Integration and DC Schools -- A high priority? Yay or nay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:God some of you are so grossly insufferable. No, kids aren’t ’faking it’ if they have a legal diagnosis. No, they do not have to cite they have had accommodations.
No, it does not teach students ‘grit’ to have no accommodations.

I am a teacher at a top high school and graduated from great universities, I also happen to have ADHD.

I won’t go into detail but I wish I had gotten an early diagnosis and accommodations. Yes, I made it but I have what is considered ‘low support’ needs. Maybe my late teens and very early 20’s wouldn’t have been full of suicidal ideation.

These are children. They aren’t cheating and if somehow they do not actually have a disability I would absolutely blame the doctor and the parent(s).

The takeaway is sit your grown ass down and stop talking about children and young adults in such a nasty way.

Oh blow it out your a$$. Of course students are gaming the system. Not all, yes. But plenty, and those of us who see it all the time aren’t going to pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous]

I think the test time is probably actually counter productive. Better to get on tenure pills, as we call Ritalin in the department.

[Anonymous]

To be clear, no one is accusing children of cheating.

People are talking about wealthy parents who utilize the IEP/504 process to get resources and accommodations for their developmentally normal children. The kids don't really have a say in it, and I suspect that pathologizing normal challenges and constantly seeking institutional solutions for what are, really, normal developmental milestones, will ultimately harm their kids.

But it also has the effect of taxing public schools and corrupting a system that is supposed to be in place to help kids who genuinely need accommodations in order to access education. Not kids who may simply have need extra assistance (FROM THEIR PARENTS) to acquire executive functioning skills.

[Anonymous]

Just give all the kids extra time on tests.

[Anonymous]

I personally think the extra time sets kids up for a rude awakening later in life. That being said, I’m really not bothered by kids’ parents getting kids on ADD meds or a GLP-1 to improve academic focus, goodness knows I know enough adults who need and use them and that’s just to keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:God some of you are so grossly insufferable. No, kids aren’t ’faking it’ if they have a legal diagnosis. No, they do not have to cite they have had accommodations.
No, it does not teach students ‘grit’ to have no accommodations.

I am a teacher at a top high school and graduated from great universities, I also happen to have ADHD.

I won’t go into detail but I wish I had gotten an early diagnosis and accommodations. Yes, I made it but I have what is considered ‘low support’ needs. Maybe my late teens and very early 20’s wouldn’t have been full of suicidal ideation.

These are children. They aren’t cheating and if somehow they do not actually have a disability I would absolutely blame the doctor and the parent(s).

The takeaway is sit your grown ass down and stop talking about children and young adults in such a nasty way.

Not all mental health issues are caused by ADHD. There is significant overdiagnosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole line of conversation is ridiculous. One person after another saying,

"Those entitled people advocating for their spoiled kids to get an education even though the kids are already on grade level! So selfish! They should settle for whatever is right for my kid and people just like my kid. It's a public school, so how dare they expect it to meet all kids needs when it should just meet my kids' needs."

Nobody is criticizing accommodations that provide students with access to appropriate education. They're criticizing accommodations that give students a real or perceived advantage in selective admissions processes.

It's not easy to separate though, since the accommodations come from within the public school system and the selective admissions exist largely outside of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole line of conversation is ridiculous. One person after another saying,

"Those entitled people advocating for their spoiled kids to get an education even though the kids are already on grade level! So selfish! They should settle for whatever is right for my kid and people just like my kid. It's a public school, so how dare they expect it to meet all kids needs when it should just meet my kids' needs."

Nobody is criticizing accommodations that provide students with access to appropriate education. They're criticizing accommodations that give students a real or perceived advantage in selective admissions processes.

It's not easy to separate though, since the accommodations come from within the public school system and the selective admissions exist largely outside of it.

To be honest, I'm not even criticizing accommodations that give kids a "real or perceived advantage." I'm comfortable with where my kid is at and don't worry much that a kid is going to get "ahead" because of extra time for an ADHD diagnosis.

It's more that I am concerned about a culture where whenever a kid is struggling, the solution is to pursue a medical diagnosis and accommodations. And, to get back to the subject of the thread, I think this is one of the problems when wealthy and/or UMC families dictate how public schools work. Middle and working class kids need to learn resilience and how to adapt to the world around them. UMC and wealthy families often expect the world to adapt to their kid. It's a fundamental difference in approach that burdens middle/working class families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole line of conversation is ridiculous. One person after another saying,

"Those entitled people advocating for their spoiled kids to get an education even though the kids are already on grade level! So selfish! They should settle for whatever is right for my kid and people just like my kid. It's a public school, so how dare they expect it to meet all kids needs when it should just meet my kids' needs."

