Boundary Study Townhalls - first one starts now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

Right. The interest isn’t in improvement of poor performance, it’s in lowering performance of successful schools in the name of “equity”. And if you’re not on board with sacrificing the education of your kid in support of this approach, you’re a bigot.

Unclear when folks will realize that this not a winning argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

Right. The interest isn’t in improvement of poor performance, it’s in lowering performance of successful schools in the name of “equity”. And if you’re not on board with sacrificing the education of your kid in support of this approach, you’re a bigot.

Unclear when folks will realize that this not a winning argument.

It was extremely clear during the Gray Administration that bringing down kids at the top was the plan to close the achievement gap.

It stood out because it was a stark and obvious contrast to how things had been done. Nothing has changed since then as far as I can tell (it really jumped out at the elementary school level and my kids are in middle and high school now).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

I actually haven't find this to be true -- I know it's said a lot but look at how schools have changed across DC as the population has changed. There have clearly been improvements that have benefited all kinds of families. I am most familiar with the capitol hill schools in the early to mid-2000's. There were poorer families in those schools who wanted more but either didn't have the social capital or time or whatever to get those changes. It's odd that people think the families who are already in place don't want better for their students. The few instances that I am aware of where there was the pushback that's being described in this thread involved "nice white families" who were pushing for increasing class sizes in the older mostly black grades so that their students in the proportionally much whiter lower grades could have lower class sizes and additional aides. If there is pushback on ideas for improvement, people should examine whether the improvements suggested benefit one group but disadvantage others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

I actually haven't find this to be true -- I know it's said a lot but look at how schools have changed across DC as the population has changed. There have clearly been improvements that have benefited all kinds of families. I am most familiar with the capitol hill schools in the early to mid-2000's. There were poorer families in those schools who wanted more but either didn't have the social capital or time or whatever to get those changes. It's odd that people think the families who are already in place don't want better for their students. The few instances that I am aware of where there was the pushback that's being described in this thread involved "nice white families" who were pushing for increasing class sizes in the older mostly black grades so that their students in the proportionally much whiter lower grades could have lower class sizes and additional aides. If there is pushback on ideas for improvement, people should examine whether the improvements suggested benefit one group but disadvantage others.

What if smaller classes plus aides were the answer to how the classes could provide differentiation and successfully educate kids at a wider range of academic levels?

I understand the criticism you are making in the scenario. Nonetheless, you really illustrate PP's point are only welcome to show up and use their resources to advocate if that advocacy is targeted at what the pre-existing families want for themselves. New issues are not welcome, even if valid for the new families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

I actually haven't find this to be true -- I know it's said a lot but look at how schools have changed across DC as the population has changed. There have clearly been improvements that have benefited all kinds of families. I am most familiar with the capitol hill schools in the early to mid-2000's. There were poorer families in those schools who wanted more but either didn't have the social capital or time or whatever to get those changes. It's odd that people think the families who are already in place don't want better for their students. The few instances that I am aware of where there was the pushback that's being described in this thread involved "nice white families" who were pushing for increasing class sizes in the older mostly black grades so that their students in the proportionally much whiter lower grades could have lower class sizes and additional aides. If there is pushback on ideas for improvement, people should examine whether the improvements suggested benefit one group but disadvantage others.

What if smaller classes plus aides were the answer to how the classes could provide differentiation and successfully educate kids at a wider range of academic levels?

I understand the criticism you are making in the scenario. Nonetheless, you really illustrate PP's point are only welcome to show up and use their resources to advocate if that advocacy is targeted at what the pre-existing families want for themselves. New issues are not welcome, even if valid for the new families.

