This American Life about desegregation in schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the series was interesting from a human interest perspective, but was very much simplified the issues. I found it problematic that CT was spending tons of resources and money recruiting white suburban children (who could get a perfectly fine education in their own towns) to come to magnet schools while minority families couldn't get admission to those same schools because then they wouldn't be integrated. Sorry, but that's really screwed up.

I couldn't even imagine that happening in this area. It's different because it's not one state, but let's imagine that DCPS decides to pour resources into opening a brand new magnet HS in Anacostia. Gorgeous building, all the resources you could possibly want. Rather than allow underprivileged children from that neighborhood attend, it instead spends $$$ recruiting white, privileged children from MoCO to attend, thereby taking up spaces that DC kids could have had.

I think you just described the general theme of Duke Ellington. Lot's of DC money spent on it, and it benefits kids from MD and VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the series was interesting from a human interest perspective, but was very much simplified the issues. I found it problematic that CT was spending tons of resources and money recruiting white suburban children (who could get a perfectly fine education in their own towns) to come to magnet schools while minority families couldn't get admission to those same schools because then they wouldn't be integrated. Sorry, but that's really screwed up.

I couldn't even imagine that happening in this area. It's different because it's not one state, but let's imagine that DCPS decides to pour resources into opening a brand new magnet HS in Anacostia. Gorgeous building, all the resources you could possibly want. Rather than allow underprivileged children from that neighborhood attend, it instead spends $$$ recruiting white, privileged children from MoCO to attend, thereby taking up spaces that DC kids could have had.

I think you just described the general theme of Duke Ellington. Lot's of DC money spent on it, and it benefits kids from MD and VA.

Ah yes, the magnet arts high school in Georgetown, where residents want to move the students to some place east of the park so they can reclaim the building for neighborhood kids not privileged enough for private school.

[Anonymous]

Right now DCPS is spending tens of millions on school modernizations for high schools like Dunbar and Cardozo and Woodson and Coolidge and the grade level percentiles are still in the 30th percent range. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right now DCPS is spending tens of millions on school modernizations for high schools like Dunbar and Cardozo and Woodson and Coolidge and the grade level percentiles are still in the 30th percent range. . .

And? The students who attend there are largely coming from poor families. Did you expect that a new school building was all that was needed to fix the issues associated with poverty? Would you prefer to warehouse poor students in a crappy building?
I'd rather spend our DC money on buildings that my less fortunate DC neighbors use than on buildings that MD / VA people use. Now if MD & VA want to renovate Ellington, I'd be fine with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right now DCPS is spending tens of millions on school modernizations for high schools like Dunbar and Cardozo and Woodson and Coolidge and the grade level percentiles are still in the 30th percent range. . .

Yeah, I don't get the point of this comment at all. Are you trying to say that the schools should stay dilapidated until the scores come up?

These areas have been under the weight of concentrated poverty for decades; you can't turn that around in 2-3 years. But population projections are showing an exponential increase in school-aged children in the next 20 years and real estate trends seem to indicate that they'll be households with much higher incomes. I don't have any data, but it's likely that it's the expanded tax base coming from gentrification in these neighborhoods that's allowing the modernization.

[Anonymous]

The point is that when you take a failing kid living in poverty and put him in a brand new multi million dollar school with best teachers he will still fail. You can't solve problems by throwing money at them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right now DCPS is spending tens of millions on school modernizations for high schools like Dunbar and Cardozo and Woodson and Coolidge and the grade level percentiles are still in the 30th percent range. . .

Yeah, I don't get the point of this comment at all. Are you trying to say that the schools should stay dilapidated until the scores come up?

These areas have been under the weight of concentrated poverty for decades; you can't turn that around in 2-3 years. But population projections are showing an exponential increase in school-aged children in the next 20 years and real estate trends seem to indicate that they'll be households with much higher incomes. I don't have any data, but it's likely that it's the expanded tax base coming from gentrification in these neighborhoods that's allowing the modernization.

At least you recognize " I don't have any data." Then stop the blah blah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point is that when you take a failing kid living in poverty and put him in a brand new multi million dollar school with best teachers he will still fail.

And so?

Anonymous wrote: You can't solve problems by throwing money at them.

That's a lame cop-out. There's plenty that money can do. Just fixing facilities isn't going to do it. Having money for councilors / therapists and wrap around services for the child / family will certainly improve their outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that when you take a failing kid living in poverty and put him in a brand new multi million dollar school with best teachers he will still fail.

And so?

Anonymous wrote: You can't solve problems by throwing money at them.

That's a lame cop-out. There's plenty that money can do. Just fixing facilities isn't going to do it. Having money for councilors / therapists and wrap around services for the child / family will certainly improve their outcome.

Would every family attending the school be eligible for these "wrap around services," or would there be some sort of benchmark? Sounds like a real opportunity. Just asking.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, each family will be assigned a counselor, a life coach and tutors in every subject. And maybe a librarian who will visit them daily and read outlaud to the child.

[Anonymous]

It's cheaper to take kids out of these families and put them in hosting middle class families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's cheaper to take kids out of these families and put them in hosting middle class families.

Or provide reasonable paths for people to reach middle class, but that's one for the politics forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, each family will be assigned a counselor, a life coach and tutors in every subject. And maybe a librarian who will visit them daily and read outlaud to the child.

And while you work on mocking whole groups of people, consider reading your post 'outlaud' to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, each family will be assigned a counselor, a life coach and tutors in every subject. And maybe a librarian who will visit them daily and read outlaud to the child.

And while you work on mocking whole groups of people, consider reading your post 'outlaud' to yourself.

I didn't read that poster's response "outlaud," but I re-read it, and to me it seems a reasonable response to a proposal for mandated "wrap around services." What kind of cost are we talking about here, and who would qualify, and how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point is that when you take a failing kid living in poverty and put him in a brand new multi million dollar school with best teachers he will still fail. You can't solve problems by throwing money at them.

No, the point is that these schools will be changing demographically over the next two decades, which will raise the scores. But that won't happen if the higher SES families who have babies and toddlers right now decide that their high schoolers won't be going to a run down school.