Help me Edit: Response to Brookings Report

[Anonymous]

Oy.

Also no mention in the Post piece about Walton funding.

Which is distorting, no matter what Brookings says. The Walton Foundation makes programmatic choices about where to put their money, and so that money influences what topics get published on -- and what topics get talked about. Even without influencing the content of the report.

Here, the Walton Foundation decided to fund a study about racial division in DCPS, what a surprise. And there are many studies they did not fund - for example studies of how charters may poorly serve students.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Perry Stein at the Post has picked this up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-urban-moms-school-segregation-study/2021/03/31/8320b6e4-9160-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html

And, great... she's quoting DCUM posts. Sigh.

I wish she had covered some of the actual substantive criticism here of the report.

Perry spent a long time listening to me rant so blame me for not doing a better job making my points. She couldn't include everything I said but I think she did a pretty good job overall. The report was always going to get the better part of the coverage.

+1 thanks for context

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, exactly. A lot of the books that have come out this year (How to Be Anti-racist, Caste) are about exactly this. It's really understandable that people get defensive when they think they are being "called a segregationist." this year has been a long journey of trying to get people to face instead that they are participating in a racist system. it's a subtle difference but maybe one that can relieve some of that defensiveness.

To an extent I agree with you and I acknowledge that I probably should have viewed things more in this light. However, with regard to this report, I think its research is extremely shoddy, doesn't support the conclusions, and both ignores and reveals the obvious. Because the research is so light and flawed, what stands out are the allegations that are repeated throughout the report about supporting segregation. Perhaps the authors could have made their point without using such a loaded term? Is there really any justification for using such a term toward people who have chosen to remain in DC public schools rather than fleeing for private or the suburbs? Why antagonize the very folks with whom you must partner to find a solution?

Jeff, this reaction is white fragility in action. You can do better.

You may be correct that it is white fragility, but it is also reality. If people are interested in hard truths, it is a simple fact that this sort of language alienates your most likely allies. Why accuse people who didn't choose private schools and who didn't flee to the suburbs of supporting segregation? What solution does that help achieve?

You feel alienated by it; that is clear. I understand that it is hard to find yourself the object of study and even harder when you think the study is poorly done (although note that the subjects of studies typically feel those studies are poorly done).

But you have a fairly powerful venue as the host of this site and what you are doing here is demurring about that power by raising concerns about what other people will think and do. The actions you take here, or do not take, set the tone and standard of the conversation on DCUM, and one of the implications of this study is that DCUM is important.

So far, you have been clear that your line is at openly racist invective--you delete it, and I'm glad you do. There are other actions you could take, including requiring people to use logins (not even real names!), that would have a powerful influence on the tone and would introduce some level of accountability into the conversation.

I doubt he’s the only one who feels alienated. I get that this might be white fragility, but after a year like this one, the righteousness around perfect wholeness is tiresome. We don’t live in ward 3 and I remain critical of that group, at least in the sense of not giving them a ton of credit for their nobility in sticking with dcps. But, I also am weary of knowing that basically no matter what we do we’ll never meet the standards of critics, so why bother?

You can take issue with that but collectively all the folks work out by being called racist at every turn probably feel like me, and Jeff, and now feel fine about doing absolutely nothing going forward to solve this particular issue. You perfectionists can do that, I will just keep doing what seems best for my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, exactly. A lot of the books that have come out this year (How to Be Anti-racist, Caste) are about exactly this. It's really understandable that people get defensive when they think they are being "called a segregationist." this year has been a long journey of trying to get people to face instead that they are participating in a racist system. it's a subtle difference but maybe one that can relieve some of that defensiveness.

To an extent I agree with you and I acknowledge that I probably should have viewed things more in this light. However, with regard to this report, I think its research is extremely shoddy, doesn't support the conclusions, and both ignores and reveals the obvious. Because the research is so light and flawed, what stands out are the allegations that are repeated throughout the report about supporting segregation. Perhaps the authors could have made their point without using such a loaded term? Is there really any justification for using such a term toward people who have chosen to remain in DC public schools rather than fleeing for private or the suburbs? Why antagonize the very folks with whom you must partner to find a solution?

