Does anyone know what the demographics of Van Ness Elementary School is like this school year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

Who cares? If it's that important to stay on topic (a first for this board) then the thread should have ended at the under age 5 response because that's all that be confirmed at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

Who cares? If it's that important to stay on topic (a first for this board) then the thread should have ended at the under age 5 response because that's all that be confirmed at this point.

That would have been my response to the original question but apparently it's meaningful. Seems reasonable to infer that the PP's observations were addressing demographics, even if s/he didn't mention it.

The head-scratcher for me was how IB and OOB could be determined at Back to School Night. Was there a show of hands?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

Who cares? If it's that important to stay on topic (a first for this board) then the thread should have ended at the under age 5 response because that's all that be confirmed at this point.

NP. I'll admit that I do. I don't want my kid at a school where they are an "only". Only white kid, only black kid, only non-FARMS or non-trust fund kid, only native English speaker or non-native English speaker, etc. OP's mistake was dancing around the issue instead of asking it straight out: "Did there appear to be a even distribution of black, white, latino, low income, high income, etc.?" Yes, some close minded people associate income with race, some people assess that based on the manner of dress, the manner in which people interact and interact with their kids, etc. The fact that some people are closed minded bigots doesn't make the everyone who asks a closed minded bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

Who cares? If it's that important to stay on topic (a first for this board) then the thread should have ended at the under age 5 response because that's all that be confirmed at this point.

NP. I'll admit that I do. I don't want my kid at a school where they are an "only". Only white kid, only black kid, only non-FARMS or non-trust fund kid, only native English speaker or non-native English speaker, etc. OP's mistake was dancing around the issue instead of asking it straight out: "Did there appear to be a even distribution of black, white, latino, low income, high income, etc.?" Yes, some close minded people associate income with race, some people assess that based on the manner of dress, the manner in which people interact and interact with their kids, etc. The fact that some people are closed minded bigots doesn't make the everyone who asks a closed minded bigot.

Agreed. Skirting the issue gives it a more creepy / closed minded bigot factor.

[Anonymous]

How the hell did this suddenly become a race issue?!?!?! This world is over sensitive to everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How the hell did this suddenly become a race issue?!?!?! This world is over sensitive to everything.

Not this world, just the crazies in DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How the hell did this suddenly become a race issue?!?!?! This world is over sensitive to everything.

Yes, how dare we read and consider what the poster actually said. We're atrocious people.


demographics [plural] : the qualities of a specific group of people.

So do you think they were asking about how old the kids were? Male/female ratio? Save your faux indignation and false liberalism for people who care. You know what the difference between me and you is? I'm not pretending to be liberal and open minded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How the hell did this suddenly become a race issue?!?!?! This world is over sensitive to everything.

What did you think the title of this post was asking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

Who cares? If it's that important to stay on topic (a first for this board) then the thread should have ended at the under age 5 response because that's all that be confirmed at this point.

NP. I'll admit that I do. I don't want my kid at a school where they are an "only". Only white kid, only black kid, only non-FARMS or non-trust fund kid, only native English speaker or non-native English speaker, etc. OP's mistake was dancing around the issue instead of asking it straight out: "Did there appear to be a even distribution of black, white, latino, low income, high income, etc.?" Yes, some close minded people associate income with race, some people assess that based on the manner of dress, the manner in which people interact and interact with their kids, etc. The fact that some people are closed minded bigots doesn't make the everyone who asks a closed minded bigot.

Your assertion that some closed minded people associate income with race confirms that you're hopelessly out of touch. Every discussion of Van Ness eventually devolves into the correlation between the two in DC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where are the large numbers of poor white families living in-bound for Van Ness. OP opened the door for the umpteenth time by inquiring about "demographics." It's tried and true dog whistle terminology. Again, if you're asking about demographics youbhave more than a passing familiarity with the economic disparities between families living east of S. Capitol (mostly white) and families living west of S. Capitol (mostly black). Spare us the piety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How the hell did this suddenly become a race issue?!?!?! This world is over sensitive to everything.

Yes, how dare we read and consider what the poster actually said. We're atrocious people.


demographics [plural] : the qualities of a specific group of people.

So do you think they were asking about how old the kids were? Male/female ratio? Save your faux indignation and false liberalism for people who care. You know what the difference between me and you is? I'm not pretending to be liberal and open minded.

+100. Male/female ratios is critical data. I hear people asking about male/female ratios in elementary schools all the time. You just can't escape the hubbub. It's so important that DCPS includes this metric in school profiles. As for how old the kids are, I think we can safely assume that kids in PK3 turnef three by Sept. 30, kids in PK4 turned 4 by Sept. 30, and kids in K turned 5 by Sept. 30. Were you expecting to find a 10-year old in K?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

Who cares? If it's that important to stay on topic (a first for this board) then the thread should have ended at the under age 5 response because that's all that be confirmed at this point.

