is the key problem I have with Progressives and socialism/communism. It always sounds good, but it never stops. Give an inch, and then you are asked for a mile. Sorry, but I would want my pre-K kid in a school close to home or not at all. No bussing, no interference by the social engineers that have never gotten it right all these years later. I bought it once, living in Detroit decades ago, but will not be fooled twice.
Got to love the NYTimes for making grand claims to mobilize readers without one ounce of data. The 'decades' of research are very limited to short term measurements, and certainly not pre-K. They show that poor and rich children that attend 'great' schools do well; poor and rich do well together. But those schools are not our mainstream public schools. They are 'test' cases for social re-engineering.
This is the key problem I have with Progressives and socialism/communism. It always sounds good, but it never stops. Give an inch, and then you are asked for a mile. Sorry, but I would want my pre-K kid in a school close to home or not at all. No bussing, no interference by the social engineers that have never gotten it right all these years later. I bought it once, living in Detroit decades ago, but will not be fooled twice.
18
Poor students are at a disadvantage when they arrive at school. They have heard few words, understand fewer words, may never have had a book read to them, and have fewer positive experiences like having gone to a museum.
Pre-kindergarten should be a time of remediation. This is an opportunity for the teachers to interact with the pupils, read to them, show them new experiences and bring them closer to what richer kids experience naturally. Poorer parents should be doing these things but some hold many jobs and don't have the time.
Putting these two groups together only wastes the time of the richer kids. They have to sit around waiting for something new to happen while the teacher is teaching to the lower level of education. It is not the job of the better educated kids to teach the others. It is their right to have an enriching educational experience. The poorer kids should be given the opportunity to learn what they should know but not at the expense of the kids who already know their ABCs. Segregation usually applies to race, but there are plenty of poor white kids who are disadvantaged too, so this should not be an issue.
Pre-kindergarten should be a time of remediation. This is an opportunity for the teachers to interact with the pupils, read to them, show them new experiences and bring them closer to what richer kids experience naturally. Poorer parents should be doing these things but some hold many jobs and don't have the time.
Putting these two groups together only wastes the time of the richer kids. They have to sit around waiting for something new to happen while the teacher is teaching to the lower level of education. It is not the job of the better educated kids to teach the others. It is their right to have an enriching educational experience. The poorer kids should be given the opportunity to learn what they should know but not at the expense of the kids who already know their ABCs. Segregation usually applies to race, but there are plenty of poor white kids who are disadvantaged too, so this should not be an issue.
22
Good grief - not only is racism alive and well in a country that should be well beyond it, but this?? "A 3-year-old at Brooklyn Explorers Academy preschool whose parents are paying $25,400 a year, for example, has preference for that center’s free pre-K seats in the fall." A three-year-old (style manual catch there, NY Times) in school? What happened to children having time to be children? What happened to the notion that unstructured time is critical in a child's development? Ah yes, toddlers are being prepared from the get go to be good regimented worker bees.
5
Sirs, good article but it runs deeper than this. We need to plan our cities to integrate not segregate. Rich and poor can co-exist, see what the Princes Foundation are achieving to that extent building cityscapes that engender civic pride across economic barriers. Our education system also needs a thorough overhaul. Mostly good teachers hampered by an ineffective bureaucracy and dragged backwards by the few ineffective ones. In Charleston SC, a privately funded Meeting St Academy has shown just what can be achieved with empowered teachers and well supported young children of mainly poor and African American backgrounds. It's quite amazing and stares in the face of accepted hype.
2
Our democracy can do nothing but improve all over if rich and poor children learn together. Hemphill and Potter deserve huge kudos for call attention to the need to mix our little ones so that they all benefit from mutual learning experiences. Let's make sure we do the mixing and don't end up with very little democracy and a great deal of one-percent-ism all over again.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. This isn't about rich and poor 'learning together.' This is about the fact that finding any good public school at any grade level in any state has become almost impossible. The sheer lunacy of the public education system is a joke. Try to find a neighborhood within the means of a family where both parents work and the family makes even as much as $150,000 where the schools are ranked high from K-12. Maybe in rural America, but not in any area where the population has any density at all.
The problem isn't rich or poor or black or white. It's the Dept. of Ed and the lousy state of education - changes that have occured in just the last 20 years. It's enough to make you scream. Or cry. Or both.
Get the politicians and the social engineering out of our school system now, and fire the 10% of teachers that are so bad it's a surprise they got a college degree so that the remaining 90% can do their jobs, the one's they 'used to' love.
The problem isn't rich or poor or black or white. It's the Dept. of Ed and the lousy state of education - changes that have occured in just the last 20 years. It's enough to make you scream. Or cry. Or both.
Get the politicians and the social engineering out of our school system now, and fire the 10% of teachers that are so bad it's a surprise they got a college degree so that the remaining 90% can do their jobs, the one's they 'used to' love.
14
it doesn't matter, to the unions and politicians, as long as salaries and perks of teachers. keep rising. a 12 year veteran in nyc now makes 84k + benefits. college graduates have caught on and these jobs are difficult to find. on top of that there is also college loan forgiveness. no matter what you are told it is a p/t job resembling more glorified babysitters then professionals. mix students with different learning backgrounds in the same class will lead to even less learning than now as teachers have to cope with the behavior of disruptive students in every class, instead of special classes for them.
5
Back in the 60's my then wife and I tried to enroll our children in a More Effective School in Jamaica, Queens. These MES schools rivaled the best public schools in staffing, equipment and curriculum, and they appeared racially integrated. Despite a school secretary who asked why we were doing this when the school was filled with ...(a derogatory Yiddish term for black people) we persisted until we learned that the Board of Education would not provide bus transportation for our children.
Good luck.
Good luck.
3
All this Utopia talk never works. What is more important for poor children than going to school with rich ones??? Having responsible parents.. Without a strong home base life is hard. My family life was an example.
32
Why stop there? Why not mandate low income housing on all high rent city blocks, and in suburban gated communities and exclusive high priced housing subdivisions. Make our "few percent" business owner nobility made obscenely wealthy by their flooding the US with 10's of millions of functionally illiterate immigrant parents they use as low wage slaves in their homes and businesses (and outsourcing manufacturing jobs overseas) live and suffer in the dumbed down two school grades, degraded crime-ridden
"gateway, diaspora" globalized ghettos that most working class and middle class citizens now are stuck in.
"gateway, diaspora" globalized ghettos that most working class and middle class citizens now are stuck in.
6
You must have missed this from yesterday, it's in the works. Just give them time to implement.
http://thehill.com/regulation/244620-obamas-bid-to-diversify-wealthy-nei...
"The Obama administration is moving forward with regulations designed to help diversify America’s wealthier neighborhoods, drawing fire from critics who decry the proposal as executive overreach in search of an “unrealistic utopia.”
A final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country.
The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities."
http://thehill.com/regulation/244620-obamas-bid-to-diversify-wealthy-nei...
"The Obama administration is moving forward with regulations designed to help diversify America’s wealthier neighborhoods, drawing fire from critics who decry the proposal as executive overreach in search of an “unrealistic utopia.”
A final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country.
The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities."
When Mark Zuckerberg gave $100 Million to New Jersey public schools, over $45 million immediately went to pay off unfunded pension liabilities… The remaining $55 million was siphoned off by consulting and research firms to determine “how best to utilize” the money. We can pour all the money we want into public education, but as long as we have corrupt unions and local politicians who have a stranglehold on resources- nothing will ever change the direction or outcome for these kids. In the meantime, it’s business as usual. The rich will have their schools, the poor will have their schools, the teachers and school superintendents will have their lifetime pensions and benefits and everyone will still complain about the lack of available money.
8
The unwillingness of upper middle class parents to mix with economically disadvantaged children has less to do with economics than with values and attitudes. Unfortunately, many poor and disadvantaged children come to school with behaviors, values and attitudes that are detrimental to a positive learning environment. Correct behaviors -- learned at home -- are integral to fostering a beneficial academic environment, and the influence of behaviors works both ways. If my child is in a class where the majority don't do their homework, have little respect for the authority figure in charge, and frequently resort to their fists with other students, those behaviors are likely to influence my child via peer pressure and his observation of what the classroom norm is. Having taught in both low-income and upper income school districts, I can tell you that negative behaviors are far, far worse in districts with low income populations.
It's not the wealth per se, it's all about attitudes and values. Place my child in a class of low income Asian immigrants with families that value education and hard work and you'll hear no complaints. Put my child in an environment of low income children of long term welfare recipients whose parents are more likely to be involved in criminal and academically counter-productive behaviors, and watch how quickly I pull my child out and enroll him in private school.
It's not the wealth per se, it's all about attitudes and values. Place my child in a class of low income Asian immigrants with families that value education and hard work and you'll hear no complaints. Put my child in an environment of low income children of long term welfare recipients whose parents are more likely to be involved in criminal and academically counter-productive behaviors, and watch how quickly I pull my child out and enroll him in private school.
25
When more than 25% of the students in an average sized class arrive significantly below the perceived starting point for that particular grade, the job of the teacher becomes unmanageable. There is no blame, classism, or excuse-making--it's just a fact that seems to be ignored. In order to get everyone up the mountain, we have to be sure those starting lower see a way to catch up or they will give up.
9
seems as though the ultimate goal is to take parents out of their childrens educational process. All hail big brother!
9
The biggest problem with education (public AND private) is the insistence that children of the same age learn the same topics together at the same rate. Some people learn faster than other people. Some people are more talented in some fields than others.
I was a very nice but extremely hyperactive inner city mixed-race boy who struggled in school in the 1970's. Luckily, the school counselor realized that I wasn't "bad" or "stupid"... I was bored. My same-aged peers were just too far behind me academically. So they allowed me to skip a grade. Later, I skipped another grade.
I thrived once I was in an environment with kids who were at my educational level (even though they were 2-3 calendar years older than me)
But I recall even in high school a good friend who was in 11th grade AP English (so a "smart" kid) but really struggled with Math. His true level was probably in the 7th or 8th grade. But he was forced forward due to his 11th grade age.
If we want more diverse classrooms, think about diversity in terms of age as well. It may be better to have a classroom with an advanced 4 year old from an affluent home together with a 6 year old child from a challenged home, as opposed to grouping 6 year old children by default.
as children learn required skills we can advance them. If they don't, they stay where they are.
It's better to repeat a grade and catch up, than to fall perpetually further behind as they force you forward before you're ready
I was a very nice but extremely hyperactive inner city mixed-race boy who struggled in school in the 1970's. Luckily, the school counselor realized that I wasn't "bad" or "stupid"... I was bored. My same-aged peers were just too far behind me academically. So they allowed me to skip a grade. Later, I skipped another grade.
I thrived once I was in an environment with kids who were at my educational level (even though they were 2-3 calendar years older than me)
But I recall even in high school a good friend who was in 11th grade AP English (so a "smart" kid) but really struggled with Math. His true level was probably in the 7th or 8th grade. But he was forced forward due to his 11th grade age.
If we want more diverse classrooms, think about diversity in terms of age as well. It may be better to have a classroom with an advanced 4 year old from an affluent home together with a 6 year old child from a challenged home, as opposed to grouping 6 year old children by default.
as children learn required skills we can advance them. If they don't, they stay where they are.
It's better to repeat a grade and catch up, than to fall perpetually further behind as they force you forward before you're ready
4
Wow, I am so incredibly disappointed in the lack of empathy on this forum. People are saying they don't want their kids "exposed" to other kids of different economic/social/cultural backgrounds, as if these factors are diseases that they don't want their own kids to catch. I, for one, don't want my kids to grow up in a sterile, homogeneous, upper middle class environment. Because that isn't what real life is like! I want my kids to learn from their peers, peers of all different backgrounds, so they can understand situations outside the narrow scope of the upper (middle) class. I don't want my kids to look down on ANYONE simply because their financial situation may not be as fortunate as ours. All children should be valued. So why shouldn't all children get an equal opportunity at education?
13
Amen. When Horace Mann made his mark from 1837-1848, he called what he was promoting not "the public school" but "the common school."
5
We are white, and had our daughter in a racially mixed public junior high school in District 2 in New York until the day I went for a parent-teacher conference and discovered the teacher had my daughter completely confused with another student. At that point, we bit the bullet, and she went to a prestigious private school in New York. We are not rich people, and private school meant four years of no vacations, and no extras whatsoever. I mean none. But parents do what they have to do when faced with teacher who doesn't know who their kid is.
Now that I've told that part of the story, here's the rest of it. On the first day my daughter came home from her new private school, she she said she hated it. "All the kids are white and rich," she said.
Her private school gave her a superb education--really, almost a college education--but even years later, she will remind us that at Trinity she was deeply unhappy because she missed the mix of students she had had in public school.
Now that I've told that part of the story, here's the rest of it. On the first day my daughter came home from her new private school, she she said she hated it. "All the kids are white and rich," she said.
Her private school gave her a superb education--really, almost a college education--but even years later, she will remind us that at Trinity she was deeply unhappy because she missed the mix of students she had had in public school.
35
You make a good point. but is it really true that you took your child out of public school (one which it turns out she liked) because a teacher confused her with another child? I don't get it, is this "code" for something? Just because one teacher was confused, what does that have to do with "public school"? Maybe you mean more?
2
There has to be a way to have quality schools that give "superb educations" and that also provide a "mix of students" that represents the diversity of America. There has to be a way.
It would cost more money, but so what? We're talking about the definition of what this country will BE for our grandchildren. Choose: too much of every kind of entertainment, military overreach, unbelievable accumulation by the 2%, or the kind of education Emile's daughter missed out on.
It would cost more money, but so what? We're talking about the definition of what this country will BE for our grandchildren. Choose: too much of every kind of entertainment, military overreach, unbelievable accumulation by the 2%, or the kind of education Emile's daughter missed out on.
Ironically if you live in suburbia, you are much more likely for find ethic and racial diversity in a good private school than you are in a public school as the private school.
“Decades of research show that poor children do much better academically in economically mixed classes than they do if they attend school only with other poor children. Research also shows that well-off children are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children.”
Well, isn’t that nice? The rich kids won't be harmed academically? How about they might actually become substantially more empathetic and knowledgeable about the lives of others? My kids attend an inner city K-12 public arts school. They were in public, govt-subsidized daycare before that. They learned from age 1 that not everyone can afford to live in nice houses or go skiing over spring break. Some live in tiny, decrepit apartments and have no means to learn how to ski. A family vacation probably means a few days at a camp site.
A friend in a wealthy town in the NY region recently complained to me about the burgeoning Latino population in their public school system. I asked if it was affecting the teaching or the crime rate. She said not that she was aware of. So what’s the problem? “Well, they’re… you know…”
No, I don’t know. I LOVE that my kids have friends of all races, religions and income levels. I abhor that so many don’t in the U.S., including my own nieces and nephews. Mix it up people! Everyone benefits hugely.
Well, isn’t that nice? The rich kids won't be harmed academically? How about they might actually become substantially more empathetic and knowledgeable about the lives of others? My kids attend an inner city K-12 public arts school. They were in public, govt-subsidized daycare before that. They learned from age 1 that not everyone can afford to live in nice houses or go skiing over spring break. Some live in tiny, decrepit apartments and have no means to learn how to ski. A family vacation probably means a few days at a camp site.
A friend in a wealthy town in the NY region recently complained to me about the burgeoning Latino population in their public school system. I asked if it was affecting the teaching or the crime rate. She said not that she was aware of. So what’s the problem? “Well, they’re… you know…”
No, I don’t know. I LOVE that my kids have friends of all races, religions and income levels. I abhor that so many don’t in the U.S., including my own nieces and nephews. Mix it up people! Everyone benefits hugely.
36
We need free public education from pre-K through college. A certain number of wealthy people are always going to send their privileged little kids to private schools, but if free, high quality public education is available from pre-K through college, most children will go there.
It's clear to me that the parents in the silk stocking districts of NYC should be forced to bus their children into schools serving underpriviledged kids in Harlem and the other boroughs.
Since many of the liberal elites of NYC send their children to private schools to avoid the hoi polloi, those schools should be taxed at a rate equal to the tuition, so they'd have to double the tuition and the money from the taxes could be used to pay for those buses.
It would be hilarious to see that many ,if not most, of these parents would willingly pay double the tuition--because they CAN afford it---, and they'd do anything to keep their kids out of the public schools they find so underfunded and segregated.
Social Justice has to be more than a liberal mantra, it must be experienced by all those who profess it to be their goal.
Since many of the liberal elites of NYC send their children to private schools to avoid the hoi polloi, those schools should be taxed at a rate equal to the tuition, so they'd have to double the tuition and the money from the taxes could be used to pay for those buses.
It would be hilarious to see that many ,if not most, of these parents would willingly pay double the tuition--because they CAN afford it---, and they'd do anything to keep their kids out of the public schools they find so underfunded and segregated.
Social Justice has to be more than a liberal mantra, it must be experienced by all those who profess it to be their goal.
7
Underfunded? New York City, along with Baltimore, has the highest investment per grade-school child in the U.S. But unfortunately, not even that has made a significant impact on classroom progress. Until both the children and families show that they genuinely care about learning, those that afford it will not want their children in an education-hostile environment.
5
Um, how about desegregating K-12?
4
I'm all for this. Putting students into mixed socioeconomic classrooms has a lot of significant and positive implications. For one not mentioned in this op-ed, integrating students with a variety of different economic backgrounds could improve the chances that negative connotations and stereotypes about others from other socioeconomic backgrounds would decrease. Typically a lot of the unfullfilled negative connotations are made when people don't have a thorough experience with those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Consequently, their perceptions then are more likely to become very biased and narrow. But, by integrating with both higher and lower socioeconomic status early on in the classroom, one can only hope that it would drastically improve these perceptions about others as we aim to have a better understanding and tolerance for everyone (no matter where they have come from).
1
Kudos to the Mayor Bill de Blasio! Ihope it takes off as planned. But you never know. We have a Governor who could scuttle everything by throwing a spanner in the works. And the tenacious politician he is, he might do it while smelling like roses.
5
The real educational segregation is a function of forcing families to only attend the school in their immediate neighborhood. How many families would prefer to attend a highly ranked K12 school vs the one that happens to be in the local district. All of the machinations about funding, busing and inequity would be significantly affected if parents could choose the school of their choice.
Every child could go to an above-average school, just like in Lake Woebegon.
3
Wrong. What happens is that middle class and upper middle class parents have no problem sending their kids to the "highly ranked" K12 school far away. But it's not so easy for the parents without means, or new immigrant families, who prefer having a school that is right in their neighborhoods. And when you are talking about pre-k and elementary school, there is no good reason to go out of neighborhood. Far better to invest money to make ALL neighborhood elementary schools good. The system you like ends up with the abandonment of the schools (and children) whose parents don't have the means or time to "choose" those out of neighborhood schools for their 5 year old.
Wrong - 50 years of failed policies based on forcing parents to send children to their local school, a doubling in real $ in the last decade in spending, Title I - meant to make up for the differences - a failure. The policy of apartheid schools is at best naive and at worst an attempt to prevent parents who do not have the means from accessing their wealthier neighbor's schools. Perhaps your same school of thought should be applied to colleges and hospitals. If you live in a good area, go to good colleges and have access to good healthcare. I am sure you would like to be poor and lives by those rules
My kids went PK through 12 in private school because dad was a teacher in these schools (so it was mostly free). Had the option of sending them to public school for about the same dollars! So I had to ask myself why I choose the private schools and came to this conclusion: when you buy into a school you buy 4 things - the physical environment (frankly 20 years ago the public schools were slightly better), the curriculum (most non-teachers don't know much about this), the teachers (you get good and bad teachers in every school) and finally their fellow students. I choose to send my kids to the private schools because it gave them the opportunity to sit next to other students who's parents felt that education was as important as I did. The conversation between students was not the bathroom humor of the prior night TV shows but, more likely "did you understand problem 6 on the math homework". Just sayin'!
12
We had a similar experience. A lot of what we paid for was "the peer group," but I'm not sure we made the correct choice (if there is one). The kid wound up comparatively isolated from those in the neighborhood and not really connected to the schoolmates who lived all over northwest Ohio.
I'm over 45, but I remember when my middle class school district started getting an influx of students that came from lower economic backgrounds. I was in the fifth grade. That was also the time the district decided to use "new learning methods" and mix all levels of children in one classroom. Previously there were three levels-you were in the level determined by your placement testing scores. One day the teacher began reading a fairy tale (yes a fairy tale) to us in class. I objected (my parents had read me these stories before I started school) and there was a child who had never heard the story. To put it politely, he had behavioral problems and most of us were scared of him. Because he wanted to hear the story, the rest of us had to hear it. I went home and told my mom. My mom was at school the next day. I had been in the "smart group" of kids and I deeply resented having to do lower level work because other kids were behind. The next year, I was in private school.
26
You were in 5th grade and couldn't bear to listen to a fairy tale being read aloud? And your parents found that grounds for complaining? Fairy tales are lovely stories with a message and it is certainly fine for a group of 10 year olds to hear one read aloud and discussed. How sad that you felt it was "below" you.
