Looking at Charter schools- are white students a minority at all the schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, my heart goes out to you. I once asked a question about potty training and someone accused me of being a pedophile. You never know what you're gonna get on this site.

In DC, yes, white students are a minority at all the schools. That's because DC is still predominately black. Having grown up here, I've never seen a high number of low-income whites in this city. It leads me to believe that there are probably more affluent whites who can afford to send their kids to private than there are affluent blacks.

As a result, you get the inverse in the charter school realm: Lots of blacks, very few whites. That'll change as gentrification has its way.

Unless OP lives in upper NW, or upper caucasia/JKLM/West of the Park or whatever you want to call it, chances are her local DCPS is way less white than whatever charter they might luck into. Something tells me they won't be applying to the schools where their DC will be "the only." And to be fair, neither did we.

Thing is, OP is clearly not comfy with applying if their DC will not be in the MAJORITY. There is a difference between "I don't want to be the only" and "I want majority".

I'm white, and I am thrilled that we're not in the majority, because we're at an awesome charter with diversity (not perfect diversity - see other diversity thread) but it's fantastic. And I am SOOO OK with OP looking elsewhere, wouldn't want to share a school with OP at all.

[Anonymous]

Charters ended all the conventional thinking about which neighborhoods families sought out, and are opening the floodgates for more getrification. It's not just about NW and the JKLM, and for that matter it's not just about the gentrified Hill either - I don't think anyone's thinking about charters (or for that matter many other schools) not having many whites will hold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charters ended all the conventional thinking about which neighborhoods families sought out, and are opening the floodgates for more getrification. It's not just about NW and the JKLM, and for that matter it's not just about the gentrified Hill either - I don't think anyone's thinking about charters (or for that matter many other schools) not having many whites will hold.

I think this is right, though I agree that if OP is this focused on race then a charter school is not the place for him/her. Although certain charters (especially some of the newer schools) may be majority AA for the school as a whole, the AA students are actually concentrated in the upper grades while the lower grades are very high majority white. Each subsequent entering year will likely also be majority white and if then if those kids stay through the higher grades, the racial make up of the schools will change.

[Anonymous]

If the charters hold the line on quality and set expectations high instead of watering the curriculum down and passing student deficiencies on from grade to grade without ever remedying them, then white families will remain there rather than fleeing to privates and the burbs. That criticality increases with each grade.

[Anonymous]

This will be interesting to watch. Do you think those dedicated teachers that signed up to teach at-risk youth will stay at the school to teach the high SES white gentrifiers' kids? Not sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters ended all the conventional thinking about which neighborhoods families sought out, and are opening the floodgates for more getrification. It's not just about NW and the JKLM, and for that matter it's not just about the gentrified Hill either - I don't think anyone's thinking about charters (or for that matter many other schools) not having many whites will hold.

I think this is right, though I agree that if OP is this focused on race then a charter school is not the place for him/her. Although certain charters (especially some of the newer schools) may be majority AA for the school as a whole, the AA students are actually concentrated in the upper grades while the lower grades are very high majority white. Each subsequent entering year will likely also be majority white and if then if those kids stay through the higher grades, the racial make up of the schools will change.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:If the charters hold the line on quality and set expectations high instead of watering the curriculum down and passing student deficiencies on from grade to grade without ever remedying them, then white families will remain there rather than fleeing to privates and the burbs. That criticality increases with each grade.

The implication of this message, as well as the one following it, that only white families care about quality education and are economically successful is not consistent with the reality that I see day-to-day in Washington, DC (including at the charter school one of our children attends).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, my heart goes out to you. I once asked a question about potty training and someone accused me of being a pedophile. You never know what you're gonna get on this site.

In DC, yes, white students are a minority at all the schools. That's because DC is still predominately black. Having grown up here, I've never seen a high number of low-income whites in this city. It leads me to believe that there are probably more affluent whites who can afford to send their kids to private than there are affluent blacks.

