Melissa Kim is leaving Deal

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Deal Feeders:
Bancroft 7% white
Eaton 39% white
Hearst 22% white
Janney 69% white
Lafayette 71% white
Murch 63% white
Oyster-Adams 28% white
Shepherd 6% white

Most of those schools only have diversity as a result of OOB enrollment.

This is just incorrect. Speaking of Janney as an example, the VAST majority of kids are IB -- maybe on the order of 95%. I love it when people throw generalities around as though they are fact simply because they fit into their desired narrative.

[Anonymous]

Most of those schools only have diversity as a result of OOB enrollment.


This is just incorrect. Speaking of Janney as an example, the VAST majority of kids are IB -- maybe on the order of 95%. I love it when people throw generalities around as though they are fact simply because they fit into their desired narrative.

Janney is 86% inboundary students.

10% of Janney students state their race as "black". [[Since we are in D.C., not San Francisco, "black" is really the only race that is relevant in this specific sub-discussion. Much more so than the 4th grader with one Japanese grandparent, for example.]]

So anyway, the numbers at Janney actually match up rather predictably.

90% of the students are white or Asian. 86% of the students live in the neighborhood.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
This is just incorrect. Speaking of Janney as an example, the VAST majority of kids are IB -- maybe on the order of 95%. I love it when people throw generalities around as though they are fact simply because they fit into their desired narrative.

What is the percentage of inbound students at Janney who are not white? As the previous poster makes clear, there is no contradiction between your numbers and my numbers.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is just incorrect. Speaking of Janney as an example, the VAST majority of kids are IB -- maybe on the order of 95%. I love it when people throw generalities around as though they are fact simply because they fit into their desired narrative.

What is the percentage of inbound students at Janney who are not white? As the previous poster makes clear, there is no contradiction between your numbers and my numbers.

@17% of the IB population at Janney is non-white. And @95% of that 17% are biracial children who are black/white or asian/white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is just incorrect. Speaking of Janney as an example, the VAST majority of kids are IB -- maybe on the order of 95%. I love it when people throw generalities around as though they are fact simply because they fit into their desired narrative.

What is the percentage of inbound students at Janney who are not white? As the previous poster makes clear, there is no contradiction between your numbers and my numbers.

@17% of the IB population at Janney is non-white. And @95% of that 17% are biracial children who are black/white or asian/white.

I'm sorry - just to make sure I understand - so are the biracial children not "diverse" enough for you?? LOL!! People on here can be unbelievably ridiculous.

Ok... for your next project, find something wrong with kittens, ice cream, or the laughter of children. Geez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Most of those schools only have diversity as a result of OOB enrollment.


This is just incorrect. Speaking of Janney as an example, the VAST majority of kids are IB -- maybe on the order of 95%. I love it when people throw generalities around as though they are fact simply because they fit into their desired narrative.

Janney is 86% inboundary students.

10% of Janney students state their race as "black". [[Since we are in D.C., not San Francisco, "black" is really the only race that is relevant in this specific sub-discussion. Much more so than the 4th grader with one Japanese grandparent, for example.]]

So anyway, the numbers at Janney actually match up rather predictably.

90% of the students are white or Asian. 86% of the students live in the neighborhood.

Can somebody tell me WTF the point of this entire discussion is?? Janney is a good school + People who live IB send their kids there in high percentages + Most people IB are white = Janney is bad/wrong somehow?!?! What is the point here?!?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is just incorrect. Speaking of Janney as an example, the VAST majority of kids are IB -- maybe on the order of 95%. I love it when people throw generalities around as though they are fact simply because they fit into their desired narrative.

What is the percentage of inbound students at Janney who are not white? As the previous poster makes clear, there is no contradiction between your numbers and my numbers.

@17% of the IB population at Janney is non-white. And @95% of that 17% are biracial children who are black/white or asian/white.

I'm sorry - just to make sure I understand - so are the biracial children not "diverse" enough for you?? LOL!! People on here can be unbelievably ridiculous.

Ok... for your next project, find something wrong with kittens, ice cream, or the laughter of children. Geez.

Not speaking for the the poster you quote, but that is exactly the argument Rush Limbaugh makes with regard to President Obama. As a result, he says that Cain would be the first authentic black president. As for myself, I consider biracial to be diverse. I'd even consider immigrant caucasians to be diverse. But, if the numbers reported here are correct, a totally inbound Janney would be 83% white, as compared to the 69% reported earlier. So, I think that basically proves my point.

[Anonymous]

Can somebody tell me WTF the point of this entire discussion is?? Janney is a good school + People who live IB send their kids there in high percentages + Most people IB are white = Janney is bad/wrong somehow?!?! What is the point here?!?

It was a tangent from this point made earlier (and in every single thread about Deal, FWIW)

Janney is mostly white, and mostly inboundary students. Same for Lafayette, same for Murch. All those inboundary students have a right to attend Deal.

