D.C. City Council Has Given Up on Improving Schools

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:FYI, it is not called the "DC City Council". Its name is the "DC Council".

This is like correcting a typo. I can't believe this cuck has so much smarm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:FYI, it is not called the "DC City Council". Its name is the "DC Council".

This is like correcting a typo. I can't believe this cuck has so much smarm.

The only time he busts is when he gets to point that out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:FYI, it is not called the "DC City Council". Its name is the "DC Council".

This is like correcting a typo. I can't believe this cuck has so much smarm.

The only time he busts is when he gets to point that out.

He said at one point that his own kids went to charter schools.

[Anonymous]

"densification" is about putting singles in apartments. Remember DC government and density bros overall are against SFHs. Why on earth would they care about schools?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:FYI, it is not called the "DC City Council". Its name is the "DC Council".

More like the "Dysfunctional City" Council.

[Anonymous]

Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

[Anonymous]

Not true. Tried very hard to send my kid to a DC middle school. But not if they have 50% literacy and 30% math passing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not true. Tried very hard to send my kid to a DC middle school. But not if they have 50% literacy and 30% math passing.

In what way did you try very hard, then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

Money can’t buy everything. So many parents are absolutely terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

DC schools spend double what poor, rural towns in WV spend, and yet DCPS has way worse results. It’s a culture thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

DC schools spend double what poor, rural towns in WV spend, and yet DCPS has way worse results. It’s a culture thing.

That is such a ridiculous, meaningless metric. Things cost more here. Salary costs more here, etc. Obviously it's not an apples to apples comparison of merely 'per pupil' funding. You are showing you have no grasp of the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not true. Tried very hard to send my kid to a DC middle school. But not if they have 50% literacy and 30% math passing.

In what way did you try very hard, then?

Visited more than 5 schools, including the class tours. Talked to the parents and children. Applied for and failed at the lottery.
Applied to only one private because I really wanted to make the DCPS work and luckily got in and never looked back. For the next DC made sense to go with the same school.
I did everything short of moving to the burbs. But there wasn’t an offering that didn’t either disappoint academically or embraced “grit” in the ways we didn’t think would work for DC (such as the metal detectors).
What floored me and made me want to support the schools was use of transparencies to learn single and double digit multiplication by rote in the late 6th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

DC schools spend double what poor, rural towns in WV spend, and yet DCPS has way worse results. It’s a culture thing.

That is such a ridiculous, meaningless metric. Things cost more here. Salary costs more here, etc. Obviously it's not an apples to apples comparison of merely 'per pupil' funding. You are showing you have no grasp of the subject.

Your poor student statistic for those allotted per school shows your knowledge of the demo of DC is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

The *actual* answer is for DCPS to institute robust tracking for kids starting in upper elementary and establish more citywide magnet MS and HS. This will keep the UMC (of ALL races) in DCPS. If we are careful to ensure that all those high-performers in high poverty schools are identified, they will benefit too. Open a magnet for all W7 and 8 kids who get 4s on PARCC. For all the other kids, drop all the nonsense and give them double doses of math and phonics.

Kids who have behavioral issues or don’t want to learn get tracked to alternative schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

this is such a terrible screed. so in your view, white parents have to view themselves as the saviors of poor schools, or we are abandoning poor kids.