Nobody is criticizing accommodations that provide students with access to appropriate education. They're criticizing accommodations that give students a real or perceived advantage in selective admissions processes.

It's not easy to separate though, since the accommodations come from within the public school system and the selective admissions exist largely outside of it.

To be honest, I'm not even criticizing accommodations that give kids a "real or perceived advantage." I'm comfortable with where my kid is at and don't worry much that a kid is going to get "ahead" because of extra time for an ADHD diagnosis.

It's more that I am concerned about a culture where whenever a kid is struggling, the solution is to pursue a medical diagnosis and accommodations. And, to get back to the subject of the thread, I think this is one of the problems when wealthy and/or UMC families dictate how public schools work. Middle and working class kids need to learn resilience and how to adapt to the world around them. UMC and wealthy families often expect the world to adapt to their kid. It's a fundamental difference in approach that burdens middle/working class families.

Could you say more about how it burdens middle/working class families? Decreased resources for struggling students without an IEP? The need to teach and reinforce resilience and adaptability outside the school environment? Or something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this feels like a place where we should be lifting up Black and Latino voices, not white voices (which is the majority of DCUM). My answer is some mix of I don't know and it depends.

I am white - I do want my kids to go to a diverse school. For me, that means a school that has a good percentage of Black and Latino students, and at least enough white students that my kid doesn't stick out like a sore thumb - I think sending a kid to a school, in America, where there are only a single digit number of kids of their race in the whole school, no matter what race that kid is, is asking a lot of someone really young. Everyone has different priorities, but for me, Garrison and John Lewis are the kinds of schools I want my kid to attend (and we're attempting to lottery to both of them this year).

As to whether DC Prep should try to diversify, or whether schools EOTR should try to diversify, that's a question for the Black community, not a question for me.

It does seem to me like the place where integration is a reasonable goal is places where inbound participation is very low for particular races. There are plenty of white families inbounds for Cleveland, for HD Cooke, for Tubman - why aren't they attending? That's a worthwhile question to ponder. And if there are schools, for example, WOTP that are 70% white and aren't seeing inbound participation from families of color, that's worth digging in to as well. So I do tend to agree with a previous poster that inbound buy in is valuable, and broadly considered to be valuable (even by people like me who are opting out of our IB) and often in DC increases school integration.

Why are you opting out of your IB?

I'm not going to answer detailed questions about this because it would make me pretty identifiable, but I'll say in general terms: Lack of academic peers for my advanced kids, and some social challenges.

But I will say that my experience in having my kids at a DCPS, evaluating schools, learning about the DC school landscape, and navigating this with my own family has shown me that NONE of these issues, in DC at least, are simple, and there are no easy answers. And the only people claiming there are easy answers ("well if DC just did X, everything would be better") generally live in the suburbs (like the Bethesda guy quote upthread). These issues are incredibly complex.

In other words, you don't want your kids going to school with the blacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Charters are super integrated. Even the fancy ones -- BASIS, DCI and Latin fit the actual definition of integrated (no one race more than 70 percent of the population).

Other charters are not integrated but at serving their low-income populations better than the DCPS schools (like DC Prep getting everyone into college).

DCPS schools in gentrifying neighborhoods are sometimes integrated and there is an opportunity here to be a model. Like I feel Garrison actually serves all demographics well.

Other DCPS schools are not integrated because the housing is segregated. Do people really want to run busses between Ward 3 and EOTR or something? This sounds like a mess.

BASIS might meet the letter of the law definition of integration, but I don't think a school with 6% of students at risk in a city with a public student population that's 45% at risk is actually what anybody is talking about when they say integration.

That's because these integrationist don't actually want integration -- they want white kids to go to majority-minority schools. That's what they explicitly say on the "Integrated Schools" website, for example.

Then the coopt the word integration, which has an actual meaning, because they know it's a value our society is aiming for.

Then when you point out schools that actually are racially integrated, they said "I don't think that's what anybody is talking about when they say integration."

Say what you really mean. Words matter.

Neighborhood schools should better match the racial and socioeconomic demographics of the students who live in the neighborhood. Citywide schools should better match the racial and socioeconomic demographics of the students in the city.

I think it's weird that I said "at risk" and you countered with "white".

