Thoughts on Dunbar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would suggest that families who can't get into Jackson-Reed (Wilson) consider Eastern. Eastern took my favorite assistant principal from JR, Steven Miller. He was the most competent, responsive, together school leader I've dealt with in the 13 years I've been a DCPS parent. I was so disappointed to learn he was leaving JR but super happy for Eastern.

Yes. Steven Miller is a big win for Eastern. I hope he sticks around.
He applied for the principal position at JR but didn’t get it although most of the teachers were behind him.
But Kim Martin and Saah Brown are friends which is probably why Brown got it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


So high school is just the jail alternative? If the kid don;t want to be there, are years behind what exactly makes you think they are showing up to class, or if they do, totally disruptive.


Yes, high school is a jail alternative for some kids. Exactly. And they are probably not the most attentive students and their attendance is likely not great.

However, the research is clear that if we instead hold these kids back, then more will drop out completely and more will end up in jail or dead. This is pretty awful, but it’s true.

Also, as a PP pointed out, plenty of kids who are not “proficient” on PARCC tests are, in fact, functionally literate and numerate. Those kids can get jobs rather than going to college, just like most Americans (62%).

The school system that is supposed the entirety of children in a city cannot be simply a "jail alternative." And if you keep the chronically truant, disruptive and inattentive in the classes with everybody else, then you will rapidly see the parents of every kid who doesn't fit into that category bolt for other alternatives as soon as they can obtain one. Which is exactly where we are with every gen-ed EOTP high school.

Downsize central office and redeploy the funds for more boots on the ground personnel; reinstitute tracking for core subjects while at same time striving to identify and encourage kids who CAN do upper level work to go for those classes; implement robust CTE so that kids who are not into writing academic papers have an option to graduate from high school with employable trade skills that will enable them to be firmly in the middle class.

What research-supported alternative do you suggest for the “chronically truant and inattentive”? And who gets to decide which kids get to stay? If inattentive kids get kicked out of school, then my school career would have been very short, instead of leading me to 3 graduate degrees. I was extremely inattentive and bored through high school. So, who gets to choose? And what do they do when the parents of kids who are kicked out appeal?

Again, the easy solutions people love to propose on this forum are magical thinking.

give me a break. I am guessing your inattentive ADD wasnt the same as a 14 year old throwing chairs, punching the teacher and reading on a 3rd grade level.

It wasn’t but you didn’t answer my question —- who decides? Typically, but Black and white teachers judge the same behavior totally differently when Black kids and white kids engage in it.

So - who decides who gets kicked out? Who ensures that the process is equitable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


So high school is just the jail alternative? If the kid don;t want to be there, are years behind what exactly makes you think they are showing up to class, or if they do, totally disruptive.


Yes, high school is a jail alternative for some kids. Exactly. And they are probably not the most attentive students and their attendance is likely not great.

However, the research is clear that if we instead hold these kids back, then more will drop out completely and more will end up in jail or dead. This is pretty awful, but it’s true.

Also, as a PP pointed out, plenty of kids who are not “proficient” on PARCC tests are, in fact, functionally literate and numerate. Those kids can get jobs rather than going to college, just like most Americans (62%).

The school system that is supposed the entirety of children in a city cannot be simply a "jail alternative." And if you keep the chronically truant, disruptive and inattentive in the classes with everybody else, then you will rapidly see the parents of every kid who doesn't fit into that category bolt for other alternatives as soon as they can obtain one. Which is exactly where we are with every gen-ed EOTP high school.

Downsize central office and redeploy the funds for more boots on the ground personnel; reinstitute tracking for core subjects while at same time striving to identify and encourage kids who CAN do upper level work to go for those classes; implement robust CTE so that kids who are not into writing academic papers have an option to graduate from high school with employable trade skills that will enable them to be firmly in the middle class.

What research-supported alternative do you suggest for the “chronically truant and inattentive”? And who gets to decide which kids get to stay? If inattentive kids get kicked out of school, then my school career would have been very short, instead of leading me to 3 graduate degrees. I was extremely inattentive and bored through high school. So, who gets to choose? And what do they do when the parents of kids who are kicked out appeal?

Again, the easy solutions people love to propose on this forum are magical thinking.

give me a break. I am guessing your inattentive ADD wasnt the same as a 14 year old throwing chairs, punching the teacher and reading on a 3rd grade level.

It wasn’t but you didn’t answer my question —- who decides? Typically, but Black and white teachers judge the same behavior totally differently when Black kids and white kids engage in it.

So - who decides who gets kicked out? Who ensures that the process is equitable?

Create an algorithm and document each step that child has met in the chain. Be specific in each step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like others here, I am zoned for Dunbar and it is a non starter for me. My kids are in a title I DCPS elementary school so I am not particularly picky but I would never consider this. The academics aside - because I'm actually fairly confident my kids will learn regardless of where they are - the fighting, turnover, and very dangerous environment that I've heard about takes it completely off the table for me. I don't need my kids to be in the best school in the world but I will not place them somewhere that might actively harm them or put them at risk.

I encourage any parent with this mindset about a school to spend time inside of it. Consider giving your teenager the opportunity to experience a school that is far better preparation for the "real world" than privates. This is triple true if your child has a sense of self and is academically motivated. I (white upper middle class) did this as a teenager, against the wishes of my parents, and it had tremendously benefited me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like others here, I am zoned for Dunbar and it is a non starter for me. My kids are in a title I DCPS elementary school so I am not particularly picky but I would never consider this. The academics aside - because I'm actually fairly confident my kids will learn regardless of where they are - the fighting, turnover, and very dangerous environment that I've heard about takes it completely off the table for me. I don't need my kids to be in the best school in the world but I will not place them somewhere that might actively harm them or put them at risk.

