<p>I guess parents who can afford to buy homes in the neighborhoods with the " better publics" are bad people as well? </p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>I guess because people who can afford to live where they want don’t choose to live in “bad areas” to force improvements there, those folks are “bad people.” So what that you might have a family member murdered in that bad neighborhood. Eventually, your being there will benefit the “common good.”</p>
<p>utter nonsense.</p>
<p>Post #12 "No school is perfect, but think how much money is saved by public school districts where many of the school-age children attend private schools. "</p>
<p>This is untrue. My school district, for example, pays $4 million a year in taxpayer money to fund private charter school tuitions of students who leave our very good public school system for one of the profit education businesses. Charters are now challenging the funding because they want more. Insult to injury: if X students leave a district, that district not only pays for it, the district’s state funding is reduced by X on top off the diverted per pupil amount; this is akin to saying since there are 15 students in AP Math instead of 18, the electricity will cost less and so will the bus. And if X students are at a profit center without band, my public has to pay to bus them back and forth to this one part of school they find attractive. </p>
<p>When you have your cake and eat it too, you are usually eating someone else’s cake. I think the article’s premise — that without private choices , people would have to stand and fight for better schools — is one I agree with. I don’t think that makes private paretns bad people, though; not at all.</p>
<p>The thing that gets me is the arrogance to think that the public school parents need the private school parents to elevate their kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are free to educate your children however you wish. But consider,</p>
<p>No evidence that the achievement of students is lowered when schools are integrated by socioeconomic level. In other words, you are not sacrificing your child’s education for a social good that benefits others. </p>
<p>The achievement of integrators is raised. If the culture of the school is achievement oriented, that will be internalized by new students.</p>
<p>Seems like there is a tipping point of 50 percent. When a majority of students is high achieving, middle-class students, this is the culture that will prevail at the school. The reverse is true. If a majority are low achieving, low socioeconomically, there will be no benefits from socioeconomic integration. </p>
<p>“Low-income students attending more affluent schools scored almost two years ahead of low-income students in high-poverty schools. Indeed, low-income students given a chance to attend more affluent schools performed more than half a year better, on average, than middle-income students who attend high-poverty schools.”</p>
<p>“Closing the student achievement gap: The overlooked strategy of socioeconomic integration”</p>
<p><a href=“http://a100educationalpolicy.pbworks.com/f/Closing+the+Achievement+Gap+-+Socioeconomic+Integration.pdf[/url]”>http://a100educationalpolicy.pbworks.com/f/Closing+the+Achievement+Gap+-+Socioeconomic+Integration.pdf</a></p>
<p>That is fine latichever and I don’t disagree, but I was talking about the argument in favor of parental involvement , specifically, in underachieving schools. I don’t believe for a minute that that would have a significant difference and it is insulting to those parents. And as I said earlier, my high achieving daughter went to a gang infested school. The middle class kids did very well, but they were never actually in the same classes. Never. The numbers showed lift for the whole schoo, by magnetism the high achieving kids in, but their presence did absolutely nothing for any other kids, and it was my d’s group that got all the perks donated to “the school”</p>
<p>Not the case where we live, greenbutton, but a good point.</p>