How things change in a decade!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live on the Hill but close enough that my prediction or maybe just hope is that Eastern will be look almost like JR in ten years except you could actually lottery in.

I also envision Walls having more students of color, Banneker having more white students and McKinley getting almost as hard to get into as those schools.

Roosevelt, Dunbar and Cardozo will still be chronically low-performing.

What can I say…I’m a mostly optimist who doesn’t want to move to the burbs.

I like your optimism.

If Eastern would really throw its shoulder behind the EPIC program and expand it then sure it could become more popular. I have my doubts though. DCPS still does not prioritize the needs of college bound and academically sound students. I don’t really see that changing.

Some of these really terrible schools would get more neighborhood buy-in if they had aggressive tracking. But the woke warriors who run our schools hate anything that results in white kids mostly being in one class and black kids mostly being in another.

You get the schools you voted for.

This assumes that voters in DC were presented with options that might have given them better schools. I've lived in DC for 20 years and can only think of a couple council candidates (and ZERO mayoral candidates) who might have fought for something like more tracking in DCPS schools. And the council has minimal control over schools anyway so it kind of doesn't matter. Bowers, who I don't like, beat Robert White in the last mayoral election. White was more "woke" than Bowser and even suggested closing schools to deal with a Covid surge in 2022 (I didn't vote for White).

DC voters generally have awful options, in part because DC is a dead end for most politicians. Plus the political culture of the city means that most of our options are chosen for us by a handful of special interests whose backing you need to make a successful run at citywide office. Those special interests are almost entirely very "woke" and the ones that aren't don't care about schools (they are economic coalitions focused on development and business).

The only way to effect change in DC schools is to get involved with your schools, advocate loudly via the PTA and other parent organizations, and just generally be a thorn in the side of administration or Central Office until you get what you want. Very few families in DC have the time and resources to do this, and it's hard to organize parents because the lottery/charter system disrupts traditional means for uniting families and the cyclical nature of education makes it hard to get momentum (everyone's kids are constantly aging out).

That's why you primarily see momentum at the school level, and only at schools with good IB buy in and an involved parent community (preferably with some financial resources), with specific schools slowly shifting to reflect the demands of families who are consistently in the school for many years. This limits progress to a small number of schools in the district and is why things like IB percentage, owner v. renter percentage within the boundary, and SES of attending families are major factors in whether a school offers challenges to high achievers, tracking for math, academic enrichment beyond remedial tutoring, etc.

It's not about voting, as DC voters have minimal options there for structural reasons.

Disagree. This city votes for and is run by Democrats who all share the same assumptions about schools, which are:

1. The primary purpose of schools is not to educate all students, but to fight inequality
2. Any system, whether it's tracking or gifted schools, that results in white kids tending to go to one place and black kids tending to go to another place, is inherently racist and must be avoided at all costs
3. No real plan to reduce racial disparities in academic achievement except to reduce standards so that no one can fail
4. A belief that social promotion is necessary because the social consequences of flunking kids, regardless of how little they learn, is devastating
5. The teachers union is your ally and its opinion is important

Those are all political decisions.

It's also why Michelle Rhee was so incredibly controversial. Because she did not share those assumptions.

Spot on summary. Dems in urban cities have run education to the ground and why families with options flee their public schools.

I say this as a dem in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live on the Hill but close enough that my prediction or maybe just hope is that Eastern will be look almost like JR in ten years except you could actually lottery in.

I also envision Walls having more students of color, Banneker having more white students and McKinley getting almost as hard to get into as those schools.

Roosevelt, Dunbar and Cardozo will still be chronically low-performing.

What can I say…I’m a mostly optimist who doesn’t want to move to the burbs.

I like your optimism.

If Eastern would really throw its shoulder behind the EPIC program and expand it then sure it could become more popular. I have my doubts though. DCPS still does not prioritize the needs of college bound and academically sound students. I don’t really see that changing.

Some of these really terrible schools would get more neighborhood buy-in if they had aggressive tracking. But the woke warriors who run our schools hate anything that results in white kids mostly being in one class and black kids mostly being in another.

You get the schools you voted for.

This assumes that voters in DC were presented with options that might have given them better schools. I've lived in DC for 20 years and can only think of a couple council candidates (and ZERO mayoral candidates) who might have fought for something like more tracking in DCPS schools. And the council has minimal control over schools anyway so it kind of doesn't matter. Bowers, who I don't like, beat Robert White in the last mayoral election. White was more "woke" than Bowser and even suggested closing schools to deal with a Covid surge in 2022 (I didn't vote for White).

DC voters generally have awful options, in part because DC is a dead end for most politicians. Plus the political culture of the city means that most of our options are chosen for us by a handful of special interests whose backing you need to make a successful run at citywide office. Those special interests are almost entirely very "woke" and the ones that aren't don't care about schools (they are economic coalitions focused on development and business).