NP. I'll admit that I do. I don't want my kid at a school where they are an "only". Only white kid, only black kid, only non-FARMS or non-trust fund kid, only native English speaker or non-native English speaker, etc. OP's mistake was dancing around the issue instead of asking it straight out: "Did there appear to be a even distribution of black, white, latino, low income, high income, etc.?" Yes, some close minded people associate income with race, some people assess that based on the manner of dress, the manner in which people interact and interact with their kids, etc. The fact that some people are closed minded bigots doesn't make the everyone who asks a closed minded bigot.

Your assertion that some closed minded people associate income with race confirms that you're hopelessly out of touch. Every discussion of Van Ness eventually devolves into the correlation between the two in DC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where are the large numbers of poor white families living in-bound for Van Ness. OP opened the door for the umpteenth time by inquiring about "demographics." It's tried and true dog whistle terminology. Again, if you're asking about demographics youbhave more than a passing familiarity with the economic disparities between families living east of S. Capitol (mostly white) and families living west of S. Capitol (mostly black). Spare us the piety.

You are missing my point (and that made by others). But that says a great deal about you, not us. We're not pious. We're honest. We care about racial makeup as we don't want to be an only one. I also care about SES diversity. And that doesn't necessarily track with race. The fact that YOU think it does says something about you, not me. I'm guessing your faux liberalism can't grasp that concept - that's ok, you're forgiven (THAT's piety my friend, ironic and sarcastic as it may be). And you actually don't know much about the area around Van Ness if you think the areas "East of S Cap" are predominantly black. There's almost no original housing stock there. Its all new townhouses and mixed use and condos. The townhouses sell for a million bucks on the open market, and some percentage were reserved for low income and can't be sold above some capped rate. But there's no original housing stock...unless someone is camping out in Nat's Park. And the sample size at Van Ness is too small to extrapolate broader stats from DC. If I used my HRCS as a model for the broader population then 25% of all black women would be corporate lawyers.

But let me be clear: My liberalism isn't faux, it's real, it's sincere and I don't apologize for it. I see color. I see SES. I see differences. To pretend like those things don't exist, or to conflate the concepts and pretend like you're just taking the position of bigots exposes you as a faux liberal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

Who cares? If it's that important to stay on topic (a first for this board) then the thread should have ended at the under age 5 response because that's all that be confirmed at this point.

NP. I'll admit that I do. I don't want my kid at a school where they are an "only". Only white kid, only black kid, only non-FARMS or non-trust fund kid, only native English speaker or non-native English speaker, etc. OP's mistake was dancing around the issue instead of asking it straight out: "Did there appear to be a even distribution of black, white, latino, low income, high income, etc.?" Yes, some close minded people associate income with race, some people assess that based on the manner of dress, the manner in which people interact and interact with their kids, etc. The fact that some people are closed minded bigots doesn't make the everyone who asks a closed minded bigot.

Your assertion that some closed minded people associate income with race confirms that you're hopelessly out of touch. Every discussion of Van Ness eventually devolves into the correlation between the two in DC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where are the large numbers of poor white families living in-bound for Van Ness. OP opened the door for the umpteenth time by inquiring about "demographics." It's tried and true dog whistle terminology. Again, if you're asking about demographics youbhave more than a passing familiarity with the economic disparities between families living east of S. Capitol (mostly white) and families living west of S. Capitol (mostly black). Spare us the piety.

You are missing my point (and that made by others). But that says a great deal about you, not us. We're not pious. We're honest. We care about racial makeup as we don't want to be an only one. I also care about SES diversity. And that doesn't necessarily track with race. The fact that YOU think it does says something about you, not me. I'm guessing your faux liberalism can't grasp that concept - that's ok, you're forgiven (THAT's piety my friend, ironic and sarcastic as it may be). And you actually don't know much about the area around Van Ness if you think the areas "East of S Cap" are predominantly black. There's almost no original housing stock there. Its all new townhouses and mixed use and condos. The townhouses sell for a million bucks on the open market, and some percentage were reserved for low income and can't be sold above some capped rate. But there's no original housing stock...unless someone is camping out in Nat's Park. And the sample size at Van Ness is too small to extrapolate broader stats from DC. If I used my HRCS as a model for the broader population then 25% of all black women would be corporate lawyers.

But let me be clear: My liberalism isn't faux, it's real, it's sincere and I don't apologize for it. I see color. I see SES. I see differences. To pretend like those things don't exist, or to conflate the concepts and pretend like you're just taking the position of bigots exposes you as a faux liberal.

NP. You may want to get off your high horse for a minute and re-read their statements about east and west. Read first. Then respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

Who cares? If it's that important to stay on topic (a first for this board) then the thread should have ended at the under age 5 response because that's all that be confirmed at this point.

NP. I'll admit that I do. I don't want my kid at a school where they are an "only". Only white kid, only black kid, only non-FARMS or non-trust fund kid, only native English speaker or non-native English speaker, etc. OP's mistake was dancing around the issue instead of asking it straight out: "Did there appear to be a even distribution of black, white, latino, low income, high income, etc.?" Yes, some close minded people associate income with race, some people assess that based on the manner of dress, the manner in which people interact and interact with their kids, etc. The fact that some people are closed minded bigots doesn't make the everyone who asks a closed minded bigot.

