Study: "Discussions of D.C. public school options in an online forum" (yes, this one)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, who wants to send their kids to failing schools?

I can't figure out how to paste an image (maybe you can't) but look at Figure 11. It shows numbers of mentions of schools based on star rating, which came out just a couple of years ago. The comment they make is that star rating doesn't affect conversations. But, even they concede that maybe that's because the stars correlate with what DCUM commenters already knew about schools.

Five star schools are discussed the most; 2 star schools, the least. This has not changed in ten years. Maybe that's the real difference.

Study is ridiculously basic.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:There are so many problems with the report's methodology. They have lists of "low attention schools" and "high attention schools". Generally, the "high attention schools" are the schools in the neighborhood in which our users live and the "low attention schools" are in neighborhoods which few of our users live. Two exceptions on the low attention list are Duke Ellington and Banneker. Duke Ellington has about 550 students and is a specialized Arts school. Nobody should be surprised that it is not discussed as often as 1800 student Wilson. Banneker is a more complicated case. It may be true that white families avoid it due to racism or it may be true that white families avoid it due to respect for the black student body which has created a special place. It may be a mixture of both or neither. This report doesn't offer evidence in any case.

The report's word lists are useless in my opinion. There is no context. For example, if "diversity" gets mentioned is it being used as a positive or a negative? If posters are promoting a school due to its diversity, is that supporting segregation or opposing it? "Diversity" gets counted just as often as "no diversity". To the report's authors, none of this is important. It is enough that "diversity" comes up at all in relation to some schools. But, then they use this to form conclusions that I don't think can be supported without necessary context.

You HAVE to write an editorial about this. We can all help!

[Anonymous]

+1. The authors don’t seem to know the terrain. Any of us could more to one of the whiter school districts within a few miles of home where, apparently, we’d be off the hook as hoarders of scarce public resources. OK, and how would our moving help poor minority kids in DC? I’d like to tell the authors of this study about the fine after school tutoring and sports program our school’s PTA funds for kids who are struggling academically (mostly poor minority kids). The wildly judgmental, poorly informed and unrealistic program replaced a weak DCPS funded program. The authors want to throw the baby out with the bath water, with the best as the enemy of the good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:There are so many problems with the report's methodology. They have lists of "low attention schools" and "high attention schools". Generally, the "high attention schools" are the schools in the neighborhood in which our users live and the "low attention schools" are in neighborhoods which few of our users live. Two exceptions on the low attention list are Duke Ellington and Banneker. Duke Ellington has about 550 students and is a specialized Arts school. Nobody should be surprised that it is not discussed as often as 1800 student Wilson. Banneker is a more complicated case. It may be true that white families avoid it due to racism or it may be true that white families avoid it due to respect for the black student body which has created a special place. It may be a mixture of both or neither. This report doesn't offer evidence in any case.

The report's word lists are useless in my opinion. There is no context. For example, if "diversity" gets mentioned is it being used as a positive or a negative? If posters are promoting a school due to its diversity, is that supporting segregation or opposing it? "Diversity" gets counted just as often as "no diversity". To the report's authors, none of this is important. It is enough that "diversity" comes up at all in relation to some schools. But, then they use this to form conclusions that I don't think can be supported without necessary context.

You HAVE to write an editorial about this. We can all help!

Please do, since I'm already seeing this study get trotted out on neighborhood facebook as great scholarship.

Also note: schools that get high mentions also might.... have scandals? Note LAMB, also Shining Stars. Some schools are discussed a ton after something goes wrong.

[Anonymous]

Poorly informed authors

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, whenever you ask people to take a critical look at themselves- the reaction is defensive.

To ask DCUM users if a critique of DCUM users is accurate is naturally not going to end well. Asking people if they are in privileged bubble is not going to go well. Because if you are in a bubble, by definition you do not know that you are.

In general I have found many on this board to be totally blind to the realities of DC Public Schools and blind to your own motivations behind how you move in this space. Is it segregation- kinda sorta. But mostly in the way that we would all select calm.caring, and safe places for our own children.

I think the rub comes in with it is juxtaposed with the self identification as a liberal community with a strong NIMBY action plan.

What you say is true, but does not rule out that the study is still flawed and unfair. Even you are not completely willing to agree with the report's conclusion.

What this report "reveals" is that a group of largely white, largely affluent posters who primarily live in largely white, largely affluent neighborhoods mostly talk about their local schools which are are largely white, largely affluent. It is true that largely white, largely affluent posters do not spend a lot of time talking about schools in parts of the city in which they do not live and which have poor academic outcomes. Why it took them four years and a word frequency analysis of 10 years worth of posts to figure this out is beyond me.

I don’t think this is a complete representation of the discussions here. There are plenty of discussions of how parents should ranks schools in the lottery to avoid their majority minority IB, typically described as a last resort or a nonstarter. There are discussions about whether Shepherd is becoming less majority minority and therefore more acceptable to white families. And so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:There are so many problems with the report's methodology. They have lists of "low attention schools" and "high attention schools". Generally, the "high attention schools" are the schools in the neighborhood in which our users live and the "low attention schools" are in neighborhoods which few of our users live. Two exceptions on the low attention list are Duke Ellington and Banneker. Duke Ellington has about 550 students and is a specialized Arts school. Nobody should be surprised that it is not discussed as often as 1800 student Wilson. Banneker is a more complicated case. It may be true that white families avoid it due to racism or it may be true that white families avoid it due to respect for the black student body which has created a special place. It may be a mixture of both or neither. This report doesn't offer evidence in any case.