The only way to effect change in DC schools is to get involved with your schools, advocate loudly via the PTA and other parent organizations, and just generally be a thorn in the side of administration or Central Office until you get what you want. Very few families in DC have the time and resources to do this, and it's hard to organize parents because the lottery/charter system disrupts traditional means for uniting families and the cyclical nature of education makes it hard to get momentum (everyone's kids are constantly aging out).

That's why you primarily see momentum at the school level, and only at schools with good IB buy in and an involved parent community (preferably with some financial resources), with specific schools slowly shifting to reflect the demands of families who are consistently in the school for many years. This limits progress to a small number of schools in the district and is why things like IB percentage, owner v. renter percentage within the boundary, and SES of attending families are major factors in whether a school offers challenges to high achievers, tracking for math, academic enrichment beyond remedial tutoring, etc.

It's not about voting, as DC voters have minimal options there for structural reasons.

Disagree. This city votes for and is run by Democrats who all share the same assumptions about schools, which are:

1. The primary purpose of schools is not to educate all students, but to fight inequality
2. Any system, whether it's tracking or gifted schools, that results in white kids tending to go to one place and black kids tending to go to another place, is inherently racist and must be avoided at all costs
3. No real plan to reduce racial disparities in academic achievement except to reduce standards so that no one can fail
4. A belief that social promotion is necessary because the social consequences of flunking kids, regardless of how little they learn, is devastating
5. The teachers union is your ally and its opinion is important

Those are all political decisions.

It's also why Michelle Rhee was so incredibly controversial. Because she did not share those assumptions.

Spot on summary. Dems in urban cities have run education to the ground and why families with options flee their public schools.

I say this as a dem in DC.

This is rather silly and also untrue. Plus Michelle Rhee is a lifelong democrat.

This city votes for and is run by Democrats who all share the same assumptions about schools, which are:

1. The primary purpose of schools is not to educate all students, but to fight inequality
2. Any system, whether it's tracking or gifted schools, that results in white kids tending to go to one place and black kids tending to go to another place, is inherently racist and must be avoided at all costs
3. No real plan to reduce racial disparities in academic achievement except to reduce standards so that no one can fail
4. A belief that social promotion is necessary because the social consequences of flunking kids, regardless of how little they learn, is devastating
5. The teachers union is your ally and its opinion is important

1. The purpose of schools is to educate students. IF there is more conversation on educating poor and minority students, it's because that's were education is failing the most.
2. White kids go one place versus another because they live in clusters in the more wealthy parts of the city AND because many economically advantaged parents prefer to send their kids to schools with others who are economically advantaged. This is true for parents of all colors; it's just that economic advantage in DC tends to be overwhelmingly white.
3. DC has some of the highest standards in the country. Not saying DC is meeting the standards but the standards aren't the problem.
4. The system doesn't believe that social promotion is necessary. The system is just political and bends to the whims of stakeholders.
5. This is the truest statement -- the union opinion is important to politicians. I'm not sure it is because they are allies or if politicians just bend to an organized stakeholder group regardless of whether it's good or bad for kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d also point out (something everyone hates) that for some reason independent of class, Black students do much worse on testing. The demographics of SWW vs BBHS: 23% black vs 69% an actual multiple of 3.

So view school outcomes with that lens as well.

------------------------
What is this supposed to mean? Spell it out clearly because this is gross.

I think this thread has gone way off track. Why dont we start measuring the heads of students too, I mean since were headed down that path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d also point out (something everyone hates) that for some reason independent of class, Black students do much worse on testing. The demographics of SWW vs BBHS: 23% black vs 69% an actual multiple of 3.

So view school outcomes with that lens as well.

------------------------
What is this supposed to mean? Spell it out clearly because this is gross.

I think this thread has gone way off track. Why dont we start measuring the heads of students too, I mean since were headed down that path.

The point is that if you compare schools without taking into consideration the differences in SAT test scores among students by racial background (whites score lower than Asians, so it's not like white students are the top of the heap) then you're not doing a rigorous comparison.

I get that you think it's racist to say that, but it's just reality that you should take into account if you're comparing SAT scores. Are students performing at their statistically expected level or out-performing it? That's called comparing schools with statistical rigor as opposed to just cherry picking numbers out of context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d also point out (something everyone hates) that for some reason independent of class, Black students do much worse on testing. The demographics of SWW vs BBHS: 23% black vs 69% an actual multiple of 3.

So view school outcomes with that lens as well.

------------------------
What is this supposed to mean? Spell it out clearly because this is gross.

I think this thread has gone way off track. Why dont we start measuring the heads of students too, I mean since were headed down that path.

The point is that if you compare schools without taking into consideration the differences in SAT test scores among students by racial background (whites score lower than Asians, so it's not like white students are the top of the heap) then you're not doing a rigorous comparison.

I get that you think it's racist to say that, but it's just reality that you should take into account if you're comparing SAT scores. Are students performing at their statistically expected level or out-performing it? That's called comparing schools with statistical rigor as opposed to just cherry picking numbers out of context.

