Thoughts on Dunbar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although I hate the low academic standards, my real issue is with the violence in and near the school.

Do you think your child specifically would be pulled into this?

NP. It's unpleasant to witness and can be really traumatic. It disrupts the learning environment and wastes instructional time. And nearby people do sometimes get hurt in a scuffle just by being in range It's not because anyone thinks their child is going to be invited to partake in a carjacking.

My child was not happy in his elementary school where there were frequent behavioral disruptions, including thrown chairs, even though he was never directly involved.

All sounds alarming and unfortunate. Didn't know there was this kind of violence at the schools mentioned except for Latin. Why doesn't Latin face the same thing? Is it because the school is smaller?

Charter school means the families have to be motivated enough to transport their kids & fill out paperwork.

That’s not it. Functionally half of DC Public School students attend charters. Even more go to Out of Boundary DCPS schools. So a MAJORITY of DC parents are willing to fill out applications and arrange transporation.

Yes, half of parents are willing to do this. And the kids of families where parents are not able to be involved in this way, family is in crisis, family has criminal justice system involvement, family is experiencing housing insecurity, etc. are concentrated in the by right schools that fully half of DC parents are jumping through hoops to avoid. The resulting cohort at those schools has all kinds of behavior and social issues at a much higher rate than they would if so many parents didn’t go to charters or OOB options. Get it?

Have DCPS provide some G and T in elementary and tracking in MS and HS and you won’t have parents with options choosing charters. Until then families will do what is best for their kid.

So talk to DCPS because they are not meeting the needs of ALL kids, just the bottom. That’s all they care about so why should families care about their poorly performing IB schools?

Not to take this thread off topic, but NO. We do not need G&T tracking in elementary. these are little kids still--they don't need to be divided and segregated. If you are really worried about your kid's needs being met, you might argue for lower rations or more aids in classrooms, but not tracking. As kids get older and schools get larger, there is room for kids to go into classes that meet their level more (e.g., are you ready for Algebra in 7th or 8th or whatever), but that is really not necessary in elementary. We are a family with means, and would prefer to keep segregation out of our nice EOTP Title 1 school.

I agree with you that tracking isn't needed in elementary - especially not in early elementary. However, your Title I school might not be as track-less as you think. I've seen schools that don't have formal tracking still group lower performing or special ed students with certain teachers. Sometimes it's because those teachers are better at supporting kids but sometimes it's because those teachers are less senior/favored. Also, sometimes there aren't enough special ed inclusion co-teachers to support classrooms, so students get grouped to concentrate teachers in a particular classroom. My point is - tracking can start early whether you are aware of it or not.

PP here and I agree with you. I wonder if we are all talking past each other and conflating G&T tracking with in-class ability grouping. To be clear, in-class ability grouping is (in my view) fine, and helps make sure kids receive appropriate, tailored instruction. My issue is with separate G&T programs or classes that pull kids apart. You could argue that a kid who is not in G&T could be added to that program in a later year, and of course this does happen. But more frequently, the gap widens. Sure, some of this is because some of the kids with natural aptitude were pulled out. But also now you've got a bright kid with some learning differences in a class with a higher proportion of kids who are dealing with trauma and may be acting out, and they don't get to learn from (and compete with) the kids in the G&T program. And frequently, you'll have kids who are advanced in some ways and behind in others, so in-class differentiation, when done properly, is better able to address student needs. Test-in programs are notorious for baking the prejudices of the testmaker and the teachers into selection. As I said in my first post, there is a case to be made for differentiation, but the evidence I've seen doesn't suggest there is a net benefit to offering "honors" before middle school.

And to the other posters, I speak only for myself. Other parents can have different opinions. But that illustrates my point. By having us all at the same school, and in the same class, we get to hear each other's perspectives and learn from each other. No one is better than anyone else, no one is made to feel less than anyone else. To me, having kids in a diverse (racially, economically, academically, etc.) class is about that, not about "atmospherics."