NP. Performative SJW has entered the chat! You didn't find the aha moment you think you did. Data is what data is. In DC white make up only about 1% of the at risk students. It isn't racist or offensive to equate at risk with non-white, it is statistically sound.

Or is math also racist now too?

Okay, let's talk math.

You're confusing a sufficient condition (if white then not at risk) with a necessary and sufficient condition (if white then not at risk and if not at risk then white). The first is true in DC, the second is not. There are lots of MC and UMC black families in public school system.

Yep, definitely true. Also, Asians exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole line of conversation is ridiculous. One person after another saying,

"Those entitled people advocating for their spoiled kids to get an education even though the kids are already on grade level! So selfish! They should settle for whatever is right for my kid and people just like my kid. It's a public school, so how dare they expect it to meet all kids needs when it should just meet my kids' needs."

Nobody is criticizing accommodations that provide students with access to appropriate education. They're criticizing accommodations that give students a real or perceived advantage in selective admissions processes.

It's not easy to separate though, since the accommodations come from within the public school system and the selective admissions exist largely outside of it.

To be honest, I'm not even criticizing accommodations that give kids a "real or perceived advantage." I'm comfortable with where my kid is at and don't worry much that a kid is going to get "ahead" because of extra time for an ADHD diagnosis.

It's more that I am concerned about a culture where whenever a kid is struggling, the solution is to pursue a medical diagnosis and accommodations. And, to get back to the subject of the thread, I think this is one of the problems when wealthy and/or UMC families dictate how public schools work. Middle and working class kids need to learn resilience and how to adapt to the world around them. UMC and wealthy families often expect the world to adapt to their kid. It's a fundamental difference in approach that burdens middle/working class families.

Could you say more about how it burdens middle/working class families? Decreased resources for struggling students without an IEP? The need to teach and reinforce resilience and adaptability outside the school environment? Or something else?

IEP and 504 meetings take up a LOT of time for teachers and admins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole line of conversation is ridiculous. One person after another saying,

"Those entitled people advocating for their spoiled kids to get an education even though the kids are already on grade level! So selfish! They should settle for whatever is right for my kid and people just like my kid. It's a public school, so how dare they expect it to meet all kids needs when it should just meet my kids' needs."

Nobody is criticizing accommodations that provide students with access to appropriate education. They're criticizing accommodations that give students a real or perceived advantage in selective admissions processes.

It's not easy to separate though, since the accommodations come from within the public school system and the selective admissions exist largely outside of it.

To be honest, I'm not even criticizing accommodations that give kids a "real or perceived advantage." I'm comfortable with where my kid is at and don't worry much that a kid is going to get "ahead" because of extra time for an ADHD diagnosis.

It's more that I am concerned about a culture where whenever a kid is struggling, the solution is to pursue a medical diagnosis and accommodations. And, to get back to the subject of the thread, I think this is one of the problems when wealthy and/or UMC families dictate how public schools work. Middle and working class kids need to learn resilience and how to adapt to the world around them. UMC and wealthy families often expect the world to adapt to their kid. It's a fundamental difference in approach that burdens middle/working class families.

This is so true. Also drives me crazy, but I suck it up to have access to better schools for my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this feels like a place where we should be lifting up Black and Latino voices, not white voices (which is the majority of DCUM). My answer is some mix of I don't know and it depends.

I am white - I do want my kids to go to a diverse school. For me, that means a school that has a good percentage of Black and Latino students, and at least enough white students that my kid doesn't stick out like a sore thumb - I think sending a kid to a school, in America, where there are only a single digit number of kids of their race in the whole school, no matter what race that kid is, is asking a lot of someone really young. Everyone has different priorities, but for me, Garrison and John Lewis are the kinds of schools I want my kid to attend (and we're attempting to lottery to both of them this year).

As to whether DC Prep should try to diversify, or whether schools EOTR should try to diversify, that's a question for the Black community, not a question for me.

It does seem to me like the place where integration is a reasonable goal is places where inbound participation is very low for particular races. There are plenty of white families inbounds for Cleveland, for HD Cooke, for Tubman - why aren't they attending? That's a worthwhile question to ponder. And if there are schools, for example, WOTP that are 70% white and aren't seeing inbound participation from families of color, that's worth digging in to as well. So I do tend to agree with a previous poster that inbound buy in is valuable, and broadly considered to be valuable (even by people like me who are opting out of our IB) and often in DC increases school integration.

Why are you opting out of your IB?