You should read about schools in Mississippi.

Maybe it's your expectations that are fkced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d also point out (something everyone hates) that for some reason independent of class, Black students do much worse on testing. The demographics of SWW vs BBHS: 23% black vs 69% an actual multiple of 3.

So view school outcomes with that lens as well.

------------------------
What is this supposed to mean? Spell it out clearly because this is gross.

I think this thread has gone way off track. Why dont we start measuring the heads of students too, I mean since were headed down that path.

The point is that if you compare schools without taking into consideration the differences in SAT test scores among students by racial background (whites score lower than Asians, so it's not like white students are the top of the heap) then you're not doing a rigorous comparison.

I get that you think it's racist to say that, but it's just reality that you should take into account if you're comparing SAT scores. Are students performing at their statistically expected level or out-performing it? That's called comparing schools with statistical rigor as opposed to just cherry picking numbers out of context.

You should read about schools in Mississippi.

Maybe it's your expectations that are fkced.

Your response has nothing to do with my statement.

I'm all about high expectations.

Also statistical analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live on the Hill but close enough that my prediction or maybe just hope is that Eastern will be look almost like JR in ten years except you could actually lottery in.

I also envision Walls having more students of color, Banneker having more white students and McKinley getting almost as hard to get into as those schools.

Roosevelt, Dunbar and Cardozo will still be chronically low-performing.

What can I say…I’m a mostly optimist who doesn’t want to move to the burbs.

I like your optimism.

If Eastern would really throw its shoulder behind the EPIC program and expand it then sure it could become more popular. I have my doubts though. DCPS still does not prioritize the needs of college bound and academically sound students. I don’t really see that changing.

Some of these really terrible schools would get more neighborhood buy-in if they had aggressive tracking. But the woke warriors who run our schools hate anything that results in white kids mostly being in one class and black kids mostly being in another.

You get the schools you voted for.

This assumes that voters in DC were presented with options that might have given them better schools. I've lived in DC for 20 years and can only think of a couple council candidates (and ZERO mayoral candidates) who might have fought for something like more tracking in DCPS schools. And the council has minimal control over schools anyway so it kind of doesn't matter. Bowers, who I don't like, beat Robert White in the last mayoral election. White was more "woke" than Bowser and even suggested closing schools to deal with a Covid surge in 2022 (I didn't vote for White).

DC voters generally have awful options, in part because DC is a dead end for most politicians. Plus the political culture of the city means that most of our options are chosen for us by a handful of special interests whose backing you need to make a successful run at citywide office. Those special interests are almost entirely very "woke" and the ones that aren't don't care about schools (they are economic coalitions focused on development and business).

The only way to effect change in DC schools is to get involved with your schools, advocate loudly via the PTA and other parent organizations, and just generally be a thorn in the side of administration or Central Office until you get what you want. Very few families in DC have the time and resources to do this, and it's hard to organize parents because the lottery/charter system disrupts traditional means for uniting families and the cyclical nature of education makes it hard to get momentum (everyone's kids are constantly aging out).

That's why you primarily see momentum at the school level, and only at schools with good IB buy in and an involved parent community (preferably with some financial resources), with specific schools slowly shifting to reflect the demands of families who are consistently in the school for many years. This limits progress to a small number of schools in the district and is why things like IB percentage, owner v. renter percentage within the boundary, and SES of attending families are major factors in whether a school offers challenges to high achievers, tracking for math, academic enrichment beyond remedial tutoring, etc.

It's not about voting, as DC voters have minimal options there for structural reasons.

Disagree. This city votes for and is run by Democrats who all share the same assumptions about schools, which are:

1. The primary purpose of schools is not to educate all students, but to fight inequality
2. Any system, whether it's tracking or gifted schools, that results in white kids tending to go to one place and black kids tending to go to another place, is inherently racist and must be avoided at all costs
3. No real plan to reduce racial disparities in academic achievement except to reduce standards so that no one can fail
4. A belief that social promotion is necessary because the social consequences of flunking kids, regardless of how little they learn, is devastating
5. The teachers union is your ally and its opinion is important

Those are all political decisions.

It's also why Michelle Rhee was so incredibly controversial. Because she did not share those assumptions.

Dems run plenty of high performing districts. Some of the best public schools in the country are run by Democrats. Meanwhile my sister lives in a deep read county in a deep red state with low test scores and low graduation rates, and the local school board is primarily focused on banning books. The district also went to a four day school week to save money, a huge FU to parents and kids.

The issue here is not "Democrats." DCPS is actually a lot better than it used to be, all because of changes enacted by Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live on the Hill but close enough that my prediction or maybe just hope is that Eastern will be look almost like JR in ten years except you could actually lottery in.

I also envision Walls having more students of color, Banneker having more white students and McKinley getting almost as hard to get into as those schools.

Roosevelt, Dunbar and Cardozo will still be chronically low-performing.