There’s no real differentiation happening. It’s all about the bottom and a race to the bottom. It’s bringing the top down to narrow the achievement gap. Your idealistic thinking is not reality. Your argument against tracking supports the same thing - race to the bottom by not meeting the needs of the top

BTW your title 1 school is not racially, economically, or academically diverse. In fact it very homogenous in all 3 categories past ECE.

The HRCS are actually more diverse racially, economically, and academically than title 1 IB elementary schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although I hate the low academic standards, my real issue is with the violence in and near the school.

Do you think your child specifically would be pulled into this?

NP. It's unpleasant to witness and can be really traumatic. It disrupts the learning environment and wastes instructional time. And nearby people do sometimes get hurt in a scuffle just by being in range It's not because anyone thinks their child is going to be invited to partake in a carjacking.

My child was not happy in his elementary school where there were frequent behavioral disruptions, including thrown chairs, even though he was never directly involved.

All sounds alarming and unfortunate. Didn't know there was this kind of violence at the schools mentioned except for Latin. Why doesn't Latin face the same thing? Is it because the school is smaller?

Charter school means the families have to be motivated enough to transport their kids & fill out paperwork.

That’s not it. Functionally half of DC Public School students attend charters. Even more go to Out of Boundary DCPS schools. So a MAJORITY of DC parents are willing to fill out applications and arrange transporation.

Yes, half of parents are willing to do this. And the kids of families where parents are not able to be involved in this way, family is in crisis, family has criminal justice system involvement, family is experiencing housing insecurity, etc. are concentrated in the by right schools that fully half of DC parents are jumping through hoops to avoid. The resulting cohort at those schools has all kinds of behavior and social issues at a much higher rate than they would if so many parents didn’t go to charters or OOB options. Get it?

Have DCPS provide some G and T in elementary and tracking in MS and HS and you won’t have parents with options choosing charters. Until then families will do what is best for their kid.

So talk to DCPS because they are not meeting the needs of ALL kids, just the bottom. That’s all they care about so why should families care about their poorly performing IB schools?

Not to take this thread off topic, but NO. We do not need G&T tracking in elementary. these are little kids still--they don't need to be divided and segregated. If you are really worried about your kid's needs being met, you might argue for lower rations or more aids in classrooms, but not tracking. As kids get older and schools get larger, there is room for kids to go into classes that meet their level more (e.g., are you ready for Algebra in 7th or 8th or whatever), but that is really not necessary in elementary. We are a family with means, and would prefer to keep segregation out of our nice EOTP Title 1 school.

I agree with you that tracking isn't needed in elementary - especially not in early elementary. However, your Title I school might not be as track-less as you think. I've seen schools that don't have formal tracking still group lower performing or special ed students with certain teachers. Sometimes it's because those teachers are better at supporting kids but sometimes it's because those teachers are less senior/favored. Also, sometimes there aren't enough special ed inclusion co-teachers to support classrooms, so students get grouped to concentrate teachers in a particular classroom. My point is - tracking can start early whether you are aware of it or not.

PP here and I agree with you. I wonder if we are all talking past each other and conflating G&T tracking with in-class ability grouping. To be clear, in-class ability grouping is (in my view) fine, and helps make sure kids receive appropriate, tailored instruction. My issue is with separate G&T programs or classes that pull kids apart. You could argue that a kid who is not in G&T could be added to that program in a later year, and of course this does happen. But more frequently, the gap widens. Sure, some of this is because some of the kids with natural aptitude were pulled out. But also now you've got a bright kid with some learning differences in a class with a higher proportion of kids who are dealing with trauma and may be acting out, and they don't get to learn from (and compete with) the kids in the G&T program. And frequently, you'll have kids who are advanced in some ways and behind in others, so in-class differentiation, when done properly, is better able to address student needs. Test-in programs are notorious for baking the prejudices of the testmaker and the teachers into selection. As I said in my first post, there is a case to be made for differentiation, but the evidence I've seen doesn't suggest there is a net benefit to offering "honors" before middle school.

