“We need to preserve diversity and mitigate the projected whitening of the feeder pattern”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with walkability? That's what creates communities and allows parents work options that aren't centered on drop off. Driving also isn't environmentally friendly.

These are complex, nuanced discussions. Decisions have repercussions, both intended and unintended.

Walkability is a big reason that parents choose to buy in proximity to schools. Lots of us think being able to walk to school and to leave near classmates is a very big part of what makes a school community

Walkability is huge! It’s good for the kids and good for the family’s logistics.

And for the Earth. We are in the middle of a climate emergency.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the issue is the word whitening. I’ve never heard that and it does sound hostile or just offensive even if trie. You’d never be caught dead saying blackening that’s for sure.

Right — concentration of white students would have been less awkward

But the problem isn’t the white students (who are IB and just following the rules and attending thei IB schools.) The problem is that black kids’ IB schools are failing.

What if “the rules” were changed to be less inclined to increasing levels of segregation? Eg, end by right high school, real set asides, synchronized middle and high school entry years. Would that fix every failing school? No. But it would address the inequalities that are unavoidable with segregated schools in America.

if it was persistent enough, you'd just see a new generation of white flight schools. No parent in Chevy Chase is sending their kid to Ballou

100%. Families will move out of the city or go private. I don't want to schlep across the city for a GREAT school and I definitely wouldn't put up with it for a poorly rated school. We want a school we can walk to, who's proximity makes it easy to be an active participant/parent, who's population is largely in the neighborhood (for easy after school socialization). If by right schools go away, we'd move to MoCo.

I'm okay with tightening up the boundaries to make room for at risk OOB students, but I think preserving neighborhood schools is extremely important.

I don't know why you guys bring up whites leaving. DCPS has made it very clear they don't care. They DO care about donors whose kids are already in private leaving or their childless donors. Not white families like yours, DCPS is actually interested in serving low SES families most of the time and they tend to not be white.

I used to believe that DCPS is interested in serving low SES families but I no longer do. We have failing schools full of low SES kids across the city with no improvement in their outcomes. DCPS is interested in covering up their failures by sending these kids to schools with higher performing kids, or sending higher performing kids to these schools. It’s lazy and doomed to fail because the higher performing kids have the means to leave if they don’t like the hand they are dealt. I feel for DCPS in a way because there is no way that school alone can help the issues plaguing many children in wards 7 & 8.

Nor is it their job or responsibility to. These kids' issues start at home. Until we are willing to call that out as a society, this is a continuing downward spiral.

I agree it’s not DCPS’s responsibility. However, many people — politicians, parents, etc — apparently expect schools to fix the ills of poverty, and many educational leaders seem to want to take on the mission as though it’s noble, even if it dilutes focus on the job of education.

Spoken like a privileged person.

Yea sure let's focus on education, I'm sure while mom is getting beaten, gun shots are being fired, food is not on the table, drugs are being used, homeless, etc. those kids are focused on their ABC's and 123's. Dang DCPS! Don't they know they should JUST focus on education?!

So it is your belief that DCPS should try to address domestic violence, gun control, violent crime, drug use, and homelessness? That's quite a task list you've come up with. Talk about setting the system up to fail.

No silly, but educators should focus on how to teach children to cope with such things, have parent outreach, etc. And FYI we ARE expected to do that, you seriously though teachers were just teachers? Seriously? Why do you think we always want more money?

As a special education teacher I do my job, I am a case manager, the gen ed teacher, the counselor, the social worker, mandated reported, child care provider, nurse, cook, parent therapist, etc.
Before covid I had received my LICSW. Many of the families I serve are going through trauma or went through it. Is it right that teachers should have to do this? No. But I wanted to. And I do not do this for the whole school, I do have boundaries. And do all teachers encompass all of the roles I listed? No, *cough title 2 teachers. Just kidding, kind of.

Do I think DC should step up more for the community side of things? ABSOLUTELY!!! But generational issues keep going, and I do think I can help break the cycle for the students I serve.

I know you do all those things, that you work harder than you are supposed to, and that you care a lot. But you describe exactly what I think is a big problem.