What can I say…I’m a mostly optimist who doesn’t want to move to the burbs.

I like your optimism.

If Eastern would really throw its shoulder behind the EPIC program and expand it then sure it could become more popular. I have my doubts though. DCPS still does not prioritize the needs of college bound and academically sound students. I don’t really see that changing.

Some of these really terrible schools would get more neighborhood buy-in if they had aggressive tracking. But the woke warriors who run our schools hate anything that results in white kids mostly being in one class and black kids mostly being in another.

You get the schools you voted for.

This assumes that voters in DC were presented with options that might have given them better schools. I've lived in DC for 20 years and can only think of a couple council candidates (and ZERO mayoral candidates) who might have fought for something like more tracking in DCPS schools. And the council has minimal control over schools anyway so it kind of doesn't matter. Bowers, who I don't like, beat Robert White in the last mayoral election. White was more "woke" than Bowser and even suggested closing schools to deal with a Covid surge in 2022 (I didn't vote for White).

DC voters generally have awful options, in part because DC is a dead end for most politicians. Plus the political culture of the city means that most of our options are chosen for us by a handful of special interests whose backing you need to make a successful run at citywide office. Those special interests are almost entirely very "woke" and the ones that aren't don't care about schools (they are economic coalitions focused on development and business).

The only way to effect change in DC schools is to get involved with your schools, advocate loudly via the PTA and other parent organizations, and just generally be a thorn in the side of administration or Central Office until you get what you want. Very few families in DC have the time and resources to do this, and it's hard to organize parents because the lottery/charter system disrupts traditional means for uniting families and the cyclical nature of education makes it hard to get momentum (everyone's kids are constantly aging out).

That's why you primarily see momentum at the school level, and only at schools with good IB buy in and an involved parent community (preferably with some financial resources), with specific schools slowly shifting to reflect the demands of families who are consistently in the school for many years. This limits progress to a small number of schools in the district and is why things like IB percentage, owner v. renter percentage within the boundary, and SES of attending families are major factors in whether a school offers challenges to high achievers, tracking for math, academic enrichment beyond remedial tutoring, etc.

It's not about voting, as DC voters have minimal options there for structural reasons.

Disagree. This city votes for and is run by Democrats who all share the same assumptions about schools, which are:

1. The primary purpose of schools is not to educate all students, but to fight inequality
2. Any system, whether it's tracking or gifted schools, that results in white kids tending to go to one place and black kids tending to go to another place, is inherently racist and must be avoided at all costs
3. No real plan to reduce racial disparities in academic achievement except to reduce standards so that no one can fail
4. A belief that social promotion is necessary because the social consequences of flunking kids, regardless of how little they learn, is devastating
5. The teachers union is your ally and its opinion is important

Those are all political decisions.

It's also why Michelle Rhee was so incredibly controversial. Because she did not share those assumptions.

Dems run plenty of high performing districts. Some of the best public schools in the country are run by Democrats. Meanwhile my sister lives in a deep read county in a deep red state with low test scores and low graduation rates, and the local school board is primarily focused on banning books. The district also went to a four day school week to save money, a huge FU to parents and kids.

The issue here is not "Democrats." DCPS is actually a lot better than it used to be, all because of changes enacted by Democrats.

DC spends more money on schools than almost anywhere else. What have we gotten for it? Our kids do worse on standardized tests than kids in the Deep South. Alabama has better scores than we do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live on the Hill but close enough that my prediction or maybe just hope is that Eastern will be look almost like JR in ten years except you could actually lottery in.

I also envision Walls having more students of color, Banneker having more white students and McKinley getting almost as hard to get into as those schools.

Roosevelt, Dunbar and Cardozo will still be chronically low-performing.

What can I say…I’m a mostly optimist who doesn’t want to move to the burbs.

I like your optimism.

If Eastern would really throw its shoulder behind the EPIC program and expand it then sure it could become more popular. I have my doubts though. DCPS still does not prioritize the needs of college bound and academically sound students. I don’t really see that changing.

Some of these really terrible schools would get more neighborhood buy-in if they had aggressive tracking. But the woke warriors who run our schools hate anything that results in white kids mostly being in one class and black kids mostly being in another.

You get the schools you voted for.

This assumes that voters in DC were presented with options that might have given them better schools. I've lived in DC for 20 years and can only think of a couple council candidates (and ZERO mayoral candidates) who might have fought for something like more tracking in DCPS schools. And the council has minimal control over schools anyway so it kind of doesn't matter. Bowers, who I don't like, beat Robert White in the last mayoral election. White was more "woke" than Bowser and even suggested closing schools to deal with a Covid surge in 2022 (I didn't vote for White).

DC voters generally have awful options, in part because DC is a dead end for most politicians. Plus the political culture of the city means that most of our options are chosen for us by a handful of special interests whose backing you need to make a successful run at citywide office. Those special interests are almost entirely very "woke" and the ones that aren't don't care about schools (they are economic coalitions focused on development and business).