And to the other posters, I speak only for myself. Other parents can have different opinions. But that illustrates my point. By having us all at the same school, and in the same class, we get to hear each other's perspectives and learn from each other. No one is better than anyone else, no one is made to feel less than anyone else. To me, having kids in a diverse (racially, economically, academically, etc.) class is about that, not about "atmospherics."

There’s no real differentiation happening. It’s all about the bottom and a race to the bottom. It’s bringing the top down to narrow the achievement gap. Your idealistic thinking is not reality. Your argument against tracking supports the same thing - race to the bottom by not meeting the needs of the top

BTW your title 1 school is not racially, economically, or academically diverse. In fact it very homogenous in all 3 categories past ECE.

The HRCS are actually more diverse racially, economically, and academically than title 1 IB elementary schools.

I think it depends on the charter and the IB school. Funny how all these people can tell my my lived experience is not happening. I guess this exchange is just further proof that people should check out what is actually happening in their kids' classrooms rather than placing any weight on what you read on DCUM. Shrug.

[Anonymous]

This is a tired conversation, but it's what you mean by diversity.

Some people use the word to say mixed demographically, when what it means for them privately is not overwhelmingly like most of the DCPS student body, which outside of Ward 3 is largely Black, Hispanic (in specific areas), and poor.

Some people mean it to say that it allows their kids to be exposed to many children not like their own. Others use it, privately, to explain that the school has enough upper-income people who can function well in mainstream (white) society that they do not feel isolated when they fit in that culture.

Acknowledge that most people in this discussion consider most DCPS school demographics, with their largely underperforming, mostly Black, mostly poor student bodies, to be a bad thing, and that that is what people are talking around when they are talking about 'diversity.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although I hate the low academic standards, my real issue is with the violence in and near the school.

Do you think your child specifically would be pulled into this?

NP. It's unpleasant to witness and can be really traumatic. It disrupts the learning environment and wastes instructional time. And nearby people do sometimes get hurt in a scuffle just by being in range It's not because anyone thinks their child is going to be invited to partake in a carjacking.

My child was not happy in his elementary school where there were frequent behavioral disruptions, including thrown chairs, even though he was never directly involved.

All sounds alarming and unfortunate. Didn't know there was this kind of violence at the schools mentioned except for Latin. Why doesn't Latin face the same thing? Is it because the school is smaller?

Charter school means the families have to be motivated enough to transport their kids & fill out paperwork.

That’s not it. Functionally half of DC Public School students attend charters. Even more go to Out of Boundary DCPS schools. So a MAJORITY of DC parents are willing to fill out applications and arrange transporation.

Yes, half of parents are willing to do this. And the kids of families where parents are not able to be involved in this way, family is in crisis, family has criminal justice system involvement, family is experiencing housing insecurity, etc. are concentrated in the by right schools that fully half of DC parents are jumping through hoops to avoid. The resulting cohort at those schools has all kinds of behavior and social issues at a much higher rate than they would if so many parents didn’t go to charters or OOB options. Get it?

Have DCPS provide some G and T in elementary and tracking in MS and HS and you won’t have parents with options choosing charters. Until then families will do what is best for their kid.

So talk to DCPS because they are not meeting the needs of ALL kids, just the bottom. That’s all they care about so why should families care about their poorly performing IB schools?

Not to take this thread off topic, but NO. We do not need G&T tracking in elementary. these are little kids still--they don't need to be divided and segregated. If you are really worried about your kid's needs being met, you might argue for lower rations or more aids in classrooms, but not tracking. As kids get older and schools get larger, there is room for kids to go into classes that meet their level more (e.g., are you ready for Algebra in 7th or 8th or whatever), but that is really not necessary in elementary. We are a family with means, and would prefer to keep segregation out of our nice EOTP Title 1 school.

