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

[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: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.

Not bad points. But as a white mom with a kid in a T1 MS, I can also conclude that for white parents who disparage and won’t even consider the school, I do think there is racism at play. As for black MC/UMC kids, I think the issue is in some ways the same as for the white academically on track kids - the school is rightfully geared towards serving the 90% of kids that make up its main population and so advanced academics is not the #1 concern. That said I personally find the teachers and admins at our school to be very, very good and my kid has learned a ton. I wonder if a black MC would fall through the cracks a bit because everyone would assume they were “high risk” instead of EG pushing them into the advanced math class. At a school where grade level or beyond performance was expected then the median standard would be higher for all kids including black kids.

A mind reader, everyone.

Lots of convuluted thinking going on. "When UMC black families choose a good school, it's because they want a good education for their child. When UMC white families choose a good school, its because of racism."

The two families are not equivalent in their motivations and beliefs, obviously.

Also - there is a difference between chosing a school and disparaging a school. The latter is where the implied or even unconscious racial bias plays out. If I hadn’t lived through the process myself I wouldn’t be so aware of it.

LMAO if you think the UMC Black families don't disparage the bad schools. What bubble do you live in. Do you even know your neighbors? Why don't you know this? Could it be a racial bias?

Case in point my college teammates- 75% black, 100% in my position group- think I am a crazy person for sending my kids to DCPS

[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: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.

Not bad points. But as a white mom with a kid in a T1 MS, I can also conclude that for white parents who disparage and won’t even consider the school, I do think there is racism at play. As for black MC/UMC kids, I think the issue is in some ways the same as for the white academically on track kids - the school is rightfully geared towards serving the 90% of kids that make up its main population and so advanced academics is not the #1 concern. That said I personally find the teachers and admins at our school to be very, very good and my kid has learned a ton. I wonder if a black MC would fall through the cracks a bit because everyone would assume they were “high risk” instead of EG pushing them into the advanced math class. At a school where grade level or beyond performance was expected then the median standard would be higher for all kids including black kids.

A mind reader, everyone.

Lots of convuluted thinking going on. "When UMC black families choose a good school, it's because they want a good education for their child. When UMC white families choose a good school, its because of racism."

The two families are not equivalent in their motivations and beliefs, obviously.

Also - there is a difference between chosing a school and disparaging a school. The latter is where the implied or even unconscious racial bias plays out. If I hadn’t lived through the process myself I wouldn’t be so aware of it.

LMAO if you think the UMC Black families don't disparage the bad schools. What bubble do you live in. Do you even know your neighbors? Why don't you know this? Could it be a racial bias?

Can you tell the difference between black vs white people saying things about black peoples?

[Anonymous]

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.

Pffft.

At least it's possible for very poor children to attend BASIS.

Jackson-Reid, Janney, Murch, Deal, etc. all impose de facto wealth tests on their students. If your parents can't afford a house in Ward 3, sorry you have to go somewhere else!

Make every seat in every school in the city a lottery seat. Issue solved.

DP: You understand that that would make DC less integrated, right? How do you define integrated? What numbers are you looking at? Have you studied this at all?

[Anonymous]

21 percent of Harvard students claim to be disabled. Hilarious.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/us/colleges-see-spike-in-students-with-disabilities-including-elite-schools.html

[Anonymous]

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.

Pffft.

At least it's possible for very poor children to attend BASIS.

Jackson-Reid, Janney, Murch, Deal, etc. all impose de facto wealth tests on their students. If your parents can't afford a house in Ward 3, sorry you have to go somewhere else!

Make every seat in every school in the city a lottery seat. Issue solved.

DP: You understand that that would make DC less integrated, right? How do you define integrated? What numbers are you looking at? Have you studied this at all?

It would end the de facto wealth tax we have for admitting children to schools west of the park. Seems like a good thing.

[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:

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.

