New Jackson-Reed HS (Wilson HS) School Principal - Sah Brown from Eastern High School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

I think your post is disingenuous, but I'll play.

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

The lesson of NWP wasn't that those parents didn't want, or didn't have a right to want, a proximate school providing an excellent education. The point of the series was to explore what happens when schools try and fundamentally change to appease the expressed desired of NWP; what happens to school culture, whether those families will actually come in the near term and the long term engagement of those NWP. Seems like you maybe didn't listen tot NWP? Or weren't paying attention? Or came to it with such an agenda that your preconceptions could not be overcome.

Let's dig into your questions a bit, shall we?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities.

Kind of “yada’yada’d” past that one didn’t you? As a rhetorical device it is genius to start with “accept for the part that it is germain, it isn’t germain.”

Eastern is not under-resourced.

Saying something with conviction does not make it true. The idea of resourcing in a school environment is really three different concepts: district funding, PTO funding and familial resources.
Let’s start with the fact that compared to JR it is dramatically under-resourced. While the per capita funding from DCPS is the same as JR, the PTO funding to close gaps is materially different. I don’t have an issue with JR PTO providing the things that the school cannot or does not. But it is gaslighting 101 to just pretend that isn’t the case. Finally, are you really going to argue that the familial resources at JR compared to Eastern are the same? Seriously? You are just going to pretend the supplementing that JR families do doesn’t exist? Again, I am not taking issue with their efforts and I too spend resources to support my kids. But I am responding to your “thoughtful” reply. If ignoring the PTO finding was gaslighting 101 then ignoring difference in familial resources is like a gaslighting masterclass.

OP is not white,

The concept of “nice white parents” is a turn of phrase used to describe UMC parents who want to change a school or think a school should be focused on them and not the kids it currently serves. “White” is a placeholder for entitlement. But you knew that and were just tryin to be cute.
is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition,


You do not know this. You cannot know this. That aside, take a moment and realize you just typed "I don't see color". I call BS on anyone who claims to not see color. The challenge with DC public education is that for the most part low performing kids are minorities. That doesn't mean all black/brown kids are low performing, but the numbers are what they are. I take issue with the composition of 90+% kids at least one year behind grade level. Any parent of a high performing kid would. How you differentiate that from race is tough. And bringing this back to NWP, the objections of the NWP wasn't to the current minority populations but to the low performance and behavioral issues.

is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma.

Disingenuous, again. What OP seems to be saying is that the IB program isn't really a full fledged IB program. She seemed to be arguing it was a marketing move but that what was being offered wasn't true IB and as a consequence her kid wouldn't truly receive an IB education. That's probably fair. The idea, however, that she wasn't asking for a new program is at best disingenuous and factually incorrect. She was kicking tires on whether it was truly an IB program (she has that right). Her questions were designed to expose the weaknesses which she would want a plan to address to make her comfortable ending her kid there (she has that right). But these are very much questions and positioning about what deficiencies need to be closed for her to attend. See, NWP.
She got answers. What I hear from what she repeated is that Sah basically said, “Look. I have an IB program at a school of kids who for the most part can’t hack a true IB program. So my choice is to run it like a high end program and have no one participate or succeed or do the best with what I have. But no matter how many times you ask the same question I am not going to bash my kids and my school.” OP didn’t like that answer. Do you really not see how that is NWP wanting the admin to make the school and presentation about them and not the kids who are there?

She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

That is her right. But, again, do you not see the NWP analog? The idea being floated by OP and you and others is that if she had only been catered to and liked what she heard she would have sent her kid and her neighbors would have sent their kids and the school would be the next JR and a magical place. But what NWP illustrated is that even when admins took that approach, the behavior of the NWP trajectory of the school doesn’t follow what you and others are suggesting.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

I see what you did there! This is another cute, disingenuous turn of phrase that is unrelated to the central issue of why or how NWP is apropos. The problem here is not that OP was worried about her kid. The problem is the lack of perspective you and others have in what the job of an admin is at a school that is one way when NWP want it to be something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

The answer the NWP poster alludes to is OP not having the gall to ask questions relating to the performance of Eastern's IB Diploma program of Mr. Brown in the first place. Subsequently, she should have avoided briefly reporting on the nature of her interaction with, and professional impressions of, him so as not to open herself up to attack.