You shouldn’t get paid more; someone additional should get paid for one of the jobs — teacher or social worker. It would cost more, but then you both could do your jobs more fully. Now, you can make a difference for some kids, but you can’t change the trajectory for a wise-swath of students on your own.

The system works the way it does now — teacher as social worker — because it’s cheap and the providers find it personally rewarding. But it’s a bad choice on the managers’ (eg, the mayor) parts because it won’t lead to the level of change needed. Same short-shrift solution; same results....

But teachers will never just be 'teachers,' being a licensed therapist is obviously not part of our job but helping students emotionally and socially is. That is NOT academically based.

And can I ask how you think 1 social worker is going to be able to help the 200+ children with issues? That may not be the case at your high SES school but it's the reality of mine and many others. They will NEVER fun 4 social workers/or counselors for 1 school.

When will you acknowledge that teaching is no longer 'just' teaching? And it's funny you think I'm not fully supporting my kids lol, it's very easy for me to support 21 kids, related service providers support 50-75 students part time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with walkability? That's what creates communities and allows parents work options that aren't centered on drop off. Driving also isn't environmentally friendly.

These are complex, nuanced discussions. Decisions have repercussions, both intended and unintended.

Walkability is a big reason that parents choose to buy in proximity to schools. Lots of us think being able to walk to school and to leave near classmates is a very big part of what makes a school community

Walkability is huge! It’s good for the kids and good for the family’s logistics.

right. that’s why the idea that we’re going to solve poverty in DC by getting at-risk families to somehow get their kids to a different sector of the city and home every day on their own (no buses) is absurd. The focus on helping a handful of at-risk families through OOB set asides is 100% optics and has nothing to do with solving problems. ironically it also likely functions as a de facto gifted program for at-risk kids. it’s just the height of 2021 to focus on OOB seats as the solution for at-risk families so motivated that they will figure out a way to get from Ward 8 to Ward 3, as opposed to creating gifted programs in their own schools.

This is why DCPS opened Bard Early College HS in ward 7. I personally don’t love the Bard model but I think DCPS wanted to give high achieving students in wards 7 and 8, an option close to where they live

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the issue is the word whitening. I’ve never heard that and it does sound hostile or just offensive even if trie. You’d never be caught dead saying blackening that’s for sure.

Right — concentration of white students would have been less awkward

But the problem isn’t the white students (who are IB and just following the rules and attending thei IB schools.) The problem is that black kids’ IB schools are failing.

What if “the rules” were changed to be less inclined to increasing levels of segregation? Eg, end by right high school, real set asides, synchronized middle and high school entry years. Would that fix every failing school? No. But it would address the inequalities that are unavoidable with segregated schools in America.

if it was persistent enough, you'd just see a new generation of white flight schools. No parent in Chevy Chase is sending their kid to Ballou

100%. Families will move out of the city or go private. I don't want to schlep across the city for a GREAT school and I definitely wouldn't put up with it for a poorly rated school. We want a school we can walk to, who's proximity makes it easy to be an active participant/parent, who's population is largely in the neighborhood (for easy after school socialization). If by right schools go away, we'd move to MoCo.

I'm okay with tightening up the boundaries to make room for at risk OOB students, but I think preserving neighborhood schools is extremely important.

I don't know why you guys bring up whites leaving. DCPS has made it very clear they don't care. They DO care about donors whose kids are already in private leaving or their childless donors. Not white families like yours, DCPS is actually interested in serving low SES families most of the time and they tend to not be white.

I used to believe that DCPS is interested in serving low SES families but I no longer do. We have failing schools full of low SES kids across the city with no improvement in their outcomes. DCPS is interested in covering up their failures by sending these kids to schools with higher performing kids, or sending higher performing kids to these schools. It’s lazy and doomed to fail because the higher performing kids have the means to leave if they don’t like the hand they are dealt. I feel for DCPS in a way because there is no way that school alone can help the issues plaguing many children in wards 7 & 8.

Nor is it their job or responsibility to. These kids' issues start at home. Until we are willing to call that out as a society, this is a continuing downward spiral.