Jeff, this reaction is white fragility in action. You can do better.

You may be correct that it is white fragility, but it is also reality. If people are interested in hard truths, it is a simple fact that this sort of language alienates your most likely allies. Why accuse people who didn't choose private schools and who didn't flee to the suburbs of supporting segregation? What solution does that help achieve?

You feel alienated by it; that is clear. I understand that it is hard to find yourself the object of study and even harder when you think the study is poorly done (although note that the subjects of studies typically feel those studies are poorly done).

But you have a fairly powerful venue as the host of this site and what you are doing here is demurring about that power by raising concerns about what other people will think and do. The actions you take here, or do not take, set the tone and standard of the conversation on DCUM, and one of the implications of this study is that DCUM is important.

So far, you have been clear that your line is at openly racist invective--you delete it, and I'm glad you do. There are other actions you could take, including requiring people to use logins (not even real names!), that would have a powerful influence on the tone and would introduce some level of accountability into the conversation.

I doubt he’s the only one who feels alienated. I get that this might be white fragility, but after a year like this one, the righteousness around perfect wholeness is tiresome. We don’t live in ward 3 and I remain critical of that group, at least in the sense of not giving them a ton of credit for their nobility in sticking with dcps. But, I also am weary of knowing that basically no matter what we do we’ll never meet the standards of critics, so why bother?

You can take issue with that but collectively all the folks work out by being called racist at every turn probably feel like me, and Jeff, and now feel fine about doing absolutely nothing going forward to solve this particular issue. You perfectionists can do that, I will just keep doing what seems best for my kids.

*wokeness not wholeness

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I doubt he’s the only one who feels alienated. I get that this might be white fragility, but after a year like this one, the righteousness around perfect wholeness is tiresome. We don’t live in ward 3 and I remain critical of that group, at least in the sense of not giving them a ton of credit for their nobility in sticking with dcps. But, I also am weary of knowing that basically no matter what we do we’ll never meet the standards of critics, so why bother?

You can take issue with that but collectively all the folks work out by being called racist at every turn probably feel like me, and Jeff, and now feel fine about doing absolutely nothing going forward to solve this particular issue. You perfectionists can do that, I will just keep doing what seems best for my kids.

Just to be clear, I don't feel alienated. My concern about alienation was in regard to other posters. I am deeply committed to racial justice and it will take more than some name-calling to change my mind. They might not want me as an ally, but they are stuck with me.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt he’s the only one who feels alienated. I get that this might be white fragility, but after a year like this one, the righteousness around perfect wholeness is tiresome. We don’t live in ward 3 and I remain critical of that group, at least in the sense of not giving them a ton of credit for their nobility in sticking with dcps. But, I also am weary of knowing that basically no matter what we do we’ll never meet the standards of critics, so why bother?

You can take issue with that but collectively all the folks work out by being called racist at every turn probably feel like me, and Jeff, and now feel fine about doing absolutely nothing going forward to solve this particular issue. You perfectionists can do that, I will just keep doing what seems best for my kids.

Just to be clear, I don't feel alienated. My concern about alienation was in regard to other posters. I am deeply committed to racial justice and it will take more than some name-calling to change my mind. They might not want me as an ally, but they are stuck with me.

thank you, Jeff. That actually helps -- as the owner of this forum, your stance makes a difference.

[Anonymous]

Late to the conversation here... but the Brookings paper is awful. Hard to believe this is a 4-year study. The author states that DCUM is not representative of the city (selection bias) based on a zip code analysis and then somehow thinks it is revelatory that the schools most talked about are in those very same zip codes where forum participants live. And then the author thinks it is noteworthy that the words used to talk about the schools the participants know well are familiar words ("moms," "families") and the words used to talk about the schools with which they are less familiar are cold and clinical. The zip codes of forum participants corelate highly with high education, so interest in test scores, advanced classes, etc. is logical, and I think it would be consistent among highly educated, regardless of race. I'm not sure why anyone would expect a different result. Not to mention that the conversation analysis is less sophisticated than what interns do where I work.