Let's say she'd stuck to a script governed by avoidance, a failure to engage. In that case, what would have been achieved?

meh. Nice White Parents *actually attend* the school and annoy people with their anti-bologna sandwich campaigns. That is much different (and better) than OP, who just wants to publicly criticize a black principal at a school she doesn’t attend, based on a single conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

+100. Good question and nicely put. The logic you're following works for me, PP.

I just replied to their "logic". Except for the part where they agree NWP is apropos, are incorrect about resourcing, try to distract with the word "white" and ignore that at bottom OP wanted a different (real) IB program, I guess the logic was sound!.

With respect, you seem like a low information voter who can be easily swayed and distracted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

+100 Nice analysis.

Do you guys honestly not see that every single poster in this thread who laments that the school doesn’t bend over backwards to attract their children is doing EXACTLY what the white parents in Nice White Parents did? Seriously, how is that not blindingly obvious to you?

Actually, no. Review https://www.teachingtraveling.com/school-segregation-nice-white-parents/

The issues covered in Nice White Parents aren’t in play here *except* for the history. But here we are talking a school that, in the-post-after-OP’s assessment, doesn’t appear to be doing a good job of meeting it’s own goals.

Is it wrong to any sort of expectations of a schools capabilities? Is every student who chooses Banneker over Eastern guilty of “expecting a school to bend over backwards to attract them”?

What if the resource the school is lacking is not money but excellent leadership (per IB-seeker’s assessment)?

Did you really just cite to some random blog as the arbiter of truth of the matter??? Are you intentionally confusing the issue or just really, really confused? I ask because here's a list of things that were not addressed by or central to NWP:

Is it wrong to any sort of expectations of a schools capabilities?
Is every student who chooses School A over School B guilty of “expecting a school to bend over backwards to attract them”?
What if the resource the school is lacking is not money but excellent leadership (per IB-seeker’s assessment)?

But other than that you NAILED it bro!

[Anonymous]

It’s just not worth engaging on any of these issues. The Eastern IBD program is nothing more than an expensive joke on taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

+100 Nice analysis.

Do you guys honestly not see that every single poster in this thread who laments that the school doesn’t bend over backwards to attract their children is doing EXACTLY what the white parents in Nice White Parents did? Seriously, how is that not blindingly obvious to you?

Actually, no. Review https://www.teachingtraveling.com/school-segregation-nice-white-parents/

The issues covered in Nice White Parents aren’t in play here *except* for the history. But here we are talking a school that, in the-post-after-OP’s assessment, doesn’t appear to be doing a good job of meeting it’s own goals.

Is it wrong to any sort of expectations of a schools capabilities? Is every student who chooses Banneker over Eastern guilty of “expecting a school to bend over backwards to attract them”?

What if the resource the school is lacking is not money but excellent leadership (per IB-seeker’s assessment)?

Did you really just cite to some random blog as the arbiter of truth of the matter??? Are you intentionally confusing the issue or just really, really confused? I ask because here's a list of things that were not addressed by or central to NWP:

Is it wrong to any sort of expectations of a schools capabilities?
Is every student who chooses School A over School B guilty of “expecting a school to bend over backwards to attract them”?
What if the resource the school is lacking is not money but excellent leadership (per IB-seeker’s assessment)?

But other than that you NAILED it bro!

The link I gave summarizes NWP. I thought that might be more helpful than the link to six hours of audio, assuming you have already listened to it.

You (or someone) asked if we didn’t see how the situation was exactly like NWP. No, not seeing that. That link is given as evidence of that.

The point of the questions is that they ARE NOT addressed in NWP, but ARE relevant, by my reading, to the anecdote under discussion.

Do you have any answers for them?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s just not worth engaging on any of these issues. The Eastern IBD program is nothing more than an expensive joke on taxpayers.

I don't know that anyone disagrees that the IBD program is probably IBD in name only. I think that's what OP was trying to get Sah to say out loud. She straight up said she wanted to know what he would do to improve it to bring it up to snuff. On that we agree. You have also illustrated the intellectual dishonesty of the people suggesting that she didn't want anything changed to make her happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

+100 Nice analysis.

Do you guys honestly not see that every single poster in this thread who laments that the school doesn’t bend over backwards to attract their children is doing EXACTLY what the white parents in Nice White Parents did? Seriously, how is that not blindingly obvious to you?