I agree with you that tracking isn't needed in elementary - especially not in early elementary. However, your Title I school might not be as track-less as you think. I've seen schools that don't have formal tracking still group lower performing or special ed students with certain teachers. Sometimes it's because those teachers are better at supporting kids but sometimes it's because those teachers are less senior/favored. Also, sometimes there aren't enough special ed inclusion co-teachers to support classrooms, so students get grouped to concentrate teachers in a particular classroom. My point is - tracking can start early whether you are aware of it or not.

PP here and I agree with you. I wonder if we are all talking past each other and conflating G&T tracking with in-class ability grouping. To be clear, in-class ability grouping is (in my view) fine, and helps make sure kids receive appropriate, tailored instruction. My issue is with separate G&T programs or classes that pull kids apart. You could argue that a kid who is not in G&T could be added to that program in a later year, and of course this does happen. But more frequently, the gap widens. Sure, some of this is because some of the kids with natural aptitude were pulled out. But also now you've got a bright kid with some learning differences in a class with a higher proportion of kids who are dealing with trauma and may be acting out, and they don't get to learn from (and compete with) the kids in the G&T program. And frequently, you'll have kids who are advanced in some ways and behind in others, so in-class differentiation, when done properly, is better able to address student needs. Test-in programs are notorious for baking the prejudices of the testmaker and the teachers into selection. As I said in my first post, there is a case to be made for differentiation, but the evidence I've seen doesn't suggest there is a net benefit to offering "honors" before middle school.

And to the other posters, I speak only for myself. Other parents can have different opinions. But that illustrates my point. By having us all at the same school, and in the same class, we get to hear each other's perspectives and learn from each other. No one is better than anyone else, no one is made to feel less than anyone else. To me, having kids in a diverse (racially, economically, academically, etc.) class is about that, not about "atmospherics."

There’s no real differentiation happening. It’s all about the bottom and a race to the bottom. It’s bringing the top down to narrow the achievement gap. Your idealistic thinking is not reality. Your argument against tracking supports the same thing - race to the bottom by not meeting the needs of the top

BTW your title 1 school is not racially, economically, or academically diverse. In fact it very homogenous in all 3 categories past ECE.

The HRCS are actually more diverse racially, economically, and academically than title 1 IB elementary schools.

I think it depends on the charter and the IB school. Funny how all these people can tell my my lived experience is not happening. I guess this exchange is just further proof that people should check out what is actually happening in their kids' classrooms rather than placing any weight on what you read on DCUM. Shrug.

Easy enough to compare diversity and experiences. Name your IB title 1 school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a tired conversation, but it's what you mean by diversity.

Some people use the word to say mixed demographically, when what it means for them privately is not overwhelmingly like most of the DCPS student body, which outside of Ward 3 is largely Black, Hispanic (in specific areas), and poor.

Some people mean it to say that it allows their kids to be exposed to many children not like their own. Others use it, privately, to explain that the school has enough upper-income people who can function well in mainstream (white) society that they do not feel isolated when they fit in that culture.

Acknowledge that most people in this discussion consider most DCPS school demographics, with their largely underperforming, mostly Black, mostly poor student bodies, to be a bad thing, and that that is what people are talking around when they are talking about 'diversity.'

You are the only one trying to play the race card and make it about racism.

Here is the definition of diverse:

1.
showing a great deal of variety; very different:
"subjects as diverse as architecture, language teaching, and the physical sciences"

2.
including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.:
"our company is an equal opportunity employer committed to hiring a diverse workforce

Our HRCS has about 30% white, 30% Latino, 25% black and then other.
20% low income and the rest comprise of mix of middle income and UMC income
Academic achievement 60% combo of at or above grade level, rest below grade level

Most title 1 IB schools 80-90% Black, 80-90% low SES, and 80-90% below grade level.