I agree it’s not DCPS’s responsibility. However, many people — politicians, parents, etc — apparently expect schools to fix the ills of poverty, and many educational leaders seem to want to take on the mission as though it’s noble, even if it dilutes focus on the job of education.

Spoken like a privileged person.

Yea sure let's focus on education, I'm sure while mom is getting beaten, gun shots are being fired, food is not on the table, drugs are being used, homeless, etc. those kids are focused on their ABC's and 123's. Dang DCPS! Don't they know they should JUST focus on education?!

So it is your belief that DCPS should try to address domestic violence, gun control, violent crime, drug use, and homelessness? That's quite a task list you've come up with. Talk about setting the system up to fail.

No silly, but educators should focus on how to teach children to cope with such things, have parent outreach, etc. And FYI we ARE expected to do that, you seriously though teachers were just teachers? Seriously? Why do you think we always want more money?

As a special education teacher I do my job, I am a case manager, the gen ed teacher, the counselor, the social worker, mandated reported, child care provider, nurse, cook, parent therapist, etc.
Before covid I had received my LICSW. Many of the families I serve are going through trauma or went through it. Is it right that teachers should have to do this? No. But I wanted to. And I do not do this for the whole school, I do have boundaries. And do all teachers encompass all of the roles I listed? No, *cough title 2 teachers. Just kidding, kind of.

Do I think DC should step up more for the community side of things? ABSOLUTELY!!! But generational issues keep going, and I do think I can help break the cycle for the students I serve.

I know you do all those things, that you work harder than you are supposed to, and that you care a lot. But you describe exactly what I think is a big problem.

You shouldn’t get paid more; someone additional should get paid for one of the jobs — teacher or social worker. It would cost more, but then you both could do your jobs more fully. Now, you can make a difference for some kids, but you can’t change the trajectory for a wise-swath of students on your own.

The system works the way it does now — teacher as social worker — because it’s cheap and the providers find it personally rewarding. But it’s a bad choice on the managers’ (eg, the mayor) parts because it won’t lead to the level of change needed. Same short-shrift solution; same results....

But teachers will never just be 'teachers,' being a licensed therapist is obviously not part of our job but helping students emotionally and socially is. That is NOT academically based.

And can I ask how you think 1 social worker is going to be able to help the 200+ children with issues? That may not be the case at your high SES school but it's the reality of mine and many others. Fb They will NEVER fun 4 social workers/or counselors for 1 school.

When will you acknowledge that teaching is no longer 'just' teaching? And it's funny you think I'm not fully supporting my kids lol, it's very easy for me to support 21 kids, related service providers support 50-75 students part time.

Why not? That’s exactly what should happen. And their should be social workers working intensively with families outside of school as is helpful.

Are the kids st your school at grade level and sustaining that as they proceed through school? If not, how is that going to change without investment in more capable professionals spending time with and supporting each student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with walkability? That's what creates communities and allows parents work options that aren't centered on drop off. Driving also isn't environmentally friendly.

These are complex, nuanced discussions. Decisions have repercussions, both intended and unintended.

Walkability is a big reason that parents choose to buy in proximity to schools. Lots of us think being able to walk to school and to leave near classmates is a very big part of what makes a school community

Walkability is huge! It’s good for the kids and good for the family’s logistics.

right. that’s why the idea that we’re going to solve poverty in DC by getting at-risk families to somehow get their kids to a different sector of the city and home every day on their own (no buses) is absurd. The focus on helping a handful of at-risk families through OOB set asides is 100% optics and has nothing to do with solving problems. ironically it also likely functions as a de facto gifted program for at-risk kids. it’s just the height of 2021 to focus on OOB seats as the solution for at-risk families so motivated that they will figure out a way to get from Ward 8 to Ward 3, as opposed to creating gifted programs in their own schools.

This is why DCPS opened Bard Early College HS in ward 7. I personally don’t love the Bard model but I think DCPS wanted to give high achieving students in wards 7 and 8, an option close to where they live

Bard looks amazing btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White people don’t like it when people say ‘too white’.