Actually, no. Review https://www.teachingtraveling.com/school-segregation-nice-white-parents/

The issues covered in Nice White Parents aren’t in play here *except* for the history. But here we are talking a school that, in the-post-after-OP’s assessment, doesn’t appear to be doing a good job of meeting it’s own goals.

Is it wrong to any sort of expectations of a schools capabilities? Is every student who chooses Banneker over Eastern guilty of “expecting a school to bend over backwards to attract them”?

What if the resource the school is lacking is not money but excellent leadership (per IB-seeker’s assessment)?

Did you really just cite to some random blog as the arbiter of truth of the matter??? Are you intentionally confusing the issue or just really, really confused? I ask because here's a list of things that were not addressed by or central to NWP:

Is it wrong to any sort of expectations of a schools capabilities?
Is every student who chooses School A over School B guilty of “expecting a school to bend over backwards to attract them”?
What if the resource the school is lacking is not money but excellent leadership (per IB-seeker’s assessment)?

But other than that you NAILED it bro!

The link I gave summarizes NWP. I thought that might be more helpful than the link to six hours of audio, assuming you have already listened to it.

You (or someone) asked if we didn’t see how the situation was exactly like NWP. No, not seeing that. That link is given as evidence of that.

The point of the questions is that they ARE NOT addressed in NWP, but ARE relevant, by my reading, to the anecdote under discussion.

Do you have any answers for them?!

Let me also note that the Banneker vs Eastern citation — which you generalized to School A and School B — was intentionally specific. The charge seems to be that the IB-seeker’s rejection of Eastern was unquestionably poorly founded. Are there no acceptable reasons why someone might reject a school? Is rigor not a fair reason?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

I think your post is disingenuous, but I'll play.

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

The lesson of NWP wasn't that those parents didn't want, or didn't have a right to want, a proximate school providing an excellent education. The point of the series was to explore what happens when schools try and fundamentally change to appease the expressed desired of NWP; what happens to school culture, whether those families will actually come in the near term and the long term engagement of those NWP. Seems like you maybe didn't listen tot NWP? Or weren't paying attention? Or came to it with such an agenda that your preconceptions could not be overcome.

Let's dig into your questions a bit, shall we?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities.

Kind of “yada’yada’d” past that one didn’t you? As a rhetorical device it is genius to start with “accept for the part that it is germain, it isn’t germain.”

Eastern is not under-resourced.

Saying something with conviction does not make it true. The idea of resourcing in a school environment is really three different concepts: district funding, PTO funding and familial resources.
Let’s start with the fact that compared to JR it is dramatically under-resourced. While the per capita funding from DCPS is the same as JR, the PTO funding to close gaps is materially different. I don’t have an issue with JR PTO providing the things that the school cannot or does not. But it is gaslighting 101 to just pretend that isn’t the case. Finally, are you really going to argue that the familial resources at JR compared to Eastern are the same? Seriously? You are just going to pretend the supplementing that JR families do doesn’t exist? Again, I am not taking issue with their efforts and I too spend resources to support my kids. But I am responding to your “thoughtful” reply. If ignoring the PTO finding was gaslighting 101 then ignoring difference in familial resources is like a gaslighting masterclass.

OP is not white,

The concept of “nice white parents” is a turn of phrase used to describe UMC parents who want to change a school or think a school should be focused on them and not the kids it currently serves. “White” is a placeholder for entitlement. But you knew that and were just tryin to be cute.
is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition,


You do not know this. You cannot know this. That aside, take a moment and realize you just typed "I don't see color". I call BS on anyone who claims to not see color. The challenge with DC public education is that for the most part low performing kids are minorities. That doesn't mean all black/brown kids are low performing, but the numbers are what they are. I take issue with the composition of 90+% kids at least one year behind grade level. Any parent of a high performing kid would. How you differentiate that from race is tough. And bringing this back to NWP, the objections of the NWP wasn't to the current minority populations but to the low performance and behavioral issues.

is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma.

