OT- Commercial complaining about a test. What is it about?
- Thread starter Extra Point
- Start date
It was flawed logic. We took those tests for decades with no problems. The problems started recently with the inner city kids from bad families that don't care about education don't succeed with ANY system. They need someone to blame for their problems.
Do you think classroom teachers are determining how things are being run? lolol
The districts are terrified of FUNDING cuts from Bluto in Trenton--he still lives in Trenton, right?
NJ had no formal opt out policy, they are so tone deaf. Why? Because the federal empty suits placed participation rates on funding dollars. That trickled down to the district level. It was only when parents threatened legal action over forcing their kids to participate did districts come up with a "solution." The solution you ask? Your kid reports to school and twiddles their thumbs in the cafeteria for 6 hours. Why you ask? Well, general absence rates ALSO factor into state funding decisions. So, we need them to be "here" for the day, even if here is in the cafeteria with an Ipad of portable Nintendo. We get emails 2x a year from the Super BEGGING parents not to take their kids away on the day leading into a scheduled break because all those non sick absences lower the overall district attendance rate, which puts our district wide funding at risk.
The efficacy of the test isn't even proven on a sample population scale. Yet, it was forced implementation. As mentioned by others, they can't even administer the thing properly.
Is that the successful model? If so then copy it and stop making excuses. I am all for it. IN a few years you will probably learn that the administrators were cheating on the tests.
That's great..except for one thing.
The loudest complainers are from the most affluent districts. Urban district parents are not complaining.
Pull your head out of your ass and get back to us
Wrong. The loudest complainers are the UNIONS whose only interest is lining their pockets.
PS. Notice how the affluent areas get great results on testing and affluent areas never need charters?
part of the reason the affluent areas do well on testing is because the parents can afford to pay for tutors. For the SATs it has been common for parents in wealthier towns to hire tutors to prepare their kids for the SAT. I would not be surprised if this becomes the case for the PARCC exams too where parents pay for their kids to get extra tutoring for this exam.
I suggest we let districts opt out. That is fine with me. The lower class will flood the districts that opt out and it will keep them out of the good schools. I predict in a couple years the familes whose kids are at the schools without testing will then protest and want to get their kids in the schools with testing.
Aren't they teaching to a test anyway? what else are they teaching to? I would rather be graded on an objective standard test than some teachers subjective impression of me.
Keep dreaming. MOst kids never see a tutor in their life. They STUDY. THe parents are the "tutor". The inner city kids play video games and the suburban kids and Asians study.
THe reality is the problem is the lower class. If they really think eliminating the testing would solve their problems then I am all for it. The problem is they will still fail. They have been asking for changes for 60 years and we pretty much went along with ALL their BS suggestions and all they do is fail.
No, you are completely off base the loudest complainers are the parents in those districts and not the teachers....and believe me I am no fan of the NJEA....but even a broken clock is right twice a day and they happen to have a point with the PARCC. The parents (like myself) are concerned about how much instructional time is lost to administer these tests....they are not once but twice a year (March and May). The teachers (rightfully so) are concerned about how a test which has never been administered and for which even the company that created have no idea how to score it will count for part of their evaluation. However, the only pockets being lined as a result of this test are those of Pearson and their shareholders and of course the federal and state fat cats who gave them the contract.
Actually they are not - they are teaching the curriculum as decided by the district and aligned to the common core state standards....but as I mentioned a few posts ago no one knew what was going to be on the PARCC - it is supposed to also be aligned with the common core but come to find out when they finally rolled it out they did a very poor job of ensuring that it was in fact aligned.
Great question. "What else are they they teaching to?"
How about we let YOU pick ANY curriculum you want and then the tests will made AFTER you pick your curriculum and the tests will be based on the curriculum. Will the students not be able to pass the tests?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/opinion/01gates.html?hp
Guest Columnist
Breaking the Silence
By HENRY LOUIS GATES JR.
Published: August 1, 2004
Go into any inner-city neighborhood," Barack Obama said in his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention, "and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white." In a speech filled with rousing applause lines, it was a line that many black Democratic delegates found especially galvanizing. Not just because they agreed, but because it was a home truth they'd seldom heard a politician say out loud.