5
Well that's special.
2
" Research also shows that well-off children are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children."
This statement is not universally true as I can attest to. My daughter was attending an inner city school that was very racially integrated. Black boys would spit on my daughter, and at one point grabbed her glasses threw them on the floor and stepped on them. We went to the school administration which was primarily black requesting help. None was given. The only solution we were left with was moving to a suburb so that she could attend a school with less diversity. My daughter was so much happier and excelled in School, where before she was struggling.
Feel good "progressive" policies cause harm.
This statement is not universally true as I can attest to. My daughter was attending an inner city school that was very racially integrated. Black boys would spit on my daughter, and at one point grabbed her glasses threw them on the floor and stepped on them. We went to the school administration which was primarily black requesting help. None was given. The only solution we were left with was moving to a suburb so that she could attend a school with less diversity. My daughter was so much happier and excelled in School, where before she was struggling.
Feel good "progressive" policies cause harm.
75
Was the problem that these other students were poor, or that they were undisciplined (at home and at school), poorly taught and poorly superivsed the administration, and with too high a pupil/teacher ratio?
These latter problems are correctable at school. Poverty is not correctable unless we modify our economic system.
These latter problems are correctable at school. Poverty is not correctable unless we modify our economic system.
1
Aside from the obvious logical fallacy illustrated by the generalization made in your final statement that follows the single instance you cite, your story illustrates that your true agenda is to keep you daughter away from those n!$#%'s. The bullies you describe were bullies regardless of whether they were black or white. Would you have moved if they were white? Probably not.
1
There were a combination of problems one of which was black on white racism, a school administration that refused to impose discipline allowing if not encouraging the abuse my daughter suffered. How are children going to learn in an environment like that? Luckily I had the resources to escape - I sympathize with others that didn’t.
1
Why should we do that? If that occurs the more fortunate children may learn that it's not the norm for everyone to have 3 meals a day, a clean safe place to live, parents who care, safe streets to walk on, and extra-curricular enrichment like trips to museums, to plays, or vacations away from home. Then they may learn that working hard doesn't always lead to a good life. They might start to ask inconvenient questions about equality, skin color, religion, and income distribution. Next thing you know they might slip into being compassionate but not conservative. No, we can't have our children sharing classroom space with those born to less fortunate parents. Better that they should be educated with their own socioeconomic peers and never see the less fortunate side of life where children and parents worry about surviving the present.
On the other hand, if we don't want to have extremes in our society or our schools, we could support a system where all schools, regardless of where they are, have to meet the same standards, are a haven from the outside world, and support learning no matter what the child's intelligence or economic status is. And we could stop spending on sports fields for football, baseball, etc. Build better playgrounds, put in some better academic courses, and hire better teachers, not more admins.
On the other hand, if we don't want to have extremes in our society or our schools, we could support a system where all schools, regardless of where they are, have to meet the same standards, are a haven from the outside world, and support learning no matter what the child's intelligence or economic status is. And we could stop spending on sports fields for football, baseball, etc. Build better playgrounds, put in some better academic courses, and hire better teachers, not more admins.
5
It's not just pre-k. The schools in NYC are mostly economically segregated. The system is apparently set up that way. And then we blame teachers for getting the same old results in the 'poor schools.
2
Neighborhoods are economically segregated. Since Reagan, the entire country has become much more economically segregated.
If schools are to somehow overcome this, the very people who engineer the economic segregation will have to give the schools far more resources. Or those people will have to be removed from power.
If schools are to somehow overcome this, the very people who engineer the economic segregation will have to give the schools far more resources. Or those people will have to be removed from power.
1
Conservatives like to talk about Ben Carson's rags to riches story and it is indeed admirable.
It's interesting to see how many of those same people would never want someone like young Ben Carson (poor and black) in their kid's classroom.
It's interesting to see how many of those same people would never want someone like young Ben Carson (poor and black) in their kid's classroom.
9
Both of our daughters attended public schools in Framingham, MA. The schools are mixed both economically and racially. The north side of town has multi-million dollar homes, and the south side has many poor people and a large immigrant population. Our daughters also attended family day care from infancy on. Most but not all of the kids in day care were white; some were working class, some were not; some kids were blind, had cerebral palsy, were somewhere on the autism spectrum, and a couple had single moms who were thirteen.
Many kids who graduated from Framingham High go on to attend Ivies, and more to the point, the graduation rate of all students is high. Many of the teachers our daughters had were fabulous. Both our daughters attended Barnard. One is now in medical school, and the other is a college professor and published author whose last novel was widely and well reviewed. Their experiences growing up with many different kinds of kids gave them an education and understanding of the world they would never have had in a more socially segregated town. Sadly, the Framingham schools have never gotten the recognition they deserve for doing a great job educating everyone. Bill Clinton visited the Framingham schools during his first term because the system looks like "the face of America." How sad that this is very rare.
Many kids who graduated from Framingham High go on to attend Ivies, and more to the point, the graduation rate of all students is high. Many of the teachers our daughters had were fabulous. Both our daughters attended Barnard. One is now in medical school, and the other is a college professor and published author whose last novel was widely and well reviewed. Their experiences growing up with many different kinds of kids gave them an education and understanding of the world they would never have had in a more socially segregated town. Sadly, the Framingham schools have never gotten the recognition they deserve for doing a great job educating everyone. Bill Clinton visited the Framingham schools during his first term because the system looks like "the face of America." How sad that this is very rare.
27
Pre-K "education" is nothing more than subsidized, socialized day-care for 4 year olds whose parents do either cannot or DO NOT WANT to pay for it. Let's not kid ourselves; we've had decades and billions of dollars of Head Start and what has that brought? Nothing positive supported by objective data. So deBlasio thinks we need more???
8
Yes, the gains are lost. However, the early exposure counteracts what they don't get at home: a rich verbal environment where adults pay positive attention to them. Why shouldn't we offer that to every child no matter what income the parents make?
2
Here in SF, almost all children are sent to schools across town, resulting in 30-60 minute one way commutes, and they have no classmates to play with near their home. What a terrific way to stress out kids from an early age.
20
Offering priority pre-k enrollment to the kids enrolled in the 3y programs is imho totally legit. 3y private programs were quite scarce the last year before the UPK really took off - it's the opening of the new pre-k centers that led some preschools to expand the 3y programs, and reducing the 4y programs. It probably took a lot of effort (and some luck) to score a seat in a 3y program , so is it fair to let the families lose it? Also, I don't think it is good for my kids to change the school each year, do you?
Also, K280 is quite an exception in the sense that it accepts 400 kids in a single location, so there's room to accept kids from several neighborhoods where the local resources are insufficient - at the expense of often inconvenient commute. Most local pre-k programs are not like that - there are quite a few but small ones, with 1 or 2 pre-k classes that are easily filled with kids two or three blocks away, so there's basically no commute for the busy parents.
I think having a preschool/pre-k in a house for 15 kids with a garden/backyard, where you can walk them easily, is actually the ideal situation. K280 is a good solution where the former is not feasible. But destroying the ideal by distributing kids among small schools far away from their homes is certainly a bad idea (and it adds to already overly busy NYC traffic).
Also, K280 is quite an exception in the sense that it accepts 400 kids in a single location, so there's room to accept kids from several neighborhoods where the local resources are insufficient - at the expense of often inconvenient commute. Most local pre-k programs are not like that - there are quite a few but small ones, with 1 or 2 pre-k classes that are easily filled with kids two or three blocks away, so there's basically no commute for the busy parents.
I think having a preschool/pre-k in a house for 15 kids with a garden/backyard, where you can walk them easily, is actually the ideal situation. K280 is a good solution where the former is not feasible. But destroying the ideal by distributing kids among small schools far away from their homes is certainly a bad idea (and it adds to already overly busy NYC traffic).
Good. Luck. This strikes at the very heart of our insidious but powerful class system.
4
I can't believe the selfishness and cruelty of the comments here. I am so glad I never raised children in this country, nor do I want to be here after I turn 65. We are here on this earth to help one another. I have no children and I don't mind my taxes funding public schools, I don't mind my co-workers taking PTO to attend to family matters and I don't mind helping those less fortunate than me. Life takes funny turns - one day you're well off, the next day you may be begging on the streets of Manhattan. Let's just hope that day never comes, but if it does, remember your words.
65
Reading your comment...you have never raised children in this country, consequently have no personal experience in the matter. And, you dislike this country so much you don't want to be here but lack the courage to leave now. Instead, you will suffer until you can retire and move. Then you can draw benefits from this country while you hate it from afar.
'...I am so glad I never raised children in this country...'
Since you don't have any personal experience with these issues, your opinion is purely theoretical.
Since you don't have any personal experience with these issues, your opinion is purely theoretical.
Universal Pre-K is simply another way for lazy parents to pawn off their kids on the school system and to get other people to pay for it. If you decide to have kids, how about bearing the full cost of your decision, rather than requiring the rest of us to assume your financial burden at age 4?
6
When those kids grow up, work and pay taxes, they're going to be paying into the system that sustains you in old age.
5
Paul,
I couldn't agree with you more. I would only add that you should plan to fully fund your existence during your productive years. Please avoid sponging off those same kids if you fail.
I couldn't agree with you more. I would only add that you should plan to fully fund your existence during your productive years. Please avoid sponging off those same kids if you fail.
1
DR & Conservative Catholic: Cry me a river. By the way, I have fully funded my own retirement with savings, which I am now enjoying after 40 years of hard work. When I decide to take Social Security, I will simply be reclaiming the money that I and my employers pumped into the system. A system by the way that the U.s. government has borrowed against time and again to pay its bills due to deficit spending. Pre-K is what it is: a welfare system for derelict parents.
1
When I was a teenager growing up in San Francisco in the 60's my lower working class family lived a couple of miles from the richest people in the City. We all went to public school together and all of us benefitted from that. Now there are very few poor people left in the City and even the middle class try to send their kids to private school. The University of California at Berkeley where I got a wonderful education from college through one of the best law schools in the US is now a public school in name only, further reinforcing the economic divide. (I tell my kids that a kid like I was would have a very tough time today. Young people from my law school now graduate with a combined undergrad/law school debt of $250,000. How will they ever dig out from that?) "Back office workers" were moved by companies from the City to the far suburbs in the 80's. Now those jobs have been sent to the mid-west while still supporting the white collar jobs in the City. The factory workers are now all overseas. The segregation is more and more extreme, physical and economic. We are all the worse for it.
12
"If you want children from different economic conditions to attend school together (as I do), you should use uniforms or strict dress codes to reduce the obvious inequalities. That technique has worked for decades across the World, and it should be part of the NYC school system, too."
what you don't mention that in africa unlike the US , uniforms , school supplies and lunches are paid for by poor parents. the children understand the sacrifices their parents are making for their education and are motivated.. in the US the poor receive everything for nothing. we can see the chaotic results, when the poor have to do nothing to receive their education and have no skin in the game.
what you don't mention that in africa unlike the US , uniforms , school supplies and lunches are paid for by poor parents. the children understand the sacrifices their parents are making for their education and are motivated.. in the US the poor receive everything for nothing. we can see the chaotic results, when the poor have to do nothing to receive their education and have no skin in the game.
6
I am a veteran of the busing wars of the''70s. Vicious stuff, and we pro-busers were wrong. Sitting next to Sally Sue was not the answer to segregation. Getting Sally Sue's money was. Leveling out per pupil spending is only the first step to academic parity. But ignoring that step and 'forcing' diversity is stupid. Thank you Bill. Your idea is nice, but we've tried it before, and now we'd rather have cash.
6
Not all poor students are black, and certainly do not uniformly display a lack of desire to learn and take their studies seriously.
If it costs $32,000/ year per student for public school, while a whopping $60,000/ year per incarcerated inmate in New York State, (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/citys-annual-cost-per-inmate-... it appears that cash is a big part of the answer. More of it. Social programs, vocational training, sex education and personal management classes that teach the basics of household saving and budgeting would be a great start.
If NY state is willing to spend more per person on incarceration than most Americans make in a year, I don't see the logic in attempting to withhold an alternative that is 50% cheaper. I believe that examination of these figures will expose both the economic and social undesirability of locking someone up rather than ensuring that they become productive, tax-paying members of society. If there is potentially $28,000 dollars more per student, per year, to ensure that they stay on the right track it should be put to use. It is a no brainer. The problems start in the home and in the neighborhood, but many can be mitigated and prevented through the teaching of important life skills as well as the development of ambition to learn and achieve.
If it costs $32,000/ year per student for public school, while a whopping $60,000/ year per incarcerated inmate in New York State, (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/citys-annual-cost-per-inmate-... it appears that cash is a big part of the answer. More of it. Social programs, vocational training, sex education and personal management classes that teach the basics of household saving and budgeting would be a great start.
If NY state is willing to spend more per person on incarceration than most Americans make in a year, I don't see the logic in attempting to withhold an alternative that is 50% cheaper. I believe that examination of these figures will expose both the economic and social undesirability of locking someone up rather than ensuring that they become productive, tax-paying members of society. If there is potentially $28,000 dollars more per student, per year, to ensure that they stay on the right track it should be put to use. It is a no brainer. The problems start in the home and in the neighborhood, but many can be mitigated and prevented through the teaching of important life skills as well as the development of ambition to learn and achieve.
1
Very good assessment of the issue. I'd suggested for those interested in income divide and its impact on education to read "I Got Schooled" by M. Night Shyamalan. It does a great job of looking at the issue and the research we need to understand.
Here is a video link of him discussing the book:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=v...
Here is a video link of him discussing the book:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=v...
2
The NY Times should lead the way by example.
The NY Times could hire people with low writing skills and poor language comprehension to work alongside its journalists. Their articles could be published as well, irrespective of quality, as their self-esteem would be enhanced by having their articles in the newspaper too.
The NY Times could hire people with low writing skills and poor language comprehension to work alongside its journalists. Their articles could be published as well, irrespective of quality, as their self-esteem would be enhanced by having their articles in the newspaper too.
45
Worse.
After they hire the unqualified people, the more competent staff will be forced to do their work, while pretending that the illiterate staff's work deserves a gold star, because everyone is special in their own unique way.
After they hire the unqualified people, the more competent staff will be forced to do their work, while pretending that the illiterate staff's work deserves a gold star, because everyone is special in their own unique way.
1
The only people who think this is a good idea are those who have never lived in a poor neighborhood, where the majority of children are born to single mothers on welfare, an indication of irresponsibility and the lack of impulse control. While it is not the fault of the children to have been born to hapless parents, it is absolutely the fault of the parents.
Here is what happens to poor neighborhoods over time: The best and the brightest move out as soon as they can, leaving the elderly, the sick, and the unmotivated and sociopathic behind. This goes on for generations, until the percentage of the worst of society preying on the rest is higher than the norm.
This was just as true during the Boom decades, when blue collar jobs paid a living wage, as it is today, so it has nothing to do with the bad economy.
The attitude that not only will someone else will fix all your problems, but someone else is *responsible* for fixing all your problems, is the primary reason that some families stay in subsidized housing for generation upon generation. (To anyone who thinks this is a 'black problem', in UK housing projects, almost all white, families stay in the same housing blocks for so many generations there are problems with inbreeding.)
No middle class person of *any* race wants to be around people such as that or, sad to say, their children, who learned this self-defeating and toxic attitude in the cradle and carry it with them their entire lives.
Here is what happens to poor neighborhoods over time: The best and the brightest move out as soon as they can, leaving the elderly, the sick, and the unmotivated and sociopathic behind. This goes on for generations, until the percentage of the worst of society preying on the rest is higher than the norm.
This was just as true during the Boom decades, when blue collar jobs paid a living wage, as it is today, so it has nothing to do with the bad economy.
The attitude that not only will someone else will fix all your problems, but someone else is *responsible* for fixing all your problems, is the primary reason that some families stay in subsidized housing for generation upon generation. (To anyone who thinks this is a 'black problem', in UK housing projects, almost all white, families stay in the same housing blocks for so many generations there are problems with inbreeding.)
No middle class person of *any* race wants to be around people such as that or, sad to say, their children, who learned this self-defeating and toxic attitude in the cradle and carry it with them their entire lives.
30
One of the countries with the top school systems in the world has no private schools and all children attend together, rich and poor alike. This country also has far less inequality both economically and socially and the people are ranked among the top 5 in happiness in the world. It's Finland. What would it hurt to take a trip there and do everything in our power to learn from them and adapt as much as possible in our schools and society. How long would it take with all our supposed Yankee ingenuity to duplicate their success. Not long I would wager.
Oh wait. They also don't have the plutocrats, tea party, and divisive money in politics. My bad. Change that to it would be wonderful but it might never happen here. The wealthy who run things here would have too much to lose.
Oh wait. They also don't have the plutocrats, tea party, and divisive money in politics. My bad. Change that to it would be wonderful but it might never happen here. The wealthy who run things here would have too much to lose.
12
Yours is not an apt comparison. Finland has a largely homogenous population.
3
they don't have america's drug problems. and america's racial diversity. the same goes for japan, korea and taiwan
5
Charles and SW, that's a red herring. We don't want to do it. We don't want to mix. We want to single out THOSE PEOPLE as not worthy of decent schools, decent places to live, etc. However, if we really wanted to we could have a much better educational system and a better social safety net. We keep on electing representatives who don't want it and who are using every means possible to have us squabble with each other rather than trying to make better lives for ourselves, our children and all of America.
1
You want Sasha and that other Obama kid to be forced to mingle with the commoners?Come on.
8
Politicians have security issues that other families don't have to deal with.
It doesn't matter what political party the person is, when things like secret service are a necessary fact of life it makes sense to put your kids in a smaller school with a more controlled environment.
It doesn't matter what political party the person is, when things like secret service are a necessary fact of life it makes sense to put your kids in a smaller school with a more controlled environment.
2
If people didn't know that Sasha and Malia were the president's children they might not get the same respect they are getting now. People who are racist would just see them as black teenagers with all they think that means. When the president won his second term, students at the U of Mississippi paraded with placards that they didn't want a n-word in the White House.
As for going to public school, Jimmy Carter did that with his daughter and it was a big problem for the secret service.
As for going to public school, Jimmy Carter did that with his daughter and it was a big problem for the secret service.
1
I met Gunnar Myrdal in graduate school. Dr. Myrdal wrote the classic book on race in America in the early 1940s titled “An American Dilemma.” I asked him about early education for kids and he replied that such efforts would never be successful unless an accompanying effort was made for adult education. Pre-k education without also educating the parents, partners, single parent, etc will be a waste of money for NYC. Mark you calendars and read this posting in 3 years and see if I'm right.
5
Through the experience of Pre-K with rich and poor together both will see the other as more humanized. While this will not override the disparity it has a chance to open each sides eyes it will result in some minor shifts.
Our society moves in small steps and as inconsequential as this may seem it can begin the building of cross cultural bridges and ladders.
Our society moves in small steps and as inconsequential as this may seem it can begin the building of cross cultural bridges and ladders.
3
Why are the 'poor kids' dirtier and more beaten up in the illustration,
I ask knowing the ungenerous, classicist answer?
I ask knowing the ungenerous, classicist answer?
2
My kid attended VPK program in a non-profit facility whose client base income was low enough to qualify for a federal program that provided breakfast and lunch for FREE to ALL students. If I could have afforded it, I would have sent her to the pricey Montessori school down the block (literally), but that was not an option, and Oh what good luck that turned out to be. Two superb teachers taught my kid's economically-challenged VPK class their ABC's and cultivated an appreciation for cafeteria-style sloppy joes. My 4-year-old picked up from her classmates a little bit of Creole, a lot of Spanish, a few Polish curse words and an interest in how to write Chinese characters. Seven years later, it is wonderful to observe that the 'advanced class' at her public middle school is populated largely with the children of local doctors, pastors, lawyers -- and around half a dozen students from that amazing VPK class. The goal of breaking down economic segregation in schools is admirable, but in the meantime, it's reassuring to know that student success can and does happen on the way to that ideal...
2
Funny how liberal elites always send their children to elite, private schools. Including President Obama. Then they turn around and demand the rest of us send our kids to poor schools for the good of community.
23
Did G.W.'s kids or the children of any other Republican politician go to public schools?
When your position requires your family to have secret service protection it doesn't make sense to try to manage that in a large public school.
When your position requires your family to have secret service protection it doesn't make sense to try to manage that in a large public school.
1
Every child's life and schooling matters. Most of us want our children to be safe and learn as much as possible while at school. If you're okay with Obama and Bush sending their kids to Sidwell Friends, then you're probably ok with Wall Street tycoons doing the same for their kids. No exceptions for the rich while the politicians tell middle class parents to send their kids to substandard schools for the "good" of the community.
SW - How many bankers kid's have secret service protection?
1
My job as a parent is to help my children succeed. I am willing to tolerate your notiions of social engineering only until it impacts my children's future. They well above average academically. They benefit the most from learning with other children as talented or moreso. Their academic progress would suffer with daily exposure to less talented students and in the time lost where the teacher has to deal with discipline issues.