Disingenuous, again. What OP seems to be saying is that the IB program isn't really a full fledged IB program. She seemed to be arguing it was a marketing move but that what was being offered wasn't true IB and as a consequence her kid wouldn't truly receive an IB education. That's probably fair. The idea, however, that she wasn't asking for a new program is at best disingenuous and factually incorrect. She was kicking tires on whether it was truly an IB program (she has that right). Her questions were designed to expose the weaknesses which she would want a plan to address to make her comfortable ending her kid there (she has that right). But these are very much questions and positioning about what deficiencies need to be closed for her to attend. See, NWP.
She got answers. What I hear from what she repeated is that Sah basically said, “Look. I have an IB program at a school of kids who for the most part can’t hack a true IB program. So my choice is to run it like a high end program and have no one participate or succeed or do the best with what I have. But no matter how many times you ask the same question I am not going to bash my kids and my school.” OP didn’t like that answer. Do you really not see how that is NWP wanting the admin to make the school and presentation about them and not the kids who are there?

She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

That is her right. But, again, do you not see the NWP analog? The idea being floated by OP and you and others is that if she had only been catered to and liked what she heard she would have sent her kid and her neighbors would have sent their kids and the school would be the next JR and a magical place. But what NWP illustrated is that even when admins took that approach, the behavior of the NWP trajectory of the school doesn’t follow what you and others are suggesting.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

I see what you did there! This is another cute, disingenuous turn of phrase that is unrelated to the central issue of why or how NWP is apropos. The problem here is not that OP was worried about her kid. The problem is the lack of perspective you and others have in what the job of an admin is at a school that is one way when NWP want it to be something else.

One point that deserves addressing here: the resourcing.

In NWP, they talked about schools with broken toilets and other evidence of disrepair. School funding of that sort is not an issue here, thankfully.

For PTO funding, I don’t think PTO funding is a critical issue here either. PTO and non-profit contributions to DCPS or DCPCS HSs can add bells and whistles, but the DC funding is the main pot.

Family resources — financial, educational, advocacy — is a big deal! This is a fundamental issue, and it’s about need not race. Some schools succeed despite high family needs, but most don’t.

And lack of family resources is still separate from whether a school is or is not well-run.

But, still, what is the IBP-researcher mom supposed to do? Send her child to a school with the expectation that he will not receive a solid education?

How can the mom, or even the HS, solve this problem? Find the solution, and we can all stop haranguing each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

+100 Nice analysis.

Do you guys honestly not see that every single poster in this thread who laments that the school doesn’t bend over backwards to attract their children is doing EXACTLY what the white parents in Nice White Parents did? Seriously, how is that not blindingly obvious to you?

Actually, no. Review https://www.teachingtraveling.com/school-segregation-nice-white-parents/

The issues covered in Nice White Parents aren’t in play here *except* for the history. But here we are talking a school that, in the-post-after-OP’s assessment, doesn’t appear to be doing a good job of meeting it’s own goals.

Is it wrong to any sort of expectations of a schools capabilities? Is every student who chooses Banneker over Eastern guilty of “expecting a school to bend over backwards to attract them”?

What if the resource the school is lacking is not money but excellent leadership (per IB-seeker’s assessment)?

Did you really just cite to some random blog as the arbiter of truth of the matter??? Are you intentionally confusing the issue or just really, really confused? I ask because here's a list of things that were not addressed by or central to NWP:

Is it wrong to any sort of expectations of a schools capabilities?
Is every student who chooses School A over School B guilty of “expecting a school to bend over backwards to attract them”?
What if the resource the school is lacking is not money but excellent leadership (per IB-seeker’s assessment)?

But other than that you NAILED it bro!

The link I gave summarizes NWP. I thought that might be more helpful than the link to six hours of audio, assuming you have already listened to it.

You (or someone) asked if we didn’t see how the situation was exactly like NWP. No, not seeing that. That link is given as evidence of that.

The point of the questions is that they ARE NOT addressed in NWP, but ARE relevant, by my reading, to the anecdote under discussion.

Do you have any answers for them?!

Let me also note that the Banneker vs Eastern citation — which you generalized to School A and School B — was intentionally specific. The charge seems to be that the IB-seeker’s rejection of Eastern was unquestionably poorly founded. Are there no acceptable reasons why someone might reject a school? Is rigor not a fair reason?

Where on this thread did anyone say anything close to that? I don't get the impression that anyone fails to understand why someone would not enroll at Eastern. That's twice today you have tried to simply move the goalpost/change the central question. The topic you seem so desperate to introduce is nowhere to be found in this thread or NWP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

+100 Nice analysis.

Do you guys honestly not see that every single poster in this thread who laments that the school doesn’t bend over backwards to attract their children is doing EXACTLY what the white parents in Nice White Parents did? Seriously, how is that not blindingly obvious to you?

