Boundary review can’t come soon enough

[Anonymous]

If I were a policy maker reading that study, my conclusion would be we should be doing our damndest to attract higher-income residents to attend low-income schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The study controls for a number of key factors: SES and school related. Do you have evidence that leads to different conclusions? “You can’t control for everything,” doesn’t advance the discussion very much.

Why, yes it does. The null hypothesis is “nothing can be concluded”. That’s science.
Much education research, precisely because you can’t control for everything, is very very overblown and should be treated with major skepticism.

You see the problem here in this thread.
People are talking about how to organize schools.
Then someone comes in with “research”. Boom! Listen to this great “research”.
The whole discussion shifts and the study is assumed to be true.

But it’s a shoddy study- not because the authors are bad but because of the limitations of the entire methodology.
It’s observational and there are ton of endogenous factors that are frankly IMPOSSIBLE to control for.

Take the study perhaps as a guideline. But let’s be clear that it’s not some sort of gospel, and that the actual experience of teachers and parents is as valid, if not more valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The study controls for a number of key factors: SES and school related. Do you have evidence that leads to different conclusions? “You can’t control for everything,” doesn’t advance the discussion very much.

Why, yes it does. The null hypothesis is “nothing can be concluded”. That’s science.
Much education research, precisely because you can’t control for everything, is very very overblown and should be treated with major skepticism.

You see the problem here in this thread.
People are talking about how to organize schools.
Then someone comes in with “research”. Boom! Listen to this great “research”.
The whole discussion shifts and the study is assumed to be true.

But it’s a shoddy study- not because the authors are bad but because of the limitations of the entire methodology.
It’s observational and there are ton of endogenous factors that are frankly IMPOSSIBLE to control for.

Take the study perhaps as a guideline. But let’s be clear that it’s not some sort of gospel, and that the actual experience of teachers and parents is as valid, if not more valid.

Researcher here. You can never control for everything in any field, whether it's education, economics, medicine, etc. You control for the things that you have reason to believe has an association with the variables under study, if they are measurable. But you can never control for everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The study controls for a number of key factors: SES and school related. Do you have evidence that leads to different conclusions? “You can’t control for everything,” doesn’t advance the discussion very much.

Why, yes it does. The null hypothesis is “nothing can be concluded”. That’s science.
Much education research, precisely because you can’t control for everything, is very very overblown and should be treated with major skepticism.

You see the problem here in this thread.
People are talking about how to organize schools.
Then someone comes in with “research”. Boom! Listen to this great “research”.
The whole discussion shifts and the study is assumed to be true.

But it’s a shoddy study- not because the authors are bad but because of the limitations of the entire methodology.
It’s observational and there are ton of endogenous factors that are frankly IMPOSSIBLE to control for.

Take the study perhaps as a guideline. But let’s be clear that it’s not some sort of gospel, and that the actual experience of teachers and parents is as valid, if not more valid.

Researcher here. You can never control for everything in any field, whether it's education, economics, medicine, etc. You control for the things that you have reason to believe has an association with the variables under study, if they are measurable. But you can never control for everything.

Also, I agree with you that we can't take this one study in isolation as proof that integrated schools help close the achievement gap for minority students. However, this association has been replicated by multiple authors.

[Anonymous]

The study simply re-states the obvious: high-density, low-income schools consistently fail to educate the students. The majority of DC public schools are just like this, with very little racial and economic diversity. There are only a few exceptions, not counting the charters.

Schools integrated with diversity from higher-income students (regardless of race) perform better, and consequently have less of gap in performance between students of different races at those schools.

What DOESN'T help is to accuse parents of RACISM who don't want their kids to attend those obviously terrible learning environments. In fact, the study reinforces why parents who can choose better consistently avoid those schools.

The belief that racism is "the reason" is counter-productive in the sense that it perpetuates the problem. Structural racism may be a major "cause" for the problem that exists, but it is literally self-defeating to accuse the parents of high SES students of racism, when in the moment they're trying to do the best they can to educate their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The study simply re-states the obvious: high-density, low-income schools consistently fail to educate the students. The majority of DC public schools are just like this, with very little racial and economic diversity. There are only a few exceptions, not counting the charters.

Schools integrated with diversity from higher-income students (regardless of race) perform better, and consequently have less of gap in performance between students of different races at those schools.