Yes, the "nice white parents" conversation is important, but I don't see how this advances it. And I admit -- as one of those nice parents in Ward 1-- it is easy to feel damned no matter what. I'm either "abandoning my neighborhood school" or I'm "gentrifying my neighborhood school."

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure the "quoting DCUM posts" problem is as bad as some might make it out to be. This forum is hyper-anonymous and highly visible. If you're shocked you're quotable for what you've written here, don't be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was good, up until the last bit, defending parents -- it comes across as defensive. Residential and educational segregation is real, and what we think of as a "good" school is often tied up in race. Even "objective" measures like test scores reflect racial disparities.

Parents always say they just want good schools for their children, but that doesn't mean that they aren't participating in and perpetuating a racially biased system. It would be helpful if white parents (which includes me) were willing to be a little more introspective and real with ourselves about the choices we are making and why we are making them. You can acknowledge that parents, like everyone else, can be actively racist, or have racist blind spots, or benefit from a racist system, while still pointing out the serious problems with the Brookings' study methodology.

YES TO THIS RESPONSE. it sounds like you're saying "we’re helping parents stay in the DC school system instead of going to the suburbs! we can help them find other schools that are much whiter than their neighborhood school!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oy.

Also no mention in the Post piece about Walton funding.

Which is distorting, no matter what Brookings says. The Walton Foundation makes programmatic choices about where to put their money, and so that money influences what topics get published on -- and what topics get talked about. Even without influencing the content of the report.

Here, the Walton Foundation decided to fund a study about racial division in DCPS, what a surprise. And there are many studies they did not fund - for example studies of how charters may poorly serve students.

But don't charter schools come out looking bad in the report? Counter to Walton agenda?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was good, up until the last bit, defending parents -- it comes across as defensive. Residential and educational segregation is real, and what we think of as a "good" school is often tied up in race. Even "objective" measures like test scores reflect racial disparities.

Parents always say they just want good schools for their children, but that doesn't mean that they aren't participating in and perpetuating a racially biased system. It would be helpful if white parents (which includes me) were willing to be a little more introspective and real with ourselves about the choices we are making and why we are making them. You can acknowledge that parents, like everyone else, can be actively racist, or have racist blind spots, or benefit from a racist system, while still pointing out the serious problems with the Brookings' study methodology.

YES TO THIS RESPONSE. it sounds like you're saying "we’re helping parents stay in the DC school system instead of going to the suburbs! we can help them find other schools that are much whiter than their neighborhood school!”

I don't know to which version of my post you are referring because I changed it several times after the post that you quoted. But, if a family doesn't want to attend their assigned in-boundary school, what would be the preferred alternative? Would you want them to move to Ward 3, move to Maryland, opt for private, or still stay in a DC public school whether OOB or charter? Keep in mind that the charter would like be the most integrated alternative. I really doubt it is DCUM that turns people off from their assigned inbound school. If they come to DCUM looking for alternatives, that bridge has been crossed. To the extent DCUM can help keep such families in a DC public school, I think it is a positive thing.

It would be even better if those inbound schools that are being ignored could have a presence here as well. We don't control which schools get mentioned and there is no group of conspirators creating a list of "favored schools". If your school is not getting mentioned, maybe start a thread and mention it.

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/03/30/dc-urban-moms-the-catty-parenting-site-of-washingtons-elite-is-now-the-subject-of-academic-research-on-segregation/

I did not like the categorization of “catty” in this Washingtonian article. We are also Washington’s elite!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oy.

Also no mention in the Post piece about Walton funding.

Which is distorting, no matter what Brookings says. The Walton Foundation makes programmatic choices about where to put their money, and so that money influences what topics get published on -- and what topics get talked about. Even without influencing the content of the report.

Here, the Walton Foundation decided to fund a study about racial division in DCPS, what a surprise. And there are many studies they did not fund - for example studies of how charters may poorly serve students.