This was the same idea behind forced busing, an equally detrimnental idea.
The authors don't say if they have school age children and whether they are taking the medicine they prescribe for others. I suspect not.
This was the same idea behind forced busing, an equally detrimnental idea.
The authors don't say if they have school age children and whether they are taking the medicine they prescribe for others. I suspect not.
14
You are automatically equating talent with socioeconomic status, I see.
3
Children of lower income households need quality schools and learning opportunities made available to them as early as possible. I'm all for it! Just as long as they aren't sharing the same school as my kids!
2
Those 'learning opportunities' should have been 'made available to them as early as possible' by their parents reading to them from the time they were babies.
2
When you purchase a home you buy one in the best school district you can afford. What that really means is that you are looking for an environment where the parents are active in the program and the children are motivated and prepared.
What I have witnessed in my own elementary school is that children from less privileged homes act out more and make it difficult for the teachers to teach. The old "to Sir with Love" story is what drives economic flight and creates the segregation. My district is tiny and there are few of these bad behavior kids to navigate around but these "missiles" as I call them effect the whole class and if you can get out or around you are better off. In a larger district with more missiles it is impossible so you try to "test out" because those kids will not be in the more challenging classes.
We have to address the behavioral issues. We have to have a policy to address it and that doesn't mean segregating them or counseling them out or sending them somewhere else. We have to deal with it and change the behavior. Money, resources, longer days, full year.....unfortunately we have to take them out of the environment that is not helping..as much as possible.
What I have witnessed in my own elementary school is that children from less privileged homes act out more and make it difficult for the teachers to teach. The old "to Sir with Love" story is what drives economic flight and creates the segregation. My district is tiny and there are few of these bad behavior kids to navigate around but these "missiles" as I call them effect the whole class and if you can get out or around you are better off. In a larger district with more missiles it is impossible so you try to "test out" because those kids will not be in the more challenging classes.
We have to address the behavioral issues. We have to have a policy to address it and that doesn't mean segregating them or counseling them out or sending them somewhere else. We have to deal with it and change the behavior. Money, resources, longer days, full year.....unfortunately we have to take them out of the environment that is not helping..as much as possible.
8
Whatever we do let's not think about what will be the most economical and beneficial for the kids.
Let's just initiate another boondoggle of a program just to say we did it. That's what count's when it comes to liberal policies.
If there aren't enough buses then get some limos.
Let's just initiate another boondoggle of a program just to say we did it. That's what count's when it comes to liberal policies.
If there aren't enough buses then get some limos.
5
I wonder how many advocates of "mixed" social education actually experienced it as children?
I did. I would not wish it on others.
I did. I would not wish it on others.
16
For a few years, I attended PS 33 in Manhattan. The student body was a mix of kids whose parents could afford rent and groceries and kids whose parents couldn't -- mostly the latter.
In second grade, I was the only student who could read. Bullies ruled; screamers weren't silenced; nothing good was accomplished. I played hooky often, and got away with it because my alcoholic parents had other things to tend to.
By the third grade, I was put into an IGC (intellectually gifted children) class. We read, wrote poetry, made model airplanes and invented math games, solved physics problems, found solutions to problems we hadn't known existed.
No intelligent child should have to suffer by being lumped together with kids who are less able to learn. Put the kids together according to their abilities, not their parents' purses.
In second grade, I was the only student who could read. Bullies ruled; screamers weren't silenced; nothing good was accomplished. I played hooky often, and got away with it because my alcoholic parents had other things to tend to.
By the third grade, I was put into an IGC (intellectually gifted children) class. We read, wrote poetry, made model airplanes and invented math games, solved physics problems, found solutions to problems we hadn't known existed.
No intelligent child should have to suffer by being lumped together with kids who are less able to learn. Put the kids together according to their abilities, not their parents' purses.
2
A research paper titled "From all walks of life - New hope for school integration" may not be the most objective research to make the claim that mixing poor kids with rich kids helps the poor kids with no adverse impact on the rich kids.
Universal education, mainstreaming special needs students, and integrated classrooms with a range of gifted and troubled students must cause a regression to the mean. Looking back on my own education, as well as the experiences of my wife - a 20-year veteran of Pre-K and Kindergarten in Detroit schools, everything I know says that a teacher will spend 80% of their time dealing with the worst 20% of students at the expense of the best students. She had to expel a kindergartner this year - unbelievably disruptive and violent. The other students modeled his bad behavior - the class is still suffering 3 months after he is gone.
I am in favor of a more egalitarian society in principle, but if my child were a gifted honor student, my educational goal would be to maximize their achievement. They may be a great role model to other students, lifting others up, but I can't believe they wouldn't be held back in any way in the process.
Universal education, mainstreaming special needs students, and integrated classrooms with a range of gifted and troubled students must cause a regression to the mean. Looking back on my own education, as well as the experiences of my wife - a 20-year veteran of Pre-K and Kindergarten in Detroit schools, everything I know says that a teacher will spend 80% of their time dealing with the worst 20% of students at the expense of the best students. She had to expel a kindergartner this year - unbelievably disruptive and violent. The other students modeled his bad behavior - the class is still suffering 3 months after he is gone.
I am in favor of a more egalitarian society in principle, but if my child were a gifted honor student, my educational goal would be to maximize their achievement. They may be a great role model to other students, lifting others up, but I can't believe they wouldn't be held back in any way in the process.
13
Putting students that come from a variety of different economic backgrounds could also have other significant positive implications. For one, integrating students with a variety of different economic backgrounds will likely improve the chances that negative connotations and stereotypes about others from other socioeconomic backgrounds could decrease. For example, students that are from higher socioeconomic backgrounds that are integrated into schools with students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may be less inclined to think when they are older that people that are in lower socioeconomic backgrounds are not there because they are lazy or unintelligent. Typically a lot of these connotations are made when people don't have a thorough experience with those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds which consequently inhibits their perceptions to ones that are likely biased and very narrow. But, by integrating with both higher and lower socioeconomic status early on in the classroom, one can only hope that it would drastically improve these perceptions about others as we aim to have a better understanding and tolerance for everyone (no matter where they have come from).
2
'...people that are in lower socioeconomic backgrounds are not there because they are lazy or unintelligent...'
But some of them are and to deny this is not at all helpful.
Some of the people from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, those who inherited their wealth, are also lazy or unintelligent, but being rich means life will be easier.
However, that is only 1% of Americans. If a person starts out middle class and is lazy or unintelligent, odds are good they will be downwardly mobile and wind up just as poor as if they were born to it.
But some of them are and to deny this is not at all helpful.
Some of the people from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, those who inherited their wealth, are also lazy or unintelligent, but being rich means life will be easier.
However, that is only 1% of Americans. If a person starts out middle class and is lazy or unintelligent, odds are good they will be downwardly mobile and wind up just as poor as if they were born to it.
2
I really am agog at some of these comments. Pre-school should be about play and learning through play. Reading comes naturally to those exposed to books by parents and teachers who read to them. Reading by workbook and instruction should NOT be part of a pre-school program. Whether children can read before age 5 or not, the point of being in a pre-school classroom is to learn social skills and build academic skills through play: building towers with cardboard bricks, digging to China in the sandbox, singing songs, sharing snacks, sharing toys, hearing stories told by classmates, seeing and listening to show and tell, learning to speak clearly so others understand. Children are children. Let them play with each other and teach each other.
7
"Decades of research show that poor children do much better academically in economically mixed classes than they do if they attend school only with other poor children. Research also shows that well-off children are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children."
That's some kind of statement there. If a "well-off" (NY Times' words) child is sent to a classroom full of "poor children" (NY Times' words), the well off child will not be harmed academically (or otherwise)?
What is the tipping point where this engineering experiment does harm the "well-off" child? Who will insure it is not reached?
Or do you just toss out the Petri dish and try some other scheme?
That's some kind of statement there. If a "well-off" (NY Times' words) child is sent to a classroom full of "poor children" (NY Times' words), the well off child will not be harmed academically (or otherwise)?
What is the tipping point where this engineering experiment does harm the "well-off" child? Who will insure it is not reached?
Or do you just toss out the Petri dish and try some other scheme?
5
I don't mind letting rich and poor learn together as long as:
- Disruptive students are kicked out of the class, and out of school, if they don't calm down
- Violence, let alone gang membership, will get students expelled
- Students are expected to keep up with the class, and if they don't, they are expelled, no matter the excuses
- Sexual harassment is not tolerated
- Drugs are not tolerated
The problem with "poor" schools is not poverty itself; the problem is that "poor" students turn it into some sort of institution that has nothing to do with education.
- Disruptive students are kicked out of the class, and out of school, if they don't calm down
- Violence, let alone gang membership, will get students expelled
- Students are expected to keep up with the class, and if they don't, they are expelled, no matter the excuses
- Sexual harassment is not tolerated
- Drugs are not tolerated
The problem with "poor" schools is not poverty itself; the problem is that "poor" students turn it into some sort of institution that has nothing to do with education.
13
You will never get your criteria through DOE, which remains counseling-based. As a former NYC teacher, there are children so damaged by their socio-economic conditions in the home that at twelve their eyes are empty. Our country is not willing to expend the funds or do the hard work that can turn this around. I had a dean once say, "Sometimes I don't know how these kids get out of bed in the morning." This was the environment a wonderful, talented group of teachers worked in. And when one of our children was murdered on the street, we all attended the funeral. As a society, we need a bigger vision as well as a recognition of what we as a people have done.
1
If our job as parents is to prepare our children for the "real world", then we must make peace with it first and plot a pathway through it that we can pass onto our children. There are no "perfect people" who will magically keep your children safe and insure their success in life other than you. In my experience Affluenza is just as frightening as poverty.
3
'...In my experience Affluenza is just as frightening as poverty...'
Then you must have never lived in a poor neighborhood.
Then you must have never lived in a poor neighborhood.
We've reached an American era where 'rich and poor learning together' has become a radical and impossible proposition. The prevailing self-interest of the rich and the near-rich has become immutable. Our children will continue to sit in class segregated classrooms and know no other world. Shame on us.
4
My state just passed a voucher law. Parents can now get $5000, near the average per pupil spending in the public schools, and use it to subsidize private and home schooling.
I worked with a woman who had an interesting story.
She was born into poverty, the daughter of a severely mentally ill woman. She was also part of a program that sent kids from her neighborhood to an elementary school in a better part of town.
She remembered being on the bus and noticing the homes getting nicer and nicer as they got closer to the school. She said at the age of five she linked together the idea that a nice school meant living in a nice area.
She left home at the age of 14 fearing that she would end up in foster care. Against all odds she managed to take care of herself, get her GED and then go onto college where she got a degree in Geology. She went on to work at one of the biggest and best environmental engineering firms in the country.
I've never forgotten her story. While she obviously had some exceptional qualities that allowed her to rise above her circumstances, she was also given early exposure to good education and it gave her the insight and inspiration that guided her.
She was born into poverty, the daughter of a severely mentally ill woman. She was also part of a program that sent kids from her neighborhood to an elementary school in a better part of town.
She remembered being on the bus and noticing the homes getting nicer and nicer as they got closer to the school. She said at the age of five she linked together the idea that a nice school meant living in a nice area.
She left home at the age of 14 fearing that she would end up in foster care. Against all odds she managed to take care of herself, get her GED and then go onto college where she got a degree in Geology. She went on to work at one of the biggest and best environmental engineering firms in the country.
I've never forgotten her story. While she obviously had some exceptional qualities that allowed her to rise above her circumstances, she was also given early exposure to good education and it gave her the insight and inspiration that guided her.
3
It is really tough to argue, at least in any sort of compellingly way, that rich and poor 4 year olds ought to be segregated by economic class in the same school. If teachers can't accomodate different levels of preparedeness and learning styles among 4 years olds...we are doomed as a society.
That being said, I have sent my 4 year child to a moderately expensive pre-k/daycare program since he was 2. He's been with the same kids and has been with at least one of the same two teachers the entire time; which is a really good thing for child development. We've seen the benefits. My four year old (with a lot of work at home) can now read chapter books, do math, and interact appropriately with peers. He also happy.
He has one more year of Pre-k and I would be horribly upset if his seat weren't preserved at his school. After all, we have made such an effort to truly make it "his" school. Implying no one would "really" be hurt by reshuffling is preposterous.
I am also skeptical of stats that show no negative impact on kids based on classroom makeup. Anyone who has spent time in a classroom with disruptive kids knows this contention is absurd. My suspiscion is that the metric that they are using is insufficient to capture lost potential. I realize that my kid would probably get a perfect score on a 4 year old's assessment no matter what. However, he can also pass a 2nd grade assesment, which wouldn't be likely in a class filled with disruptive peers.
That being said, I have sent my 4 year child to a moderately expensive pre-k/daycare program since he was 2. He's been with the same kids and has been with at least one of the same two teachers the entire time; which is a really good thing for child development. We've seen the benefits. My four year old (with a lot of work at home) can now read chapter books, do math, and interact appropriately with peers. He also happy.
He has one more year of Pre-k and I would be horribly upset if his seat weren't preserved at his school. After all, we have made such an effort to truly make it "his" school. Implying no one would "really" be hurt by reshuffling is preposterous.
I am also skeptical of stats that show no negative impact on kids based on classroom makeup. Anyone who has spent time in a classroom with disruptive kids knows this contention is absurd. My suspiscion is that the metric that they are using is insufficient to capture lost potential. I realize that my kid would probably get a perfect score on a 4 year old's assessment no matter what. However, he can also pass a 2nd grade assesment, which wouldn't be likely in a class filled with disruptive peers.
2
I teach in an urban public school.
My advice to middle-class parents: don't put your child in my school.
95% of my students live with struggling, low-income adults. Half the adults are struggling because they are here illegally, they don't speak or read English and they have no skills. Sending their child to a math camp, regardless of how bright the child is, isn't even on the radar. Their children lag behind.
The other half of the adults struggle because they abuse alcohol or drugs, they have extreme psychological issues, and they don't work. Their children tend to be very disruptive (who can blame them) but the new pc is that minority children cannot be disciplined or suspended (and they aren't given counseling, either).
A rested, fed middle-class child from a stable home with a broader range of experiences and knowledge will not be challenged or grow academically at schools like mine where 95% of the kids are far below grade level. They will not benefit and honestly, neither will the low-income kids who are so mired in the subsidized dysfunction of their own homes.
My advice to middle-class parents: don't put your child in my school.
95% of my students live with struggling, low-income adults. Half the adults are struggling because they are here illegally, they don't speak or read English and they have no skills. Sending their child to a math camp, regardless of how bright the child is, isn't even on the radar. Their children lag behind.
The other half of the adults struggle because they abuse alcohol or drugs, they have extreme psychological issues, and they don't work. Their children tend to be very disruptive (who can blame them) but the new pc is that minority children cannot be disciplined or suspended (and they aren't given counseling, either).
A rested, fed middle-class child from a stable home with a broader range of experiences and knowledge will not be challenged or grow academically at schools like mine where 95% of the kids are far below grade level. They will not benefit and honestly, neither will the low-income kids who are so mired in the subsidized dysfunction of their own homes.
115
Thank you for telling it like it is.
1
Did you ever stop to think that the low-income, struggling kids might benefit from being around other children with a broader range of experience & knowledge & that the middle-class kids would further expand their range of experience & knowledge by learning that other students don't have the same privileged life that they do? You really never understand poverty until you know someone trapped by it. By isolating both to their own worlds you are creating bubble universes whose occupants never really meet or know each other.
There is no equality in the classroom nor should there be. The sorting-out, however, should not depend on the economic circumstances of the family but on the intellectual capabilities of the child alone. I find it unbelievable that so many well-off families believe that IQ can be bought. Welcome to the real world in which your little darlings whose self-esteem has been built up since age zero will have to compete with computer geniuses from India and China. They' re in for a rude awakening. One of my sons was in a special program for gifted children because he IS gifted. The second son just got a decent education commensurate with his abilities. But I'd absolutely refuse to send any of my kids to a school full of stupid kids and it does not matter whether their parents make millions or live on welfare.
3
Poor children would benefit from better schooling. They don't need rich classmates, they need well-funded schools, small classes, a wide range of instructional programs and extra-curricular activities, and top-quality teachers.
In real life, rich and poor don't mix. Nor do the brainy and the dull. People separate themselves according to religions. And so on. So what?
Rich kids will get a good education no matter where -- or even if -- they attend a pre-K school. It's the poor ones who really need the classes.
"Economic integration" is as sensible a notion as "one size fits all."
In real life, rich and poor don't mix. Nor do the brainy and the dull. People separate themselves according to religions. And so on. So what?
Rich kids will get a good education no matter where -- or even if -- they attend a pre-K school. It's the poor ones who really need the classes.
"Economic integration" is as sensible a notion as "one size fits all."
5
Most Great people have proclaimed that they have stood on the shoulders of other pioneers. If you were to apply the Chicago School of Economics principle of "Trickle Down Economics" to education, Trickle-down education would warrant that Rich Kids sit on the shoulders of Poor Kids.
1
Spare me the social engineering drivel. The subsidized building that I grew up in had a day care in the ground floor. It was a mixed class in terms of race but not class, we were all from working class backgrounds. I am friends to this day with a couple of them and we seemed to have turned out okay without going to pre school with rich kids.
People work hard, commute long distances to avoid sending their kids to school with kids that come from homes that don't reinforce the same values. Why don't you academics study that and leave us alone?
People work hard, commute long distances to avoid sending their kids to school with kids that come from homes that don't reinforce the same values. Why don't you academics study that and leave us alone?
8
It was unsettling to see the New York City Department of Education soliciting New York State certified teachers, members of the DOE who had taught in public schools, to interview at Pre K facilities (day care centers, private schools, YMCAs, parochial schools, charter schools) at a Job Fair held at the Penn Hotel on June 2, 2015. Using the DOE portal, the teachers attended, "by invitation only," and were shocked to learn these schools were offering far less than the DOE salary - hourly rates with no benefits. We later learned that Governor Cuomo wasn't even paying theses schools to offer the Pre - K services, let alone paying professional, certified teachers with masters degrees a fair salary. And, what services are being offered? What is the teaching methodology being offered? Do these schools meet state standards? These places wanted teachers from 8:20 am to 6:30 pm. For what - baby sitting? Carmen Farina should address these issues. A good suggestion would be to have these schools used as satellite district schools, using state standards and paying the certified, licensed teachers with Masters degreed DOE salaries.
5
As a parent of 2 grown kids who attended preschool, I question why you think preschool should be about "work" that requires certificated teachers with Master's degrees. Pre-school IS about babysitting, with storytelling, snack and nap times, and playground time. Anything else at that age is absurd.
1
In small towns the entire socioeconomic range is represented in the public schools. In my town of 24,000 my children knew every kind of kid. They did fine in college and graduate school even though the schools are pretty average, nothing special. It is ironic that urban areas, which are more diverse, have less diverse schools while these small, provincial towns provide their children with a more diverse public education.
1
This is exactly my experience; I grew up in a small Pennsylvania town of 20,000.
Person A is rich, Person B is poor for a variety of reasons. To what extent is Person A responsible to assist Person B? To what extent is Person A's children responsible to assist Person B's children?
3
Being rich doesn't equate to being smart. Person B's kid might be the one doing the helping.
Perhaps it is a good idea that Person B's child is educated so that they can be economically productive, pay taxes, and pay into Social Security and Medicare for the benefit of everybody. Perhaps it is a good idea that we do not have people living in the streets, becoming criminal, or having no help if they are mentally ill or disabled. I suspect that there are a number of taxpayers who have contributed to your schooling, the infrastructure where you live, and provided a structure where you can succeed. I would suspect that a number of those taxpayers did not have children themselves and are contributing to the general welfare.
How can rich and poor learn together if they don't live near each other? Who will be bused or driven by parents to the 'other side'? I'm going to guess the poor are going to be moved to school with the rich; I really don't see the other happening.
Tale of two cities: America today. We move closer to a third world, rich-poor segregation and, in general, accept it. We're sold on the virtues of 'being rich'. We're sold on 'freedom' to make money and keep it, regardless of what that means for others. We're bought and sold.
Of course quality education is a human right that's never been achieved here. We really don't care about this 'equality' thing, or 'more perfect union' jive. We're here to get rich or die tryin'.
No one talks of raising the taxes on the rich and creating a wealth tax to try and bring some semblance of humanity to our communities. At least, no one's allowed to say that on corporate media (NYTimes included). We dance around the edges of truth. We make ourselves feel good with platitudes and feel-good talk. Then, for some, it's back to the luxury and decadence; for others it's back to the mines.
Tale of two cities: America today. We move closer to a third world, rich-poor segregation and, in general, accept it. We're sold on the virtues of 'being rich'. We're sold on 'freedom' to make money and keep it, regardless of what that means for others. We're bought and sold.