Actually, no. Review https://www.teachingtraveling.com/school-segregation-nice-white-parents/

The issues covered in Nice White Parents aren’t in play here *except* for the history. But here we are talking a school that, in the-post-after-OP’s assessment, doesn’t appear to be doing a good job of meeting it’s own goals.

Is it wrong to any sort of expectations of a schools capabilities? Is every student who chooses Banneker over Eastern guilty of “expecting a school to bend over backwards to attract them”?

What if the resource the school is lacking is not money but excellent leadership (per IB-seeker’s assessment)?

Did you really just cite to some random blog as the arbiter of truth of the matter??? Are you intentionally confusing the issue or just really, really confused? I ask because here's a list of things that were not addressed by or central to NWP:

Is it wrong to any sort of expectations of a schools capabilities?
Is every student who chooses School A over School B guilty of “expecting a school to bend over backwards to attract them”?
What if the resource the school is lacking is not money but excellent leadership (per IB-seeker’s assessment)?

But other than that you NAILED it bro!

The link I gave summarizes NWP. I thought that might be more helpful than the link to six hours of audio, assuming you have already listened to it.

You (or someone) asked if we didn’t see how the situation was exactly like NWP. No, not seeing that. That link is given as evidence of that.

The point of the questions is that they ARE NOT addressed in NWP, but ARE relevant, by my reading, to the anecdote under discussion.

Do you have any answers for them?!

Let me also note that the Banneker vs Eastern citation — which you generalized to School A and School B — was intentionally specific. The charge seems to be that the IB-seeker’s rejection of Eastern was unquestionably poorly founded. Are there no acceptable reasons why someone might reject a school? Is rigor not a fair reason?

Where on this thread did anyone say anything close to that? I don't get the impression that anyone fails to understand why someone would not enroll at Eastern. That's twice today you have tried to simply move the goalpost/change the central question. The topic you seem so desperate to introduce is nowhere to be found in this thread or NWP.

Oh my. One or more posters has repeatedly protested the idea that a mom found the Eastern’s principal unimpressive. How could she possibly expect him to answer with data?! Doesn’t she know Eastern has many disadvantaged students?!

I agree that her story or the bigger discussion has nothing to do with NWP. That was what someone/others said, and I disagree with that it is directly relevant.

[Anonymous]

What does the JR PTO provide? It is not the same situation as the ES feeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

I think your post is disingenuous, but I'll play.

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

The lesson of NWP wasn't that those parents didn't want, or didn't have a right to want, a proximate school providing an excellent education. The point of the series was to explore what happens when schools try and fundamentally change to appease the expressed desired of NWP; what happens to school culture, whether those families will actually come in the near term and the long term engagement of those NWP. Seems like you maybe didn't listen tot NWP? Or weren't paying attention? Or came to it with such an agenda that your preconceptions could not be overcome.

Let's dig into your questions a bit, shall we?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities.

Kind of “yada’yada’d” past that one didn’t you? As a rhetorical device it is genius to start with “accept for the part that it is germain, it isn’t germain.”

Eastern is not under-resourced.

Saying something with conviction does not make it true. The idea of resourcing in a school environment is really three different concepts: district funding, PTO funding and familial resources.
Let’s start with the fact that compared to JR it is dramatically under-resourced. While the per capita funding from DCPS is the same as JR, the PTO funding to close gaps is materially different. I don’t have an issue with JR PTO providing the things that the school cannot or does not. But it is gaslighting 101 to just pretend that isn’t the case. Finally, are you really going to argue that the familial resources at JR compared to Eastern are the same? Seriously? You are just going to pretend the supplementing that JR families do doesn’t exist? Again, I am not taking issue with their efforts and I too spend resources to support my kids. But I am responding to your “thoughtful” reply. If ignoring the PTO finding was gaslighting 101 then ignoring difference in familial resources is like a gaslighting masterclass.