I'm not going to answer detailed questions about this because it would make me pretty identifiable, but I'll say in general terms: Lack of academic peers for my advanced kids, and some social challenges.

But I will say that my experience in having my kids at a DCPS, evaluating schools, learning about the DC school landscape, and navigating this with my own family has shown me that NONE of these issues, in DC at least, are simple, and there are no easy answers. And the only people claiming there are easy answers ("well if DC just did X, everything would be better") generally live in the suburbs (like the Bethesda guy quote upthread). These issues are incredibly complex.

In other words, you don't want your kids going to school with the blacks.

I’m not the person who wrote the original comment, but as a Black parent, I find this kind of response reductive and unfair.

It’s entirely possible for a family to be talking about academic peers and social fit without it being code for “not wanting to be around Black kids.” In fact, in my own case, we moved our son into a predominantly African-American Catholic school that is also high-performing.

One reason? At his previous school, he had essentially no Black male peers in his same socioeconomic band — not one. That matters more than people want to admit. Belonging isn’t just about race. It’s about shared expectations, family context, academic norms, and social environment.

Many white families in DC can reasonably expect that most of the same-race peers around their kids will also be in a similar SES band. That’s not always true for Black families. When it isn’t, the social dynamics can be isolating in ways that are hard to explain unless you’ve seen it up close.

Reducing complex conversations about peer groups and school culture to “you just don’t want your kids around Black people” shuts down nuance and ignores how class and race intersect in real ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this feels like a place where we should be lifting up Black and Latino voices, not white voices (which is the majority of DCUM). My answer is some mix of I don't know and it depends.

I am white - I do want my kids to go to a diverse school. For me, that means a school that has a good percentage of Black and Latino students, and at least enough white students that my kid doesn't stick out like a sore thumb - I think sending a kid to a school, in America, where there are only a single digit number of kids of their race in the whole school, no matter what race that kid is, is asking a lot of someone really young. Everyone has different priorities, but for me, Garrison and John Lewis are the kinds of schools I want my kid to attend (and we're attempting to lottery to both of them this year).

As to whether DC Prep should try to diversify, or whether schools EOTR should try to diversify, that's a question for the Black community, not a question for me.

It does seem to me like the place where integration is a reasonable goal is places where inbound participation is very low for particular races. There are plenty of white families inbounds for Cleveland, for HD Cooke, for Tubman - why aren't they attending? That's a worthwhile question to ponder. And if there are schools, for example, WOTP that are 70% white and aren't seeing inbound participation from families of color, that's worth digging in to as well. So I do tend to agree with a previous poster that inbound buy in is valuable, and broadly considered to be valuable (even by people like me who are opting out of our IB) and often in DC increases school integration.

Why are you opting out of your IB?

I'm not going to answer detailed questions about this because it would make me pretty identifiable, but I'll say in general terms: Lack of academic peers for my advanced kids, and some social challenges.

But I will say that my experience in having my kids at a DCPS, evaluating schools, learning about the DC school landscape, and navigating this with my own family has shown me that NONE of these issues, in DC at least, are simple, and there are no easy answers. And the only people claiming there are easy answers ("well if DC just did X, everything would be better") generally live in the suburbs (like the Bethesda guy quote upthread). These issues are incredibly complex.

In other words, you don't want your kids going to school with the blacks.

I’m not the person who wrote the original comment, but as a Black parent, I find this kind of response reductive and unfair.

It’s entirely possible for a family to be talking about academic peers and social fit without it being code for “not wanting to be around Black kids.” In fact, in my own case, we moved our son into a predominantly African-American Catholic school that is also high-performing.

One reason? At his previous school, he had essentially no Black male peers in his same socioeconomic band — not one. That matters more than people want to admit. Belonging isn’t just about race. It’s about shared expectations, family context, academic norms, and social environment.

Many white families in DC can reasonably expect that most of the same-race peers around their kids will also be in a similar SES band. That’s not always true for Black families. When it isn’t, the social dynamics can be isolating in ways that are hard to explain unless you’ve seen it up close.

Reducing complex conversations about peer groups and school culture to “you just don’t want your kids around Black people” shuts down nuance and ignores how class and race intersect in real ways.

Thank you for this. My (non-white kid) also moved from a Title 1 school to a high performing school and now has friends of different races, but they all are middle class or UMC and ALL have parents who value education.

When I see someone write something like "you don't want your kids in school with the blacks" I know this is a white mom at a Title 1 school who thinks she is performing an act of social justice by sending her kid there, and doesn't see her own racism.