Currently, Deal is overcrowded and it appears that trend will continue. One way to make it less crowded is to shave off some of the current right-to-attend schools.

Logic would suggest you start shaving off the schools furthest from Deal. -Those- schools are much, much less white than Janney, Murch, and Lafayette - the closest schools to Deal.

If you do the logical thing with a redraw of attendance boundary, Deal will get whiter since (say it with me) Janney, Murch and Lafayette are full of white, inboundary kids AND they will continue to always have a right to go to Deal. Probably.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Can somebody tell me WTF the point of this entire discussion is?? Janney is a good school + People who live IB send their kids there in high percentages + Most people IB are white = Janney is bad/wrong somehow?!?! What is the point here?!?

A poster stated that redrawing Deal's boundaries would not lead to a 95% white school because the feeder schools are not 95% white. I pointed out that the feeder schools would be a lot more white if it were not OOB (which are decreasing in numbers). Someone seem to get confused on this point and said that Janney is 95% inbound, which is really not relevant. I agree that Janney is a good school and I think it is laudable that inbound families enroll in great numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
But, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in these discussions, students in our racial and social-economic bracket do just as well at Hardy as they do at Deal.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I am disappointed that the moderator stated as fact what has been shown to be untrue.

Fact: The fraction of white students scoring 'advanced' on the DC-CAS is much lower at Hardy than at Deal.

Why? Hard to tell. It could be:

1) Fewer students who have the ability to score 'advanced' on the DC-CAS choose to attend Hardy, or:

2) Students who previously had the ability to score 'advanced' on the DC-CAS lose it when they attend Hardy.


So as a parent of a child who scored 'advanced' on both reading and math, do I send my child to Hardy knowing that:

1) they will have very few academic peers and

2) they could fall behind peers who go to Deal.

No, I will not risk my child's education because of an arbitrary boundary line.

To buttress the poter, this was covered in detail in this post: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/45/167385.page#1562999

In summary, kids in every socio-economic group test higher at Deal than at Hardy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
@17% of the IB population at Janney is non-white. And @95% of that 17% are biracial children who are black/white or asian/white.

I call bull. I'm a stats nerd and I've never seen stats publicized by DCPS that break out IB/OOB by race. What's your source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
@17% of the IB population at Janney is non-white. And @95% of that 17% are biracial children who are black/white or asian/white.

I call bull. I'm a stats nerd and I've never seen stats publicized by DCPS that break out IB/OOB by race. What's your source?

Same question here. How do you know the biracial make-up (black/white asian/white)? Even when those stats are kept and not reported as other, it usually just states two or more races. Are you speaking from your visual observation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
@17% of the IB population at Janney is non-white. And @95% of that 17% are biracial children who are black/white or asian/white.

I call bull. I'm a stats nerd and I've never seen stats publicized by DCPS that break out IB/OOB by race. What's your source?

Same question here. How do you know the biracial make-up (black/white asian/white)? Even when those stats are kept and not reported as other, it usually just states two or more races. Are you speaking from your visual observation?

When you are at a school for 10 years with multiple kids you really do get to know pretty much everyone. I am basing this on visuals and I have hosted 4 parent socials in my own house and attended 12 to 15 parent socials over the years--and been active in the PTA. The number might be off by a percentage point or 2 but they are accurate. Not to a stat nerd, but for the basis of this discussion these numbers are valid. Feel free to disregard them. I have no dog in the Hardy fight--we are an AU Park family IB for Janney and Deal and use both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When you are at a school for 10 years with multiple kids you really do get to know pretty much everyone. I am basing this on visuals and I have hosted 4 parent socials in my own house and attended 12 to 15 parent socials over the years--and been active in the PTA. The number might be off by a percentage point or 2 but they are accurate. Not to a stat nerd, but for the basis of this discussion these numbers are valid. Feel free to disregard them. I have no dog in the Hardy fight--we are an AU Park family IB for Janney and Deal and use both.

I've been at my school for 8 years, multiple kids, room parent multiple times, active in the PTA, etc. I think I know everyone in the school. My off-the cuff guess for my school would be 99% IB, 95% white. The actual numbers on the DCPS website: 92% IB, 68% white.

[Anonymous]

Under DCPS categorization, "white" people cannot also be "Hispanic." You have to pick one or the other (which is absurd, but that's another topic).

So that fact could be contributing to -some- student bodies that look whiter than the DCPS pie chart would suggest.

ie, in my son's class, there is a Caucasian snowy-"white" child whose Mom was born in Buenos Aires. Dad is from Midwest. DCPS considers him non-white and part of the 32% not-white kids in 12:08's example. Even though he is pale like a sheet, lighter-complected than my kid and -- the clincher -- speaks not one word of Spanish.