So correct that many HRCS are racially, economically, and academically diverse while most IB title 1 schools are not. It’s black and white clear

[Anonymous]

right. I acknowledge all your stats. But what does it mean when your HRCS is 30% white in a neighborhood that is 5 or 10% white?

[Anonymous]

what I'm trying to get at is while people can say

"I am happy in a school that is diverse"

their school choices can also mean

"I am choosing schools to avoid Black and poor people who are my neighbors."

[Anonymous]

I choose schools based on where my child would benefit most. Dunbar wasn’t on the table for me. I don’t think it is the best choice for many children, privileged or underprivileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what I'm trying to get at is while people can say

"I am happy in a school that is diverse"

their school choices can also mean

"I am choosing schools to avoid Black and poor people who are my neighbors."

This is frickin hilarious. Some woke white person “of means” makes a statement about how it’s important being in a school that is racially, economically, and academically diverse.

She then gets called out correctly that this is not true, her title 1 school is homogenous. Many HRCS are more diverse.

Then, unable to refute that and admit that she is wrong, she goes on to now accuse everyone of being racist.

Folks, it’s the same play every time. When challenged, instead of providing facts and support for their stance, the only defense these people have left is everyone is racist.

No, I’m not white or racist. I’m avoiding putting my kid in a failing school. Black families with options are doing the EXACT same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:right. I acknowledge all your stats. But what does it mean when your HRCS is 30% white in a neighborhood that is 5 or 10% white?

No neighborhood is 5-10% white except maybe in ward 7 and 8. None.

Also who cares? If you want to make the poor judgement of choosing your school based on some untrue demographics in your head, go ahead. I’ll base mine on academics and peer group like the majority of sane people.

[Anonymous]

Also who cares. Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what I'm trying to get at is while people can say

"I am happy in a school that is diverse"

their school choices can also mean

"I am choosing schools to avoid Black and poor people who are my neighbors."

This is frickin hilarious. Some woke white person “of means” makes a statement about how it’s important being in a school that is racially, economically, and academically diverse.

She then gets called out correctly that this is not true, her title 1 school is homogenous. Many HRCS are more diverse.

Then, unable to refute that and admit that she is wrong, she goes on to now accuse everyone of being racist.

Folks, it’s the same play every time. When challenged, instead of providing facts and support for their stance, the only defense these people have left is everyone is racist.

No, I’m not white or racist. I’m avoiding putting my kid in a failing school. Black families with options are doing the EXACT same thing.

You are conflating a few different posters. I am the PP who prefers in-class differentiation in elementary to tracking programs that pull kids out of schools and classes, but I wasn’t involved in the devolution about the relative diversity of charters vs title 1 dcps. I don’t think anyone is racist for disagreeing with me—I do think it’s a shame (but not a surprise) that we cannot discuss the merits of tracking vs grouping without going off the rails. And look, if a school is failing kids, neither approach is going to work. I still don’t think anyone has demonstrated that tracking in elementary school is actually the right move. Even in older grades you see the problem. If tracking was the answer PPs pretend it is, you wouldn’t have people worried about Dunbar (like the forgotten OP) because they would be sure their kid’s needs are being met, either in the test-in school or at Dunbar. But that’s not the case. To be clear, I’m not suggesting dcps get rid of Banneker and other test-in high schools. But why would we start that process with little kids, especially when the research does not support it. Anyway, I’m going to give this thread back to folks talking about Dunbar.
Ps I’m not white either, don’t make those assumptions.
PPs I’m not naming my school bc I like what I see there, and I don’t want it to get flamed by a bunch of people who obviously don’t go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what I'm trying to get at is while people can say

"I am happy in a school that is diverse"

their school choices can also mean

"I am choosing schools to avoid Black and poor people who are my neighbors."

This is frickin hilarious. Some woke white person “of means” makes a statement about how it’s important being in a school that is racially, economically, and academically diverse.