OP is not white,

The concept of “nice white parents” is a turn of phrase used to describe UMC parents who want to change a school or think a school should be focused on them and not the kids it currently serves. “White” is a placeholder for entitlement. But you knew that and were just tryin to be cute.
is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition,


You do not know this. You cannot know this. That aside, take a moment and realize you just typed "I don't see color". I call BS on anyone who claims to not see color. The challenge with DC public education is that for the most part low performing kids are minorities. That doesn't mean all black/brown kids are low performing, but the numbers are what they are. I take issue with the composition of 90+% kids at least one year behind grade level. Any parent of a high performing kid would. How you differentiate that from race is tough. And bringing this back to NWP, the objections of the NWP wasn't to the current minority populations but to the low performance and behavioral issues.

is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma.

Disingenuous, again. What OP seems to be saying is that the IB program isn't really a full fledged IB program. She seemed to be arguing it was a marketing move but that what was being offered wasn't true IB and as a consequence her kid wouldn't truly receive an IB education. That's probably fair. The idea, however, that she wasn't asking for a new program is at best disingenuous and factually incorrect. She was kicking tires on whether it was truly an IB program (she has that right). Her questions were designed to expose the weaknesses which she would want a plan to address to make her comfortable ending her kid there (she has that right). But these are very much questions and positioning about what deficiencies need to be closed for her to attend. See, NWP.
She got answers. What I hear from what she repeated is that Sah basically said, “Look. I have an IB program at a school of kids who for the most part can’t hack a true IB program. So my choice is to run it like a high end program and have no one participate or succeed or do the best with what I have. But no matter how many times you ask the same question I am not going to bash my kids and my school.” OP didn’t like that answer. Do you really not see how that is NWP wanting the admin to make the school and presentation about them and not the kids who are there?

She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

That is her right. But, again, do you not see the NWP analog? The idea being floated by OP and you and others is that if she had only been catered to and liked what she heard she would have sent her kid and her neighbors would have sent their kids and the school would be the next JR and a magical place. But what NWP illustrated is that even when admins took that approach, the behavior of the NWP trajectory of the school doesn’t follow what you and others are suggesting.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

I see what you did there! This is another cute, disingenuous turn of phrase that is unrelated to the central issue of why or how NWP is apropos. The problem here is not that OP was worried about her kid. The problem is the lack of perspective you and others have in what the job of an admin is at a school that is one way when NWP want it to be something else.

One point that deserves addressing here: the resourcing.

In NWP, they talked about schools with broken toilets and other evidence of disrepair. School funding of that sort is not an issue here, thankfully.

For PTO funding, I don’t think PTO funding is a critical issue here either. PTO and non-profit contributions to DCPS or DCPCS HSs can add bells and whistles, but the DC funding is the main pot.

Family resources — financial, educational, advocacy — is a big deal! This is a fundamental issue, and it’s about need not race. Some schools succeed despite high family needs, but most don’t.

And lack of family resources is still separate from whether a school is or is not well-run.

But, still, what is the IBP-researcher mom supposed to do? Send her child to a school with the expectation that he will not receive a solid education?

How can the mom, or even the HS, solve this problem? Find the solution, and we can all stop haranguing each other.

Yet again, no one is suggesting that! (At least not on this thread and not me now). For the record I was also very vocal when DCUM was pounding on public officials who chose not to send their kids to Eastern (or other by right DCPS). They have that right and only they know what is best for their kids. You are changing the central question by continuing to suggest the issue with OP was that she chose another school. The issue I and others took was with her central thesis that the Principal should have been more concerned with her desires, needs and wants and that those are somehow more important (or even as important) as meeting the needs of the currently enrolled population. Do you see the difference?

I'm also a bit at a loss as to how you can gloss over PTSO funding. They raise 300k+ per year. That's about 2.5% of Eastern's total FY budget. That's not immaterial. I would remind you the reason this topic is even under discussion is not because I introduced it, but rather because Gaslighting Mommy/Daddy stated as a "fact" that there was no financial difference between JR and Eastern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

+100 Nice analysis.

Do you guys honestly not see that every single poster in this thread who laments that the school doesn’t bend over backwards to attract their children is doing EXACTLY what the white parents in Nice White Parents did? Seriously, how is that not blindingly obvious to you?

Actually, no. Review https://www.teachingtraveling.com/school-segregation-nice-white-parents/

The issues covered in Nice White Parents aren’t in play here *except* for the history. But here we are talking a school that, in the-post-after-OP’s assessment, doesn’t appear to be doing a good job of meeting it’s own goals.

Is it wrong to any sort of expectations of a schools capabilities? Is every student who chooses Banneker over Eastern guilty of “expecting a school to bend over backwards to attract them”?