I mean, I am literally a gentrifier... My kids are at a school that was T1 when we started and now isn't. That said, showing up and saying that you need more staff for differentiation for your UMC Ker at the expense of high needs 3-5th graders is obviously inane. There are things that benefit the whole school and there are things that benefit your own kids at the expense of no one... but trying to benefit your kids directly at the expense of other kids, who were there first & have less ability to advocate for themselves is crappy. Of course it's going to make admin & long time teachers hate you. That said, our school has been able to make the transition without creating any massive chasms and with most long time teachers remaining in place. Has it been seamless? No. Do I think most people would agree that most kids are now better off? Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

I actually haven't find this to be true -- I know it's said a lot but look at how schools have changed across DC as the population has changed. There have clearly been improvements that have benefited all kinds of families. I am most familiar with the capitol hill schools in the early to mid-2000's. There were poorer families in those schools who wanted more but either didn't have the social capital or time or whatever to get those changes. It's odd that people think the families who are already in place don't want better for their students. The few instances that I am aware of where there was the pushback that's being described in this thread involved "nice white families" who were pushing for increasing class sizes in the older mostly black grades so that their students in the proportionally much whiter lower grades could have lower class sizes and additional aides. If there is pushback on ideas for improvement, people should examine whether the improvements suggested benefit one group but disadvantage others.

What if smaller classes plus aides were the answer to how the classes could provide differentiation and successfully educate kids at a wider range of academic levels?

I understand the criticism you are making in the scenario. Nonetheless, you really illustrate PP's point are only welcome to show up and use their resources to advocate if that advocacy is targeted at what the pre-existing families want for themselves. New issues are not welcome, even if valid for the new families.

I mean, I am literally a gentrifier... My kids are at a school that was T1 when we started and now isn't. That said, showing up and saying that you need more staff for differentiation for your UMC Ker at the expense of high needs 3-5th graders is obviously inane. There are things that benefit the whole school and there are things that benefit your own kids at the expense of no one... but trying to benefit your kids directly at the expense of other kids, who were there first & have less ability to advocate for themselves is crappy. Of course it's going to make admin & long time teachers hate you. That said, our school has been able to make the transition without creating any massive chasms and with most long time teachers remaining in place. Has it been seamless? No. Do I think most people would agree that most kids are now better off? Yes.

absurd take. a giant class of 30 k-ers is worse than a class of 30 5th graders. everyone is free to advocate for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

I actually haven't find this to be true -- I know it's said a lot but look at how schools have changed across DC as the population has changed. There have clearly been improvements that have benefited all kinds of families. I am most familiar with the capitol hill schools in the early to mid-2000's. There were poorer families in those schools who wanted more but either didn't have the social capital or time or whatever to get those changes. It's odd that people think the families who are already in place don't want better for their students. The few instances that I am aware of where there was the pushback that's being described in this thread involved "nice white families" who were pushing for increasing class sizes in the older mostly black grades so that their students in the proportionally much whiter lower grades could have lower class sizes and additional aides. If there is pushback on ideas for improvement, people should examine whether the improvements suggested benefit one group but disadvantage others.

What if smaller classes plus aides were the answer to how the classes could provide differentiation and successfully educate kids at a wider range of academic levels?

I understand the criticism you are making in the scenario. Nonetheless, you really illustrate PP's point are only welcome to show up and use their resources to advocate if that advocacy is targeted at what the pre-existing families want for themselves. New issues are not welcome, even if valid for the new families.

I mean, I am literally a gentrifier... My kids are at a school that was T1 when we started and now isn't. That said, showing up and saying that you need more staff for differentiation for your UMC Ker at the expense of high needs 3-5th graders is obviously inane. There are things that benefit the whole school and there are things that benefit your own kids at the expense of no one... but trying to benefit your kids directly at the expense of other kids, who were there first & have less ability to advocate for themselves is crappy. Of course it's going to make admin & long time teachers hate you. That said, our school has been able to make the transition without creating any massive chasms and with most long time teachers remaining in place. Has it been seamless? No. Do I think most people would agree that most kids are now better off? Yes.

absurd take. a giant class of 30 k-ers is worse than a class of 30 5th graders. everyone is free to advocate for themselves.