The only way to effect change in DC schools is to get involved with your schools, advocate loudly via the PTA and other parent organizations, and just generally be a thorn in the side of administration or Central Office until you get what you want. Very few families in DC have the time and resources to do this, and it's hard to organize parents because the lottery/charter system disrupts traditional means for uniting families and the cyclical nature of education makes it hard to get momentum (everyone's kids are constantly aging out).

That's why you primarily see momentum at the school level, and only at schools with good IB buy in and an involved parent community (preferably with some financial resources), with specific schools slowly shifting to reflect the demands of families who are consistently in the school for many years. This limits progress to a small number of schools in the district and is why things like IB percentage, owner v. renter percentage within the boundary, and SES of attending families are major factors in whether a school offers challenges to high achievers, tracking for math, academic enrichment beyond remedial tutoring, etc.

It's not about voting, as DC voters have minimal options there for structural reasons.

Disagree. This city votes for and is run by Democrats who all share the same assumptions about schools, which are:

1. The primary purpose of schools is not to educate all students, but to fight inequality
2. Any system, whether it's tracking or gifted schools, that results in white kids tending to go to one place and black kids tending to go to another place, is inherently racist and must be avoided at all costs
3. No real plan to reduce racial disparities in academic achievement except to reduce standards so that no one can fail
4. A belief that social promotion is necessary because the social consequences of flunking kids, regardless of how little they learn, is devastating
5. The teachers union is your ally and its opinion is important

Those are all political decisions.

It's also why Michelle Rhee was so incredibly controversial. Because she did not share those assumptions.

Dems run plenty of high performing districts. Some of the best public schools in the country are run by Democrats. Meanwhile my sister lives in a deep read county in a deep red state with low test scores and low graduation rates, and the local school board is primarily focused on banning books. The district also went to a four day school week to save money, a huge FU to parents and kids.

The issue here is not "Democrats." DCPS is actually a lot better than it used to be, all because of changes enacted by Democrats.

DC spends more money on schools than almost anywhere else. What have we gotten for it? Our kids do worse on standardized tests than kids in the Deep South. Alabama has better scores than we do.

DC does not, in fact, spend more money than any other school district. We are not even in the top 20.
https://www.playgroundequipment.com/school-districts-that-spend-the-most-and-least-per-student/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live on the Hill but close enough that my prediction or maybe just hope is that Eastern will be look almost like JR in ten years except you could actually lottery in.

I also envision Walls having more students of color, Banneker having more white students and McKinley getting almost as hard to get into as those schools.

Roosevelt, Dunbar and Cardozo will still be chronically low-performing.

What can I say…I’m a mostly optimist who doesn’t want to move to the burbs.

I like your optimism.

If Eastern would really throw its shoulder behind the EPIC program and expand it then sure it could become more popular. I have my doubts though. DCPS still does not prioritize the needs of college bound and academically sound students. I don’t really see that changing.

Some of these really terrible schools would get more neighborhood buy-in if they had aggressive tracking. But the woke warriors who run our schools hate anything that results in white kids mostly being in one class and black kids mostly being in another.

You get the schools you voted for.

This assumes that voters in DC were presented with options that might have given them better schools. I've lived in DC for 20 years and can only think of a couple council candidates (and ZERO mayoral candidates) who might have fought for something like more tracking in DCPS schools. And the council has minimal control over schools anyway so it kind of doesn't matter. Bowers, who I don't like, beat Robert White in the last mayoral election. White was more "woke" than Bowser and even suggested closing schools to deal with a Covid surge in 2022 (I didn't vote for White).

DC voters generally have awful options, in part because DC is a dead end for most politicians. Plus the political culture of the city means that most of our options are chosen for us by a handful of special interests whose backing you need to make a successful run at citywide office. Those special interests are almost entirely very "woke" and the ones that aren't don't care about schools (they are economic coalitions focused on development and business).

The only way to effect change in DC schools is to get involved with your schools, advocate loudly via the PTA and other parent organizations, and just generally be a thorn in the side of administration or Central Office until you get what you want. Very few families in DC have the time and resources to do this, and it's hard to organize parents because the lottery/charter system disrupts traditional means for uniting families and the cyclical nature of education makes it hard to get momentum (everyone's kids are constantly aging out).

That's why you primarily see momentum at the school level, and only at schools with good IB buy in and an involved parent community (preferably with some financial resources), with specific schools slowly shifting to reflect the demands of families who are consistently in the school for many years. This limits progress to a small number of schools in the district and is why things like IB percentage, owner v. renter percentage within the boundary, and SES of attending families are major factors in whether a school offers challenges to high achievers, tracking for math, academic enrichment beyond remedial tutoring, etc.

It's not about voting, as DC voters have minimal options there for structural reasons.