But they have no problem saying ‘too Black’ or ‘too Asian’.

No. There are lots of white people who would take issue with "too white" who would also strenuously and loudly object to "too black" or "too asian". I'm one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're painting with too broad a brush, PP. There are in fact elementary and middle schools in this city full of low-income black and Latino kids with test scores that look like Janney's. But they aren't DCPS programs (neighborhood schools). Look at some of the KIPP test scores and those of DC Prep and Seed.

You and the prior PP are both right. KIPP actually manages to break the cycle and get results that aren’t dependent on the parents’ SES (though parent initiative is still a big factor). DCPS has no such innovative and intensive programs — nor facility to screen for motivated parents — and is left with results that mirror parent SES.

This difference raises an important point: Which schools are ultimately more successful — the ones laser-focused on educational achievement or the ones obsessed with seeking short-cuts to academic success such as renaming classes with fancier names?

KIPP naturally attracts parents who are driven and pushing their kids to succeed. Relisha Rudds mom wasn't trying to ger her kids in better schools.

[Anonymous]

Almost like it's time to wake up and stop voting for Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Almost like it's time to wake up and stop voting for Democrats.

Go away.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the issue is the word whitening. I’ve never heard that and it does sound hostile or just offensive even if trie. You’d never be caught dead saying blackening that’s for sure.

Right — concentration of white students would have been less awkward

But the problem isn’t the white students (who are IB and just following the rules and attending thei IB schools.) The problem is that black kids’ IB schools are failing.

What if “the rules” were changed to be less inclined to increasing levels of segregation? Eg, end by right high school, real set asides, synchronized middle and high school entry years. Would that fix every failing school? No. But it would address the inequalities that are unavoidable with segregated schools in America.

if it was persistent enough, you'd just see a new generation of white flight schools. No parent in Chevy Chase is sending their kid to Ballou

100%. Families will move out of the city or go private. I don't want to schlep across the city for a GREAT school and I definitely wouldn't put up with it for a poorly rated school. We want a school we can walk to, who's proximity makes it easy to be an active participant/parent, who's population is largely in the neighborhood (for easy after school socialization). If by right schools go away, we'd move to MoCo.

I'm okay with tightening up the boundaries to make room for at risk OOB students, but I think preserving neighborhood schools is extremely important.

I don't know why you guys bring up whites leaving. DCPS has made it very clear they don't care. They DO care about donors whose kids are already in private leaving or their childless donors. Not white families like yours, DCPS is actually interested in serving low SES families most of the time and they tend to not be white.

I used to believe that DCPS is interested in serving low SES families but I no longer do. We have failing schools full of low SES kids across the city with no improvement in their outcomes. DCPS is interested in covering up their failures by sending these kids to schools with higher performing kids, or sending higher performing kids to these schools. It’s lazy and doomed to fail because the higher performing kids have the means to leave if they don’t like the hand they are dealt. I feel for DCPS in a way because there is no way that school alone can help the issues plaguing many children in wards 7 & 8.

Nor is it their job or responsibility to. These kids' issues start at home. Until we are willing to call that out as a society, this is a continuing downward spiral.

I agree it’s not DCPS’s responsibility. However, many people — politicians, parents, etc — apparently expect schools to fix the ills of poverty, and many educational leaders seem to want to take on the mission as though it’s noble, even if it dilutes focus on the job of education.

Spoken like a privileged person.

Yea sure let's focus on education, I'm sure while mom is getting beaten, gun shots are being fired, food is not on the table, drugs are being used, homeless, etc. those kids are focused on their ABC's and 123's. Dang DCPS! Don't they know they should JUST focus on education?!

So it is your belief that DCPS should try to address domestic violence, gun control, violent crime, drug use, and homelessness? That's quite a task list you've come up with. Talk about setting the system up to fail.

No silly, but educators should focus on how to teach children to cope with such things, have parent outreach, etc. And FYI we ARE expected to do that, you seriously though teachers were just teachers? Seriously? Why do you think we always want more money?