Your assertion that some closed minded people associate income with race confirms that you're hopelessly out of touch. Every discussion of Van Ness eventually devolves into the correlation between the two in DC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where are the large numbers of poor white families living in-bound for Van Ness. OP opened the door for the umpteenth time by inquiring about "demographics." It's tried and true dog whistle terminology. Again, if you're asking about demographics youbhave more than a passing familiarity with the economic disparities between families living east of S. Capitol (mostly white) and families living west of S. Capitol (mostly black). Spare us the piety.

You are missing my point (and that made by others). But that says a great deal about you, not us. We're not pious. We're honest. We care about racial makeup as we don't want to be an only one. I also care about SES diversity. And that doesn't necessarily track with race. The fact that YOU think it does says something about you, not me. I'm guessing your faux liberalism can't grasp that concept - that's ok, you're forgiven (THAT's piety my friend, ironic and sarcastic as it may be). And you actually don't know much about the area around Van Ness if you think the areas "East of S Cap" are predominantly black. There's almost no original housing stock there. Its all new townhouses and mixed use and condos. The townhouses sell for a million bucks on the open market, and some percentage were reserved for low income and can't be sold above some capped rate. But there's no original housing stock...unless someone is camping out in Nat's Park. And the sample size at Van Ness is too small to extrapolate broader stats from DC. If I used my HRCS as a model for the broader population then 25% of all black women would be corporate lawyers.

But let me be clear: My liberalism isn't faux, it's real, it's sincere and I don't apologize for it. I see color. I see SES. I see differences. To pretend like those things don't exist, or to conflate the concepts and pretend like you're just taking the position of bigots exposes you as a faux liberal.

NP. You may want to get off your high horse for a minute and re-read their statements about east and west. Read first. Then respond.

Guilty as charged, but my point stands. The holier than though faux liberals who asked "who cares" are either existing on an etherial plane beyond mere mortals, or faux liberals. My point is and was this: I care. And if you and they think it is wrong to ask about the distribution of race, SES, class and other demographic concepts then that's your right. But don't go getting all high and mighty about others who care and don't apologize for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

Who cares? If it's that important to stay on topic (a first for this board) then the thread should have ended at the under age 5 response because that's all that be confirmed at this point.

NP. I'll admit that I do. I don't want my kid at a school where they are an "only". Only white kid, only black kid, only non-FARMS or non-trust fund kid, only native English speaker or non-native English speaker, etc. OP's mistake was dancing around the issue instead of asking it straight out: "Did there appear to be a even distribution of black, white, latino, low income, high income, etc.?" Yes, some close minded people associate income with race, some people assess that based on the manner of dress, the manner in which people interact and interact with their kids, etc. The fact that some people are closed minded bigots doesn't make the everyone who asks a closed minded bigot.

Your assertion that some closed minded people associate income with race confirms that you're hopelessly out of touch. Every discussion of Van Ness eventually devolves into the correlation between the two in DC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where are the large numbers of poor white families living in-bound for Van Ness. OP opened the door for the umpteenth time by inquiring about "demographics." It's tried and true dog whistle terminology. Again, if you're asking about demographics youbhave more than a passing familiarity with the economic disparities between families living east of S. Capitol (mostly white) and families living west of S. Capitol (mostly black). Spare us the piety.

You are missing my point (and that made by others). But that says a great deal about you, not us. We're not pious. We're honest. We care about racial makeup as we don't want to be an only one. I also care about SES diversity. And that doesn't necessarily track with race. The fact that YOU think it does says something about you, not me. I'm guessing your faux liberalism can't grasp that concept - that's ok, you're forgiven (THAT's piety my friend, ironic and sarcastic as it may be). And you actually don't know much about the area around Van Ness if you think the areas "East of S Cap" are predominantly black. There's almost no original housing stock there. Its all new townhouses and mixed use and condos. The townhouses sell for a million bucks on the open market, and some percentage were reserved for low income and can't be sold above some capped rate. But there's no original housing stock...unless someone is camping out in Nat's Park. And the sample size at Van Ness is too small to extrapolate broader stats from DC. If I used my HRCS as a model for the broader population then 25% of all black women would be corporate lawyers.

But let me be clear: My liberalism isn't faux, it's real, it's sincere and I don't apologize for it. I see color. I see SES. I see differences. To pretend like those things don't exist, or to conflate the concepts and pretend like you're just taking the position of bigots exposes you as a faux liberal.

NP. You may want to get off your high horse for a minute and re-read their statements about east and west. Read first. Then respond.

+1. I'll add that the assertion there's no "original housing stock" - assuming that I understand what this means - is demonstrably false. The low-rise public housing was torn down to make way for Capitol Quarter, but there are still rowhoudes which have survived successive attempts at urban renewal. I'm not saying there are slot, but you don't need to look to hard to find them.