At a T1 school you're not looking at numbers anything close to that. But also, if the Kers are majority UMC kids with parents with plenty of resources and the 5th grade has basically 0% UMCers and is probably 75% at risk? No. No, that's not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

The view is insane to me. The resources aren't the high SES families. High SES families cause their own sets of problems, which is exactly why we aren't sending our kids to rich suburban schools. I could afford to be doing that, but I don't want that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

I actually haven't find this to be true -- I know it's said a lot but look at how schools have changed across DC as the population has changed. There have clearly been improvements that have benefited all kinds of families. I am most familiar with the capitol hill schools in the early to mid-2000's. There were poorer families in those schools who wanted more but either didn't have the social capital or time or whatever to get those changes. It's odd that people think the families who are already in place don't want better for their students. The few instances that I am aware of where there was the pushback that's being described in this thread involved "nice white families" who were pushing for increasing class sizes in the older mostly black grades so that their students in the proportionally much whiter lower grades could have lower class sizes and additional aides. If there is pushback on ideas for improvement, people should examine whether the improvements suggested benefit one group but disadvantage others.

What if smaller classes plus aides were the answer to how the classes could provide differentiation and successfully educate kids at a wider range of academic levels?

I understand the criticism you are making in the scenario. Nonetheless, you really illustrate PP's point are only welcome to show up and use their resources to advocate if that advocacy is targeted at what the pre-existing families want for themselves. New issues are not welcome, even if valid for the new families.

I mean, I am literally a gentrifier... My kids are at a school that was T1 when we started and now isn't. That said, showing up and saying that you need more staff for differentiation for your UMC Ker at the expense of high needs 3-5th graders is obviously inane. There are things that benefit the whole school and there are things that benefit your own kids at the expense of no one... but trying to benefit your kids directly at the expense of other kids, who were there first & have less ability to advocate for themselves is crappy. Of course it's going to make admin & long time teachers hate you. That said, our school has been able to make the transition without creating any massive chasms and with most long time teachers remaining in place. Has it been seamless? No. Do I think most people would agree that most kids are now better off? Yes.

Nobody would show up and say, "Take teachers from 3-5 to give another teacher to the K class."

Their complaint would be sonethong like that their child gets no attention or exposure to grade-level curriculum because of the teacher is fully occupied addressing the needs of other students.

The result may be that the solution to their problem is in opposition to the needs of others, given the reality of fixed budgets.

But that doesn't mean their complaint was not valid nor well-founded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

I actually haven't find this to be true -- I know it's said a lot but look at how schools have changed across DC as the population has changed. There have clearly been improvements that have benefited all kinds of families. I am most familiar with the capitol hill schools in the early to mid-2000's. There were poorer families in those schools who wanted more but either didn't have the social capital or time or whatever to get those changes. It's odd that people think the families who are already in place don't want better for their students. The few instances that I am aware of where there was the pushback that's being described in this thread involved "nice white families" who were pushing for increasing class sizes in the older mostly black grades so that their students in the proportionally much whiter lower grades could have lower class sizes and additional aides. If there is pushback on ideas for improvement, people should examine whether the improvements suggested benefit one group but disadvantage others.

What if smaller classes plus aides were the answer to how the classes could provide differentiation and successfully educate kids at a wider range of academic levels?

I understand the criticism you are making in the scenario. Nonetheless, you really illustrate PP's point are only welcome to show up and use their resources to advocate if that advocacy is targeted at what the pre-existing families want for themselves. New issues are not welcome, even if valid for the new families.

I mean, I am literally a gentrifier... My kids are at a school that was T1 when we started and now isn't. That said, showing up and saying that you need more staff for differentiation for your UMC Ker at the expense of high needs 3-5th graders is obviously inane. There are things that benefit the whole school and there are things that benefit your own kids at the expense of no one... but trying to benefit your kids directly at the expense of other kids, who were there first & have less ability to advocate for themselves is crappy. Of course it's going to make admin & long time teachers hate you. That said, our school has been able to make the transition without creating any massive chasms and with most long time teachers remaining in place. Has it been seamless? No. Do I think most people would agree that most kids are now better off? Yes.

absurd take. a giant class of 30 k-ers is worse than a class of 30 5th graders. everyone is free to advocate for themselves.