I encourage any parent with this mindset about a school to spend time inside of it. Consider giving your teenager the opportunity to experience a school that is far better preparation for the "real world" than privates. This is triple true if your child has a sense of self and is academically motivated. I (white upper middle class) did this as a teenager, against the wishes of my parents, and it had tremendously benefited me.

Having your child attend Dunbar as a social experiment to "prepare them for the real world" sounds incredibly elitist and icky.

[Anonymous]

Uh, you don’t need to attend Dunbar to obtain real world experience. That’s ridiculous. In fact, I don’t see Dunbar as more diverse than private schools. Dunbar has essentially no diversity - just an overwhelming large percentage of students years behind grade level. So many better choices for “real world” experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like others here, I am zoned for Dunbar and it is a non starter for me. My kids are in a title I DCPS elementary school so I am not particularly picky but I would never consider this. The academics aside - because I'm actually fairly confident my kids will learn regardless of where they are - the fighting, turnover, and very dangerous environment that I've heard about takes it completely off the table for me. I don't need my kids to be in the best school in the world but I will not place them somewhere that might actively harm them or put them at risk.

I encourage any parent with this mindset about a school to spend time inside of it. Consider giving your teenager the opportunity to experience a school that is far better preparation for the "real world" than privates. This is triple true if your child has a sense of self and is academically motivated. I (white upper middle class) did this as a teenager, against the wishes of my parents, and it had tremendously benefited me.

Having your child attend Dunbar as a social experiment to "prepare them for the real world" sounds incredibly elitist and icky.

+1. And reckless (in terms of your child's safety).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


So high school is just the jail alternative? If the kid don;t want to be there, are years behind what exactly makes you think they are showing up to class, or if they do, totally disruptive.


Yes, high school is a jail alternative for some kids. Exactly. And they are probably not the most attentive students and their attendance is likely not great.

However, the research is clear that if we instead hold these kids back, then more will drop out completely and more will end up in jail or dead. This is pretty awful, but it’s true.

Also, as a PP pointed out, plenty of kids who are not “proficient” on PARCC tests are, in fact, functionally literate and numerate. Those kids can get jobs rather than going to college, just like most Americans (62%).

The school system that is supposed the entirety of children in a city cannot be simply a "jail alternative." And if you keep the chronically truant, disruptive and inattentive in the classes with everybody else, then you will rapidly see the parents of every kid who doesn't fit into that category bolt for other alternatives as soon as they can obtain one. Which is exactly where we are with every gen-ed EOTP high school.

Downsize central office and redeploy the funds for more boots on the ground personnel; reinstitute tracking for core subjects while at same time striving to identify and encourage kids who CAN do upper level work to go for those classes; implement robust CTE so that kids who are not into writing academic papers have an option to graduate from high school with employable trade skills that will enable them to be firmly in the middle class.

What research-supported alternative do you suggest for the “chronically truant and inattentive”? And who gets to decide which kids get to stay? If inattentive kids get kicked out of school, then my school career would have been very short, instead of leading me to 3 graduate degrees. I was extremely inattentive and bored through high school. So, who gets to choose? And what do they do when the parents of kids who are kicked out appeal?

Again, the easy solutions people love to propose on this forum are magical thinking.

give me a break. I am guessing your inattentive ADD wasnt the same as a 14 year old throwing chairs, punching the teacher and reading on a 3rd grade level.

It wasn’t but you didn’t answer my question —- who decides? Typically, but Black and white teachers judge the same behavior totally differently when Black kids and white kids engage in it.

So - who decides who gets kicked out? Who ensures that the process is equitable?

NP: I’ll add too, that experienced teachers and inexperienced teachers might handle the same behaviors totally differently. Experienced teachers often know how to not only intervene but to head off potential behavior problems, while inexperienced teachers and teachers who can’t read the students accurately, not only exacerbate some behavior problems but create them in the first place — and it’s the kids who end up negatively impacted, often in ways that are permanent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like others here, I am zoned for Dunbar and it is a non starter for me. My kids are in a title I DCPS elementary school so I am not particularly picky but I would never consider this. The academics aside - because I'm actually fairly confident my kids will learn regardless of where they are - the fighting, turnover, and very dangerous environment that I've heard about takes it completely off the table for me. I don't need my kids to be in the best school in the world but I will not place them somewhere that might actively harm them or put them at risk.

I encourage any parent with this mindset about a school to spend time inside of it. Consider giving your teenager the opportunity to experience a school that is far better preparation for the "real world" than privates. This is triple true if your child has a sense of self and is academically motivated. I (white upper middle class) did this as a teenager, against the wishes of my parents, and it had tremendously benefited me.

You are sending your kid to Dunbar? You went to a HS equivalent of Dunbar? Somehow I doubt this.

Also you are completely delusional if you think black parents with any resources are sending their kids to Dunbar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like others here, I am zoned for Dunbar and it is a non starter for me. My kids are in a title I DCPS elementary school so I am not particularly picky but I would never consider this. The academics aside - because I'm actually fairly confident my kids will learn regardless of where they are - the fighting, turnover, and very dangerous environment that I've heard about takes it completely off the table for me. I don't need my kids to be in the best school in the world but I will not place them somewhere that might actively harm them or put them at risk.

I encourage any parent with this mindset about a school to spend time inside of it. Consider giving your teenager the opportunity to experience a school that is far better preparation for the "real world" than privates. This is triple true if your child has a sense of self and is academically motivated. I (white upper middle class) did this as a teenager, against the wishes of my parents, and it had tremendously benefited me.

This is an insane suggestion.