She then gets called out correctly that this is not true, her title 1 school is homogenous. Many HRCS are more diverse.

Then, unable to refute that and admit that she is wrong, she goes on to now accuse everyone of being racist.

Folks, it’s the same play every time. When challenged, instead of providing facts and support for their stance, the only defense these people have left is everyone is racist.

No, I’m not white or racist. I’m avoiding putting my kid in a failing school. Black families with options are doing the EXACT same thing.

You are conflating a few different posters. I am the PP who prefers in-class differentiation in elementary to tracking programs that pull kids out of schools and classes, but I wasn’t involved in the devolution about the relative diversity of charters vs title 1 dcps. I don’t think anyone is racist for disagreeing with me—I do think it’s a shame (but not a surprise) that we cannot discuss the merits of tracking vs grouping without going off the rails. And look, if a school is failing kids, neither approach is going to work. I still don’t think anyone has demonstrated that tracking in elementary school is actually the right move. Even in older grades you see the problem. If tracking was the answer PPs pretend it is, you wouldn’t have people worried about Dunbar (like the forgotten OP) because they would be sure their kid’s needs are being met, either in the test-in school or at Dunbar. But that’s not the case. To be clear, I’m not suggesting dcps get rid of Banneker and other test-in high schools. But why would we start that process with little kids, especially when the research does not support it. Anyway, I’m going to give this thread back to folks talking about Dunbar.
Ps I’m not white either, don’t make those assumptions.
PPs I’m not naming my school bc I like what I see there, and I don’t want it to get flamed by a bunch of people who obviously don’t go there.

You also clearly aren’t a teacher. How do you think this in class differentiation works in 4th grade. Please explain how a classroom is to be run with some students barely literate and others reading 300 page novels on a regular basis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what I'm trying to get at is while people can say

"I am happy in a school that is diverse"

their school choices can also mean

"I am choosing schools to avoid Black and poor people who are my neighbors."

This is frickin hilarious. Some woke white person “of means” makes a statement about how it’s important being in a school that is racially, economically, and academically diverse.

She then gets called out correctly that this is not true, her title 1 school is homogenous. Many HRCS are more diverse.

Then, unable to refute that and admit that she is wrong, she goes on to now accuse everyone of being racist.

Folks, it’s the same play every time. When challenged, instead of providing facts and support for their stance, the only defense these people have left is everyone is racist.

No, I’m not white or racist. I’m avoiding putting my kid in a failing school. Black families with options are doing the EXACT same thing.

You are conflating a few different posters. I am the PP who prefers in-class differentiation in elementary to tracking programs that pull kids out of schools and classes, but I wasn’t involved in the devolution about the relative diversity of charters vs title 1 dcps. I don’t think anyone is racist for disagreeing with me—I do think it’s a shame (but not a surprise) that we cannot discuss the merits of tracking vs grouping without going off the rails. And look, if a school is failing kids, neither approach is going to work. I still don’t think anyone has demonstrated that tracking in elementary school is actually the right move. Even in older grades you see the problem. If tracking was the answer PPs pretend it is, you wouldn’t have people worried about Dunbar (like the forgotten OP) because they would be sure their kid’s needs are being met, either in the test-in school or at Dunbar. But that’s not the case. To be clear, I’m not suggesting dcps get rid of Banneker and other test-in high schools. But why would we start that process with little kids, especially when the research does not support it. Anyway, I’m going to give this thread back to folks talking about Dunbar.
Ps I’m not white either, don’t make those assumptions.
PPs I’m not naming my school bc I like what I see there, and I don’t want it to get flamed by a bunch of people who obviously don’t go there.

You also clearly aren’t a teacher. How do you think this in class differentiation works in 4th grade. Please explain how a classroom is to be run with some students barely literate and others reading 300 page novels on a regular basis?