What DOESN'T help is to accuse parents of RACISM who don't want their kids to attend those obviously terrible learning environments. In fact, the study reinforces why parents who can choose better consistently avoid those schools.

The belief that racism is "the reason" is counter-productive in the sense that it perpetuates the problem. Structural racism may be a major "cause" for the problem that exists, but it is literally self-defeating to accuse the parents of high SES students of racism, when in the moment they're trying to do the best they can to educate their children.

Racism discussions aside, I think the main implications of this sort of research apply to boundary discussions, which is the topic of the OP. Since research seems to suggest that minority students are helped and white students are not harmed by integrated schools, I think DCPS will continue to prioritize integrated schools when the boundary discussion resurfaces in a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The study simply re-states the obvious: high-density, low-income schools consistently fail to educate the students. The majority of DC public schools are just like this, with very little racial and economic diversity. There are only a few exceptions, not counting the charters.

Schools integrated with diversity from higher-income students (regardless of race) perform better, and consequently have less of gap in performance between students of different races at those schools.

What DOESN'T help is to accuse parents of RACISM who don't want their kids to attend those obviously terrible learning environments. In fact, the study reinforces why parents who can choose better consistently avoid those schools.

The belief that racism is "the reason" is counter-productive in the sense that it perpetuates the problem. Structural racism may be a major "cause" for the problem that exists, but it is literally self-defeating to accuse the parents of high SES students of racism, when in the moment they're trying to do the best they can to educate their children.

Racism discussions aside, I think the main implications of this sort of research apply to boundary discussions, which is the topic of the OP. Since research seems to suggest that minority students are helped and white students are not harmed by integrated schools, I think DCPS will continue to prioritize integrated schools when the boundary discussion resurfaces in a few years.

Boundary discussions go hand-in-hand with incentives provided by DCPS for higher SES to attend. Hardy is a decent example: DCPS was slow to "waste money" on incentives that very few used at first, but within about 2 years the in-boundary rates increased markedly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The study simply re-states the obvious: high-density, low-income schools consistently fail to educate the students. The majority of DC public schools are just like this, with very little racial and economic diversity. There are only a few exceptions, not counting the charters.

Schools integrated with diversity from higher-income students (regardless of race) perform better, and consequently have less of gap in performance between students of different races at those schools.

What DOESN'T help is to accuse parents of RACISM who don't want their kids to attend those obviously terrible learning environments. In fact, the study reinforces why parents who can choose better consistently avoid those schools.

The belief that racism is "the reason" is counter-productive in the sense that it perpetuates the problem. Structural racism may be a major "cause" for the problem that exists, but it is literally self-defeating to accuse the parents of high SES students of racism, when in the moment they're trying to do the best they can to educate their children.

Racism discussions aside, I think the main implications of this sort of research apply to boundary discussions, which is the topic of the OP. Since research seems to suggest that minority students are helped and white students are not harmed by integrated schools, I think DCPS will continue to prioritize integrated schools when the boundary discussion resurfaces in a few years.

Boundary discussions go hand-in-hand with incentives provided by DCPS for higher SES to attend. Hardy is a decent example: DCPS was slow to "waste money" on incentives that very few used at first, but within about 2 years the in-boundary rates increased markedly.

The only reason the IB percentage is rising is bc the grandfathering period from the last boundary review has ended. Eaton is now fully feeding Hardy now instead of Deal.

Changing feeder patterns and redrawing lines is politically painful but it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The study simply re-states the obvious: high-density, low-income schools consistently fail to educate the students. The majority of DC public schools are just like this, with very little racial and economic diversity. There are only a few exceptions, not counting the charters.

Schools integrated with diversity from higher-income students (regardless of race) perform better, and consequently have less of gap in performance between students of different races at those schools.

What DOESN'T help is to accuse parents of RACISM who don't want their kids to attend those obviously terrible learning environments. In fact, the study reinforces why parents who can choose better consistently avoid those schools.

The belief that racism is "the reason" is counter-productive in the sense that it perpetuates the problem. Structural racism may be a major "cause" for the problem that exists, but it is literally self-defeating to accuse the parents of high SES students of racism, when in the moment they're trying to do the best they can to educate their children.

