6 ms·

After moving my kids out of a bad elementary school and into a fantastic district with a highly ranked school, the differences are obvious. The good school has

After moving my kids out of a bad elementary school and into a fantastic district with a highly ranked school, the differences are obvious. The good school has smarter kids with better parents. The bad school had dull kids with bad parents. The kids at the new school do their homework, read, play outside. The kids at the old school skipped homework, played call of duty, and could hardly read. The new school has fun exercises like the "word of the week" -- and they swear they will rarely assign homework. The old school had mandated trips to the library so kids could take home books and ignore them, alongside a minimum of 1hr of homework per night. In the bad school, a class of 24 had 11 kids who would not behave themselves, ever (one of the kids would often pick up his chair and hit other students and his aide). In the good school, a class of 24 has 1 kid with limited behavioral issues. Anyways, the people make the place -- and that includes kids.

bdcravens 1y ago
In your discussion of "bad kids", it seems like there's a subtext you're not saying out loud.
- ToDougie 1y ago
  Go ahead and make your accusation, you wimp.
- ainiriand 1y ago
  I have not read that subtext, maybe is your own unconscious bias...
  - bdcravens 1y ago
    The commenter suggested the old school was filled with bad kids and bad parents, and by definition, this would include the commenter and their kids. Unless they are suggesting they weren't the bad ones, and were somehow unfairly placed with the riff raff. If that's the case, some analysis of why that is seems in order.
    - nervousvarun 1y ago
      From the commenter: "The good school has smarter kids with better parents. The bad school had dull kids with bad parents. The kids at the new school do their homework, read, play outside. The kids at the old school skipped homework, played call of duty, and could hardly read." That appears to be their observation of the two schools they had direct experience with. What else are you asking they provide here in terms of analysis? Maybe average student test scores? Likely available as it appears they are talking about public schools here. If the new school has significantly better scores would that satisfy your analysis requirement? If the test scores within their household subsequently follow this trend would that be sufficient analysis? In general active/concerned parents are going to try to get their kids the best education available right? Also can you elaborate on where you got the "unfairly placed" part? All that was actually said was they moved from one school district to another. People buy homes for school districts all the time...there's a section dedicated to school rankings on Zillow for a reason.
      - bdcravens 1y ago
        Yes, and performance is often correlated with property tax revenue. Low funds means less resources which influences the outcomes and behaviors of those kids. Put differently, "Anyways, the people make the place -- and that includes kids." is less true than the available resources make the place. A reasonable analysis would be less of the anecdotal "evidence" about laziness, and more of the demographics of that particular district. By "unfairly placed", it addresses what you quoted: "The bad school had dull kids with bad parents." Was the commenter one of those bad parents, since they were by definition in that category? Or are they suggesting they were one of the good parents that was in the wrong place? Or did they become good parents once they found a better school?
    - staticman2 1y ago
      Of all the comments here in this 900 comment discussion, you thought that innocuous one had to be picked apart?
      - bdcravens 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
japoneris 1y ago
Reading a french book ''enfances de classes'' from bernard lahire, it explains exactly that. Children from low ''resource'' family have agressive behavior, they are left as animals because their parents are not teaching them.
QuantumNoodle 1y ago
In my state, to live in an excellent school district is very expensive. We've been trying to move but always get out-bid and out-priced. Mind you we earn well above median but unfortunately, we were not "born early enough." Many folks living in the districts have been there well before it was expensive and probably cannot afford their own home if they had to buy it again. Shit sucks.
QuantumNoodle 1y ago
How do you determine what is a good district or not?

bdcravens 1y ago

In your discussion of "bad kids", it seems like there's a subtext you're not saying out loud.

ToDougie 1y ago
Go ahead and make your accusation, you wimp.
ainiriand 1y ago
I have not read that subtext, maybe is your own unconscious bias...
- bdcravens 1y ago
  The commenter suggested the old school was filled with bad kids and bad parents, and by definition, this would include the commenter and their kids. Unless they are suggesting they weren't the bad ones, and were somehow unfairly placed with the riff raff. If that's the case, some analysis of why that is seems in order.
  - nervousvarun 1y ago
    From the commenter: "The good school has smarter kids with better parents. The bad school had dull kids with bad parents. The kids at the new school do their homework, read, play outside. The kids at the old school skipped homework, played call of duty, and could hardly read." That appears to be their observation of the two schools they had direct experience with. What else are you asking they provide here in terms of analysis? Maybe average student test scores? Likely available as it appears they are talking about public schools here. If the new school has significantly better scores would that satisfy your analysis requirement? If the test scores within their household subsequently follow this trend would that be sufficient analysis? In general active/concerned parents are going to try to get their kids the best education available right? Also can you elaborate on where you got the "unfairly placed" part? All that was actually said was they moved from one school district to another. People buy homes for school districts all the time...there's a section dedicated to school rankings on Zillow for a reason.
    - bdcravens 1y ago
      Yes, and performance is often correlated with property tax revenue. Low funds means less resources which influences the outcomes and behaviors of those kids. Put differently, "Anyways, the people make the place -- and that includes kids." is less true than the available resources make the place. A reasonable analysis would be less of the anecdotal "evidence" about laziness, and more of the demographics of that particular district. By "unfairly placed", it addresses what you quoted: "The bad school had dull kids with bad parents." Was the commenter one of those bad parents, since they were by definition in that category? Or are they suggesting they were one of the good parents that was in the wrong place? Or did they become good parents once they found a better school?
  - staticman2 1y ago
    Of all the comments here in this 900 comment discussion, you thought that innocuous one had to be picked apart?
    - bdcravens 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

japoneris 1y ago

Reading a french book ''enfances de classes'' from bernard lahire, it explains exactly that. Children from low ''resource'' family have agressive behavior, they are left as animals because their parents are not teaching them.

QuantumNoodle 1y ago

In my state, to live in an excellent school district is very expensive. We've been trying to move but always get out-bid and out-priced. Mind you we earn well above median but unfortunately, we were not "born early enough." Many folks living in the districts have been there well before it was expensive and probably cannot afford their own home if they had to buy it again. Shit sucks.

QuantumNoodle 1y ago

How do you determine what is a good district or not?