Why has it been so difficult for black leaders to say such things in public, without being pilloried for "blaming the victim"? Why the huge flap over Bill Cosby's insistence that black teenagers do their homework, stay in school, master standard English and stop having babies? Any black person who frequents a barbershop or beauty parlor in the inner city knows that Mr. Cosby was only echoing sentiments widely shared in the black community.
"If our people studied calculus like we studied basketball," my father, age 91, once remarked as we drove past a packed inner-city basketball court at midnight, "we'd be running M.I.T." When my brother and I were growing up in the 50's, our parents convinced us that the "blackest" thing that we could be was a doctor or a lawyer. We admired Hank Aaron and Willie Mays, but our real heroes were people like Thurgood Marshall, Dr. Benjamin Mays and Mary McLeod Bethune.
Yet in too many black neighborhoods today, academic achievement has actually come to be stigmatized. "We are just not the same people anymore," says the mayor of Memphis, Dr. Willie W. Herenton. "We are worse off than we were before Brown v. Board," says Dr. James Comer, a child psychiatrist at Yale. "And a large part of the reason for this is that we have abandoned our own black traditional core values, values that sustained us through slavery and Jim Crow segregation."
Making it, as Mr. Obama told me, "requires diligent effort and deferred gratification. Everybody sitting around their kitchen table knows that."
"Americans suffer from anti-intellectualism, starting in the White House," Mr. Obama went on. "Our people can least afford to be anti-intellectual." Too many of our children have come to believe that it's easier to become a black professional athlete than a doctor or lawyer. Reality check: according to the 2000 census, there were more than 31,000 black physicians and surgeons, 33,000 black lawyers and 5,000 black dentists. Guess how many black athletes are playing professional basketball, football and baseball combined. About 1,400. In fact, there are more board-certified black cardiologists than there are black professional basketball players. "We talk about leaving no child behind," says Dena Wallerson, a sociologist at Connecticut College. "The reality is that we are allowing our own children to be left behind." Nearly a third of black children are born into poverty. The question is: why?...........
...........................................................................
Obama can't redistribute brains and work ethics. Standardized testing is not the problem.
Guest Columnist
Breaking the Silence
By HENRY LOUIS GATES JR.
Published: August 1, 2004
Go into any inner-city neighborhood," Barack Obama said in his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention, "and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white." In a speech filled with rousing applause lines, it was a line that many black Democratic delegates found especially galvanizing. Not just because they agreed, but because it was a home truth they'd seldom heard a politician say out loud.
Why has it been so difficult for black leaders to say such things in public, without being pilloried for "blaming the victim"? Why the huge flap over Bill Cosby's insistence that black teenagers do their homework, stay in school, master standard English and stop having babies? Any black person who frequents a barbershop or beauty parlor in the inner city knows that Mr. Cosby was only echoing sentiments widely shared in the black community.
"If our people studied calculus like we studied basketball," my father, age 91, once remarked as we drove past a packed inner-city basketball court at midnight, "we'd be running M.I.T." When my brother and I were growing up in the 50's, our parents convinced us that the "blackest" thing that we could be was a doctor or a lawyer. We admired Hank Aaron and Willie Mays, but our real heroes were people like Thurgood Marshall, Dr. Benjamin Mays and Mary McLeod Bethune.
Yet in too many black neighborhoods today, academic achievement has actually come to be stigmatized. "We are just not the same people anymore," says the mayor of Memphis, Dr. Willie W. Herenton. "We are worse off than we were before Brown v. Board," says Dr. James Comer, a child psychiatrist at Yale. "And a large part of the reason for this is that we have abandoned our own black traditional core values, values that sustained us through slavery and Jim Crow segregation."
Making it, as Mr. Obama told me, "requires diligent effort and deferred gratification. Everybody sitting around their kitchen table knows that."
"Americans suffer from anti-intellectualism, starting in the White House," Mr. Obama went on. "Our people can least afford to be anti-intellectual." Too many of our children have come to believe that it's easier to become a black professional athlete than a doctor or lawyer. Reality check: according to the 2000 census, there were more than 31,000 black physicians and surgeons, 33,000 black lawyers and 5,000 black dentists. Guess how many black athletes are playing professional basketball, football and baseball combined. About 1,400. In fact, there are more board-certified black cardiologists than there are black professional basketball players. "We talk about leaving no child behind," says Dena Wallerson, a sociologist at Connecticut College. "The reality is that we are allowing our own children to be left behind." Nearly a third of black children are born into poverty. The question is: why?...........