Disagree. This city votes for and is run by Democrats who all share the same assumptions about schools, which are:

1. The primary purpose of schools is not to educate all students, but to fight inequality
2. Any system, whether it's tracking or gifted schools, that results in white kids tending to go to one place and black kids tending to go to another place, is inherently racist and must be avoided at all costs
3. No real plan to reduce racial disparities in academic achievement except to reduce standards so that no one can fail
4. A belief that social promotion is necessary because the social consequences of flunking kids, regardless of how little they learn, is devastating
5. The teachers union is your ally and its opinion is important

Those are all political decisions.

It's also why Michelle Rhee was so incredibly controversial. Because she did not share those assumptions.

Hard to overstate how important or controversial Michelle Rhee was in her time. Probably most Washingtonians these days don't know anything about her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live on the Hill but close enough that my prediction or maybe just hope is that Eastern will be look almost like JR in ten years except you could actually lottery in.

I also envision Walls having more students of color, Banneker having more white students and McKinley getting almost as hard to get into as those schools.

Roosevelt, Dunbar and Cardozo will still be chronically low-performing.

What can I say…I’m a mostly optimist who doesn’t want to move to the burbs.

I like your optimism.

If Eastern would really throw its shoulder behind the EPIC program and expand it then sure it could become more popular. I have my doubts though. DCPS still does not prioritize the needs of college bound and academically sound students. I don’t really see that changing.

Some of these really terrible schools would get more neighborhood buy-in if they had aggressive tracking. But the woke warriors who run our schools hate anything that results in white kids mostly being in one class and black kids mostly being in another.

You get the schools you voted for.

This assumes that voters in DC were presented with options that might have given them better schools. I've lived in DC for 20 years and can only think of a couple council candidates (and ZERO mayoral candidates) who might have fought for something like more tracking in DCPS schools. And the council has minimal control over schools anyway so it kind of doesn't matter. Bowers, who I don't like, beat Robert White in the last mayoral election. White was more "woke" than Bowser and even suggested closing schools to deal with a Covid surge in 2022 (I didn't vote for White).

DC voters generally have awful options, in part because DC is a dead end for most politicians. Plus the political culture of the city means that most of our options are chosen for us by a handful of special interests whose backing you need to make a successful run at citywide office. Those special interests are almost entirely very "woke" and the ones that aren't don't care about schools (they are economic coalitions focused on development and business).

The only way to effect change in DC schools is to get involved with your schools, advocate loudly via the PTA and other parent organizations, and just generally be a thorn in the side of administration or Central Office until you get what you want. Very few families in DC have the time and resources to do this, and it's hard to organize parents because the lottery/charter system disrupts traditional means for uniting families and the cyclical nature of education makes it hard to get momentum (everyone's kids are constantly aging out).

That's why you primarily see momentum at the school level, and only at schools with good IB buy in and an involved parent community (preferably with some financial resources), with specific schools slowly shifting to reflect the demands of families who are consistently in the school for many years. This limits progress to a small number of schools in the district and is why things like IB percentage, owner v. renter percentage within the boundary, and SES of attending families are major factors in whether a school offers challenges to high achievers, tracking for math, academic enrichment beyond remedial tutoring, etc.

It's not about voting, as DC voters have minimal options there for structural reasons.

Disagree. This city votes for and is run by Democrats who all share the same assumptions about schools, which are:

1. The primary purpose of schools is not to educate all students, but to fight inequality
2. Any system, whether it's tracking or gifted schools, that results in white kids tending to go to one place and black kids tending to go to another place, is inherently racist and must be avoided at all costs
3. No real plan to reduce racial disparities in academic achievement except to reduce standards so that no one can fail
4. A belief that social promotion is necessary because the social consequences of flunking kids, regardless of how little they learn, is devastating
5. The teachers union is your ally and its opinion is important

Those are all political decisions.

It's also why Michelle Rhee was so incredibly controversial. Because she did not share those assumptions.

Dems run plenty of high performing districts. Some of the best public schools in the country are run by Democrats. Meanwhile my sister lives in a deep read county in a deep red state with low test scores and low graduation rates, and the local school board is primarily focused on banning books. The district also went to a four day school week to save money, a huge FU to parents and kids.

The issue here is not "Democrats." DCPS is actually a lot better than it used to be, all because of changes enacted by Democrats.

DC spends more money on schools than almost anywhere else. What have we gotten for it? Our kids do worse on standardized tests than kids in the Deep South. Alabama has better scores than we do.

DC does not, in fact, spend more money than any other school district. We are not even in the top 20.
https://www.playgroundequipment.com/school-districts-that-spend-the-most-and-least-per-student/

DC spends 25k per student according to OSSE, and that itself is fudging the numbers down (I read it was more like 33k), so that website is wrong specifically and I’m sure wrong more generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live on the Hill but close enough that my prediction or maybe just hope is that Eastern will be look almost like JR in ten years except you could actually lottery in.

I also envision Walls having more students of color, Banneker having more white students and McKinley getting almost as hard to get into as those schools.