Do your kids attend a title 1 school? Those class sizes would never happen there. Maybe 20 to a prek with two teachers but more likely 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But when those mothers try that, they get labeled as "nice white parents" and face backlash.
The only acceptable thing from the liberal POV is to send your kid to an under-performing school and accept its poor performance as part of its "culture," which is insulting to the new and old families there alike.

That's what strange. High SES parents crowding together is "hoarding resources." OK, what resources? Money? No, you can look at the funding, schools with higher SES usually get less money in the DCPS budget. The resources are apparently the families themselves and their approach to education. It's so valuable that we need to break this group up and spread it around the city so we can have this approach everywhere.

Except, no, now the same people are saying when these families get to a new school they new to be deferential to the approach that was going on there, and they don't want the new families trying to change anything. They need to act like second class citizens, their opinions shouldn't carry the same weight as the other families. They don't want them to do anything for the school; people are just happy they're no longer making their original school successful.

So if you don't think others should follow their approach, why are you even sending them there in the first place? The whole proposal just seems to stem from resentful people that want to tear down the schools in this city that are functioning the best.

I actually haven't find this to be true -- I know it's said a lot but look at how schools have changed across DC as the population has changed. There have clearly been improvements that have benefited all kinds of families. I am most familiar with the capitol hill schools in the early to mid-2000's. There were poorer families in those schools who wanted more but either didn't have the social capital or time or whatever to get those changes. It's odd that people think the families who are already in place don't want better for their students. The few instances that I am aware of where there was the pushback that's being described in this thread involved "nice white families" who were pushing for increasing class sizes in the older mostly black grades so that their students in the proportionally much whiter lower grades could have lower class sizes and additional aides. If there is pushback on ideas for improvement, people should examine whether the improvements suggested benefit one group but disadvantage others.

What if smaller classes plus aides were the answer to how the classes could provide differentiation and successfully educate kids at a wider range of academic levels?

I understand the criticism you are making in the scenario. Nonetheless, you really illustrate PP's point are only welcome to show up and use their resources to advocate if that advocacy is targeted at what the pre-existing families want for themselves. New issues are not welcome, even if valid for the new families.

I mean, I am literally a gentrifier... My kids are at a school that was T1 when we started and now isn't. That said, showing up and saying that you need more staff for differentiation for your UMC Ker at the expense of high needs 3-5th graders is obviously inane. There are things that benefit the whole school and there are things that benefit your own kids at the expense of no one... but trying to benefit your kids directly at the expense of other kids, who were there first & have less ability to advocate for themselves is crappy. Of course it's going to make admin & long time teachers hate you. That said, our school has been able to make the transition without creating any massive chasms and with most long time teachers remaining in place. Has it been seamless? No. Do I think most people would agree that most kids are now better off? Yes.

Nobody would show up and say, "Take teachers from 3-5 to give another teacher to the K class."

Their complaint would be sonethong like that their child gets no attention or exposure to grade-level curriculum because of the teacher is fully occupied addressing the needs of other students.

The result may be that the solution to their problem is in opposition to the needs of others, given the reality of fixed budgets.

But that doesn't mean their complaint was not valid nor well-founded.

I think you'd be surprised. For example, because Watkins & Peabody can't easily share resources (especially human ones, but also printers, copiers, etc) given their disparate locations, there were literally fights where people wanted to remove Watkins' staff & stuff and take it to Peabody.

More importantly, there are ways that you can express changes you'd like to see in your child's school in a constructive way that makes clear you care about older kids too/all else being equal your kid will eventually be one of those kids and ways you can make clear that your kid will obviously be leaving by K/1st because the school isn't good enough for you and so all you care about is your school's ECE/K experience. Like I said, I basically am a NWP at a gentrifying school and I have still be shocked by how tactless and self-centered some parents are.

[Anonymous]

What’s the latest on the boundary study? Have they presented scenarios yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s the latest on the boundary study? Have they presented scenarios yet?

Nope.