Racism discussions aside, I think the main implications of this sort of research apply to boundary discussions, which is the topic of the OP. Since research seems to suggest that minority students are helped and white students are not harmed by integrated schools, I think DCPS will continue to prioritize integrated schools when the boundary discussion resurfaces in a few years.

Integrated schools - yes. Diverse schools - absolutely. But taking a big chunk of white high SES students out of a good school and shoving them in a bad school in some sort of hope that reverse integration will suddenly make those schools better, is breathtakingly misguided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The study simply re-states the obvious: high-density, low-income schools consistently fail to educate the students. The majority of DC public schools are just like this, with very little racial and economic diversity. There are only a few exceptions, not counting the charters.

Schools integrated with diversity from higher-income students (regardless of race) perform better, and consequently have less of gap in performance between students of different races at those schools.

What DOESN'T help is to accuse parents of RACISM who don't want their kids to attend those obviously terrible learning environments. In fact, the study reinforces why parents who can choose better consistently avoid those schools.

The belief that racism is "the reason" is counter-productive in the sense that it perpetuates the problem. Structural racism may be a major "cause" for the problem that exists, but it is literally self-defeating to accuse the parents of high SES students of racism, when in the moment they're trying to do the best they can to educate their children.

Racism discussions aside, I think the main implications of this sort of research apply to boundary discussions, which is the topic of the OP. Since research seems to suggest that minority students are helped and white students are not harmed by integrated schools, I think DCPS will continue to prioritize integrated schools when the boundary discussion resurfaces in a few years.

Integrated schools - yes. Diverse schools - absolutely. But taking a big chunk of white high SES students out of a good school and shoving them in a bad school in some sort of hope that reverse integration will suddenly make those schools better, is breathtakingly misguided.

I don't have an opinion on this in particular, but this city does do a lot of breathtakingly misguided things in my experience. That alone won't stop them. That's why I think boundary review is important, we actually need public engagement on these topics before big decisions are made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The study simply re-states the obvious: high-density, low-income schools consistently fail to educate the students. The majority of DC public schools are just like this, with very little racial and economic diversity. There are only a few exceptions, not counting the charters.

Schools integrated with diversity from higher-income students (regardless of race) perform better, and consequently have less of gap in performance between students of different races at those schools.

What DOESN'T help is to accuse parents of RACISM who don't want their kids to attend those obviously terrible learning environments. In fact, the study reinforces why parents who can choose better consistently avoid those schools.

The belief that racism is "the reason" is counter-productive in the sense that it perpetuates the problem. Structural racism may be a major "cause" for the problem that exists, but it is literally self-defeating to accuse the parents of high SES students of racism, when in the moment they're trying to do the best they can to educate their children.

Racism discussions aside, I think the main implications of this sort of research apply to boundary discussions, which is the topic of the OP. Since research seems to suggest that minority students are helped and white students are not harmed by integrated schools, I think DCPS will continue to prioritize integrated schools when the boundary discussion resurfaces in a few years.

Ward 3 parents want their kids in their neighborhood schools. Most are highly educated 2 working parents households who have sacrificed to afford a crappy 1940s house. You take their neighborhood school away and the majority of these families are moving a mile away to Maryland, probably to better schools. It’s that simple. DCPS is going to have to find an actual solution to educating kids in bad schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The study simply re-states the obvious: high-density, low-income schools consistently fail to educate the students. The majority of DC public schools are just like this, with very little racial and economic diversity. There are only a few exceptions, not counting the charters.

I'm not sure what you mean by "high-density." In DCPS, the richest schools are consistently the most crowded and the poorest the least.

[Anonymous]

There are simply too few high-SES students in DcpS to move the needle on the achievement gap regardless of how some social planner distrubutes them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are simply too few high-SES students in DcpS to move the needle on the achievement gap regardless of how some social planner distrubutes them.

What will be interesting is how DCPS deals with the rapid pace of gentrification in the city (apparently the highest in the country). I'm assuming they look at demographic trends when planning boundary revisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are simply too few high-SES students in DcpS to move the needle on the achievement gap regardless of how some social planner distrubutes them.

What will be interesting is how DCPS deals with the rapid pace of gentrification in the city (apparently the highest in the country). I'm assuming they look at demographic trends when planning boundary revisions.

The city releases data today shows that the city’s overall population is still growing, but if you didn’t count international immigration it would be falling.

The demographic trends may not be what you think they are.