Roosevelt, Dunbar and Cardozo will still be chronically low-performing.

What can I say…I’m a mostly optimist who doesn’t want to move to the burbs.

I like your optimism.

If Eastern would really throw its shoulder behind the EPIC program and expand it then sure it could become more popular. I have my doubts though. DCPS still does not prioritize the needs of college bound and academically sound students. I don’t really see that changing.

Some of these really terrible schools would get more neighborhood buy-in if they had aggressive tracking. But the woke warriors who run our schools hate anything that results in white kids mostly being in one class and black kids mostly being in another.

You get the schools you voted for.

This assumes that voters in DC were presented with options that might have given them better schools. I've lived in DC for 20 years and can only think of a couple council candidates (and ZERO mayoral candidates) who might have fought for something like more tracking in DCPS schools. And the council has minimal control over schools anyway so it kind of doesn't matter. Bowers, who I don't like, beat Robert White in the last mayoral election. White was more "woke" than Bowser and even suggested closing schools to deal with a Covid surge in 2022 (I didn't vote for White).

DC voters generally have awful options, in part because DC is a dead end for most politicians. Plus the political culture of the city means that most of our options are chosen for us by a handful of special interests whose backing you need to make a successful run at citywide office. Those special interests are almost entirely very "woke" and the ones that aren't don't care about schools (they are economic coalitions focused on development and business).

The only way to effect change in DC schools is to get involved with your schools, advocate loudly via the PTA and other parent organizations, and just generally be a thorn in the side of administration or Central Office until you get what you want. Very few families in DC have the time and resources to do this, and it's hard to organize parents because the lottery/charter system disrupts traditional means for uniting families and the cyclical nature of education makes it hard to get momentum (everyone's kids are constantly aging out).

That's why you primarily see momentum at the school level, and only at schools with good IB buy in and an involved parent community (preferably with some financial resources), with specific schools slowly shifting to reflect the demands of families who are consistently in the school for many years. This limits progress to a small number of schools in the district and is why things like IB percentage, owner v. renter percentage within the boundary, and SES of attending families are major factors in whether a school offers challenges to high achievers, tracking for math, academic enrichment beyond remedial tutoring, etc.

It's not about voting, as DC voters have minimal options there for structural reasons.

Disagree. This city votes for and is run by Democrats who all share the same assumptions about schools, which are:

1. The primary purpose of schools is not to educate all students, but to fight inequality
2. Any system, whether it's tracking or gifted schools, that results in white kids tending to go to one place and black kids tending to go to another place, is inherently racist and must be avoided at all costs
3. No real plan to reduce racial disparities in academic achievement except to reduce standards so that no one can fail
4. A belief that social promotion is necessary because the social consequences of flunking kids, regardless of how little they learn, is devastating
5. The teachers union is your ally and its opinion is important

Those are all political decisions.

It's also why Michelle Rhee was so incredibly controversial. Because she did not share those assumptions.

Dems run plenty of high performing districts. Some of the best public schools in the country are run by Democrats. Meanwhile my sister lives in a deep read county in a deep red state with low test scores and low graduation rates, and the local school board is primarily focused on banning books. The district also went to a four day school week to save money, a huge FU to parents and kids.

The issue here is not "Democrats." DCPS is actually a lot better than it used to be, all because of changes enacted by Democrats.

DC spends more money on schools than almost anywhere else. What have we gotten for it? Our kids do worse on standardized tests than kids in the Deep South. Alabama has better scores than we do.

DC does not, in fact, spend more money than any other school district. We are not even in the top 20.
https://www.playgroundequipment.com/school-districts-that-spend-the-most-and-least-per-student/

DC spends 25k per student according to OSSE, and that itself is fudging the numbers down (I read it was more like 33k), so that website is wrong specifically and I’m sure wrong more generally.

There are elementary school gym teachers in DCPS making six figures

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d also point out (something everyone hates) that for some reason independent of class, Black students do much worse on testing. The demographics of SWW vs BBHS: 23% black vs 69% an actual multiple of 3.

So view school outcomes with that lens as well.

------------------------
What is this supposed to mean? Spell it out clearly because this is gross.

I think this thread has gone way off track. Why dont we start measuring the heads of students too, I mean since were headed down that path.

I pointed this out and hate to do so. Look it up. The variance in outcomes is real. Making stereotyping assumptions about WHY is problematic and I DO NOT WANT IT TO BE TRUE but pointing it out in a context of comparing apples to apples between schools with very different demographics where demographics are tied to testing outcomes is important. The teaching quality is not an independent variable you are able to isolate from things tests show us about the population being taught.

And yes the thread is losing relevance. Just don’t come at Banneker like they “do a bad job” or praise SWW assuming they teach better there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live on the Hill but close enough that my prediction or maybe just hope is that Eastern will be look almost like JR in ten years except you could actually lottery in.

I also envision Walls having more students of color, Banneker having more white students and McKinley getting almost as hard to get into as those schools.