The report's word lists are useless in my opinion. There is no context. For example, if "diversity" gets mentioned is it being used as a positive or a negative? If posters are promoting a school due to its diversity, is that supporting segregation or opposing it? "Diversity" gets counted just as often as "no diversity". To the report's authors, none of this is important. It is enough that "diversity" comes up at all in relation to some schools. But, then they use this to form conclusions that I don't think can be supported without necessary context.

You HAVE to write an editorial about this. We can all help!

The way I would frame this would be, "people talk about the things they're interested in -- and in DC, because the differences between schools are so big, some parents are very interested in where to send their kids." I'd also make a point of how diverse Deal and Wilson are, perhaps relative to the schools most white people nationally send their kids to. (Basically, these are success stories in terms of racial integration, not failures.) Maybe something about housing prices making the point that if you can afford to buy into Wilson, you could afford a much less racially diverse school district not too far away, if that were what you wanted.

I can get you some #s if you want. I do this kind of thing. (I'm sure I'm not the only one who does.) Let us know if you want emails.

[jsteele]

I am going through the report again and I am continually being flabbergasted. This is piss poor work:

In a paragraph beginning "Many school assignments are deemed unacceptable outcomes to DC Urban Moms participants; it is common to consider opting out of the District's school system entirely..." Then, as an example of this, they link to this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/424099.page

and quote this:

Agree. I would apply I Janney and pay for private if I didn't get in.

But, if you read the thread, the OP is inbounds for Janney, has a child in a private preschool, and is asking about pre-k 4. The recommendation that is quoted is not about leaving DCPS, but about not making changes two years in a row (the OP's child is guaranteed a K spot at Janney). The thread almost entirely contradicts the premise it is being used to support.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I am going through the report again and I am continually being flabbergasted. This is piss poor work:

In a paragraph beginning "Many school assignments are deemed unacceptable outcomes to DC Urban Moms participants; it is common to consider opting out of the District's school system entirely..." Then, as an example of this, they link to this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/424099.page

and quote this:

Agree. I would apply I Janney and pay for private if I didn't get in.

But, if you read the thread, the OP is inbounds for Janney, has a child in a private preschool, and is asking about pre-k 4. The recommendation that is quoted is not about leaving DCPS, but about not making changes two years in a row (the OP's child is guaranteed a K spot at Janney). The thread almost entirely contradicts the premise it is being used to support.

I have to wonder how much money they spent doing this study. And then to miss the point of a thread they highlighted? How lame!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I am going through the report again and I am continually being flabbergasted. This is piss poor work:

In a paragraph beginning "Many school assignments are deemed unacceptable outcomes to DC Urban Moms participants; it is common to consider opting out of the District's school system entirely..." Then, as an example of this, they link to this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/424099.page

and quote this:

Agree. I would apply I Janney and pay for private if I didn't get in.

But, if you read the thread, the OP is inbounds for Janney, has a child in a private preschool, and is asking about pre-k 4. The recommendation that is quoted is not about leaving DCPS, but about not making changes two years in a row (the OP's child is guaranteed a K spot at Janney). The thread almost entirely contradicts the premise it is being used to support.

I think the problem is that they had the research assistants do all of the reading on the forum and the giving of context rather than the author actually doing the leg work. At least, I hope someone with this little reasoning ability doesn't have a position as lead researcher at Brookings.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe they weren't humiliated to put their names on that paper.

[Anonymous]

I mean, it would have been great if they had, instead, reached some meaningful conclusions like:

It shouldn't take a masters degree level of statistical analysis and a ton of time to be able to analyze the options open to your family and find a good school that will be a good fit for your kids.

AKA

The District should be taking education seriously AND providing a good education to all so that parents can just send their kids to school and feel reasonably confident that their kids will get a good education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally everyone makes real estate and school decisions based on school test scores and quality of education ever since at least I was a kid.

My parents, immigrants, chose to scrape together enough money for a 2 bedroom apartment in a good school district in the city I grew up so that me and my sibling could have a high quality education. This has been happening ever since forever and in most cities.

So they spent 4 years to tell us what we already know except they threw the race card into it. Everyone knows that deal and Wilson are diverse or “integrated”.

Maybe judging the quality of education mainly on English and Math test scores isn't a good idea? And maybe basing who gets access to high quality schools on who can afford to live in certain places also isn't a good idea?

Oh come on. There are DCPS schools where 75%+ kids don’t even get close to passing the PARCC. The teachers and kids are all equally worthy, but nobody with an actual choice would choose that over a school where more kids were on target.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Please do, since I'm already seeing this study get trotted out on neighborhood facebook as great scholarship.

I am considering writing a response. One irony I guess is that the report will probably generate more traffic to DCUM. Hopefully it won't be a bunch of racists coming to find out how to get into an all white school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally everyone makes real estate and school decisions based on school test scores and quality of education ever since at least I was a kid.

My parents, immigrants, chose to scrape together enough money for a 2 bedroom apartment in a good school district in the city I grew up so that me and my sibling could have a high quality education. This has been happening ever since forever and in most cities.

So they spent 4 years to tell us what we already know except they threw the race card into it. Everyone knows that deal and Wilson are diverse or “integrated”.

Maybe judging the quality of education mainly on English and Math test scores isn't a good idea? And maybe basing who gets access to high quality schools on who can afford to live in certain places also isn't a good idea?

+1

If the quality has nothing to do with test scores, then why worry about test scores in Wards 7 and 8? There are schools where almost nobody is on grade level but that has nothing to do with quality, right?