...........................................................................
Obama can't redistribute brains and work ethics. Standardized testing is not the problem.
You can't replicate it because the UFT (New York's version of the NJEA) is bound and determined to shut it down. But, given your last accusation, I really don't think that matters to you.
Kids don't "just" take PARCC; some still get a day of the old test (NJASK) and they get standardized testing for math levels and reading levels. The amount of time spent on preparing for and taking tests is way, way more than it was 5 or 10 years ago.
Plus the expense is getting out of hand. Our district spend an extra $85,000 on extra bussing during the PARCC test, for example. Not to mention all the extra computers that needed to be purchased solely for this purpose.
Plus the expense is getting out of hand. Our district spend an extra $85,000 on extra bussing during the PARCC test, for example. Not to mention all the extra computers that needed to be purchased solely for this purpose.
Now you care about expense? How much do we spend on teachers pensions? How much do we spend on school cops because the kids are violent?
Actually, Newark has one of the strongest unions so.... The parent opt out has little to do with union persuasion and more to do with parent involvement in education. More involved affluent parents realize that the test has little importance for their kids and takes away a great deal of instructional time, and many students are therefor giving little effort on the test. It doesn't count towards graduation yet and there are other ways of meeting graduation requirements that higher achieving students will easily meet. There is also some concern that since students are not taking the test seriously, low scores on PARCC may look bad on transcripts sent to colleges. It's really a time of flux and uncertainty.
This is not to say NJEA isn't fighting testing for their own reasons, but the unions are not the reason parents in affluent areas opted out at a significant rate.
Well if Pearson actually did that as they were supposed to it shouldn't be a problem but since they didn't your point is moot. The feds and the states gave millions to Pearson to develop this test and they did a piss poor job of aligning to the common core. Not to mention all of the other issues that have cropped up regarding infrastructure, adequate technology to take the test, etc. it's really quite the disaster. I do not have a problem with kids taking a standardized test but I do have a problem with this one and how it was implemented.
PARCC sucks. Go online, look at it, take some sample questions. It is bizarre. The old fashioned tests were better... but people whined about them. They tested.. get this radical idea.. KNOWLEDGE. You did not have to be coached up on taking the test. But now the teachers don't want to be responsible for cramming KNOWLEDGE into childrens' heads. And parents don't seem to want their kids evaluated on what they were able to learn. So they have to come up with some kind of test that.. well.. I have no idea what it really does. Its like a lottery, I guess. Maybe you choose the "most correct" answer, maybe you don't.
My mom was a teacher who retired right around the time that No Child Left Behind really took effect. NCLB really drove the move to teaching to the test because the results of standardized tests were a key factor in school funding under NCLB, and she really noticed a difference in how administrators approached curriculum and testing in her last few years. (Most of this didn't affect her directly because she taught remedial reading, but she was involved in the district's curriculum committee.)
Somebody mentioned testing in other countries, and the description - fewer, later and much higher stakes - is about right. My wife went to high school in the UK and took the O level exams, and they were very important to moving on in the education system there. But, since they didn't come until mid-high school (or maybe the equivalent of junior year), lower level teachers could focus on other things.
Somebody mentioned testing in other countries, and the description - fewer, later and much higher stakes - is about right. My wife went to high school in the UK and took the O level exams, and they were very important to moving on in the education system there. But, since they didn't come until mid-high school (or maybe the equivalent of junior year), lower level teachers could focus on other things.
der pretty much had PARCC right on an earlier post, and lots of what Hudson (and others) is saying is correct as well.
PARCC (along with a competing measure, Smarter Balanced) are measures of the Common Core curriculum standards. They were developed in an effort to get a common set of measures for states to use to asses achievement of the Common Core objectives (statements of what kids should know and when). The idea was to save money because all states were inventing their own standards and their own measures, and it was really inefficient. I mean, how different is reading in NJ from PA?
The Common Core is really not that bad, but the idea of it is pretty universally hated. The left doesn't like it because the left doesn't like Big Brother telling them what to do. The right doesn't like it because it's too new-fangled (see posts on doing mathematics). It isn't much different from the standards that the states had to begin with, but most folks have forgotten that. And then PARCC comes along and it is hated so much that people are forgetting about their hatred of the Common Core.