As a special education teacher I do my job, I am a case manager, the gen ed teacher, the counselor, the social worker, mandated reported, child care provider, nurse, cook, parent therapist, etc.
Before covid I had received my LICSW. Many of the families I serve are going through trauma or went through it. Is it right that teachers should have to do this? No. But I wanted to. And I do not do this for the whole school, I do have boundaries. And do all teachers encompass all of the roles I listed? No, *cough title 2 teachers. Just kidding, kind of.

Do I think DC should step up more for the community side of things? ABSOLUTELY!!! But generational issues keep going, and I do think I can help break the cycle for the students I serve.

I know you do all those things, that you work harder than you are supposed to, and that you care a lot. But you describe exactly what I think is a big problem.

You shouldn’t get paid more; someone additional should get paid for one of the jobs — teacher or social worker. It would cost more, but then you both could do your jobs more fully. Now, you can make a difference for some kids, but you can’t change the trajectory for a wise-swath of students on your own.

The system works the way it does now — teacher as social worker — because it’s cheap and the providers find it personally rewarding. But it’s a bad choice on the managers’ (eg, the mayor) parts because it won’t lead to the level of change needed. Same short-shrift solution; same results....

But teachers will never just be 'teachers,' being a licensed therapist is obviously not part of our job but helping students emotionally and socially is. That is NOT academically based.

And can I ask how you think 1 social worker is going to be able to help the 200+ children with issues? That may not be the case at your high SES school but it's the reality of mine and many others. Fb They will NEVER fun 4 social workers/or counselors for 1 school.

When will you acknowledge that teaching is no longer 'just' teaching? And it's funny you think I'm not fully supporting my kids lol, it's very easy for me to support 21 kids, related service providers support 50-75 students part time.

Why not? That’s exactly what should happen. And their should be social workers working intensively with families outside of school as is helpful.

Are the kids st your school at grade level and sustaining that as they proceed through school? If not, how is that going to change without investment in more capable professionals spending time with and supporting each student?

Pay 200K for 1 teacher and 1 social worker or pay 500k? It's an easy choice for them. So might as well ask for better training and have it be 300k, still cheaper.

And for me it's sustained as I do 3 grade levels, same children. I did really think about this and presented this plan to my school But yes I do wish it was ALL years, however I am (and our social worker) training the other 2 special education teachers to be able to help more deeply so it will continue on. My goal would be to train all of our teachers.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you but again it won't happen. DCPS has pushed it down teachers throats that they better be doing the social emotional work too and at title 1 schools and sometimes others it's not always just, 'let's take deep belly breaths and sing kumbaya.' You have to have actual knowledge of how the brain works, how trauma effects that, and tools to help solve those issues.
Many teachers don't have these tools and not because they don't want them, it's because DCPS wants us to do this work in a deep and cohesive manner but gives us surface level tools. So then it's up to the school and that requires time and money...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost like it's time to wake up and stop voting for Democrats.

Go away.

+1

[Anonymous]

Is no one else excited about a potential new high school?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is no one else excited about a potential new high school?!

No, because they don't share a vision of how great a possible new high school would be. Instead they under-promise because I'm sure they don't want to commit to offering programming as robust as available at Wilson and then have to backtrack. But they are trying to sell families who now have access to Wilson, so you MUST offer them "as good as." Doesn't matter though because after a meeting I attended tonight, it seems clear to me that the plan is to carve 9th grade out of Wilson and have it located at the "high school" building. There won't be a new high school.

[Anonymous]

I attended a Foxhall MacArthur meeting tonight and unless I missed it, I think the “whitening” stuff was no longer part of the presentation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is no one else excited about a potential new high school?!

No, because they don't share a vision of how great a possible new high school would be. Instead they under-promise because I'm sure they don't want to commit to offering programming as robust as available at Wilson and then have to backtrack. But they are trying to sell families who now have access to Wilson, so you MUST offer them "as good as." Doesn't matter though because after a meeting I attended tonight, it seems clear to me that the plan is to carve 9th grade out of Wilson and have it located at the "high school" building. There won't be a new high school.

That’s a terrible solution. Make an overly-large high school even bigger?!