4 ms·

> Would you say those middle class parents have “unfair access” as well? Speaking as one of them, yes. What's unfair is that good schools are only afforded to

by danans 6y ago

> Would you say those middle class parents have “unfair access” as well? Speaking as one of them, yes. What's unfair is that good schools are only afforded to the middle class and up.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
You can drop a shiny new billion dollar school with teachers paid a million dollars a year in poor neighborhood and still not end up with a “good school”. A good school is one in which the children attending the school have secure home environments, where there is secure food, heat, internet, AC, transportation, quiet, and other fundamentals that are conducive to education. The students peers also need to the same to create the culture of learning. Most importantly, there is a set of parents who have the time and energy to keep up with the kids’ education and plug any gaps along the way. Bonus if the parents themselves have connections and resources to boost their kids’ access to connections and resources. E.g. knowing doctors who can show the way around medical education, lawyers who can show the way around the legal world, etc. Unfair is the state of the world, and unless we want to close to income/wealth gap and give parents the ability to not have to work 2 jobs, or 7 days a week, or choose between fixing a car or eating dinner, the unfairness of schools has nothing to do with the schools or management of the schools themselves.
- danans 6y ago
  I was using "good school" in response to the parent comment's use of it. I didn't define it, but in fact I agree with nearly everything you wrote - the fact is that what we call "bad" schools has more to do with the extraordinary social challenges those schools face vs. more well-off schools. However, you don't have to eliminate the wealth/income gap to achieve that. Providing social supports enjoyed by wealthier areas (universal Pre-K, universal healthcare, drug/alcohol treatment, small business loans) will help significantly.
refurb 6y ago
How do you define a "good school"? At least in CA, it seems to be test scores, which aren't just a reflection of the school, but also the students. Low income students who don't get support at home from parents or even an emphasis on education are probably going to have low test scores no matter how good the school is.
- danans 6y ago
  > How do you define a "good school"? I was responding to it in whatever sense you used it originally. But since you ask, a safe, inclusive environment that maximizes the inherent learning potential of the broadest number of its students. I know full well that is heavily influenced by the resources of the students before they set foot in the door - it's unconscionable that we have children relying on schools for meals, that we require schools to function as trauma intervention centers for children who have experienced severe violence in their homes or communities[1] - but that's the society we've built. To change that will require a significant injection of resources to the communities that are disadvantaged this way - whether they are in South Central LA or Appalachia. 1. A trained trauma psychologist can add $100k to the budget of a school per year. "Good schools" don't need that kind of person on staff.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> What's unfair is that good schools are only afforded to the middle class and up. The metrics by which “good schools” are measured don't measure teaching, they measure outcomes that are determined almost entirely by the out-of-school upbringing and socioeconomic background of students.
- danans 6y ago
  I agree, and was using the parent comment's also undefined term "good school". Socioeconomics don't have to be educational destiny however. In particular, a blue-collar community's school does not have to be a "bad school". I grew up in a largely blue collar (and notably, white) school system in a stable community that provided good educational opportunities to many students. What was different there vs communities with "bad schools" was that we didn't face systemic deprivation and de-resourcing. This was a community with a significant (though waning) number of union jobs, and largely stable households. There were lots of problems, no doubt - including racism - but within the confines of the community, you didn't need to have professional educated parents in order to have chance at maximizing your educational potential.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > In particular, a blue-collar community's school does not have to be a "bad school". There's little evidence that they generally are, is my point. Once you control for individual factors that contribute to student success outside of the school they go to, there's very little evidence that differences between schools have much effect.

by danans 6y ago

> Would you say those middle class parents have “unfair access” as well? Speaking as one of them, yes. What's unfair is that good schools are only afforded to the middle class and up.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

You can drop a shiny new billion dollar school with teachers paid a million dollars a year in poor neighborhood and still not end up with a “good school”. A good school is one in which the children attending the school have secure home environments, where there is secure food, heat, internet, AC, transportation, quiet, and other fundamentals that are conducive to education. The students peers also need to the same to create the culture of learning. Most importantly, there is a set of parents who have the time and energy to keep up with the kids’ education and plug any gaps along the way. Bonus if the parents themselves have connections and resources to boost their kids’ access to connections and resources. E.g. knowing doctors who can show the way around medical education, lawyers who can show the way around the legal world, etc. Unfair is the state of the world, and unless we want to close to income/wealth gap and give parents the ability to not have to work 2 jobs, or 7 days a week, or choose between fixing a car or eating dinner, the unfairness of schools has nothing to do with the schools or management of the schools themselves.

danans 6y ago
I was using "good school" in response to the parent comment's use of it. I didn't define it, but in fact I agree with nearly everything you wrote - the fact is that what we call "bad" schools has more to do with the extraordinary social challenges those schools face vs. more well-off schools. However, you don't have to eliminate the wealth/income gap to achieve that. Providing social supports enjoyed by wealthier areas (universal Pre-K, universal healthcare, drug/alcohol treatment, small business loans) will help significantly.

refurb 6y ago

How do you define a "good school"? At least in CA, it seems to be test scores, which aren't just a reflection of the school, but also the students. Low income students who don't get support at home from parents or even an emphasis on education are probably going to have low test scores no matter how good the school is.

danans 6y ago
> How do you define a "good school"? I was responding to it in whatever sense you used it originally. But since you ask, a safe, inclusive environment that maximizes the inherent learning potential of the broadest number of its students. I know full well that is heavily influenced by the resources of the students before they set foot in the door - it's unconscionable that we have children relying on schools for meals, that we require schools to function as trauma intervention centers for children who have experienced severe violence in their homes or communities[1] - but that's the society we've built. To change that will require a significant injection of resources to the communities that are disadvantaged this way - whether they are in South Central LA or Appalachia. 1. A trained trauma psychologist can add $100k to the budget of a school per year. "Good schools" don't need that kind of person on staff.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> What's unfair is that good schools are only afforded to the middle class and up. The metrics by which “good schools” are measured don't measure teaching, they measure outcomes that are determined almost entirely by the out-of-school upbringing and socioeconomic background of students.

danans 6y ago
I agree, and was using the parent comment's also undefined term "good school". Socioeconomics don't have to be educational destiny however. In particular, a blue-collar community's school does not have to be a "bad school". I grew up in a largely blue collar (and notably, white) school system in a stable community that provided good educational opportunities to many students. What was different there vs communities with "bad schools" was that we didn't face systemic deprivation and de-resourcing. This was a community with a significant (though waning) number of union jobs, and largely stable households. There were lots of problems, no doubt - including racism - but within the confines of the community, you didn't need to have professional educated parents in order to have chance at maximizing your educational potential.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > In particular, a blue-collar community's school does not have to be a "bad school". There's little evidence that they generally are, is my point. Once you control for individual factors that contribute to student success outside of the school they go to, there's very little evidence that differences between schools have much effect.