Most of the items that people are putting on social media from PARCC aren't actually from PARCC as it is a secure test. Mostly what you are seeing is nonsense that companies are putting out to make a buck. Which is not to say that PARCC is good. PARCC comes from Pearson. If you don't know about Pearson, you should. Makes John D. look like a benevolent old man. The real problem with PARCC is that in the design phase, every group and their sister came to the table with an agenda, and Pearson pretty much agreed to all of them. So the test looks like Megatron and takes days to administer. Actually the testing is really spread out under the theory that kids can't do too much in one day. So it takes days and days to do it, and schools are loathe to do anything else while the testing is taking place.
PARCC also decided to test directly online. This will save (Pearson) a ton of money in the long run as it eliminates shipping and scoring of answer sheets. It will also allow for automated scoring of essays to a degree.
My guess is that PARCC pretty much jumps the testing shark and that the reaction to it will cause a swing toward a more reasonable middle ground of some sort. And BeKnighted is right about testing being very different internationally, with an incredible amount of variation in approach from one country to the next.
If it were up to me, and Lord knows it isn't, I would test kids for about 3 hours at the beginning of the school year (standardised tests), maybe about two weeks in. Then the results could be used instructionally, and teachers wouldn't "own" the results (since they've only had the kids for a couple of weeks). After that, most of the assessment would be formative (for learning purposes) in nature. I would have principals or curriculum leaders in classrooms a lot more frequently and would make teacher assessment and development basically formative as well. I would replace tenure with increasingly lengthy contracts. I would also compress the salary scale, paying more for beginning teachers and less for teachers with lots of experience. A second-year teacher and a 35-year teacher basically have the same job (unless assigned to other duties), and even though most highly experienced teachers are doing a better job, the salary differential should not be as big as it is. (Nor should it be for professors, and I am one at the top of the scale.) Let a highly experienced teacher make about 50% more than a beginning teacher. You'll get better quality coming into the system, and the ones who love teaching will stay.
PARCC (along with a competing measure, Smarter Balanced) are measures of the Common Core curriculum standards. They were developed in an effort to get a common set of measures for states to use to asses achievement of the Common Core objectives (statements of what kids should know and when). The idea was to save money because all states were inventing their own standards and their own measures, and it was really inefficient. I mean, how different is reading in NJ from PA?
The Common Core is really not that bad, but the idea of it is pretty universally hated. The left doesn't like it because the left doesn't like Big Brother telling them what to do. The right doesn't like it because it's too new-fangled (see posts on doing mathematics). It isn't much different from the standards that the states had to begin with, but most folks have forgotten that. And then PARCC comes along and it is hated so much that people are forgetting about their hatred of the Common Core.
Most of the items that people are putting on social media from PARCC aren't actually from PARCC as it is a secure test. Mostly what you are seeing is nonsense that companies are putting out to make a buck. Which is not to say that PARCC is good. PARCC comes from Pearson. If you don't know about Pearson, you should. Makes John D. look like a benevolent old man. The real problem with PARCC is that in the design phase, every group and their sister came to the table with an agenda, and Pearson pretty much agreed to all of them. So the test looks like Megatron and takes days to administer. Actually the testing is really spread out under the theory that kids can't do too much in one day. So it takes days and days to do it, and schools are loathe to do anything else while the testing is taking place.
PARCC also decided to test directly online. This will save (Pearson) a ton of money in the long run as it eliminates shipping and scoring of answer sheets. It will also allow for automated scoring of essays to a degree.
My guess is that PARCC pretty much jumps the testing shark and that the reaction to it will cause a swing toward a more reasonable middle ground of some sort. And BeKnighted is right about testing being very different internationally, with an incredible amount of variation in approach from one country to the next.