But don't charter schools come out looking bad in the report? Counter to Walton agenda?

But the charters aren't to blame for their popularity. That is solely due to DCUM posters who put them on the "acceptable list". BTW, the next Zoom meeting of the list committee is next Tuesday. Also, let this be a warning to those charters. One misstep and they are off the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, exactly. A lot of the books that have come out this year (How to Be Anti-racist, Caste) are about exactly this. It's really understandable that people get defensive when they think they are being "called a segregationist." this year has been a long journey of trying to get people to face instead that they are participating in a racist system. it's a subtle difference but maybe one that can relieve some of that defensiveness.

To an extent I agree with you and I acknowledge that I probably should have viewed things more in this light. However, with regard to this report, I think its research is extremely shoddy, doesn't support the conclusions, and both ignores and reveals the obvious. Because the research is so light and flawed, what stands out are the allegations that are repeated throughout the report about supporting segregation. Perhaps the authors could have made their point without using such a loaded term? Is there really any justification for using such a term toward people who have chosen to remain in DC public schools rather than fleeing for private or the suburbs? Why antagonize the very folks with whom you must partner to find a solution?

Jeff, this reaction is white fragility in action. You can do better.

You may be correct that it is white fragility, but it is also reality. If people are interested in hard truths, it is a simple fact that this sort of language alienates your most likely allies. Why accuse people who didn't choose private schools and who didn't flee to the suburbs of supporting segregation? What solution does that help achieve?

This sounds like whataboutism, with respect to those who moved to the suburbs or choose private.

Should the authors not even bother to do this sort of research, for fear of how it will land with some defensive people? Hopefully for those that react less defensively, or move from initial defensiveness to actually thinking about whether they can do anything better, there will be a positive impact.

What sort of research did they do? None. Had they done real research and looked at actual data, they might have come to a different conclusion about parents in DCPS.

Other research has come to similar conclusions.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/07/when-white-parents-have-a-choice-they-choose-segregated-schools.html

Full paper:

https://www.mathematica.org/download-media?MediaItemId={B5C6F476-7946-4177-8F5A-AF6A88BD9559}

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, exactly. A lot of the books that have come out this year (How to Be Anti-racist, Caste) are about exactly this. It's really understandable that people get defensive when they think they are being "called a segregationist." this year has been a long journey of trying to get people to face instead that they are participating in a racist system. it's a subtle difference but maybe one that can relieve some of that defensiveness.

To an extent I agree with you and I acknowledge that I probably should have viewed things more in this light. However, with regard to this report, I think its research is extremely shoddy, doesn't support the conclusions, and both ignores and reveals the obvious. Because the research is so light and flawed, what stands out are the allegations that are repeated throughout the report about supporting segregation. Perhaps the authors could have made their point without using such a loaded term? Is there really any justification for using such a term toward people who have chosen to remain in DC public schools rather than fleeing for private or the suburbs? Why antagonize the very folks with whom you must partner to find a solution?

Jeff, this reaction is white fragility in action. You can do better.

You may be correct that it is white fragility, but it is also reality. If people are interested in hard truths, it is a simple fact that this sort of language alienates your most likely allies. Why accuse people who didn't choose private schools and who didn't flee to the suburbs of supporting segregation? What solution does that help achieve?

This sounds like whataboutism, with respect to those who moved to the suburbs or choose private.

Should the authors not even bother to do this sort of research, for fear of how it will land with some defensive people? Hopefully for those that react less defensively, or move from initial defensiveness to actually thinking about whether they can do anything better, there will be a positive impact.

What sort of research did they do? None. Had they done real research and looked at actual data, they might have come to a different conclusion about parents in DCPS.

Other research has come to similar conclusions.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/07/when-white-parents-have-a-choice-they-choose-segregated-schools.html

Full paper:

https://www.mathematica.org/download-media?MediaItemId={B5C6F476-7946-4177-8F5A-AF6A88BD9559}

Those are not about DC.