Not bad points. But as a white mom with a kid in a T1 MS, I can also conclude that for white parents who disparage and won’t even consider the school, I do think there is racism at play. As for black MC/UMC kids, I think the issue is in some ways the same as for the white academically on track kids - the school is rightfully geared towards serving the 90% of kids that make up its main population and so advanced academics is not the #1 concern. That said I personally find the teachers and admins at our school to be very, very good and my kid has learned a ton. I wonder if a black MC would fall through the cracks a bit because everyone would assume they were “high risk” instead of EG pushing them into the advanced math class. At a school where grade level or beyond performance was expected then the median standard would be higher for all kids including black kids.

A mind reader, everyone.

Lots of convuluted thinking going on. "When UMC black families choose a good school, it's because they want a good education for their child. When UMC white families choose a good school, its because of racism."

The two families are not equivalent in their motivations and beliefs, obviously.

Also - there is a difference between chosing a school and disparaging a school. The latter is where the implied or even unconscious racial bias plays out. If I hadn’t lived through the process myself I wouldn’t be so aware of it.

LMAO if you think the UMC Black families don't disparage the bad schools. What bubble do you live in. Do you even know your neighbors? Why don't you know this? Could it be a racial bias?

Can you tell the difference between black vs white people saying things about black peoples?

They’re talking about a school. Not black people.

I have to assume PP does not hear such talk because black people recognize her racial biases and keep it to themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

socioeconomically diverse public schools are big picture a really good thing. schools run better when a majority of the students are not economically at-risk and/or have a significant level of family/community support. but thats mostly keeping the often overlooked middle class of all races in dc public schools.

When a school becomes comprised over more than 30% at-risk students, the middle class families generally tend to leave. They may stick around for k-2 but once third grade hits and it is more about reading to learn instead of learning to read, the middle class families will peel off if they believe that their children's needs are not being met because the school is having to focus the bulk of its resources on the most struggling kids. And, as the strength of the charter sector has shown, not only did a significant amount of middle class families turn to the charter world, but a large number of working and at-risk families will also peel off from regular DCPS if they think that the charters can provide a more attentive and rigorous environment with respect to academics and behavior.

I've heard this 30% threshold quoted before. Do you have a source by any chance?

It’s actually 20%. FCPS did their own study of this years ago also and got same.

20 or 30%—but how can this be sustainable in a community with 45% at risk students?

And (back to the subject line) how can you achieve integration of 20% non-minority, when entire system only has 18% non-minority?

[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.

Pffft.

At least it's possible for very poor children to attend BASIS.

Jackson-Reid, Janney, Murch, Deal, etc. all impose de facto wealth tests on their students. If your parents can't afford a house in Ward 3, sorry you have to go somewhere else!

The only schools with a lower at risk percentage than BASIS are Lafayette, Key, Janney, Stokes Brookland, and Mann.

You are literally advocating for ignoring race in discussions of integration. Tell me you're white without telling me.

I like a school with a critical mass of not at-risk black students. We need such schools to exist too.

I think you are not alone in your opinion, which is a big reason why DC has to publicly define what integration looks like in DC and set goals. I'm not sure it will find a consensus opinion though, and if they feel they need consensus, efforts are doomed to stall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

socioeconomically diverse public schools are big picture a really good thing. schools run better when a majority of the students are not economically at-risk and/or have a significant level of family/community support. but thats mostly keeping the often overlooked middle class of all races in dc public schools.

When a school becomes comprised over more than 30% at-risk students, the middle class families generally tend to leave. They may stick around for k-2 but once third grade hits and it is more about reading to learn instead of learning to read, the middle class families will peel off if they believe that their children's needs are not being met because the school is having to focus the bulk of its resources on the most struggling kids. And, as the strength of the charter sector has shown, not only did a significant amount of middle class families turn to the charter world, but a large number of working and at-risk families will also peel off from regular DCPS if they think that the charters can provide a more attentive and rigorous environment with respect to academics and behavior.

I've heard this 30% threshold quoted before. Do you have a source by any chance?

It’s actually 20%. FCPS did their own study of this years ago also and got same.