If it were up to me, and Lord knows it isn't, I would test kids for about 3 hours at the beginning of the school year (standardised tests), maybe about two weeks in. Then the results could be used instructionally, and teachers wouldn't "own" the results (since they've only had the kids for a couple of weeks). After that, most of the assessment would be formative (for learning purposes) in nature. I would have principals or curriculum leaders in classrooms a lot more frequently and would make teacher assessment and development basically formative as well. I would replace tenure with increasingly lengthy contracts. I would also compress the salary scale, paying more for beginning teachers and less for teachers with lots of experience. A second-year teacher and a 35-year teacher basically have the same job (unless assigned to other duties), and even though most highly experienced teachers are doing a better job, the salary differential should not be as big as it is. (Nor should it be for professors, and I am one at the top of the scale.) Let a highly experienced teacher make about 50% more than a beginning teacher. You'll get better quality coming into the system, and the ones who love teaching will stay.
Reading the testing discussion on this board reminds me of going to the barbershop and listening to a bus driver, and the barber who is cutting his hair, discuss how to solve the issue of violence in the Middle East. Hudson, SkilletHead, and the John Oliver video, provide useful and accurate information, but the whole testing issue is very complex (like any issue that involves money, power, social class, politics, and education).
The main reason why the "suburban moms" have been vocal about the tests is that they do not want their children judged on a "one size fits all" model. There is no denying that inner city schools suffer from a host of problems, caused by multiple factors (a discussion of that issue is beyond the scope of this message board). The suburban moms know that their schools are generally good, and most of their kids have academic success. They don't want a system, that was designed to help failing schools "race to the top," imposed on their local district. Teachers (and administrators) in these schools are generally successful, and they don't want the same system to judge them with the score on a single test, especially when the implementation of the common core was rushed into place to meet a Race to the Top deadline. The whole testing implementation is fundamentally flawed, and the public outcry against high stakes testing, especially in the elementary schools, is beginning to force people to have a rational discussion about the issue.
To address the question from the original poster, the commercials are not about shifting testing money to teacher salaries. While unions always advocate for teacher compensation, that's completely unrelated to the testing issue. The concern revolves around a testing program that was poorly designed and poorly implemented.
-Scarlet Jerry
The main reason why the "suburban moms" have been vocal about the tests is that they do not want their children judged on a "one size fits all" model. There is no denying that inner city schools suffer from a host of problems, caused by multiple factors (a discussion of that issue is beyond the scope of this message board). The suburban moms know that their schools are generally good, and most of their kids have academic success. They don't want a system, that was designed to help failing schools "race to the top," imposed on their local district. Teachers (and administrators) in these schools are generally successful, and they don't want the same system to judge them with the score on a single test, especially when the implementation of the common core was rushed into place to meet a Race to the Top deadline. The whole testing implementation is fundamentally flawed, and the public outcry against high stakes testing, especially in the elementary schools, is beginning to force people to have a rational discussion about the issue.
To address the question from the original poster, the commercials are not about shifting testing money to teacher salaries. While unions always advocate for teacher compensation, that's completely unrelated to the testing issue. The concern revolves around a testing program that was poorly designed and poorly implemented.
-Scarlet Jerry
One additional point about the "suburban moms not wanting their kids judged..."
I understand the sentiment with outsiders with helicopter parenting, play dates, organized play, everybody gets a trophy. i totally get that.
However, in this case, I think Jerry hits the nail on the head. It's not about not wanting your kid "judged" or tested--at least not in my community, which has been one of the ground zero locales for opting out. It's more about HOW they are judged. This test is poorly constructed. It's even more poorly implemented at the school level. As Skillet points out, school admins are loathe to do something besides testing on a testing day. You have kids sitting around. Teachers scurrying about. Now, perhaps that is a function of teachers not adapting well to thinking and reacting on the fly. I don't know. But, I do know what I see when I walk into my kids school (and I do walk in 2x a week to pick him up).
When you are directing budget away from classroom instruction, in order to purchase extra computers and IPads to administer the test, that is a problem.
I understand the sentiment with outsiders with helicopter parenting, play dates, organized play, everybody gets a trophy. i totally get that.
However, in this case, I think Jerry hits the nail on the head. It's not about not wanting your kid "judged" or tested--at least not in my community, which has been one of the ground zero locales for opting out. It's more about HOW they are judged. This test is poorly constructed. It's even more poorly implemented at the school level. As Skillet points out, school admins are loathe to do something besides testing on a testing day. You have kids sitting around. Teachers scurrying about. Now, perhaps that is a function of teachers not adapting well to thinking and reacting on the fly. I don't know. But, I do know what I see when I walk into my kids school (and I do walk in 2x a week to pick him up).