Of course quality education is a human right that's never been achieved here. We really don't care about this 'equality' thing, or 'more perfect union' jive. We're here to get rich or die tryin'.
No one talks of raising the taxes on the rich and creating a wealth tax to try and bring some semblance of humanity to our communities. At least, no one's allowed to say that on corporate media (NYTimes included). We dance around the edges of truth. We make ourselves feel good with platitudes and feel-good talk. Then, for some, it's back to the luxury and decadence; for others it's back to the mines.
3
Is the divide simply between rich and poor?
The huge edge some children have is parents who teach those children the ABC's, the numerals, the colors, and who read to them nearly every day, starting when the children can sit up. Unsurprisingly, such children are reading-ready by age four.
The huge handicap other children have is parents who do none of those things or who hardly ever do them.
Ignored children's parents can be rich, poor, or in the middle. Usually the parents are poor, uneducated, do little reading themselves, and have no library card. But it would be hard to imagine Donald Trump reading to a small child.
The state can't give ignored children good parents. So pre-K is the best it can do.
This pre-K puts both ignored and cosseted children in the same class. Do the cosseted children get all the teachers' attention? Maybe they can get bored, while teachers focus on ignored children.
Pre-K for all seems the best way, but keeping cosseted children engaged will be
a problem.
The huge edge some children have is parents who teach those children the ABC's, the numerals, the colors, and who read to them nearly every day, starting when the children can sit up. Unsurprisingly, such children are reading-ready by age four.
The huge handicap other children have is parents who do none of those things or who hardly ever do them.
Ignored children's parents can be rich, poor, or in the middle. Usually the parents are poor, uneducated, do little reading themselves, and have no library card. But it would be hard to imagine Donald Trump reading to a small child.
The state can't give ignored children good parents. So pre-K is the best it can do.
This pre-K puts both ignored and cosseted children in the same class. Do the cosseted children get all the teachers' attention? Maybe they can get bored, while teachers focus on ignored children.
Pre-K for all seems the best way, but keeping cosseted children engaged will be
a problem.
4
Florida has a Voluntary Pre-K program that's totally free and open to all children who will turn 4 by September 1. There is a wide variety of providers--private schools, day care centers, public schools.
About 80 percent of all Florida 4-year-olds attend VPK and these children are statistically more ready for kindergarten than those who do not attend.
Florida voters also passed a constitutional amendment in 2002 that set limits on the number of students in core classes, such as math, reading and science, in the state’s public schools. As of the 2010-2011 school year, the maximum number of students in each core class are:
18 students in prekindergarten through grade 3
22 students in grades 4 through 8
25 students in grades 9 through 12
About 80 percent of all Florida 4-year-olds attend VPK and these children are statistically more ready for kindergarten than those who do not attend.
Florida voters also passed a constitutional amendment in 2002 that set limits on the number of students in core classes, such as math, reading and science, in the state’s public schools. As of the 2010-2011 school year, the maximum number of students in each core class are:
18 students in prekindergarten through grade 3
22 students in grades 4 through 8
25 students in grades 9 through 12
1
Unless high-income parents will foster low-income youth and raise them as their own (think big tax credits) class differences will always trump educational opportunity as the determinant of success.
One of the main reasons we have such political polarization in the US is the ghettoization of our society. Whites stick to themselves and avoid contact with non-whites; for example at public swimming pools and gated communities.
So it's easy for a political party with dark intentions to play the protection racket on the racial fears of the white population with fictitious "welfare queens" and "Willie Hortons" then the offer to protect them from those dangerous characters, if only they'll vote the party into power.
There was another political party that used manufactured and distorted dangers to frighten voter then take over their country and destroy democracy.
Remember? Well, the parallels with today are utterly scary.
So it's easy for a political party with dark intentions to play the protection racket on the racial fears of the white population with fictitious "welfare queens" and "Willie Hortons" then the offer to protect them from those dangerous characters, if only they'll vote the party into power.
There was another political party that used manufactured and distorted dangers to frighten voter then take over their country and destroy democracy.
Remember? Well, the parallels with today are utterly scary.
I am skeptical about the claim that well-off (i.e. - more academically advanced) children "are not harmed academically." This may be using words to obscure rather than illuminate the truth. More advanced children are used by teachers as unofficial teacher's aides when mixed in classes with less advanced children. While their learning may not go backwards, "harmed" in the words of the author, it is hard to believe that the time they spend teaching others children does not slow down their own advancement. I believe that adding paid teacher's aides to classes with less advanced children will give those children the extra help they need without depriving the more advanced children of the time they need to fulfill their potential.
Let us not forget that these more advanced students will, in the future, be the leaders in our society, and in the arts and sciences. Do we want to short-change these children now and in doing so short-change our future?
Let us not forget that these more advanced students will, in the future, be the leaders in our society, and in the arts and sciences. Do we want to short-change these children now and in doing so short-change our future?
6
The rich won't sent their kids to school with the poor.
2
Many of these comments may have been penned by Scrooge himself. "The poor made their choices". "My tax dollars all ready pay for their food, schools, and prisons". "Poverty isn't contagious, but head lice is". Most poor people work. Most poor people want the best for their children. This notion that poverty is a choice is a naive fantasy conjured up based on American middle class dream mythology. That or profound enmity. Shop clerks, sandwich artisans, adjunct professors, gardeners, waiters Need a Raise. All those subsidized school lunches are an indication that Corporate America is not honoring its promise. Trickle down economics is busted. "It's the economy, stupid."
3
No matter what responsible parents say--in comments sections, on the benches at playgrounds--what they will do is put their kids in the best school they can. They will research, plan, scheme, or pay, but they will make sure of this. Children whose parents cannot or will not pursue this goal will always be at a disadvantage. No amount of social engineering or legislation will change this.
8
Short of physical compulsion, there is no way to force the well to do to send their children to attend school side by side with substantial numbers of poor (or black or hispanic) children. It might be fun to talk about integration of this sort, but just as liberal upper west siders choose to live in an overwhelmingly white neighborhood notwithstanding their stated liberal beliefs, so too will parents continue to send their children to schools that they believe will give their children the best shot at having a good life. And for most rich or upper middle class folks, that means sending their kids to school populated primarily with the children of other rich or middle class folks.
7
Since when is the main goal of education, integration?
What happened to the idea of the neighborhood school?
This integration thing sounds nice on paper, In reality it is a mess, for lower income students. Having worked as a school counselor, I realize how hard it is for some poor people to come to school to meet with the teachers When one has to take three buses to a school , due to lack of neighborhood schools, some parents never come to the school. Transportation problems are just too difficult.
Why would a parent want their middle class child to attend an integrated pre school? The risks include exposing their child to some of the unpleasant realities of poverty Why would a middle class parent want to expose their child to some harsh realities when they are so young?
The authors of this piece cite research on how middle class children do well in integrated situations, but they do not explain the research. Is the research just wishful thinking, disquised as solid research?
My lifetime experience as an educator would suggest differently Children learn from their peers. , and if the peers come to school not prepared for school, less over all learning will occur for the whole group.
What happened to the idea of the neighborhood school?
This integration thing sounds nice on paper, In reality it is a mess, for lower income students. Having worked as a school counselor, I realize how hard it is for some poor people to come to school to meet with the teachers When one has to take three buses to a school , due to lack of neighborhood schools, some parents never come to the school. Transportation problems are just too difficult.
Why would a parent want their middle class child to attend an integrated pre school? The risks include exposing their child to some of the unpleasant realities of poverty Why would a middle class parent want to expose their child to some harsh realities when they are so young?
The authors of this piece cite research on how middle class children do well in integrated situations, but they do not explain the research. Is the research just wishful thinking, disquised as solid research?
My lifetime experience as an educator would suggest differently Children learn from their peers. , and if the peers come to school not prepared for school, less over all learning will occur for the whole group.
10
Any chance that de Blasio will address one of the root causes of this mess? - Children born to young single parents who are not capable of instilling education as a cultural value? Treating the symptoms with huge amounts of public money will not solve the problem. This is "politically correct" social engineering at its worst. It is fast becoming a "children-development" ideology, enforced by the populist government, with overtones of Communist Russia and Nazi Germany.
6
So much focus in these comments is on the concerns surrounding letting rich children and poor children co-mingle. The environment is an important factor, no doubt.... How about ensuring that schools in more impoverished areas have the same financial benifits, leadership talent, and high quality staffing as schools that are already succeeding with the middle and upper class? Everyone seems very concerned about the lower class dragging them down. What if lower income families had the same safe, supportive environment for education, the same resources and supplies, the same number of intervention specialists, teachers aids, and high quality teaching staff. Then it wouldn't really matter which school which child went to....PLENTY of upper middle class preschoolers have behavioral problems. How staff responds to those issues, and the resources they can utilize can make all the difference.
As a teacher in a low-income school, I can assure you that my fellow teachers are, for the most part, very good and very dedicated.
Bad results do NOT equal bad teaching. Teachers cannot overcome chaotic home lives and the crushing effects of poverty, as much as the govt would like to shove all of that burden upon us.
Doctors who attempt to treat pancreatic cancer often see their patients die. The patients don't die because the doctor is low quality or the facility is understaffed or underfunded. The patients die because pancreatic cancer is a certain killer.
I honestly wonder about the logic of anyone who automatically assumes that children who are trapped in poverty or living with the most dysfunctional adults can perform as well as kids from stable, supportive middle-class or upper-class homes.
You can move impoverished kids to the same school Obama's kids attend and guess what: they'll underperform. And people will illogically blame the teachers.
Bad results do NOT equal bad teaching. Teachers cannot overcome chaotic home lives and the crushing effects of poverty, as much as the govt would like to shove all of that burden upon us.
Doctors who attempt to treat pancreatic cancer often see their patients die. The patients don't die because the doctor is low quality or the facility is understaffed or underfunded. The patients die because pancreatic cancer is a certain killer.
I honestly wonder about the logic of anyone who automatically assumes that children who are trapped in poverty or living with the most dysfunctional adults can perform as well as kids from stable, supportive middle-class or upper-class homes.
You can move impoverished kids to the same school Obama's kids attend and guess what: they'll underperform. And people will illogically blame the teachers.
3
Honeybee, I love your cancer analogy; it's absolutely correct.
1
My child attends a mixed race, mixed income elementary school in the city. We've been happy for the most part, but it's complicated. Talented teachers find ways to teach to all levels and also control a class of 20-26 kids of wildly varying abilities and backgrounds. And yes, the poor kids from the projects with absent parents are nearly always behind, while the middle class white and asian and also immigrant kids are always on grade level or ahead. (You can pretty much exactly guess how a kid is doing in school the moment you catch wind of the family situation. Also, the idea that the kids from projects and the middle class kids become best friends is a fantasy. They start self-segregating the moment they walk into pre K or kindergarten.) Our first three years at the school, we were lucky enough to have exactly these kinds of talented, dedicated teachers. This year, however, everything went wrong. The teacher is incompetent; has anger management problems; offers zero feedback; and spends pretty much the entire day screaming and making threats at the "bad kids." My daughter has been bored out of her mind and now despises school. I found out too late that the school has been trying to get rid of the woman for years--to no avail. I'm a lifelong left winger who believes in unions, but the UFT's refusal to let principals fire incompetent teachers is nothing short of shameful. But that's another topic. . . .
85
There is a little thing called "due process" that the union and principal must follow to remove this incompetent teacher from the classroom. The same holds for incompetent administrators. If this woman has tenure, it will be a long road to remove the teacher. The principal should be looking for occurrences to remove the teacher to the district office, where she can no longer destroy a child's love for education.
Reminds me of the famous saying that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged.
To the best of my knowledge, the UFT has never refused to let principals fire incompetent teachers. Please let me know when and where the UFT has endorsed incompetence in the classroom.
What are the rich and the poor supposed to learn together?
The Supreme Court decision opinion in Brown vs Board of Education rests on the insidious white supremacist idea that unless black kids are sitting next to white kids in a class room they can not be effectively educated nor learn without feeling inferior. Physical proximity aka integration was the "solution." Poverty and wealth on top of a physically identifiable colored minority with a history of slavery and Jim Crow inextricably ties racial caste and socioeconomic class in a toxic mix.
The poor will learn that being rich is more promising, comfortable and qualifying meritorious than being poor. Pity is a poor substitute for justice. And shame and embarrassment can be emotionally and mentally crippling in perpetuating a sense of inferiority.
The Supreme Court decision opinion in Brown vs Board of Education rests on the insidious white supremacist idea that unless black kids are sitting next to white kids in a class room they can not be effectively educated nor learn without feeling inferior. Physical proximity aka integration was the "solution." Poverty and wealth on top of a physically identifiable colored minority with a history of slavery and Jim Crow inextricably ties racial caste and socioeconomic class in a toxic mix.
The poor will learn that being rich is more promising, comfortable and qualifying meritorious than being poor. Pity is a poor substitute for justice. And shame and embarrassment can be emotionally and mentally crippling in perpetuating a sense of inferiority.
2
Obviously, all schools should be well funded and professionally staffed. It is, moreover, better for children to attend schools near their homes.
That said, it is bewildering to me that you call the Brown decision an "insidious white supremacist idea" when black lawyers, journalists, and common folk alike packed the Supreme Court to hear the decision and many wept with joy to hear it. Can Thurgood Marshall have been a dupe? Really?
That said, it is bewildering to me that you call the Brown decision an "insidious white supremacist idea" when black lawyers, journalists, and common folk alike packed the Supreme Court to hear the decision and many wept with joy to hear it. Can Thurgood Marshall have been a dupe? Really?
Realistically, I listen to the teachers who are with the children every day and KNOW what works. Some teachers have integrated children of different learning abilities, against the rules, it works better than segregating.
The child who was asked to tutor another, he/she would have been learning a skill that the parents obviously did not see. Poor child of those parents - have they not heard of sharing and helping others ??? Even in the classroom. In one room classrooms it is part of their education, helping others. I know people who learned that way, went on to college in the usual way - therefore did not suffer ANY setback.
The child who was asked to tutor another, he/she would have been learning a skill that the parents obviously did not see. Poor child of those parents - have they not heard of sharing and helping others ??? Even in the classroom. In one room classrooms it is part of their education, helping others. I know people who learned that way, went on to college in the usual way - therefore did not suffer ANY setback.
Public education will always be wanting as long as the well heeled (including limousine liberals like Obama and Hillary before him) send their kids to private school .
2
I think that one of parents' considerations in choosing a pre-k program that the authors had not mentioned is the availability of wrap around care for the child. Pre-k hours typically start later and end much earlier than the average daycare hours. Working parents are faced with the choice of either having to hire a babysitter to pick up and care for their child or to find a location that offers wrap around care for early morning and late afternoon/evening hours. So, while expensive daycares may look extravagant, having a child in one of those locations for pre-k is likely cheaper than having to hire a babysitter. For our family, placing our child in the local public school pre-k program, in a very economically, ethnically and racially diverse neighborhood, was a luxury option that we could not afford to consider.
My wife and I sent our son first to daycare and then to preschool run by the New Haven public schools. Both of us were generally impressed by the quality of these programs and we were especially impressed by the low cost: $430/month for full-time daycare and $130/month for full-time preschool! Obviously, this isn't free, but we earned enough even at the time that this was a real bargain. I think it would be great for every parent to have an option like this available.
Sadly, however, the programs in which our son enrolled have now been either eliminated or seriously cut back. Moreover--and more to the point of this article--I doubt very much that many middle- or upper-class parents, at least in New Haven, would use these programs, even if they were widely available. My son was always the only purely white kid in his classrooms (there were a few mixed kids) and one of only a few middle-class kids. I could never understand why other white parents we knew weren't interested in the cheap, reasonable-quality childcare, but they weren't. It seems they wanted their kids kept away from the lower-classes even at age two, as if toddlers born to working-class black parents could somehow be a bad influence.
Sadly, however, the programs in which our son enrolled have now been either eliminated or seriously cut back. Moreover--and more to the point of this article--I doubt very much that many middle- or upper-class parents, at least in New Haven, would use these programs, even if they were widely available. My son was always the only purely white kid in his classrooms (there were a few mixed kids) and one of only a few middle-class kids. I could never understand why other white parents we knew weren't interested in the cheap, reasonable-quality childcare, but they weren't. It seems they wanted their kids kept away from the lower-classes even at age two, as if toddlers born to working-class black parents could somehow be a bad influence.
blending sounds good but the heavy lifting needed to ensure that the environment of the rooms elicits and nurtures expression of the differences between children as well as their common (human) core ain't so easy...a (patient!) play-based context that brings everyone (teachers included) together in collaborative efforts that depend rather on exchange than competition, rather on adjustment than judgement, etc., might be a good place to start...one of my own had a second grade teacher who began each day with a period of dance...everyone danced until a kind of homogenized (blend) of effort and association filled the room (ok, some might call it fatigue)...and later revisits to these expressive interludes (there was also some puppetry and music making) were shaped to suit actual subject explorations (the dance of the molecules in brownian motion, the puppet animals, (beavers building dams, salmon swimming up stream, etc.) , enactments of historical events and characters...and so on, a repertory company if you will.
Just reading through these comments . . . I can't believe the level of contempt for the poor! Here I'd thought NY Times readers were mostly liberals--I guess not.
55
Haven't you learned that liberals are all do as I say not as I do? They will hold fundraisers for the poor - but talk to the help? No. And they are certainly not sending their kids to school with them.
There are no aethists in fox holes, nor liberal parents in pre-k!
1
BHB - It's NOT contempt for the poor it's contempt for those who do not value an education for there children. When you start social engineering in schools the education quotient sinks to the lowest common denominator. Rich or poor most parents DON'T want that for their children.
....okay - so let's hear it for equality!! (1) first tax the so-called rich as high as you can push (39% top federal rate, 9% state rate ad on city, property tax) (2) we heard yesterday the Obama Administration's desire to deny federal money to communities that won't economically diversify, i.e. push depress the value of the rich people's housing stock (3) and now force the 'rich' children to go to schools in poor neighborhoods (of course bussing worked well in Boston in the 1970's NOT!!) - sounds like a plan?!?
Ask the Commies - the peoples the former Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, Cuba - social engineering has a dismal track record. How about increasing opportunities for EVERYONE to get ahead - grow the economy, reduce regulations & taxes - let America do what it does best = promote & run BUSINESSES
Ask the Commies - the peoples the former Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, Cuba - social engineering has a dismal track record. How about increasing opportunities for EVERYONE to get ahead - grow the economy, reduce regulations & taxes - let America do what it does best = promote & run BUSINESSES
3
Just as long as the teacher doesn't ask the kids: "What does your Daddy do for a living?" as was done when I was in kindergarten way back when ...
2
"Everybody has a lobbyist, except the poor". Joe Scarborough , today on Morning Joe.
3
inner city kids with decent famiies do well.............this is all about the ruin of the family unit.............bring it back and the kids will thrive
1
Another obstacle to equal access for pre-k is the lottery system. I believe it's related to the city's ongoing limited resources, and DiBlasio's expansion of pre-school from "half day" to "full day". At my child's preschool, we had to apply for pre-k, even though he was already attending in the previous grade.
Fortunately, my son made it into the lottery, but sadly a few of his classmates were turned away.
It's a terrific program, and will hopefully help us save for our long deferred goalof getting a house. But they've got to improve the kinks so children don't miss the boat.
Fortunately, my son made it into the lottery, but sadly a few of his classmates were turned away.
It's a terrific program, and will hopefully help us save for our long deferred goalof getting a house. But they've got to improve the kinks so children don't miss the boat.
1
Possibly the best outcome of 'blending' richer and poorer children could be that the richer kids would learn that poorer kids are entitled to the same public services that they are. Then, they might not grow up to be the arrogant, elitist, narcissists who populate Wall Street corporate boardrooms.
The idea that diversity is inherently good is a crock. Denmark, Sweden, Finland, South Korea, Japan, Singapore -- none of these places have anywhere near the diversity that we have here in the US, yet they are cited repeatedly by liberals for their wonderful educational results compared to our abysmal results. Diversity is only good in itself when the group you are trying to help is inherently bad, and they can go nowhere buy up if you mix them up with people are are not as messed up.
The entire concept of diversity is nothing more than affirmative action and welfare.
The entire concept of diversity is nothing more than affirmative action and welfare.
12
Well, cheer up. In rural white, diversity-poor districts in America, SAT scores are abysmal.
Quote of the day:
"I don't want my kids exposed to that sort of thing."
As soon as there is something objectionable in the school environment, be it people who are non-white or are poor or whatever, those who can, flee. Witness white flight in the 60's.
Consider a major selling point for houses - the quality of the local schools. It really does matter which schools kids attend. Unfortunately, as a society we are not willing to make the investment to ensure all schools are quality schools. Instead, tax credits are wanted by those sending their children to private or charter schools, ensuring that already underfunded schools continue to spiral down.
Thems as has, gets. The rest - well nobody wants their kids exposed to that sort of thing but maybe that's what they deserve, right?
"I don't want my kids exposed to that sort of thing."