20 or 30%—but how can this be sustainable in a community with 45% at risk students?

And (back to the subject line) how can you achieve integration of 20% non-minority, when entire system only has 18% non-minority?

Especially when your proposed integration methods would likely disproportionately drive out those with means, who are disproportionately in the non-minority group.

[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.

Pffft.

At least it's possible for very poor children to attend BASIS.

Jackson-Reid, Janney, Murch, Deal, etc. all impose de facto wealth tests on their students. If your parents can't afford a house in Ward 3, sorry you have to go somewhere else!

Make every seat in every school in the city a lottery seat. Issue solved.

DP: You understand that that would make DC less integrated, right? How do you define integrated? What numbers are you looking at? Have you studied this at all?

It would end the de facto wealth tax we have for admitting children to schools west of the park. Seems like a good thing.

You can have "punish the rich", but the rich will just leave your school system, so it will wind up less integrated. Which was the whole assignment here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pffft.

At least it's possible for very poor children to attend BASIS.

Jackson-Reid, Janney, Murch, Deal, etc. all impose de facto wealth tests on their students. If your parents can't afford a house in Ward 3, sorry you have to go somewhere else!

Make every seat in every school in the city a lottery seat. Issue solved.

DP: You understand that that would make DC less integrated, right? How do you define integrated? What numbers are you looking at? Have you studied this at all?

It would end the de facto wealth tax we have for admitting children to schools west of the park. Seems like a good thing.

You can have "punish the rich", but the rich will just leave your school system, so it will wind up less integrated. Which was the whole assignment here.

And if we raise their taxes by $1, they'll all move out of DC, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pffft.

At least it's possible for very poor children to attend BASIS.

Jackson-Reid, Janney, Murch, Deal, etc. all impose de facto wealth tests on their students. If your parents can't afford a house in Ward 3, sorry you have to go somewhere else!

The only schools with a lower at risk percentage than BASIS are Lafayette, Key, Janney, Stokes Brookland, and Mann.

You are literally advocating for ignoring race in discussions of integration. Tell me you're white without telling me.

I like a school with a critical mass of not at-risk black students. We need such schools to exist too.

I think you are not alone in your opinion, which is a big reason why DC has to publicly define what integration looks like in DC and set goals. I'm not sure it will find a consensus opinion though, and if they feel they need consensus, efforts are doomed to stall.

The only schools in DC that aren't super integrated are the rich kid schools in Ward 3, and the poor kid schools in Wards 7 and 8.

[Anonymous]

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.

Pffft.

At least it's possible for very poor children to attend BASIS.

Jackson-Reid, Janney, Murch, Deal, etc. all impose de facto wealth tests on their students. If your parents can't afford a house in Ward 3, sorry you have to go somewhere else!

Ward 3 i sexpensive, but it has public housing and many subsidized apartments. You don't have to buy a house.

So what…? If you want a house and have kids but don’t make enough too bad? I’m sorry there needs to be a way for people with a lower household income to get a house.

You have strayed off the point, which was not about buying a house, but about being able to attend particular schools.

[Anonymous]

the problem is that if you actually attended some of the schools that this board labels as “bad,” you might see a lot of good alongside some not so good things and just overall a lot more nuance. if you dont have personal experience, then you are going on reputation and rumor and limited data like demographics and cape scores which dont capture everything. no easy answers

[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.

Pffft.

At least it's possible for very poor children to attend BASIS.

Jackson-Reid, Janney, Murch, Deal, etc. all impose de facto wealth tests on their students. If your parents can't afford a house in Ward 3, sorry you have to go somewhere else!

Make every seat in every school in the city a lottery seat. Issue solved.

DP: You understand that that would make DC less integrated, right? How do you define integrated? What numbers are you looking at? Have you studied this at all?

It would end the de facto wealth tax we have for admitting children to schools west of the park. Seems like a good thing.

Do you even live in DC? Have you driven down Connecticut Avenue since the last decade?