When you are directing budget away from classroom instruction, in order to purchase extra computers and IPads to administer the test, that is a problem.
Is there actually automated essay scoring? Ive heard this - but it doesnt make alot of sense - considering how much they are paying to grade the written/typed math answers.
It will be interesting to see how Pearson and the districts respond to the problems with the test. After all - its pretty much expected that a major rollout across a dozen states is going to have big problems.
FWIW - I dont find the math questions or their scoring to be substantially different than previous tests Ive scored, although those were all under the NCLB regime.
Yes, there was an article a little while back about how they wanted to automate scoring of essays....of course that is after they figure out how to score the test in general. I don't really trust that Pearson's implementation of automated scoring for essays is going to go well.
Will someone please tell me what is wrong with the old SAT style tests?
Is it what they test? ie. not "common core" stuff? too skewed toward white people in reading comprehension and math portion word problems?
Why did it have to be reinvented?
Is it what they test? ie. not "common core" stuff? too skewed toward white people in reading comprehension and math portion word problems?
Why did it have to be reinvented?
PARCC has multiple choice portions (at least in math). But it also has some written answer portions too.
So Im not really sure what your point is. They have standards - they have had standards for a decade or more. They just consolidated them nationally with Common Core (well most of the nation) and create a multistate implementation instead of each state paying Pearson (or its competition) to develop it on a state by state basis.
Pearson appears to have botched the implementation (too much testing, need computers, etc) - but there is nothing particularly new about the test they are giving, nor are the stadards radically different from existing standards in most states.
Nothing is wrong with the tests. The real problem is the inner city students can't pass the tests and they can't pass most tests because they look down at education and work. Instead of blaming the students the liberals look for excuses. In the 50s they blamed lack of opportunities so we gave them more opportunities.. Then they blamed lack of access and we gave them access. They wanted mo funding and we gave them mo funding a dozen times over. We spend more money on education per student than just about every country in the world (USA is second in spending per). They wanted mo inner city teachers and we hired them. They wanted mo inner city administrators and we hired them too. We did everything they wanted and they still fail. Now they blame the tests. What a joke.
Less diversity in Europe. They don't need a dozen full time school cops in ONE school like they do in Philly or Camden. Europe also spends less on education.
6-8th graders right now have 13 days of testing during a 120 day school year between PARCC and NJASK/HSPA, standardized testing that is meaningless to their grade. Throw in another assessment each week for their actual letter grade, and that's 37 days spent on evaluations. Now throw in "test prep" time - which will grow in proportion to how much impact these tests have on school funding and teacher evaluations. You could be looking at close to half of the days of the year set aside for evaluations or test preparation. That's excessive.
And that's before any discussion about how accurately any of these tests measure anything meaningful.
Tests do a great job at one thing - making money for the companies that administer them.
And that's before any discussion about how accurately any of these tests measure anything meaningful.
Tests do a great job at one thing - making money for the companies that administer them.
It is not the kind of diversity that liberals consider diverse. Europe is kind of like old school USA diversity because they still have ethnic neighborhoods. Up until about the 60s, the USA we had great ethnic neighborhoods with good schools. The various ethnic groups all had pride except ONE group. That ONE group pushed for diversity because they were too lazy to put in the work to clean up their own neighborhoods. If they really wanted diversity then why don't they clean up their own hoods and make them attractive to outsiders? That would take work and they are too lazy. They marched and protested for free housing in the good neighborhoods. AS soon as they moved into the good neighborhoods they destroyed the neighborhoods and schools with crime, litter and graffiti.
Someone has not been to the working class neighborhoods of NYC, Philly, DC, Camden, or Chicago in the last 50 years.
Why were the inner city schools failing BEFORE testing?
I have an offer. YOU pick ANY country's education system you want and we will copy it exactly.
If we eliminate the testing will you agree to take ownership for all future results and stop making excuses?
Ps. Copying means copying everything. That includes cutting spending if the country you pick spends less.
Like I said Archie Bunker, you know nothing about Europe. The number one baby name in London the last 3 years is Muhammed. Same in Berlin.
That does not dispute anything I posted. No Muhammed's in Prince William's school just like you won't find any Daiquon's or Kareem's going to school with the Kennedys.
Similar threads