As soon as there is something objectionable in the school environment, be it people who are non-white or are poor or whatever, those who can, flee. Witness white flight in the 60's.
Consider a major selling point for houses - the quality of the local schools. It really does matter which schools kids attend. Unfortunately, as a society we are not willing to make the investment to ensure all schools are quality schools. Instead, tax credits are wanted by those sending their children to private or charter schools, ensuring that already underfunded schools continue to spiral down.
Thems as has, gets. The rest - well nobody wants their kids exposed to that sort of thing but maybe that's what they deserve, right?
What I learned, first hand, back in the seventies about social engineering in public schools: In an extremely diverse, racially and economically, school, affluent children read their books, did their lessons, brought in their homework. Children in poverty disrupted the class and communicated too often with their fists. Classroom milieu was adversely affected; teachers ill-prepared. On parent's night, the classrooms were filled with affluent parents almost exclusively. The obvious issue was that the children in poverty needed a different school experience. They suffered developmental deficits that could not be addressed in a class of affluent children who were levels ahead of them. It's always amazing to me and disheartening also how ready we are to engineer the lives of children in school, ignoring what we should have learned. This article is more of the same.
8
Another editorial in today's Times lashes out at Canada's past efforts to improve the lot of its indigenous peoples, by removing them from their homes and placed in government-run [religious] schools. I wonder if Ms. Hemphill would see any parallels?
2
I live far away from NYC, but from regular reading of the NYTimes it is clear that it is transformed into a city for the affluent, especially Manhattan. My sense from reading the NYTimes, is that to live well in Manhattan you need an income of $500K or more, scaled down somewhat in the other boroughs. Much of these higher incomes are dedicated to making sure that the affluent do NOT have to mix with kids who poor. For them, that's one of the reasons they want, or need, a high income!
3
Well to do parents don't mind having their kids in the same schools as poor children. What they do mind is having disruptive children who negatively affect the others, and children who's parents don't value education (so the kids don't either.)
Are these kinds of kids more likely to be in poor neighborhoods? Yes. But it's not economic segregation that richer parents want - it's attitudinal segregation.
Are these kinds of kids more likely to be in poor neighborhoods? Yes. But it's not economic segregation that richer parents want - it's attitudinal segregation.
19
Very very bad idea. Look at what happened to the City of Yonkers under the hypocrite Judge Sand. He forced low-income housing on middle to upper middle class families, fining Yonkers to the point of bankruptcy all the while he lived in his gated community that zones out "riff-raff". The result of this judge's hubris was a white flight from Yonkers that Yonkers has not recovered from in over 30 years. Forcibly mix diverse economic groups and you eventually end up with just one group, low-income,since they are the only ones who cannot afford to move.
5
Too bad all this research has largely been ignored by our political class, the president and his secretary of education --- they have opted for the simpler and least expensive option --- more tests, more charters, and easier ways to fire teachers and principals. But who reads research anymore --- when you are racing to the top there is little to be thoughtful about the goals and methods you are pursuing---the top is all that matters.
the above post was obviously written by a teacher. public school teachers and administrators are never responsible. just give us more money for our worthless Masters in education and there will be no more educational issues. six figure salaries and benefits have not benefited children but have benefited immensely the bank accounts of these overpaid group of civil servants.
as the old sayings goes cry me a river.
as the old sayings goes cry me a river.
I couldn't care less if my kids are in a racially mixed school/classroom, I just want my children surrounded by others that share my families values. Race is meaningless, it all comes down to values.
64
From all the articles about education recently, and all the comments from people who have strong opinions one way or another, I hope people understand how complicated and challenging education, and all of its issues, has become. There is no "easy fix." Everyone has an opinion. Many people think they know the answer. The truth is we're all human beings, we all try to do the best we can do to make the world a better place, but it's not easy. It's messy, at best. I wish someone could wave a magic wand, and life would be perfect, but it's only a wish. In the meantime, I love my children fiercely, am involved as they grow up, get into the schools and help, and never give up hope for making the schools my children attend the best they can be for me and my family.
2
Pre-K should not be a solution to poor parenting.
Based on the article, It seems the implied root cause of the problem is that poor parents are raising children that are often not desirable for other children to be raised around.
In that case, the solution may be for poor parents to apply good parenting as Ben Carson's mother did. To be positive examples for their children in terms of their values and behaviors. To teach them to value education, to have a work ethic, and respect authority.
It seems the proposed solutions is to take the children of families that have worked hard to raise children that are generally a benefit to be around and mix them with the children of families that may be a negative influence to be around. Apparently the goal is for the hard work of one family to rub off on the other. However, since influences works both ways, poor parenting of some families may negatively impact the others.
I believe Ben Carson came from an economically poor family with rich values in terms of education, and work ethic.
Our society offers a reasonable alternative to being productive citizen, and some adults take it, creating an environment for their children where education has little value, because education is generally for augmenting ones future career.
Based on the article, It seems the implied root cause of the problem is that poor parents are raising children that are often not desirable for other children to be raised around.
In that case, the solution may be for poor parents to apply good parenting as Ben Carson's mother did. To be positive examples for their children in terms of their values and behaviors. To teach them to value education, to have a work ethic, and respect authority.
It seems the proposed solutions is to take the children of families that have worked hard to raise children that are generally a benefit to be around and mix them with the children of families that may be a negative influence to be around. Apparently the goal is for the hard work of one family to rub off on the other. However, since influences works both ways, poor parenting of some families may negatively impact the others.
I believe Ben Carson came from an economically poor family with rich values in terms of education, and work ethic.
Our society offers a reasonable alternative to being productive citizen, and some adults take it, creating an environment for their children where education has little value, because education is generally for augmenting ones future career.
7
Ben Carson's father was a minister. That his parents were divorced and he was raised by a single mother most likely means that his family was cash-strapped rather than impoverished intellectually or spiritually. And, using one person's anecdotal experience as a solution to a systemic problem (poverty) isn't necessarily effective. It's like telling all of America's overweight people: just do it.
You've read this article incorrectly. It says nothing about parenting. It simply says that people from all socioeconomic strata should be educated together and that studies support this conclusion.
Dan,
From the statement below:
"Decades of research show that poor children do much better academically in economically mixed classes than they do if they attend school only with other poor children."
So the reason is putting poor kids around kids who are not poor. Since preschooler doing bring their wallets to school, there must be something different about kids of different economic or the economic strata would not be noticed beyond the closthes they wore.
The article does on to say "Research also shows that well-off children are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children."
I patentlyy reject this general statement based on the experience of my own children who had a short opportunity to attend private schools. Middle class and upper middle class families who choose to pay for education by definition value it. Those who don't may or may not.
You can not optimized an academic program for everyone. A group of kindergartners whose parents taught them their numbers and perhaps trivial reading will clearly be slowed down if combined with students know neither that or their colors. We dig a great deal to teach our kids numbers and trivial reading before they entered school.
From the statement below:
"Decades of research show that poor children do much better academically in economically mixed classes than they do if they attend school only with other poor children."
So the reason is putting poor kids around kids who are not poor. Since preschooler doing bring their wallets to school, there must be something different about kids of different economic or the economic strata would not be noticed beyond the closthes they wore.
The article does on to say "Research also shows that well-off children are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children."
I patentlyy reject this general statement based on the experience of my own children who had a short opportunity to attend private schools. Middle class and upper middle class families who choose to pay for education by definition value it. Those who don't may or may not.
You can not optimized an academic program for everyone. A group of kindergartners whose parents taught them their numbers and perhaps trivial reading will clearly be slowed down if combined with students know neither that or their colors. We dig a great deal to teach our kids numbers and trivial reading before they entered school.
Who remembers black dolls and white dolls (black school children in segregated schools were said to favor white dolls over black dolls). That really ushered in a period of massive educational improvement improvement for inner city kids. Or did it? Now it's rich and poor together. When will someone come along and devise an educational system that serves the actual needs of inner city children?
6
no one. the teachers unions for their own self interest would never allow it
The study regarding black dolls and white dolls was cited during the arguments in Brown vs. the Board of Education, the landmark case heard by the Supreme Court that struck down segregation in schools. The striking down of that law led to massive educational improvement for African-American children, who were now able to attend state universities. Some were able to enroll in more integrated schools on the PreK to 12th grade level. Unfortunately though de jure segregation has been banned, de facto segregation is alive and well.
CLASSROOM CONFIDENTIAL:
On the playgrounds of the future
Children will laugh and sing
And we’ll cross the bridge to real peace
Where the bells of sanity shall ring
Until then we’ll play the game
Which will all add up to naught
“It’s your fault, no, it’s theirs…”
Why some fail at what is taught.
We’ve been given new books and bosses
Numerous regs to do the job
But real change is systemic
Meaning smarter dialogue
Touching the future may seem easy
From a point too far away
One could assume it’s all just ditto -
Then lunch - then shop - then play
If this is your belief
You could not be further from the fact
That success is measured forward
Not crouching in the back
So forward we will plod
As parents kick and scream
We will test, and test and test
From which all congress shall glean
Information in the form
Of bars and charts sublime
Symbolic of teachers and students
Who have been sentenced to hard time
And the monied districts shall rule
Golden in and out
And the bootstraps will appear
Accusing all who doubt
Good will be the words to spread
And many who will eat them
The failures will be shown the straps
But for pity’s sake, don’t beat them
©2007
By Gwen Davis-Feldman
On the playgrounds of the future
Children will laugh and sing
And we’ll cross the bridge to real peace
Where the bells of sanity shall ring
Until then we’ll play the game
Which will all add up to naught
“It’s your fault, no, it’s theirs…”
Why some fail at what is taught.
We’ve been given new books and bosses
Numerous regs to do the job
But real change is systemic
Meaning smarter dialogue
Touching the future may seem easy
From a point too far away
One could assume it’s all just ditto -
Then lunch - then shop - then play
If this is your belief
You could not be further from the fact
That success is measured forward
Not crouching in the back
So forward we will plod
As parents kick and scream
We will test, and test and test
From which all congress shall glean
Information in the form
Of bars and charts sublime
Symbolic of teachers and students
Who have been sentenced to hard time
And the monied districts shall rule
Golden in and out
And the bootstraps will appear
Accusing all who doubt
Good will be the words to spread
And many who will eat them
The failures will be shown the straps
But for pity’s sake, don’t beat them
©2007
By Gwen Davis-Feldman
4
I understand what this poem criticizes, but not what it suggests as a solution other than dialogue. What is to be the result of the dialogue?
I wish all American schools were equally welcoming to students of all economic, social and racial groups. Pre-K, where parents are less worried about academic achievement, may be the easiest place to do integration. So let's try to do it there and not worry about grades 1-12.
The Brown decision was well-motivated, but did not take into account people's fierce desires to do what is best for their own children and not what is best for the nation. American parents will NEVER compromise on the quality of their own child's learning experience to achieve a social good. Affluent parents will always fight to put their children into a school that focuses on learning rather than on helping the economic classes to mingle.
The Brown decision was well-motivated, but did not take into account people's fierce desires to do what is best for their own children and not what is best for the nation. American parents will NEVER compromise on the quality of their own child's learning experience to achieve a social good. Affluent parents will always fight to put their children into a school that focuses on learning rather than on helping the economic classes to mingle.
25
I would not want my 3 year old mixing with the children of drug dealers. How about you?
25
I feel precisely the same about investment bankers.
7
Why do you assume that the children of drug dealers are going to contaminate your child? 3 year olds generally don't even know what their parents do for a living. Are you ok with your 3 year old going to school with the children of your cleaning lady and the janitor and the unemployed mother on welfare? Or is it because you really don't want your kids going to school with black kids or someone who might be poor?
5
They wouldn't because drug dealers live in rich neighborhoods.
4
What a outrage, the Mayor is tring to give little kids a leg up so they can be more successful in school. Ans no, this is not like busing. Recently I read an article about some obnoxious principal in Queens who excluded kids from a school fair in Queens because they could not pay the fee. It was reported that a lot of these kids were the children of Asian immigrants, you know those Asians who always do great academically. I have found that a lot of the classmates from my school years who had the least growing up, have become very successful in life. But then my school was what this article would call economically diverse. And for those who don't want their kids to mix with the American community in which they live, keep them home and they can become just as "discerning" as their parents.
8
Enough of the social engineering. Programs of this kind just lead the middle class to flee neighborhoods because no responsible parent wants his or her child to be exposed to the behavioral problems common in impoverished communities. In the case of forced busing, which I supported at the time, they ended up making segregation worse. The rich, meanwhile, just sent their kids to private school.
I'm a big believer in early education -- it's one of the few approaches that has been shown to help the urban poor. Indeed, I think that such programs should be available to poor children from birth, to help the children who are born out-of-wedlock to young mothers who lack the financial, emotional, and intellectual resources to raise them properly. That's where we should be putting our tax dollars, not some kind of feel-good scheme that will cause more problems than it solves.
I'm a big believer in early education -- it's one of the few approaches that has been shown to help the urban poor. Indeed, I think that such programs should be available to poor children from birth, to help the children who are born out-of-wedlock to young mothers who lack the financial, emotional, and intellectual resources to raise them properly. That's where we should be putting our tax dollars, not some kind of feel-good scheme that will cause more problems than it solves.
24
Enough? Not enough. More.
You're one of the most thoughtful commenters (which isn't saying much), but I disagree completely on this issue. You said the same thing, Josh, about the editorial from a few weeks ago about moving the urban poor into better neighborhoods. How is that like busing? How is this like busing?
Busing was like busing. This is like this, and that is like that.
As De Niro says in The Deer Hunter, This is this.
There's a comment just below yours about liberals supporting causes that benefit the lesser orders only so long as they don't have to interact with the Untouchables. This is so very Mrs. Jellyby, and it's rather disturbing.
Look, I understand where you're coming from; I just don't think this is anything like, say, what happened during the first five-year plan in Communist Russia, when the influx of peasants into urban areas caused a housing shortage and forced the classes to share abodes, and the "wealthy and cultured were exposed to domestic violence, foul language, and lack of elementary hygiene such as they had never experience before.... Immersion in this stark reality prompted a reassessment of the self-consciously crude proletarian lifestyle which many party members had adopted. Instructions on hygiene and courtesy began to appear in hallways and staircases." (Hosking, "Russia and the Russians")
So, no, I would not be in favor of every "social engineering" project for "feel-good" reasons, because that would be absurd. But this is called-for.
You're one of the most thoughtful commenters (which isn't saying much), but I disagree completely on this issue. You said the same thing, Josh, about the editorial from a few weeks ago about moving the urban poor into better neighborhoods. How is that like busing? How is this like busing?
Busing was like busing. This is like this, and that is like that.
As De Niro says in The Deer Hunter, This is this.
There's a comment just below yours about liberals supporting causes that benefit the lesser orders only so long as they don't have to interact with the Untouchables. This is so very Mrs. Jellyby, and it's rather disturbing.
Look, I understand where you're coming from; I just don't think this is anything like, say, what happened during the first five-year plan in Communist Russia, when the influx of peasants into urban areas caused a housing shortage and forced the classes to share abodes, and the "wealthy and cultured were exposed to domestic violence, foul language, and lack of elementary hygiene such as they had never experience before.... Immersion in this stark reality prompted a reassessment of the self-consciously crude proletarian lifestyle which many party members had adopted. Instructions on hygiene and courtesy began to appear in hallways and staircases." (Hosking, "Russia and the Russians")
So, no, I would not be in favor of every "social engineering" project for "feel-good" reasons, because that would be absurd. But this is called-for.
I was bused as a kid and I turned out fine. Some people fled our suburban, white middle class neighborhood because of the busing. Their kids missed out, quite honestly.
Well Gee folks who are actually "rich" are not going to send their children to learn with the "poor". They are going to advanced private pre-school or home school to associate only with those who are just as capable as their children. Now having equal opportunity and decent teachers for all.
3
i want my children in pre-k and more to be with those of similar cultural and economic backgrounds. if you need to engage in social engineering, do it with your own kids, not mine.
95
All schools are an exercise in social engineering. If you don't like that, then you are a candidate for homeschooling.
1
Why?
Many years ago my 5 year old attended a magnet school in Tucson. It was in a poor Hispanic neighborhood, but middle-class Anglo parents actually fought to get their children enrolled because of all the extras the school offered as part of a voluntary desegregation program. At a parent conference, his teacher told me that after his birthday in January, he came to school and talked about all the presents he had gotten. Another child had had a birthday that same weekend, and my son asked what he had gotten--one small present. The next day, my son brought one of his presents to school to give to the other little boy. I almost cried when I heard that.
Maybe that experience was part of what made him the kind and generous man he is today.
Many years ago my 5 year old attended a magnet school in Tucson. It was in a poor Hispanic neighborhood, but middle-class Anglo parents actually fought to get their children enrolled because of all the extras the school offered as part of a voluntary desegregation program. At a parent conference, his teacher told me that after his birthday in January, he came to school and talked about all the presents he had gotten. Another child had had a birthday that same weekend, and my son asked what he had gotten--one small present. The next day, my son brought one of his presents to school to give to the other little boy. I almost cried when I heard that.
Maybe that experience was part of what made him the kind and generous man he is today.
1
Nearly 60 years ago my parents accepted a request that they enroll my sister and me in a majority-Black YWCA summer program for low-income girls. We two white sisters were meant to be part of a desegregation effort. My life was immeasureably enriched by this introduction to children whom I otherwise would never have met. It predisposed me to be far more open-minded and interested in subsequent studies in boarding school and my universities. Thank goodness I wasn't confined to the homogeneous environment of my own cultural and economic background!
37
What nonsense this is.
Having children from backgounds that do not prepare them socially and educationally for school doesn't impact kids from families where those things are done?
That statement is so far beyond ridiculous it isn't worth exploring.
A parents job is to get their kids as prepared as possible for the life ahead. Emphasis on THEIR kids, not everybody elses kids.
Do the rich have an advantage. Sure they do, this is nothing new they have always had an advantage and they always will.
Tell you what, you raise your kid, I'll raise mine and we will see how it ends up.
Having children from backgounds that do not prepare them socially and educationally for school doesn't impact kids from families where those things are done?
That statement is so far beyond ridiculous it isn't worth exploring.
A parents job is to get their kids as prepared as possible for the life ahead. Emphasis on THEIR kids, not everybody elses kids.
Do the rich have an advantage. Sure they do, this is nothing new they have always had an advantage and they always will.
Tell you what, you raise your kid, I'll raise mine and we will see how it ends up.
25
Educational desegregation is where it hits the fan for many liberals. I believe that part of the problem is residential segregation, which limits their day to day contact with those of different economic means, and leads to gross stereotypes of those who are not part of their "community". .They may wish the "others" well -- support higher minimum wage and other programs to help the poor, but they really don't want to come in contact with them. It gets even worse when it comes to their children, almost as if they fear some sort of contamination.
Anyway, if they had more contact with those of different economic means, they may find their stereotypes to be challenged. They may find that most poor people are very much like themselves, and in no way a threat to their children.
Anyway, if they had more contact with those of different economic means, they may find their stereotypes to be challenged. They may find that most poor people are very much like themselves, and in no way a threat to their children.
12
The problem is that liberals are not interested in actual desegregation- they want social engineering according to their preferences. Do you think a liberal wants their children in a class with religious children? Only if the religious children are forced to adopt liberal orthodoxy where religion is controlled and censored by the government.
Don't be obtuse.
If anything they most definitely will find the opposite.
The poor in this country are very different especially in the urban city.
This isn't to say ever child who is poor will be this way
But given a large enough number there will without question be more children who will have emotional and behavior problems from the poor than the rich.
If I have a choice I don't send my kid there.
If anything they most definitely will find the opposite.
The poor in this country are very different especially in the urban city.
This isn't to say ever child who is poor will be this way
But given a large enough number there will without question be more children who will have emotional and behavior problems from the poor than the rich.
If I have a choice I don't send my kid there.
I disagree with the basic premise of this article which is that the government of New York City should attempt to force social change by "engineering" the educational environment for very young children. Providing free universal pre-K is an ambitious and highly desirable goal, and mixing in the authors' social agenda is an added complication which has the potential to doom part or all of this important advance.
19
Far more important than the wealth (or lack of wealth) in the family is the relative cognitive ability of the children in the room. Some kids are able to read by 5, and it is torture for them to be in the same room where others haven't learned any letters.
122
In my experience, a good pre-school teacher will excel at juggling children with different levels of ability.
Any decent properly-staffed elementary school with good teachers and leaders should be able to handle children of different abilities.
My grandson was reading by the time he was 4, and he has managed very nicely in an economically mixed elementary school where 2/3 of the students are on free or reduced lunches. He's gotten all A's from the time he started kindergarten, his teachers praise him for his attitude toward learning, and he qualified for their one-day-a-week gifted program. His standardized test scores are always high, and he loves school. Some of the less academically-advanced children in his class are far more gifted than he is in art and music, so he is learning that people have different talents and abilities. And even more important, he is learning to respect children from different backgrounds.