Roosevelt, Dunbar and Cardozo will still be chronically low-performing.

What can I say…I’m a mostly optimist who doesn’t want to move to the burbs.

I like your optimism.

If Eastern would really throw its shoulder behind the EPIC program and expand it then sure it could become more popular. I have my doubts though. DCPS still does not prioritize the needs of college bound and academically sound students. I don’t really see that changing.

Some of these really terrible schools would get more neighborhood buy-in if they had aggressive tracking. But the woke warriors who run our schools hate anything that results in white kids mostly being in one class and black kids mostly being in another.

You get the schools you voted for.

This assumes that voters in DC were presented with options that might have given them better schools. I've lived in DC for 20 years and can only think of a couple council candidates (and ZERO mayoral candidates) who might have fought for something like more tracking in DCPS schools. And the council has minimal control over schools anyway so it kind of doesn't matter. Bowers, who I don't like, beat Robert White in the last mayoral election. White was more "woke" than Bowser and even suggested closing schools to deal with a Covid surge in 2022 (I didn't vote for White).

DC voters generally have awful options, in part because DC is a dead end for most politicians. Plus the political culture of the city means that most of our options are chosen for us by a handful of special interests whose backing you need to make a successful run at citywide office. Those special interests are almost entirely very "woke" and the ones that aren't don't care about schools (they are economic coalitions focused on development and business).

The only way to effect change in DC schools is to get involved with your schools, advocate loudly via the PTA and other parent organizations, and just generally be a thorn in the side of administration or Central Office until you get what you want. Very few families in DC have the time and resources to do this, and it's hard to organize parents because the lottery/charter system disrupts traditional means for uniting families and the cyclical nature of education makes it hard to get momentum (everyone's kids are constantly aging out).

That's why you primarily see momentum at the school level, and only at schools with good IB buy in and an involved parent community (preferably with some financial resources), with specific schools slowly shifting to reflect the demands of families who are consistently in the school for many years. This limits progress to a small number of schools in the district and is why things like IB percentage, owner v. renter percentage within the boundary, and SES of attending families are major factors in whether a school offers challenges to high achievers, tracking for math, academic enrichment beyond remedial tutoring, etc.

It's not about voting, as DC voters have minimal options there for structural reasons.

Disagree. This city votes for and is run by Democrats who all share the same assumptions about schools, which are:

1. The primary purpose of schools is not to educate all students, but to fight inequality
2. Any system, whether it's tracking or gifted schools, that results in white kids tending to go to one place and black kids tending to go to another place, is inherently racist and must be avoided at all costs
3. No real plan to reduce racial disparities in academic achievement except to reduce standards so that no one can fail
4. A belief that social promotion is necessary because the social consequences of flunking kids, regardless of how little they learn, is devastating
5. The teachers union is your ally and its opinion is important

Those are all political decisions.

It's also why Michelle Rhee was so incredibly controversial. Because she did not share those assumptions.

Dems run plenty of high performing districts. Some of the best public schools in the country are run by Democrats. Meanwhile my sister lives in a deep read county in a deep red state with low test scores and low graduation rates, and the local school board is primarily focused on banning books. The district also went to a four day school week to save money, a huge FU to parents and kids.

The issue here is not "Democrats." DCPS is actually a lot better than it used to be, all because of changes enacted by Democrats.

Sorry but not in cities and urban areas. The schools stink. Exhibit A San Fran, NY, DC

DC is a lot better because of Rhee who got rid of terrible teachers when DC was the worst performing in the country. Charters started and this is a huge reason why more families stayed in DC, especially middle and upper middle families with options. That is the reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d also point out (something everyone hates) that for some reason independent of class, Black students do much worse on testing. The demographics of SWW vs BBHS: 23% black vs 69% an actual multiple of 3.

So view school outcomes with that lens as well.

------------------------
What is this supposed to mean? Spell it out clearly because this is gross.

I think this thread has gone way off track. Why dont we start measuring the heads of students too, I mean since were headed down that path.

I pointed this out and hate to do so. Look it up. The variance in outcomes is real. Making stereotyping assumptions about WHY is problematic and I DO NOT WANT IT TO BE TRUE but pointing it out in a context of comparing apples to apples between schools with very different demographics where demographics are tied to testing outcomes is important. The teaching quality is not an independent variable you are able to isolate from things tests show us about the population being taught.

And yes the thread is losing relevance. Just don’t come at Banneker like they “do a bad job” or praise SWW assuming they teach better there.

This is disingenuous though, because the PP who pointed out the SAT difference literally said that for the same student the schools may very well have the same outcome and that Banneker’s teaching may actually be stronger.

Whatever the statistical overall explanation for AA students underperforming white students on tests, it’s not like in considering the academics of an individual student we should adjust for their race. That’s completely inappropriate. It also ignores that there are many different factors you could isolate like this that drive test scores and announce that any individual’s score should be adjusted relative to that factor.