As a result, you get the inverse in the charter school realm: Lots of blacks, very few whites. That'll change as gentrification has its way.

I beg to differ. There are many many affluent black people in the city. Of which I am one. As are all of my neighbors. The difference is that there are just more black people here, therefore, there are more poor black people here. It's not that there are more affluent whites.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the charters hold the line on quality and set expectations high instead of watering the curriculum down and passing student deficiencies on from grade to grade without ever remedying them, then white families will remain there rather than fleeing to privates and the burbs. That criticality increases with each grade.

The implication of this message, as well as the one following it, that only white families care about quality education and are economically successful is not consistent with the reality that I see day-to-day in Washington, DC (including at the charter school one of our children attends).

Actually the implication is that whites are more likely to have the option of voting with their feet and going elsewhere if they don't think the schools are going to hold up their end of the bargain. At some point, public schools have to come to grips with the basic realization that they aren't "entitled to the students by default" nor, and more importantly, they aren't "entitled to the money by default".

Public schools have had that attitude for decades (and not just in DC, but in many districts throughout the nation), and that's what's led to the decline in quality, the culture of underperforming and so on.

The money is tied to census demographics, and if the public schools act as though they don't have to do anything special to retain students, then they will end up driving many (taxpaying) families out, to other districts, and will end up losing money as a result. Public schools need to wake up and smell the coffee... If they want those students, they have work at it - they have to EARN them and RETAIN them.

[Anonymous]

Another high SES AA here...DC is a tale of two AA cities. Everyone I know has professional degrees and makes 6 figures. I also work with a lower SES population and often feel like a fish out of water. Yet, I have lived here my whole life and have never met a poor white person who lives in the district.

[Anonymous]

The lower SES white population left DC 50 years ago. First to PG County, now on to Calvert and Charles and points farther away. That makes for a strange situation in this town, where every white person is middle to upper SES, which is certainly not representative of the country (or region). The AA population is also interesting, because despite what some people around here seem to think, there is a very large population of middle-high SES AA in this city.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the charters hold the line on quality and set expectations high instead of watering the curriculum down and passing student deficiencies on from grade to grade without ever remedying them, then white families will remain there rather than fleeing to privates and the burbs. That criticality increases with each grade.

The implication of this message, as well as the one following it, that only white families care about quality education and are economically successful is not consistent with the reality that I see day-to-day in Washington, DC (including at the charter school one of our children attends).

Actually the implication is that whites are more likely to have the option of voting with their feet and going elsewhere if they don't think the schools are going to hold up their end of the bargain. At some point, public schools have to come to grips with the basic realization that they aren't "entitled to the students by default" nor, and more importantly, they aren't "entitled to the money by default".

Public schools have had that attitude for decades (and not just in DC, but in many districts throughout the nation), and that's what's led to the decline in quality, the culture of underperforming and so on.

The money is tied to census demographics, and if the public schools act as though they don't have to do anything special to retain students, then they will end up driving many (taxpaying) families out, to other districts, and will end up losing money as a result. Public schools need to wake up and smell the coffee... If they want those students, they have work at it - they have to EARN them and RETAIN them.

Interesting rant. But, assuming public schools have this attitude, why doesn't it have to change with regard to non-white families who are also interested in quality education and have the financial resources to vote with their feet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will be interesting to watch. Do you think those dedicated teachers that signed up to teach at-risk youth will stay at the school to teach the high SES white gentrifiers' kids? Not sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters ended all the conventional thinking about which neighborhoods families sought out, and are opening the floodgates for more getrification. It's not just about NW and the JKLM, and for that matter it's not just about the gentrified Hill either - I don't think anyone's thinking about charters (or for that matter many other schools) not having many whites will hold.

I think this is right, though I agree that if OP is this focused on race then a charter school is not the place for him/her. Although certain charters (especially some of the newer schools) may be majority AA for the school as a whole, the AA students are actually concentrated in the upper grades while the lower grades are very high majority white. Each subsequent entering year will likely also be majority white and if then if those kids stay through the higher grades, the racial make up of the schools will change.