What if the resource the school is lacking is not money but excellent leadership (per IB-seeker’s assessment)?

Did you really just cite to some random blog as the arbiter of truth of the matter??? Are you intentionally confusing the issue or just really, really confused? I ask because here's a list of things that were not addressed by or central to NWP:

Is it wrong to any sort of expectations of a schools capabilities?
Is every student who chooses School A over School B guilty of “expecting a school to bend over backwards to attract them”?
What if the resource the school is lacking is not money but excellent leadership (per IB-seeker’s assessment)?

But other than that you NAILED it bro!

The link I gave summarizes NWP. I thought that might be more helpful than the link to six hours of audio, assuming you have already listened to it.

You (or someone) asked if we didn’t see how the situation was exactly like NWP. No, not seeing that. That link is given as evidence of that.

The point of the questions is that they ARE NOT addressed in NWP, but ARE relevant, by my reading, to the anecdote under discussion.

Do you have any answers for them?!

Let me also note that the Banneker vs Eastern citation — which you generalized to School A and School B — was intentionally specific. The charge seems to be that the IB-seeker’s rejection of Eastern was unquestionably poorly founded. Are there no acceptable reasons why someone might reject a school? Is rigor not a fair reason?

Where on this thread did anyone say anything close to that? I don't get the impression that anyone fails to understand why someone would not enroll at Eastern. That's twice today you have tried to simply move the goalpost/change the central question. The topic you seem so desperate to introduce is nowhere to be found in this thread or NWP.

Oh my. One or more posters has repeatedly protested the idea that a mom found the Eastern’s principal unimpressive. How could she possibly expect him to answer with data?! Doesn’t she know Eastern has many disadvantaged students?!

I agree that her story or the bigger discussion has nothing to do with NWP. That was what someone/others said, and I disagree with that it is directly relevant.

I don't think that's the majority case. I, for one, have no issue with her having had a personal experience with the Principal and having expressed it here. But in doing so she introduced the concept of deference to IB families and suggested the reason the school fails (and by association, the Principal is a poor choice to lead JR) is because he doesn't focus his efforts and talk track to her demo. She could not abide the idea that his responses weren't targeted to making her happy, and she couldn't see that in order to say what she wanted to hear he would have had to attack the foundation of the school and kids enrolled in that school, all but giving voice to the idea that they are all getting a substandard education. I don't understand why anyone who has ever led anything or been responsible for fronting an organization wouldn't or couldn't understand the need to ensure your current constituents feel seen and wanted.

That's the issue with which many of us took notice. And why NWP is an apropos point of reference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

I think your post is disingenuous, but I'll play.

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

The lesson of NWP wasn't that those parents didn't want, or didn't have a right to want, a proximate school providing an excellent education. The point of the series was to explore what happens when schools try and fundamentally change to appease the expressed desired of NWP; what happens to school culture, whether those families will actually come in the near term and the long term engagement of those NWP. Seems like you maybe didn't listen tot NWP? Or weren't paying attention? Or came to it with such an agenda that your preconceptions could not be overcome.

Let's dig into your questions a bit, shall we?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities.

Kind of “yada’yada’d” past that one didn’t you? As a rhetorical device it is genius to start with “accept for the part that it is germain, it isn’t germain.”

Eastern is not under-resourced.

Saying something with conviction does not make it true. The idea of resourcing in a school environment is really three different concepts: district funding, PTO funding and familial resources.
Let’s start with the fact that compared to JR it is dramatically under-resourced. While the per capita funding from DCPS is the same as JR, the PTO funding to close gaps is materially different. I don’t have an issue with JR PTO providing the things that the school cannot or does not. But it is gaslighting 101 to just pretend that isn’t the case. Finally, are you really going to argue that the familial resources at JR compared to Eastern are the same? Seriously? You are just going to pretend the supplementing that JR families do doesn’t exist? Again, I am not taking issue with their efforts and I too spend resources to support my kids. But I am responding to your “thoughtful” reply. If ignoring the PTO finding was gaslighting 101 then ignoring difference in familial resources is like a gaslighting masterclass.