Maybe the fact that Florida limits K-3 class sizes to 18 kids maximum plays a part in teachers' ability to provide individualized education to each child.
My grandson was reading by the time he was 4, and he has managed very nicely in an economically mixed elementary school where 2/3 of the students are on free or reduced lunches. He's gotten all A's from the time he started kindergarten, his teachers praise him for his attitude toward learning, and he qualified for their one-day-a-week gifted program. His standardized test scores are always high, and he loves school. Some of the less academically-advanced children in his class are far more gifted than he is in art and music, so he is learning that people have different talents and abilities. And even more important, he is learning to respect children from different backgrounds.
Maybe the fact that Florida limits K-3 class sizes to 18 kids maximum plays a part in teachers' ability to provide individualized education to each child.
1
This is very, very true but the correlation with parental income and education is extremely strong.
Full disclosure please: do the authors have their own kids in economically integrated public schools?
It's been my experience that the most zealous and sanctimonious supporters of public schools, racial/economic integration, etc. tend to put their own kids on private school.
It's been my experience that the most zealous and sanctimonious supporters of public schools, racial/economic integration, etc. tend to put their own kids on private school.
34
"Research also shows that well-off children are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children."
That is correct.
But any teacher can tell you that well-behaved children are harmed academically by being in a classroom with even one or two highly disruptive children.
Sometimes, in private schools for example, those unruly children have learning disorders despite their families' affluence; or, sometimes, those children have a hard time focusing on anything at all because of their families' dysfunctionality. For the latter, you can read: a really nasty society divorce, a brother who deals drugs from prep school or who died of an overdose, an alcoholic mother afflicted with both booze and ennui.
In schools located in low-income areas, students will misbehave for other reasons. They might, like the children of the rich, have real learning disorders -- which, by the way, are not all that common. More likely, they have a father who deals drugs, a mother who brings in serial boyfriends, brothers who are busted for breaking into cars, and so on. Unruly, practically pre-lingual children from those families will have a negative impact on the children of parents who, despite their relatively low income, teach their children that respect for their school and hard work will see them through.
Let's stop putting the onus on poverty -- or wealth -- and start placing responsibility on parents who bring children into the world and then abandon them to it.
That is correct.
But any teacher can tell you that well-behaved children are harmed academically by being in a classroom with even one or two highly disruptive children.
Sometimes, in private schools for example, those unruly children have learning disorders despite their families' affluence; or, sometimes, those children have a hard time focusing on anything at all because of their families' dysfunctionality. For the latter, you can read: a really nasty society divorce, a brother who deals drugs from prep school or who died of an overdose, an alcoholic mother afflicted with both booze and ennui.
In schools located in low-income areas, students will misbehave for other reasons. They might, like the children of the rich, have real learning disorders -- which, by the way, are not all that common. More likely, they have a father who deals drugs, a mother who brings in serial boyfriends, brothers who are busted for breaking into cars, and so on. Unruly, practically pre-lingual children from those families will have a negative impact on the children of parents who, despite their relatively low income, teach their children that respect for their school and hard work will see them through.
Let's stop putting the onus on poverty -- or wealth -- and start placing responsibility on parents who bring children into the world and then abandon them to it.
47
I agree, but liberal social engineering removes individual responsibility. Every problem is attributable to abuse of power, and the best way to reduce power is to have children co-exist in the same environment.
I was in the most upscale grocery store in our state the other day watching two kids from obviously well to do homes behave appallingly. Crashing grocery carts into shelves and people, grabbing things and whining. At one point a little girl hit her Vuitton bag carrying mother in the stomach.
The idea that wealth automatically translates to good behavior is a joke. As those kids age it's not unheard of for them to get into trouble with drugs or alcohol, the difference is they've got nice liquor cabinets to raid and parents who will clean up the mess and if it gets really bad send them to fancy rehab facilities.
The idea that wealth automatically translates to good behavior is a joke. As those kids age it's not unheard of for them to get into trouble with drugs or alcohol, the difference is they've got nice liquor cabinets to raid and parents who will clean up the mess and if it gets really bad send them to fancy rehab facilities.
30
And your point is that being thrown in with poor kids in a government babysitting environment will change that?
I wholly agree that "well-off children are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children." Not only, but they will learn to be compassionate and sympathetic towards those who have less, and will accept that their happier condition is a result of a lot of luck. Two years ago we moved from a wealthy suburb to a semi-rural area in New England. My children, one in high school, the other in middle school, are for the first time part of the privileged elite. As a result, they have developed a much deeper understanding of the lives of others, and their hearts have grown bigger.
11
Fabio,
Some folks have no self awareness. I grew up in rural Texas, went to public school, served in the Navy, got my MBA on the GI Bill, and now work on Wall Street. Where I grew up, a rural town, the values of compassion, empathy, hospitality, hard work, respect, loyalty, patriotism, and Church was first and foremost. "Quaint" would be the first word to pop in the mind of Northeast urbanites and suburbanite...cough "privileged elite" in reaction to those values.
Yes, your kids are certainly better off developing their character in a rural town. That's what happens when you surround your kids with other children with strong values.
Some folks have no self awareness. I grew up in rural Texas, went to public school, served in the Navy, got my MBA on the GI Bill, and now work on Wall Street. Where I grew up, a rural town, the values of compassion, empathy, hospitality, hard work, respect, loyalty, patriotism, and Church was first and foremost. "Quaint" would be the first word to pop in the mind of Northeast urbanites and suburbanite...cough "privileged elite" in reaction to those values.
Yes, your kids are certainly better off developing their character in a rural town. That's what happens when you surround your kids with other children with strong values.
In some ways, the rural poor have a harder time of it, with lack of public transportation, jobs, and access to other amenities suburbanites and city dwellers take for granted.
New England is always different because it's better educationally than any other region in america.
And the reasons for this are both cultural and political.
And the reasons for this are both cultural and political.
"Research also shows that well-off children are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children." Affluent parents don't believe that. And the devil is in the details, no? If the class is say 65% low-income then I'm sure that affluent well-prepared children will indeed suffer. If there are a few, then probably not. Why risk? I wouldn't with my children. My experience is that low-income children are developmentally, on average, behind and may also be at greater risk of social and emotional problems due to family instability. Teachers will lower the curriculum and devote attention to the lowest common denominator.
Too bad we don't have more ways of helping low-income children and families succeed that would be accepted by the electorate. Nurse family partnership work or Reach Out and Read are all great, but I do think we need a way of ingraining the importance of reading to your children, for example, as a cultural matter. After all power cedes nothing without demand, and one way to power, and maintaining it, in our society--as wealthy parents know--is through education.
Too bad we don't have more ways of helping low-income children and families succeed that would be accepted by the electorate. Nurse family partnership work or Reach Out and Read are all great, but I do think we need a way of ingraining the importance of reading to your children, for example, as a cultural matter. After all power cedes nothing without demand, and one way to power, and maintaining it, in our society--as wealthy parents know--is through education.
17
You do realize that this article--and the comments--are about 3 year olds.
Actually, I don't think that at the pre-k level, academics is a big concern. Montessori schools mix children of different ages up until certain age, since it's the social intelligence, peer-to-peer, mentor-to-mentee behaviors that they need to learn, along with some practical skills (be it tying their shoe laces, or basic arithmetics to understand the notions of order and quantity, etc) that don't require all kids being on the same developmental stage (tying shoe laces probably won't be a graded subject).
On the other hand - I don't quite understand what benefit would it have to mix kids among neighborhoods - as long as each neighborhood has a good school with attentive staff and small classes. As an obvious con, it would make the commute difficult for many (and if buses were provided, it would be more expensive, less eco-friendly, and would add to already crazy NYC traffic).
On the other hand - I don't quite understand what benefit would it have to mix kids among neighborhoods - as long as each neighborhood has a good school with attentive staff and small classes. As an obvious con, it would make the commute difficult for many (and if buses were provided, it would be more expensive, less eco-friendly, and would add to already crazy NYC traffic).
The piece is titled: "Let Rich and Poor Learn Together", when, of course, the authors mean "Force Rich and Poor Learn Together" (Typical Liberals - uh, Progressives)
10
The social engineers have long thought they could control the world if only they could control who we sit beside in school.
I always tried to sit beside Shirley. She was a blonde girl who was rather well developed for her age. I never did well in school but I did marry Shirley. Her daddy owns several large farms, a cotton gin, a marina on the coast and a new car dealership.
It does matter who you sit beside if you want to get ahead.
I always tried to sit beside Shirley. She was a blonde girl who was rather well developed for her age. I never did well in school but I did marry Shirley. Her daddy owns several large farms, a cotton gin, a marina on the coast and a new car dealership.
It does matter who you sit beside if you want to get ahead.
10
the number of recommended for the above will determine if NYT readers have a sense of humor/irony.
A cotton gin? Seriously?
:-)
The "blending" will naturally occur for the rest of one's life so there is no need to artificially initiate.
2
Outside of New York City the best way to ensure rich and poor learn together is to get rid of local school taxes and begin funding schools through state income tax. This will break down the walls of segregation and guarantee a level playing field for all our children.
14
So a town that has the desire to fund the schools their children go to at a higher level will be prevented from doing so.
No way.
I'll send my kids to a private school where the money I have can be spent on my children.
In the same way a community has the right to fund their schools at a higher rate.
You can't force this level playing field without income redistribution which is
your real goal.
You want to stop the rich from spending on their children unless they want to spend enough to get your child the same education.
That's not what this country is about.
If i am rich I have the right to spend money for my kid.
The same goes for the poor as well if they want to make the sacrifice to spend the little they have on their children.
No way.
I'll send my kids to a private school where the money I have can be spent on my children.
In the same way a community has the right to fund their schools at a higher rate.
You can't force this level playing field without income redistribution which is
your real goal.
You want to stop the rich from spending on their children unless they want to spend enough to get your child the same education.
That's not what this country is about.
If i am rich I have the right to spend money for my kid.
The same goes for the poor as well if they want to make the sacrifice to spend the little they have on their children.
Full disclosure please: are the authors' kids in pubic or private school?
27
call it the al sharption dislcosure question. al sharpton claimed he was all for public education. why he was asked is daughter your attending private school.?
his response i was not paying for it . some people he said were picking up the tab.
every public school teacher who espouses economic integration on this thread should disclose where they send their children
hypocrisy abounds in this area.
his response i was not paying for it . some people he said were picking up the tab.
every public school teacher who espouses economic integration on this thread should disclose where they send their children
hypocrisy abounds in this area.
Always fun to do social engineering/experimentation with other people's kids.
36
Independent, don't forget other people's money.
" Research also shows that well-off children are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children."
if you believe this i have a bridge to sell you very cheaply. the name is the George Washington Bridge or is it the Brooklyn Bridge?
for decades the US has gone through a process of dumbing down.US students are mediocre by international standards. low expectations can only be reinforced by this scheme. this is the same nonsense espoused by liberals who want to eliminate honor classes for high achieving students.
if you believe this i have a bridge to sell you very cheaply. the name is the George Washington Bridge or is it the Brooklyn Bridge?
for decades the US has gone through a process of dumbing down.US students are mediocre by international standards. low expectations can only be reinforced by this scheme. this is the same nonsense espoused by liberals who want to eliminate honor classes for high achieving students.
49
The "research" showing that well off kids are not harmed academically by going to school with poor children is not true. When I was 18 my parents moved from a suburban bedroom/farming community to a low income town to be close to a small business they had purchased. My sister, who was then 5, went to public kindergarten. By the end of the school year, her speech was hijacked by the Boston accent -- dropping of Rs and the like, that you don't hear in higher income communities. As soon as my parents gained a footing with their business, they moved to another town outside the city, and her speech improved.
The research you cite is simply not plausible. It was no doubt done for political reasons to support some preconceived plan.
The research you cite is simply not plausible. It was no doubt done for political reasons to support some preconceived plan.
89
....speech is important - and whether politically correct or not - when asked, I suggest that young mother's consider the importance of hiring a nanny or babysitters with decent language skills...
1
I seem to remember that the Kennedys had "Boston" accents and one of my first husband's classmates in graduate school at MIT had a very strong "Boston" accent with such broad As that we had to listen as carefully to understand as we did for the two students from Norway! And do you also dump on Southerners for their regional accents? Lots of prominent politicians have them.
1
That's really funny. I moved from Illinois to a Boston suburb when my older son was starting first grade. In no time at all, he learned to be bi-accent. Working class Boston accent you describe at school and playing with his neighborhood friends, standard midwestern accent at home because we insisted on that. When we moved to Tucson a few years later, the Boston accent disappeared again.
2
"Force Rich, Middle-Class and Poor to Learn Together"
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
8
Enough with the social engineering! It doesn't work and many people won't stand for it. If someone has the means to spend 25k for preschool, they will not send their kids to a mixed class with the poor (other than a few ultra-liberals who might). I wouldn't, and haven't as I don't want my kids exposed to that sort of thing. Stop it already.
35
"I don't want my kids exposed to that sort of thing." Do you hear yourself? Is that really the person you are and you want your kids to be?
2
WOW! Unbelievable comment. One of the reasons why such disparity exists in education today. Your children have been done a great disservice by this attitude.
2
DRS, it sounds like you just want your own form of social engineering.
3
I teach at a public school that is literally on a sharp border of projects and multi-million dollar condos. Yes! It is wonderful that racially and economically there is diversity in the pre-k classrooms. But what is happening next year? Nearly all of the pre-k kids who come from privileged backgrounds are leaving the school for private schools. Everyone seems to think diversity and free pre-k is great, but when things start to "matter"... when the kids get older, racial and economic segregation snaps right back to the unfortunate NYC status quo.
53
Well Gee would you want your very smart 5 year old held back by many not so smart or well educated folks in their class? Answer the question and you will understand how this is not going to do what some might want.
1
So what do you suggest? Should the wealthy parents not send their kids to private school, even though doing so would help maximize their life chances? Should they sacrifice their kids for the greater good? Do you really believe that?
2
what kind of schools do public school teachers send their kids to? if you believe what you say perhaps it should be mandatory for public school teachers to send their children to public schools.
'"when the kids get older, racial and economic segregation snaps right back to the unfortunate NYC status quo. "
what is unfortunate about it? perhaps rich people should be forced to throw parties in which they are required to invite a certain percentage of guests from public housing?
'"when the kids get older, racial and economic segregation snaps right back to the unfortunate NYC status quo. "
what is unfortunate about it? perhaps rich people should be forced to throw parties in which they are required to invite a certain percentage of guests from public housing?
1
I come from a WW2 generation where rich and poor learned together because there were no rich. Not in public schools anyway, or even my poor parochial school. The rich went to the academies, and we got a fine education all mixed together as what passed for a polyglot in those days.
Now, and trillions of $ later, we bus kids all over the map to provide "better" education. Education isn't where you learn and whom you learn it with. Education is what has to be in your list of life's great goals. It has to be in your heart. All the rest is not even tangent.
Now, and trillions of $ later, we bus kids all over the map to provide "better" education. Education isn't where you learn and whom you learn it with. Education is what has to be in your list of life's great goals. It has to be in your heart. All the rest is not even tangent.
26
When one school has the financial support of wealthy parents, you find the school gets better resources. Sometimes it is funding for a full time library, other times it is the PTA's ability to raise funds for field trips. Two elementary schools in the same city, one can barely raise the funds to get to a public museum and the other takes a trip to Washington, DC. Exposure to those ideas and events will help create a better list of life's goals, as would knowing other students whose parents are doctors, lawyers, investors and others with rewarding careers.
So those who truly value education should be forced to go to school with those who dismiss education as "acting white"? Somehow I do not think that will work out very well.
Joe, it all starts and ends with the student. If the student isn't onboard and willing to try, nothing will happen.
1
Poor kids sitting next to rich kids will somehow enhance their learning experience? Pshaw. They are going to feel wonderful about themselves when they hear about the privileged child's vacation to exotic places while they sweat or freeze in their little apartment? Get real. This is about liberals feeling good about themselves. There is no evidence either that the pre-K in the poorer neighborhoods is not up snuff. What will help all families is a two parent income with a stable relationship that will nurture the child. There is proof that that works for healthy child development.
28
There is little question that the authors of this op-ed have a point. There appears to be equally little doubt that as a nation we are moving in the opposite direction. One can easily find a series of articles from the NYTs, WP, and other major newspapers indicating the widening wealth gaps so evident in our major urban areas. NYC--along with other predictable locales--is one of the most economically segregated cities in the USA.
As a nation, how hard are we willing to go to try to correct disadvantages ingrained so early in life? Understanding that economic stratification will enhance future social separation, how willing are our nation's parents willing to go collectively to begin to fix problems that disadvantage children so early in life? Does the problem appear so daunting that we give up on early steps?
We can only hope that other urban leaders start to follow Mr. De Blasio's lead. If we demand too many fixes for so many educational grievances all at once, we will not get far. And there is little expectation that we could ever fully level the field. The idea of starting early and giving children a chance to develop stronger vocabularies with access to adequate educational materials makes long-term sense for the nation.
As a nation, how hard are we willing to go to try to correct disadvantages ingrained so early in life? Understanding that economic stratification will enhance future social separation, how willing are our nation's parents willing to go collectively to begin to fix problems that disadvantage children so early in life? Does the problem appear so daunting that we give up on early steps?
We can only hope that other urban leaders start to follow Mr. De Blasio's lead. If we demand too many fixes for so many educational grievances all at once, we will not get far. And there is little expectation that we could ever fully level the field. The idea of starting early and giving children a chance to develop stronger vocabularies with access to adequate educational materials makes long-term sense for the nation.
2
Well Gee I wonder what you think anybody can do to close the gap between say a family with two children who are well taken care of, held to high standards, and come from a family full of accomplished individuals for generations, and one with say six children with none of these advantages. Very unlikely to almost impossible no matter how much money you throw at it. Simple!!!
2
As stated, no one expects complete leveling. Perfection is not the goal. There are indications that gaps can be lowered, as indicated in the essay. Your "simple" route is to ignore things and let an increasingly poorly educated underclass expand. That is not good for the country on any level.
Economic diversity would benefit everyone. Wealthy families would still be able to raise tons of money at the PTA and help fund superior programs at their children's school and poor families would get a chance to share some of those programs. Both groups would get to see that they share a humanity as their kids become friends. Both groups of students might have a chance to avoid the awkward stereotypes and ensuing prejudices their parents possess.
This would not be as great a problem if the economy and political decisions weren't so skewed toward the benefit of those who are wealthy. If a family could live on the wages of one or two parents and their benefits were more closely matched with those at the top, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
This would not be as great a problem if the economy and political decisions weren't so skewed toward the benefit of those who are wealthy. If a family could live on the wages of one or two parents and their benefits were more closely matched with those at the top, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
12
So in affect you want income redistribution.
Despite intending to have our kids in PS from K-12, we moved them to private schools after 3rd gr. PS curriculum, lacking innovation -- oversized classes, oversized school (1200 students), rote learning, worksheets, the laser focus on standardized tests, one-size-fits-all instruction -- failed my kids. Even in a high-performing, affluent PS, teachers spent disproportionate time on disruptive, below-grade level and ESOL students without adequate support.
I do not buy that mixing unprepared/low-performers with well-prepared/high performing students has no affect on the latter group. They ARE affected by lack of attention & the absence of more challenging work. My then-2nd grader was asked to "tutor" a classmate who was reading at kindergarten level. Requests for more challenging classwork were met with MORE of the same work.
I'm a progressive on virtually everything -- except eduction. Kids of affluent, educated parents need much different educational environments than those from lower SES. How unrealistic to educate them all the same. I felt guilty about putting my kids in private school but PS ceased to work for them. I'm grateful that we are able to afford tuition.
Public schools need more flexibility to structure themselves for their student body. Parents deserve choices of different instructional models,(e.g., Montessori, dual-language immersion, G&T, etc.). Kids deserve smaller schools where they aren't one of thousands.
I do not buy that mixing unprepared/low-performers with well-prepared/high performing students has no affect on the latter group. They ARE affected by lack of attention & the absence of more challenging work. My then-2nd grader was asked to "tutor" a classmate who was reading at kindergarten level. Requests for more challenging classwork were met with MORE of the same work.
I'm a progressive on virtually everything -- except eduction. Kids of affluent, educated parents need much different educational environments than those from lower SES. How unrealistic to educate them all the same. I felt guilty about putting my kids in private school but PS ceased to work for them. I'm grateful that we are able to afford tuition.
Public schools need more flexibility to structure themselves for their student body. Parents deserve choices of different instructional models,(e.g., Montessori, dual-language immersion, G&T, etc.). Kids deserve smaller schools where they aren't one of thousands.
32
Exactly especially about the tutoring, no child should be expected to be a teacher to others.
1
My nephew has two very smart daughters in Montessori School. They thought about moving them to public school but decided not to when a public school but decided not to when a public school teacher told them that she would not have much time for their kids both of whom were several reading levels above their grade because she had to worry about the kids who could not read of even tie their shoes.