Many TFA who sign up for combat duty with at-risk youth burn out or move on to other things anyways. On the flipside, a school with more high-SES students might draw good teachers who wouldn't otherwise touch DC schools with a 10 foot pole for all of the horror stories that we all know about.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the charters hold the line on quality and set expectations high instead of watering the curriculum down and passing student deficiencies on from grade to grade without ever remedying them, then white families will remain there rather than fleeing to privates and the burbs. That criticality increases with each grade.

The implication of this message, as well as the one following it, that only white families care about quality education and are economically successful is not consistent with the reality that I see day-to-day in Washington, DC (including at the charter school one of our children attends).

Actually the implication is that whites are more likely to have the option of voting with their feet and going elsewhere if they don't think the schools are going to hold up their end of the bargain. At some point, public schools have to come to grips with the basic realization that they aren't "entitled to the students by default" nor, and more importantly, they aren't "entitled to the money by default".

Public schools have had that attitude for decades (and not just in DC, but in many districts throughout the nation), and that's what's led to the decline in quality, the culture of underperforming and so on.

The money is tied to census demographics, and if the public schools act as though they don't have to do anything special to retain students, then they will end up driving many (taxpaying) families out, to other districts, and will end up losing money as a result. Public schools need to wake up and smell the coffee... If they want those students, they have work at it - they have to EARN them and RETAIN them.

Interesting rant. But, assuming public schools have this attitude, why doesn't it have to change with regard to non-white families who are also interested in quality education and have the financial resources to vote with their feet?

PP here, and that wasn't really a rant, it was just an observation.

It also does have to change if non-whites vote with their feet, but unfortunately there aren't as many who have that option as readily available to them. Despite there being an AA majority in DC, the demographics show that only 2 out of 10 high-SES degreed professionals in DC is AA. Additionally, most whites in DC aren't originally from DC in the first place, and as such are not as adverse to moving outside the city, they don't have any particular emotional attachment as one would if you were born and raised here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters ended all the conventional thinking about which neighborhoods families sought out, and are opening the floodgates for more getrification. It's not just about NW and the JKLM, and for that matter it's not just about the gentrified Hill either - I don't think anyone's thinking about charters (or for that matter many other schools) not having many whites will hold.

I think this is right, though I agree that if OP is this focused on race then a charter school is not the place for him/her. Although certain charters (especially some of the newer schools) may be majority AA for the school as a whole, the AA students are actually concentrated in the upper grades while the lower grades are very high majority white. Each subsequent entering year will likely also be majority white and if then if those kids stay through the higher grades, the racial make up of the schools will change.

No, what will actually happen is the white families peel off to: md or va; private-catholic; rarely, a SFH inbounds for deal.

Even in the very established* PCSs like cap city, lamb, and Latin, you see these departures by white folk. "estsblished" means "school has been around plenty long enough to no longer have the excuse of the 'leading edge' class of desperate early adopters. As in, YYing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, my heart goes out to you. I once asked a question about potty training and someone accused me of being a pedophile. You never know what you're gonna get on this site.

In DC, yes, white students are a minority at all the schools. That's because DC is still predominately black. Having grown up here, I've never seen a high number of low-income whites in this city. It leads me to believe that there are probably more affluent whites who can afford to send their kids to private than there are affluent blacks.

As a result, you get the inverse in the charter school realm: Lots of blacks, very few whites. That'll change as gentrification has its way.

I beg to differ. There are many many affluent black people in the city. Of which I am one. As are all of my neighbors. The difference is that there are just more black people here, therefore, there are more poor black people here. It's not that there are more affluent whites.

The census doesn't support your assertions, 2nd PP. affluence is more prevalent in absolute numbers among whites vs non, (200>100) and absolutely as a percentage of the group as it appears in the pie chart of DC demographics.

Conversely, the percentage of white families that fall below the poverty line is something like 1% in the 2010 census.

The district is a weird bird, demographically.