OP is not white,

The concept of “nice white parents” is a turn of phrase used to describe UMC parents who want to change a school or think a school should be focused on them and not the kids it currently serves. “White” is a placeholder for entitlement. But you knew that and were just tryin to be cute.
is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition,


You do not know this. You cannot know this. That aside, take a moment and realize you just typed "I don't see color". I call BS on anyone who claims to not see color. The challenge with DC public education is that for the most part low performing kids are minorities. That doesn't mean all black/brown kids are low performing, but the numbers are what they are. I take issue with the composition of 90+% kids at least one year behind grade level. Any parent of a high performing kid would. How you differentiate that from race is tough. And bringing this back to NWP, the objections of the NWP wasn't to the current minority populations but to the low performance and behavioral issues.

is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma.

Disingenuous, again. What OP seems to be saying is that the IB program isn't really a full fledged IB program. She seemed to be arguing it was a marketing move but that what was being offered wasn't true IB and as a consequence her kid wouldn't truly receive an IB education. That's probably fair. The idea, however, that she wasn't asking for a new program is at best disingenuous and factually incorrect. She was kicking tires on whether it was truly an IB program (she has that right). Her questions were designed to expose the weaknesses which she would want a plan to address to make her comfortable ending her kid there (she has that right). But these are very much questions and positioning about what deficiencies need to be closed for her to attend. See, NWP.
She got answers. What I hear from what she repeated is that Sah basically said, “Look. I have an IB program at a school of kids who for the most part can’t hack a true IB program. So my choice is to run it like a high end program and have no one participate or succeed or do the best with what I have. But no matter how many times you ask the same question I am not going to bash my kids and my school.” OP didn’t like that answer. Do you really not see how that is NWP wanting the admin to make the school and presentation about them and not the kids who are there?

She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

That is her right. But, again, do you not see the NWP analog? The idea being floated by OP and you and others is that if she had only been catered to and liked what she heard she would have sent her kid and her neighbors would have sent their kids and the school would be the next JR and a magical place. But what NWP illustrated is that even when admins took that approach, the behavior of the NWP trajectory of the school doesn’t follow what you and others are suggesting.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

I see what you did there! This is another cute, disingenuous turn of phrase that is unrelated to the central issue of why or how NWP is apropos. The problem here is not that OP was worried about her kid. The problem is the lack of perspective you and others have in what the job of an admin is at a school that is one way when NWP want it to be something else.

One point that deserves addressing here: the resourcing.

In NWP, they talked about schools with broken toilets and other evidence of disrepair. School funding of that sort is not an issue here, thankfully.

For PTO funding, I don’t think PTO funding is a critical issue here either. PTO and non-profit contributions to DCPS or DCPCS HSs can add bells and whistles, but the DC funding is the main pot.

Family resources — financial, educational, advocacy — is a big deal! This is a fundamental issue, and it’s about need not race. Some schools succeed despite high family needs, but most don’t.

And lack of family resources is still separate from whether a school is or is not well-run.

But, still, what is the IBP-researcher mom supposed to do? Send her child to a school with the expectation that he will not receive a solid education?

How can the mom, or even the HS, solve this problem? Find the solution, and we can all stop haranguing each other.

Yet again, no one is suggesting that! (At least not on this thread and not me now). For the record I was also very vocal when DCUM was pounding on public officials who chose not to send their kids to Eastern (or other by right DCPS). They have that right and only they know what is best for their kids. You are changing the central question by continuing to suggest the issue with OP was that she chose another school. The issue I and others took was with her central thesis that the Principal should have been more concerned with her desires, needs and wants and that those are somehow more important (or even as important) as meeting the needs of the currently enrolled population. Do you see the difference?

I'm also a bit at a loss as to how you can gloss over PTSO funding. They raise 300k+ per year. That's about 2.5% of Eastern's total FY budget. That's not immaterial. I would remind you the reason this topic is even under discussion is not because I introduced it, but rather because Gaslighting Mommy/Daddy stated as a "fact" that there was no financial difference between JR and Eastern.

I agree she did want something different: She didn’t want the types of things covered in NWP (as someone implied), but she did want the school to be better at what it was supposedly doing.

— Is the school “serving” the current students if only a quarter of IB track students get an IB diploma?

— is it bad and ‘white’ for wanting a school to be better at education?

— is it wrong to develop any impression of a principal’s skill if his student population is disadvantaged?

Perhaps I’m not understanding, but you seem to be saying yes to each of the above. Either way, is the idea that Eastern should just be accepted as is, or is it reasonable to want it to be more successful academically, whether our kids attend or not.