It's the one regret I have in my life that we couldn't afford private school for our kids. They were all very bright and we had a decent public schools, especially after we moved to TeXas, but I think they would have had so much more in an environment that pushed learning. We did have AP classes, so that helped somewhat in HS. Still, when they went to college (one is graduating HS today!) they were not as prepared. Don't feel guilty! You do the best for your kids and today public education is very weak in this country.
Busing for the Pre-K set. Outrageous! How did the last busing project end? Well, in more segregated schools. Economic segregation is a fact of life, and the quicker you realize it, the more successful and happy you become. The progressives idea of economically mixed neighborhoods is a fools errand. We live in a capitalistic society. If you want socialism, move to Europe. I don't want a program where pre-k kids bring there dysfunctional family issues to be solved in a class room.
18
In which case I'll send my kids to private school. Why would I want them learning with some kids who don't know how to either speak or behave?
30
I've seen wealthy kids who can't utter three words without inserting the word "like" into every sentence and I've seen more than my share of wealthy, spoiled brats who grow up to be troublemakers relying on Mommy and Daddy to bail them out.
The idea that wealth equates to good behavior is ridiculous. Doesn't anyone remember who gave us the banking crisis?
The idea that wealth equates to good behavior is ridiculous. Doesn't anyone remember who gave us the banking crisis?
1
UPK will not be "universal" until all the TEACHERS are treated fairly, too. Some teachers are DOE employees with all the salary and benefits of city workers, and others are daycare/private site workers making as little as 9 dollars an hour with no health insurance, no breaks, longer hours and no vacations to speak of. HOW can we call this a "universal" program when the private center workers are doing the exact same job for so little compensation?
9
Fairly???? Just who gets to decide what is fair? If it is ME then I am OK with it, if YOU I would not be. I bet the same applies to you in reverse. So nobody gets to decide, let the market do it. It has few bias.
"Economic segregation is a problem in preschool classrooms across the country."
CORRECTION:
Economic segregation is a problem in MANY PUBLIC SCHOOLS across the country.
CORRECTION:
Economic segregation is a problem in MANY PUBLIC SCHOOLS across the country.
14
We already tried this, it was called busing. It was disastrous for kids, education and familes. The libs want to try again. Good luck! Their ideological purity and lack of an ability to learn from their mistakes is truly amazing.
52
Well, here's one liberal who admit that his support for busing was a mistake.
5
No. Actually we never really gave busing a good run for the money. What we had was people taking kids out of school or moving.
Some poor children (not all) arrive in school never having been read to, never having been expected to sit still and listen, and having been constantly exposed to language that upper middle class children do not hear, etc. Many do come from chaotic families which leave them unable to focus.
Unfortunately even one or two of those children in a classroom changes the dynamic in a very negative way. All aside from the different levels of language skills learned and curriculum already understood like colors numbers, etc. Parents who care about this have an issue with mixed classrooms.
Unfortunately even one or two of those children in a classroom changes the dynamic in a very negative way. All aside from the different levels of language skills learned and curriculum already understood like colors numbers, etc. Parents who care about this have an issue with mixed classrooms.
99
Resources vary from school district to school district based on the tax base in the area. Some school boards prefer the status quo as it is.
1
When my children were of kindergarten age, our family income was well below that of the average household income in this country, and I'm sure that some of the other parents thought that their children didn't belong in classes with mine. Those parents were mostly older, however, and so had been able to enter the job market prior to the early 1980s when finding a job became much more difficult and some with no college education were making more than those with a newly minted degree. Younger parents today may find themselves in the same situation vis a vis the parents of their children's prospective classmates.
Fast forward to today. Each of my children has at least a bachelor's degree from a selective school, and three of them have the terminal degree in their field. All have IQs in the 99.9th percentile. They didn't attend any pre-K program, but I shudder to think where they might have been placed had that opportunity been available and had income been the only criterion for that. As much as parents and teachers alike seem to hate testing, that seems the only fair way in which to allocate places in classrooms targeted toward teaching students of various incoming achievement levels.
Fast forward to today. Each of my children has at least a bachelor's degree from a selective school, and three of them have the terminal degree in their field. All have IQs in the 99.9th percentile. They didn't attend any pre-K program, but I shudder to think where they might have been placed had that opportunity been available and had income been the only criterion for that. As much as parents and teachers alike seem to hate testing, that seems the only fair way in which to allocate places in classrooms targeted toward teaching students of various incoming achievement levels.
11
Yes genetics and parental care make much more of a difference than anything.
Now those who can't afford children should not have them. Zero is great!!!
Now those who can't afford children should not have them. Zero is great!!!
Sounds great in theory. I grew up as a kid from a lower middle class white background, thrown into a world of horrible and somewhat violent public schools. After working hard to get where I am, you'll have to excuse me for sending my kid to a private school. It's about separating your kid from those that are completely violent and out of control.
119
I hear you. I went to both types of schools, a mostly white Catholic school and a public school with a plurality of blacks. I'm black but I refuse to put my kids into an environment that I experienced at the public school. Sorry, not sorry.
Until and unless the academics want to actually tackle the issues out there honestly, most of us will continue to vote with our feet.
Until and unless the academics want to actually tackle the issues out there honestly, most of us will continue to vote with our feet.
46
"Blending" in pre-K: great idea, beneficial to all. Then what? Welcome to the real world, from kindergarten through the rest of your life?
13
One of my personal tenants of race relations is to make a friend with someone of another race or economic status and build that friendship. I hope the parents of the children in these integrated schools make friends across these boundaries and really learn about one another. One of the elements of white privilege is to imagine that we understand the issues facing blacks and thus we understand the solutions, when we don't. Friendships can make it all real, at which point the real healing can start. Good luck to us!
32
My parents always liked meeting people from different places, backgrounds etc. because they felt it made life more interesting.
Their friends were a professors, carpenters, truck drivers etc. As a kid I got to learn about pottery making from one of them and we were often treated to all kinds of ethnic food at pot luck gatherings.
Shortly after my mother died, one of my kids told me a story about seeing her Grandma having a nice chat with a young woman sporting a rainbow colored Mohawk. She thought her grandma was not only very nice but pretty cool.
My parents lived an interesting life and encouraged their kids to do the same. I'll be forever grateful to them.
Their friends were a professors, carpenters, truck drivers etc. As a kid I got to learn about pottery making from one of them and we were often treated to all kinds of ethnic food at pot luck gatherings.
Shortly after my mother died, one of my kids told me a story about seeing her Grandma having a nice chat with a young woman sporting a rainbow colored Mohawk. She thought her grandma was not only very nice but pretty cool.
My parents lived an interesting life and encouraged their kids to do the same. I'll be forever grateful to them.
Unless and until all public schools are equal in quality, we won't solve the problems. Unless and until parents get involved, we won't solve the problem. Unless and until we convince the population that education and educational attainment matters, we won't solve the problem. There are those that would solve the problem with charter schools rather than improving the public schools.
49
Equal in quality??? Never happen you don't control your raw material so being equal in outcomes is basically impossible.
vulc, I am talking about the school. It is not about the raw material. The differences in school quality between wealthy and poor districts in many parts of the country is often large.
Until all schools are equal in quality. I don't know what that means...do you mean when all schools have all parents participating and attending meetings? Do you mean when all schools have perfect attendance? you can't learn if you don't' show up every day. Or do you mean when all schools have all kids do their homework every day?
School is not that hard but you have to show up every day, do your homework every day and allow the teacher to teach without acting out. The children that fail are more likely the disadvantaged ones but I don't know how to address the behavior, attendance and effort issues without real community involvement to support the parents that either don't know how or are too involved with their own issues to do any more than they do.
We need before and after school tutoring programs that go until 6pm along with full summer academic/enrichment programs. They are cheaper than jail and public assistance. Desegregation is not the panacea.
School is not that hard but you have to show up every day, do your homework every day and allow the teacher to teach without acting out. The children that fail are more likely the disadvantaged ones but I don't know how to address the behavior, attendance and effort issues without real community involvement to support the parents that either don't know how or are too involved with their own issues to do any more than they do.
We need before and after school tutoring programs that go until 6pm along with full summer academic/enrichment programs. They are cheaper than jail and public assistance. Desegregation is not the panacea.
It's not just about economics. It's also about the parents' education.
Over 7000 children born in New York City in 2013 had a mother with an 8th grade education or less. Over 16,000 had a mother with a 9th to 12th grade education, with no diploma.
Over 25,000 had a mother with a high school diploma or GED. Another 26,000 had a mother with some college or an associate's degree.
Over 33,000 had a mother with a bachelor's degree. And over 18,000 had a mother with a master's degree.
These are very different groups. And their kids are going to have very different levels of preparation for preschool. One size does not always fit all.
Over 7000 children born in New York City in 2013 had a mother with an 8th grade education or less. Over 16,000 had a mother with a 9th to 12th grade education, with no diploma.
Over 25,000 had a mother with a high school diploma or GED. Another 26,000 had a mother with some college or an associate's degree.
Over 33,000 had a mother with a bachelor's degree. And over 18,000 had a mother with a master's degree.
These are very different groups. And their kids are going to have very different levels of preparation for preschool. One size does not always fit all.
73
Yes, these are very different groups. But let's not forget that a mother who had to leave school after eighth grade can still have the same high regard for education that my immigrant grandmother did and inculcate in her children a respect for their teachers and for themselves. Children of such parents typically do very well in school.
Sometimes it's hard to disentangle poorly educated, bad parents (i.e., those who have children simply because they can, and disdain anything intellectual) from poorly educated, responsible parents (those who, despite their poverty, want their children to know there is something beyond a life on the street).
Sometimes it's hard to disentangle poorly educated, bad parents (i.e., those who have children simply because they can, and disdain anything intellectual) from poorly educated, responsible parents (those who, despite their poverty, want their children to know there is something beyond a life on the street).
6
I love when people trot this out. As if being born poor means you are stupid. This is a complicated issue with lots of variables...in the end people will hopefully do what's best for their children and unfortunately there will be some that priortize education and others that won't.
My son just finished Pre-K and there were quite a few affluent families sending in 4 year olds who didn't know numbers or letters. That is a fact.
My parents didn't finish high school and when tested in 5th grade in a wealthy NJ suburb I had the highest IQ in my elementary classroom....and I was one of 4 kids. Today my nanny's children (she and her husband only finished high school) also were accepted with scholarships to NJ's best state schools. So...access to opportunity is important...as is the quality of the parenting and family unit.
My son just finished Pre-K and there were quite a few affluent families sending in 4 year olds who didn't know numbers or letters. That is a fact.
My parents didn't finish high school and when tested in 5th grade in a wealthy NJ suburb I had the highest IQ in my elementary classroom....and I was one of 4 kids. Today my nanny's children (she and her husband only finished high school) also were accepted with scholarships to NJ's best state schools. So...access to opportunity is important...as is the quality of the parenting and family unit.
1
For some portion of their growing up, we need to find ways to fit them all together, so that they experience and can have empathy for one another.
I took my chid out of public kindergarten as the teacher spent most of her time with the low income children who did not know how to count or colors, or even words like "under" or "next to". I understand that's where she needed to focus her time. But it left my child just sitting there working on repetitive worksheets most of the day.
128
Is the Ithaca school board aware of this? This is a fairly progressive district - in a city with a Mayor who, as a child, lived with his single mother and was considered one of the city's poor minorities. I have a hard time believing this is accepted practice district-wide.
1
Why should any kindergarten kid work on "worksheets" in kindergarten? Are you already worried about medical school admission?
1
Kindergarten should include creative activities such as having a clothing store in the pretend play area and building a rocket ship in the block area. It's possible to work in counting skills and concepts such as "under" in this type of creative play; there is no need for repetitive worksheets for anyone. If some children have many extra needs, an assistant could be hired, or possibly volunteers. But the poor children should not be separated into a different class.
2
So now having kids from different financial backgrounds in a class together is "blended". I remember when that term was used to integrate my school 40+ years ago. Odd how we always find a way to make it us and them especially those with the most advantages.
8
This problem gets to the hypocrisy of many liberals; they exert control over public schools, resist funding options that would allow poor parents to choose private school options, while sending their own children to elite private schools.
73
No, Donald, we "liberals" do not "resist funding options that would allow poor parents to choose private school option". We resist funding options that would take badly needed funds out of public schools and put them in private hands. We resisted defunding that targets the public schools that are the very heart and foundation of our democracy.
Oh, and, for the record, my children did and do not attend "elite private schools". As a retired teacher, I never made enough money to send my children to those schools had I wanted to. I don't think there is any need at this point to expound upon my not-so-generous pension either.
Oh, and, for the record, my children did and do not attend "elite private schools". As a retired teacher, I never made enough money to send my children to those schools had I wanted to. I don't think there is any need at this point to expound upon my not-so-generous pension either.
37
So, William, you'll tell us why Obama and Oblasio oppose charter schools.
1
Actually, very few liberals or for that matter very few anybodies send their children to elite private schools. Also, opposition to vouchers is based on the belief, probably true, that they will be used to establish a parallel system of education for middle class people, while the public schools are stripped of resources. Not that I would blame middle class people for not wanting to send their kids to a school with students who exhibit behavioral problems and a teach-to-the-bottom philosophy, imposed by the federal government, that destroys learning for the kids at the top.
4
Pre-K should be part of an effort to make public schools the center of a community. The school should be home to pre-school hours care, after school care, health care and adult education. Provide the students and the parents the services they need, even if extra fees are required.
10
So once again, people who work hard, sacrifice, and make wise decisions are going to subsidize those who do not. Isn't it enough that the poor (and let's call them what they are and not 'economically disadvantaged ') don't pay income taxes, get government subsidized healthcare, school breakfast & lunches, and housing, now you want my children to help uplift their children.
Here's the truth few have the guts to say - I don't want my children influenced by the children of those who had babies without marrying (or even knowing who was) the father. I want to protect my children from those kids whose home life is unstable. It is not my responsibility to raise another's child. Isn't it enough my outrageous tax bill is used to pay for those who have made poor decisions (drop out of school, children without marrying, using drugs, etc), now I've got to incubate my children with their children (and their habits and influences)?
It's time we stopped allowing the poor to be characterized as victims. They are not victims. They are living the lives they have chosen.
Here's the truth few have the guts to say - I don't want my children influenced by the children of those who had babies without marrying (or even knowing who was) the father. I want to protect my children from those kids whose home life is unstable. It is not my responsibility to raise another's child. Isn't it enough my outrageous tax bill is used to pay for those who have made poor decisions (drop out of school, children without marrying, using drugs, etc), now I've got to incubate my children with their children (and their habits and influences)?
It's time we stopped allowing the poor to be characterized as victims. They are not victims. They are living the lives they have chosen.
134
Your truth would probably be found in the dictionary under the letter s. S for stereotype. God forbid that children from economically disadvantaged homes have the same opportunities as your more "enlightened " ones. We are talking about children..those of whom are mentally not able to define pomposity and bluster for themselves. Maybe little Patty and Johnny will benefit from interacting with other more diverse
children and hopefully not develop the same emotionally disadvantaged ideals propogated by their parents.
children and hopefully not develop the same emotionally disadvantaged ideals propogated by their parents.
20
I commend you for your honesty. since you say these things I assume you are also in favor of free or sliding scale family planning and birth control for every woman in the U.S. who wants it. You must also be in favor of advertising for free or sliding scale family planning services. You must also be in favor of classes in ECONOMIC FAMILY PLANNING for all junior high school students. You must also be in favor of careful classes in all schools that teach junior and senior high school students how to raise a child: what does a child really need to develop normally and how to provide it. You must also be in favor of a thorough public information campaign to inform everyone of the importance of preventing traumatic brain injury and how to do that. YOu must also be in favor of lead paint removal in every home environment. I'll go further: I am in favor of free surgical sterilization for every man and woman in the U.S. who wants it with a bonus of $500 for lost work time.
I'm for this because those who know they don't want kids or shouldn't have kids often have mental illness or drug addiction which means they can't access sterilization services but $500 would bring them in and make sure they didn't have any or any more children. Could you support this?
My slogan is every American child should be a wanted child and a planned child.
Unwanted children are at much greater risk of abuse and neglect and subsequent mental illness and criminality.
I'm for this because those who know they don't want kids or shouldn't have kids often have mental illness or drug addiction which means they can't access sterilization services but $500 would bring them in and make sure they didn't have any or any more children. Could you support this?
My slogan is every American child should be a wanted child and a planned child.
Unwanted children are at much greater risk of abuse and neglect and subsequent mental illness and criminality.
27
Poverty is not a communicable disease. What are you worried that your youngster "will catch" by sitting next to these "other children"? What habits are so entrenched and horrible in four year olds that they can engender such fear and loathing?
As a pediatrician amd mother, I have a few reservations about the plan, mainly centered around my dismay over the loss of "play" as a strong learning element when we universalize or mandate PreK. Play is such a powerful tool for children from all backgrounds that is ignored in K and primary grades already and could be extinguished once all 3-4 year olds are swept into NCLB and other mandated programs. However I work in a practice with the kids of poverty and hardship and I can assure you that I would never worry about my own children being exposed to four year olds from a different demographic.
You need to meet more four year olds before you try to insulate your own from such"bad elements."
As a pediatrician amd mother, I have a few reservations about the plan, mainly centered around my dismay over the loss of "play" as a strong learning element when we universalize or mandate PreK. Play is such a powerful tool for children from all backgrounds that is ignored in K and primary grades already and could be extinguished once all 3-4 year olds are swept into NCLB and other mandated programs. However I work in a practice with the kids of poverty and hardship and I can assure you that I would never worry about my own children being exposed to four year olds from a different demographic.
You need to meet more four year olds before you try to insulate your own from such"bad elements."
55
Back in 1986 when I attended some symposia at Harvard's 350th annivrsary, I listened to a professor from the school of education say that as long as test scores were statistically skewed higher to the wealthy, as long as real estate agents were primary beneficiaries of school zoning, as long as wealth was unequal, then public education should only strive to be "just good enough." Apparently we have reached his goal.
7
I agree, racial bigotry will end when it ceases to be profitable
2
The problem is the way public schools are funded-- with local bond issues. If schools were funded entirely by the state, and distributed fairly, this would no longer be an issue. More radically, perhaps, but also effective, would be making public school mandatory and shutting down the private schools. Here in NYC it would do wonders. But I'm not holding my breath... it'll never happen.
2
The argument that programs should mix rich kids with poor kids because it helps poor kids and does not harm rich kids treats rich kids as props. Adults must find ways to delivery quality education to all kids, without relying on kids to make up for program shortcomings.
68
I wish everyone well, but the death spiral will continue:
People who can afford it will put their kids in good schools, leaving few besides disadvantaged (in more than an economic sense) kids, who in turn will do less well on standardized tests, which will be blamed on teachers, which will increase pressure for privatized altenatives, which will cherry pick kids, thus insuring that the public schools perform less well, which will be blamed on the teachers, placing downward pressure on their wages and job satisfaction, which will drive capable people out of the profession thus eventually self-fulfilling the prophesy that public school teachers are incompetent, leading to ever worsening results, and a populace manipulated into the position "why pay for such underperforming schools", leading to their reduced funding, which in turn...
Conservative ruin visited upon a once vibrant nation.
People who can afford it will put their kids in good schools, leaving few besides disadvantaged (in more than an economic sense) kids, who in turn will do less well on standardized tests, which will be blamed on teachers, which will increase pressure for privatized altenatives, which will cherry pick kids, thus insuring that the public schools perform less well, which will be blamed on the teachers, placing downward pressure on their wages and job satisfaction, which will drive capable people out of the profession thus eventually self-fulfilling the prophesy that public school teachers are incompetent, leading to ever worsening results, and a populace manipulated into the position "why pay for such underperforming schools", leading to their reduced funding, which in turn...
Conservative ruin visited upon a once vibrant nation.
69
How is what you describe "Conservative Ruin"? The failed policies of the Great Society have more to do with the problems you list.
17
Touche!
2
Rather than trying to tax the system with social engineering, let's just focus on making sure that lots of children have access to good programs that combine, play, being read to, basic discipline (learning to sit still for 20 minutes is a huge achievement at this age), pre-reading and pre-math skills, socialization like learning to share and behave.
Kindergarten teachers will applaud. They will be much happier with a group of children who are more ready to learn than with a group of children who have been exposed to multiple social strata.
Kindergarten teachers will applaud. They will be much happier with a group of children who are more ready to learn than with a group of children who have been exposed to multiple social strata.
23
Instead of putting ever more money the city does not have into pre-k , where the public benefits fare questionable at best, why not concentrate on fixing the public school system, especially at the middle school and high school levels?
Deblasio should be addressing and fixing established programs instead of introducing new ones that look good only on paper. High enrollments is not a sign of success.
Deblasio should be addressing and fixing established programs instead of introducing new ones that look good only on paper. High enrollments is not a sign of success.