I’m not a teacher, you’re right, but I do spend a lot of time with teachers if that counts for anything (probably not )! In our school, the grouping is probably more possible because we’ve received extra funding from the district due to at risk kids and such, so we have more instructional coaches who “push in”— so there is a lot of putting kids in small groups. yes some of the time they are on an app, but sometimes the group is with the coach and sometimes with the teacher. So for example, in one of my kids’ class, some kids were working on the basics for literacy, and some were in a small group working on creative writing. Which brings me back to my original point—if you are going to invest in a way to meet kids’ needs, I think the best way is to invest in more coaches and aids in each classroom so that there is even more of this. That seems to me to be a better use of funds than a G and T track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what I'm trying to get at is while people can say

"I am happy in a school that is diverse"

their school choices can also mean

"I am choosing schools to avoid Black and poor people who are my neighbors."

This is frickin hilarious. Some woke white person “of means” makes a statement about how it’s important being in a school that is racially, economically, and academically diverse.

She then gets called out correctly that this is not true, her title 1 school is homogenous. Many HRCS are more diverse.

Then, unable to refute that and admit that she is wrong, she goes on to now accuse everyone of being racist.

Folks, it’s the same play every time. When challenged, instead of providing facts and support for their stance, the only defense these people have left is everyone is racist.

No, I’m not white or racist. I’m avoiding putting my kid in a failing school. Black families with options are doing the EXACT same thing.

You are conflating a few different posters. I am the PP who prefers in-class differentiation in elementary to tracking programs that pull kids out of schools and classes, but I wasn’t involved in the devolution about the relative diversity of charters vs title 1 dcps. I don’t think anyone is racist for disagreeing with me—I do think it’s a shame (but not a surprise) that we cannot discuss the merits of tracking vs grouping without going off the rails. And look, if a school is failing kids, neither approach is going to work. I still don’t think anyone has demonstrated that tracking in elementary school is actually the right move. Even in older grades you see the problem. If tracking was the answer PPs pretend it is, you wouldn’t have people worried about Dunbar (like the forgotten OP) because they would be sure their kid’s needs are being met, either in the test-in school or at Dunbar. But that’s not the case. To be clear, I’m not suggesting dcps get rid of Banneker and other test-in high schools. But why would we start that process with little kids, especially when the research does not support it. Anyway, I’m going to give this thread back to folks talking about Dunbar.
Ps I’m not white either, don’t make those assumptions.
PPs I’m not naming my school bc I like what I see there, and I don’t want it to get flamed by a bunch of people who obviously don’t go there.

Your premise is incorrect. The abysmal achievement that we have at Dunbar where 2% of the kids are on grade level in math is because there is NO tracking from an early age in elementary school. Dunbar is the typical result of not tracking, just like other poorly performing high schools in the city with similar stats.

Of course more than 2% of the thousands of kids in these poorly performing schools could have reached grade level competency. Why didn’t they? Because there is no tracking in elementary with G & T, no tracking of dedicated subjects in middle and high school. So teaching is to the lowest common denominator in these schools which is way below grade level. Then, even if kids don’t grasp concepts, everyone is socially promoted. End results are schools like Dunbar.

Look at cities where you have tracking starting in elementary, magnet or test in middle and high schools. They get low SES kids in these school who do well.

What DCPS does due to the failure of tracking then is defensive recovery in high school with Banneker. These kids come in with huge deficits which Banneker has to try to make up. That’s why all Banneker pushes is academics at the cost of all else. Even with 4 years of this, the best most of these kids can achieve is 3 on AP and low 20’s average on IB exams. These scores are not that great for a test in, heavy emphasis academic high school. But for kids who are so far behind, they do make strides.

Compare that to areas that start tracking early in elementary and beyond These low SES kids have been given higher level academics and challenged since elementary and blow the Banneker kids away. It’s not that both groups don’t have the same potential. It’s just these places tapped it early in the kids from elementary onward to the start of high school. These kids got way ahead and are performing at a much higher academic threshold.