43
Your argument flies in the face of the overwhelming empirical evidence of just how critical early childhood education is in each student's future academic performance. This per-K initiative might be the single most important way to "fix" the middle school and high school issues that NYC faces. Let's not be short-sighted.
5
What makes you think they only look good on paper? What is your opinion based on? My daughter is in public pre-K. It's only half-day, which I'm not thrilled about, but otherwise I'm very happy with it.
1
What do you mean 'fix'? the system would, in large part be fixed if poor children went to economically integrated schools, which would also likely be racially integrated. That way we could stop trying to 'help' poor children with the same lack of results year after year. There's a reason that social security and medicare are good programs. It's because they're for everyone, not just people below a certain income level.
3
New York City has the most segregated schools anywhere. "District 2" includes the Upper East side and Tribeca - areas miles apart, but predominantly white. Harlem residents, adjacent to the Upper East Side, cannot attend the high school i the Upper East Side, while kids from Tribeca can. NYC school "districts" are not autonomous districts, but rather just lines drawn by the NYC Department of Education. DeBlasio does not care.
34
We got our placement yesterday and I laughed. The first part of the joke was being robocalled by Chirlane McCray the night before informing me I would be getting a placement the next day. Is she part of the DOE now? Then we were given a seat at a public school in Bed Sty, when we live in Bay Ridge. I looked up the review on inside schools and it said that the school is facing declining enrollment due to 'changing demographics." So OK, you expect me to travel 45 minutes to an hour out of my way in both directions to put my son in a school which the zoned parents don't want to use? At pickup from nursery school yesterday two parents said they were placed in schools in lower manhattan!!
Before they can even worry about racial segregation, how about worrying about matching up the seat to student ratio IN THE DISTRICT?
Before they can even worry about racial segregation, how about worrying about matching up the seat to student ratio IN THE DISTRICT?
167
But, Jennifer, the masters of the Left insist we all be homogenized. But we must all also maintain a sense of neighborhood/community. Typical Grand Pronouncements from our very own Politburo.
5
I will tell you one thing for free. Affluent parents are going to make sure their children associate with children they choose. Poor people will have to go where they must but rich people are pretty smart when it comes to educating their children. I think it has to do with the natural order of things. Now we can solve it by eliminating private property and let the government meet our needs as they see fit. Otherwise rich folk will pay for their kids to have the best. I think it has to be with the lion being the king of the jungle. Even poor lions get what they want most of the time.
12
If you want children from different economic conditions to attend school together (as I do), you should use uniforms or strict dress codes to reduce the obvious inequalities. That technique has worked for decades across the World, and it should be part of the NYC school system, too.
180
Another way to guarantee that middle class parents won't want to send their kids to the school. Uniforms may be useful for the poor, but they aren't in keeping with the American tradition of independence.
4
@surgres
Standard uniforms do NOT work.
A larger percentage of parents send their children to private K-12 in my home state of Hawai’i than any other state. There are some VERY poor children who are scholarshipped in. The wealthy children have ironed, starched white shirts or blouses. Skirts and trousers that never looked worn even once. Poorer kids have shirts that will NEVER be white again because of the red dirt, volcanic dirt that makes up most of the central islands.
Rich? D&G boots at $350/pr, $700 leather bomber jackets, $800 Dior trench coats worn over the uniform. $1100 Louis Vuitton messenger bags to carry that Mac tablet in. iPhones!
PLUS you watch the kids being dropped off in Mercedes stretch limos while the poorer kids have their own “limos:” The Citibus, Blue Bird yellow school buses, or walking down from the dorms--the island kids from outer islands.
Kids are extremely savvy about what’s “important.” “Who” they are wearing. The local kids (Read Samoan, Hawai’ian, Tongan) speak a garbled pidgin while the stretch limo kids speak American English. Just look at the haircuts! Which boys get a buzz cut or which boys go to a hair salon at Neiman Marcus.
Anyone with an IQ higher than 80 can spot the kids who are “well taken care of” vs the kids who don’t seem to have any parents at home..basically because mom and pop are both working two minimum wage jobs just to pay rent.
Uniforms--sure! Everyone will be equal under the sun...in WHAT universe?
Standard uniforms do NOT work.
A larger percentage of parents send their children to private K-12 in my home state of Hawai’i than any other state. There are some VERY poor children who are scholarshipped in. The wealthy children have ironed, starched white shirts or blouses. Skirts and trousers that never looked worn even once. Poorer kids have shirts that will NEVER be white again because of the red dirt, volcanic dirt that makes up most of the central islands.
Rich? D&G boots at $350/pr, $700 leather bomber jackets, $800 Dior trench coats worn over the uniform. $1100 Louis Vuitton messenger bags to carry that Mac tablet in. iPhones!
PLUS you watch the kids being dropped off in Mercedes stretch limos while the poorer kids have their own “limos:” The Citibus, Blue Bird yellow school buses, or walking down from the dorms--the island kids from outer islands.
Kids are extremely savvy about what’s “important.” “Who” they are wearing. The local kids (Read Samoan, Hawai’ian, Tongan) speak a garbled pidgin while the stretch limo kids speak American English. Just look at the haircuts! Which boys get a buzz cut or which boys go to a hair salon at Neiman Marcus.
Anyone with an IQ higher than 80 can spot the kids who are “well taken care of” vs the kids who don’t seem to have any parents at home..basically because mom and pop are both working two minimum wage jobs just to pay rent.
Uniforms--sure! Everyone will be equal under the sun...in WHAT universe?
2
Learn together? Wanna bet?
With obstacles the Plan's beset,
Though the hype is slick
Short end of the stick
Is what Poor Kids are bound to get.
With obstacles the Plan's beset,
Though the hype is slick
Short end of the stick
Is what Poor Kids are bound to get.
12
Until there is a fair system of weslth distribution issues like this one will continue to arise. Schools, housing, healthcare, food, transportation, income all need to be equalized. Only then will our society have a chance to be free and fair for everyone.
4
Sounds like the plot from " Animal Farm", but just like in the book, the pigs will always rise to the top.
8
If income is equalized, then why put in anything more than the bare minimum at your job?
4
Because Marxist communism of EXACTLY THIS TYPE worked so well in Communist China and the former Soviet Union.
1
Wait a minute, something does not make sense here. There is the bold assertion that a poor child will be helped if with rich children, but that rich children will not be harmed. Common sense suggests that that could not possibly be the case. My daughter, a teacher, has taught in high end private schools (Connecticut) as well as schools that have kids from very mixed economic backgrounds (Maine). The children in Maine from mixed economic backgrounds had much more baggage - family problems and behavioural problems - that interfered with their ability to function let alone learn. This had nothing to do with race. In fact the CT school was far, far more racially diverse than the lilly-white school in Maine. Here is the key - in Maine, she was forced to provide essentially parental oversight - the kids' problems distracted from her teaching efforts. In CT, she actually taught.
The above example assumes that family income is negatively correlated with family problems. Obviously, that is not the case with certain segments of the population - many immigrant groups have strong families in spite of being poor. As a child of immigrants, I was fortunate enough to come from a family that strived to get ahead - I grew up in a trailer, but had a solid environment and ended up going to one of the most renowned universities in the world.
The above example assumes that family income is negatively correlated with family problems. Obviously, that is not the case with certain segments of the population - many immigrant groups have strong families in spite of being poor. As a child of immigrants, I was fortunate enough to come from a family that strived to get ahead - I grew up in a trailer, but had a solid environment and ended up going to one of the most renowned universities in the world.
89
The Christian School down the street from me adds new space every single year and has since I moved here 36 years ago. Three years ago a achool opened that deals primarily with Autistic and ADHD children.
The parents of these children are not all rich. Many work part time jobs to pay the tuition. Why? Smaller class size and control over the curriculum.
If I was starting as I did 38 years ago I would not place my child in a public school. Today's schools are teaching little of what I learned in school and have become indoctrination centers for the Left.
The parents of these children are not all rich. Many work part time jobs to pay the tuition. Why? Smaller class size and control over the curriculum.
If I was starting as I did 38 years ago I would not place my child in a public school. Today's schools are teaching little of what I learned in school and have become indoctrination centers for the Left.
7
I agree with your last paragraph. I learned to read from my immigrant grandfather who had an eighth grade education but who valued learning so much that he read to me every day. He educated himself with a New York City free library card and read every day himself. His working class economic status was irrelevant; his beliefs about family and education were what determined how he brought up his extended family. Education was encouraged and valued,
I wish we could retire the phrase "lily-white" by the way. Aside from the fact that nobody is that color, it's just a phrase which feels divisive.
I wish we could retire the phrase "lily-white" by the way. Aside from the fact that nobody is that color, it's just a phrase which feels divisive.
11
Actually I agree with your entire comment.
2
If, as you say, "research shows" that well-off kids are not harmed academically by going to school with poor kids, then why should poor kids be harmed academically by going to school with other poor kids?
Not that I am opposed to mixing it up, just not sure it will do what you hope.
Not that I am opposed to mixing it up, just not sure it will do what you hope.
36
It has more to do with being exposed to kids with more skills such as in language. When you are exposed to this at a young age you will pick up more language. If you play a sport you will learn more from a player that has better skills than you rather than someone with the same level or lesser level than you.
As a teacher, when I have a classroom with mixed abilities the kids with fewer skills do much better than if they had been in a class with the all the same skill level.
As a teacher, when I have a classroom with mixed abilities the kids with fewer skills do much better than if they had been in a class with the all the same skill level.
6
Interesting. Thanks.
1
We wouldn't have these discussions if people were paid a decent, living wage.
28
Yes we would.
I'm not sure if I was poor I would want my preschooler to be in a classroom with affluent children. Many of "those" people don't vaccinate their kids. And poor preschoolers don't learn any thing different from interacting with affluent preschoolers. You're not going to learn Polo, but you could get Polio.
25
Actually the poor preschoolers do benefit, from the larger vocabulary and more developed behavioral skills of their affluent peers.
6
Because: Might Makes Right.
When the mob of people who believe that forcing my child to learn with someone else's child is larger than the mob of people who believe I should be free to send my child to a school of my choice, then the Democratic Process has demonstrated the age-old belief in Mob Rule. Which is the equivalent of Might Makes Right.
All those who believe that the children of the Rich should be forced to learn with the children of the Poor necessarily hold that belief as being correct.
Might Makes Right. At least, when it comes to punishing the Rich for the crime of being Rich.
When the mob of people who believe that forcing my child to learn with someone else's child is larger than the mob of people who believe I should be free to send my child to a school of my choice, then the Democratic Process has demonstrated the age-old belief in Mob Rule. Which is the equivalent of Might Makes Right.
All those who believe that the children of the Rich should be forced to learn with the children of the Poor necessarily hold that belief as being correct.
Might Makes Right. At least, when it comes to punishing the Rich for the crime of being Rich.
12
Arguing that the rich should contribute to society to a degree commensurate with the benefit they've received from society is always, by a certain group of people, described as "punishing the Rich for the crime of being Rich."
27
"the benefit they've received from society"? Most of them have created their own benefits, society has merely been along for the ride. By the way, do you believe (along with the Hawaiiah Messiah) that businesses don't create jobs, the government creates jobs?
8
The "rich" many of the poor refer to re mostly middle class people working long hours and part time jobs. These "rich" people are paying a lot more for the same benefits many poor get while paying nothing and are paying for the benefits them too.
8
Years ago, my children attended parent cooperative nursery schools, why can't subsidies be offered for poorer families to place their children in these existing schools?
4
Educational segregation is bad for children and the nation.
Schools across the US are more segregated than anytime since Brown v. Department of Education. The segregation is both financial and racial. As the authors point out, desegregation enhances the learning experience for low income students.
Education inequality reproduces income/wealth inequality. Income/wealth inequality impedes economic growth, and several studies have demonstrated a correlation between inequality and instability/economic recession.
Educational segregation is bad for children and the nation.
Schools across the US are more segregated than anytime since Brown v. Department of Education. The segregation is both financial and racial. As the authors point out, desegregation enhances the learning experience for low income students.
Education inequality reproduces income/wealth inequality. Income/wealth inequality impedes economic growth, and several studies have demonstrated a correlation between inequality and instability/economic recession.
Educational segregation is bad for children and the nation.
77
Except that attempts at economic (*not* racial) integration have been disasters that lead to middle-class flight and pull down the performance of the better students.
Studies find that an "A" paper in an inner city school is a "C" paper in a good suburban one.
You just can't teach these kids effectively in the same classroom and the behavioral problems of some inner city kids will drive the middle class kids away.
Studies find that an "A" paper in an inner city school is a "C" paper in a good suburban one.
You just can't teach these kids effectively in the same classroom and the behavioral problems of some inner city kids will drive the middle class kids away.
5
OK. Now what do you recommend we do about it?
Forced integration (social engineering) doesn't work either - Bussing in Bostin in the 1970's was a debacle - even (smart) liberals looking back realize that today....
1
The idea of mixing rich and poor kids in classrooms is excellent save for at the end of the day, the rich kids go back to their rich homes with their rich parents and secure neighborhoods.
The poor kids go back to their lives of struggle and poverty.
So explain again just how this helps anything?
The poor kids go back to their lives of struggle and poverty.
So explain again just how this helps anything?
9
Research suggests that it produces better learning for the poor students without causing harm to the rich ones.
3
Dear Cornflower Rhys,
Most studies I've seen indicate that poor kids going back to poor neighborhoods in crime ridden areas have little or no chance of getting out of that neighborhood with the factor of "racial discrimination" not even taken into account. Add that to the equation and I would guess a poor, minority student has even smaller chance of succeeding.
If "better learning" means "passing tests", then you are probably correct. If you think that mixing poor and rich kids together helps the poor ones succeed then, I believe, you are wrong.
Most studies I've seen indicate that poor kids going back to poor neighborhoods in crime ridden areas have little or no chance of getting out of that neighborhood with the factor of "racial discrimination" not even taken into account. Add that to the equation and I would guess a poor, minority student has even smaller chance of succeeding.
If "better learning" means "passing tests", then you are probably correct. If you think that mixing poor and rich kids together helps the poor ones succeed then, I believe, you are wrong.
2
Because if they're like me, they get a glimpse of something better and reaching for that something better is what drives them.
I come from a poor background. I was lucky to have parents who made good use of PBS, libraries etc. but what really drove me was the desire to have the kind of life I'd glimpsed and read about.
It's hard to work towards something you've never seen or can imagine.
I come from a poor background. I was lucky to have parents who made good use of PBS, libraries etc. but what really drove me was the desire to have the kind of life I'd glimpsed and read about.
It's hard to work towards something you've never seen or can imagine.
2
It won't happen. Just as religious extremists do not want their children in the same room (or the same country) as LGBT children, just as racists do not want their kids cavorting with inferiors, the 1% emphatically do not want their future CEO offspring in the same pre-K classroom as future window cleaners.
We've become a nation that sees difference as disease. To normalize the despised other is far and away the worst outcome. Disdain is fed by myth and myth thrives in ignorance.
There will be no status-mixing in pre-K, just as God intended.
We've become a nation that sees difference as disease. To normalize the despised other is far and away the worst outcome. Disdain is fed by myth and myth thrives in ignorance.
There will be no status-mixing in pre-K, just as God intended.
6
I agree!
And stop those AP classes. Each child should have the same courses taught at the same speed. Giving AP students special classes only promotes inequality.
Feed each student with the same spoon!
And stop those AP classes. Each child should have the same courses taught at the same speed. Giving AP students special classes only promotes inequality.
Feed each student with the same spoon!
15
"Feed each student with the same spoon!" Oh yes, and then the diseases with which one are afflicted will be spread to them all. It's "fair" that all be afflicted with the same malady. Advanced placement children are brighter, functioning better, better behaved, more prepared to learn and to produce results. Why force them to put up with slower children who have less ability to learn quickly, or at all? The AP children will become bored and their time wasted.
14
Jimmy, all children, just as with people when they grow up, are not the same. They have different aptitudes, different interests, different motivations and yes, let's face it, different futures ahead of them, so why should they all have the same academic regime?
7
Do you also believe that "special needs" kids should have "the same courses taught at the same speed" rather than the IEPs mandated for them? At both ends of the spectrum (and, for that matter, anywhere in between) children's differences should be equally recognized and accommodated.
7
Politics is not education. When I was a school board member in a medium-size Ohio suburb, we considered universal pre-K and rejected the universal part.
We surveyed our community, which was far more economically homogeneous than NYC and confirmed what our own educators had surmised. Our own kindergarten teachers believed that not all kids were ready for even ready for kindergarten. Cynics (like me) wondered if those teachers were just making excuses. So we surveyed all our parents of pre-K-aged kids, telling them what pre-K hoped to achieve for their kids.
Nearly half believed their kids were not ready for such a thing so we made it optional.. If we didn't have half the actual parents supporting the idea, it would have been shameful to spend taxpayers dollars on pre-K.
I'm not sure how that decision affected our votes from other parents and taxpayers, not did we care. I suspect DiBlasio would show better actual results by reforming that cities tragically failing public schools -- the schools that over 10,000 African-Americans protested against, in support of Charter Schools. Fewer than 1/4 of applicants to NYC charters can be accommodated ... so let's create more union teaching jobs instead?
For how much longer will we continue the tragic selling out of our inner-city children? Children should no be political pawns. Politics is not education.
We surveyed our community, which was far more economically homogeneous than NYC and confirmed what our own educators had surmised. Our own kindergarten teachers believed that not all kids were ready for even ready for kindergarten. Cynics (like me) wondered if those teachers were just making excuses. So we surveyed all our parents of pre-K-aged kids, telling them what pre-K hoped to achieve for their kids.
Nearly half believed their kids were not ready for such a thing so we made it optional.. If we didn't have half the actual parents supporting the idea, it would have been shameful to spend taxpayers dollars on pre-K.
I'm not sure how that decision affected our votes from other parents and taxpayers, not did we care. I suspect DiBlasio would show better actual results by reforming that cities tragically failing public schools -- the schools that over 10,000 African-Americans protested against, in support of Charter Schools. Fewer than 1/4 of applicants to NYC charters can be accommodated ... so let's create more union teaching jobs instead?
For how much longer will we continue the tragic selling out of our inner-city children? Children should no be political pawns. Politics is not education.
9
You say children shouldn't be political pawns. Then you use them as political pawns in support of the charter school industry, which is usually a scam with better PR and worse instruction than the public schools.
12
Actually, I supported parental control in every case, including the district I was elected to help run. Are you aware that our public schools have just a hair below the world's highest Cost-Per-Pupil, but near the very bottom on achievement? And NYC is not even close to that abysmal failure level?
Because I had managed Training for a billion dollar corporate division, I soon had a close relationship with our district's Curriculum Director. One day she phoned and insisted I had to visit her office to see something personally. It was a study which showed US students ranked near the bottom in arithmetic but THOUGHT they were highly successful. Japanese students ranked near the very top but believed they were mediocre at best. A predictable outcome when focused on self-esteem instead of learning, eh?
With all due respect, do your own original research on charter school performance. Personally, I don't have even one ounce of respect for either partisan tribe ... like the growing majority of Americans. Consider joining us.
Because I had managed Training for a billion dollar corporate division, I soon had a close relationship with our district's Curriculum Director. One day she phoned and insisted I had to visit her office to see something personally. It was a study which showed US students ranked near the bottom in arithmetic but THOUGHT they were highly successful. Japanese students ranked near the very top but believed they were mediocre at best. A predictable outcome when focused on self-esteem instead of learning, eh?
With all due respect, do your own original research on charter school performance. Personally, I don't have even one ounce of respect for either partisan tribe ... like the growing majority of Americans. Consider joining us.
Statistics say the opposite. Get some before you make rash opinions .
2
Pre-K should be called free child care.
I personally think that universal free child care might be a really good thing. However, we should call it that.
I personally think that universal free child care might be a really good thing. However, we should call it that.
48
XY--Why should Pre-K be called "free child care?" It's a heck of a lot more than babysitting. I hope you'll observe a well-run program one day.
21
There was a cold & icy morning when I stood in line at the local coffee shop waiting to pay for my coffee - I overheard a parent of one of my district's students complain about the snow day, "These teachers, they just don't know how hard it is on parents when a snow day is declared…" I wanted so badly to tap her on the shoulder and say 'lady, I get paid to teach not babysit' -- But I didn't because I live 25 miles from work (with no radio reception in 1995), my radio in my car was turned off, and because it was news to me that a snow day had been declared. In my car, I sipped my coffee wondering why I didn't see the signs of a no-school-day? I finished my coffee, left the parking lot and turned in the direction of my school -- I still had over 50 essays to grade.
Alas, some people believe all teaching is 'free child-care"
Alas, some people believe all teaching is 'free child-care"
7
You do not know whereof you speak. The pre-k curricula I'm acquainted with include lots of age appropriate "learning" in a variety of different areas, academic and otherwise; indeed, far more rigorous than Kindergarten was in my day. If you spoke to some of the many dedicated, trained and certified early childhood teachers and saw them in action, you'd sing a different song.
3