Deal is tremendously overcrowded - something is to give
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
+ 100 |
Anonymous
But if most DCPS kids are from disadvantaged background--77%, based on recent data--why should they cater to one (albeit growing) demographic? Even on its face, that just seems like a bad idea. I'd imagine this is the perspective from which DCPS is operating--i.e., how to best serve the majority. https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/DCPS%20Fast%20Facts%202017-18.pdf |
Anonymous
I think most parents would rather stab themselves in the eyeball than take, e.g., Military Rd from CC, DC to Takoma - which is essentially across town, unless they were doing so for a magnet program. Whereas cutting over from Shepherd Park to Piney Branch is NBD. |
Anonymous
Then send them south to Roosevelt or Cardozo. Plenty of room all over the rest of the city. |
Anonymous
Sorry but folks EOTP have to start investing their time, sweat equity and modest charitable giving in their area schools, rather than continuing to expect to freeride on the efforts of others. |
Anonymous
That commute would be worse, actually. |
Anonymous
Looks like while you see this in terms of non-WOTP areas not pulling their weight, DC leadership/DCPS is seeing it in terms of lifting all boats, including those of struggling communities. Some may feel that serving the majority and focusing on increasing tests scores, increasing access to a quality education, and maintaining integrated schools (since kids from highly educated families tend to do well anywhere) are appropriate goals. Look, I think DC public schools have a long way to go--but just pointing out that their philosophy differs pretty significantly from that of a few WOTP posters here. |
Anonymous
So you're saying winning football rather than strong academics best serves the majority? |
Anonymous
Totally disagree, as a low-income minority who grew up in NYC and attended high-powered neighborhood schools (in Queens). You sound like a white bleeding heart, PP. In NYC, few school system leaders have been troubled by "bad ideas" like GT programs and prioritizing high-octane academics. They've understood that one good way to serve the majority is to keep as many affluent and ambitious parents in the system as possible. I was darn lucky that the NYC public schools catered to advanced students across the board, regardless of background. My cousins in Chicago, who attended Michelle Obama's alma mater, had similar experiences in school. DCPS is simply poorly run and low-ambition by comparison. Voters should demand more. |
Anonymous
The best way to lift all boats is not to be satisfied with a lowest common denominator standard in the name of ‘equity and inclusion.’ That ensures that all will have leaky rowboats. Rather, it is to create true centers of excellence, magnet schools with rigorous standards, to engage and push the industrious students, keep the middle class and give lesser-achieving students an incentive to work harder and aspire to something better. |
Anonymous
PP, I'm black. I'm not opposed to programs like G&T; I benefited from these myself. I was only calling out the somewhat myopic focus on their own interests that a few WOTP posters here seem to have. Note several PPs who've essentially said here and in the other similar thread that they don't care at all about diversity, and simply want their kids in a high-performing (affluent, mostly white) cohort. I am saying that DCPS presumably does not share their vision re: the best way forward for DCPS. I would actually love to see more options for high-achieving kids of all backgrounds, especially on the elementary level. However, DCPS must balance the needs of the majority too. I'd imagine anything that looks like it's catering to the former and/or increasing segregation won't have legs. |
Anonymous
1) That’s not what they said. You added the “affluent, white” part. They want the focus on academic quality. Diversity for diversity’s sake — especially if it compromises academic quality—is folly. 2) That’s precisely the point made above — that DC shies away from serving high-achieving kids due to a fear of optics, even if the substance would be fundamentally sound. |
Anonymous
The days of poor Blacks being a majority are limited. Policy should be based on the future weighed against the rate of return. Most money spent trying to lift dependent populations out of dependence are wasted and little progress. Note DC spends record amounts per student yet the only reason poverty is shrinking in the city is that it is moving out. Get something world class and DC schools, then let it spread from there. |
Anonymous
PP here again. I added the white, affluent part in describing a high-achieving cohort because 1) let's face it, that's what some posters here have intimated they want, and 2) even if not specifically desired by most white families, that's what would happen if there weren't efforts to balance things out a bit, just given the demographics in a city where most white residents are affluent/well-educated and most non-white families are poor and minority. I agree that there should be a focus on academic quality, however defined. Where we disagree is on exactly how much focus to put on ensuring options for high-achieving families relative to other priorities. Diversity--being educated/socializing with other kids who may not share your same economic/racial/ethnic background--is considered a good thing for functioning in the increasingly diverse US, and for other reasons, IMO. But this is sort of a separate discussion. You misunderstood the second point, or perhaps I didn't state it well. I don't think DC shies away from serving high-achieving kids merely due to optics. I think they want to avoid the appearance/reality of prioritizing this small group (who again, will be mostly white and affluent) above other stakeholders, because that would be fundamentally unfair to the majority of DCPS' poor, minority population. Not a lawyer, but I imagine increasingly segregated schools/programs could bring about some legal trouble, too. In other words, the problem with optics is secondary to the inequity that this would create/perpetuate. |
Anonymous
Sorry, but if someone bought a 2 mil house in the Wilson cachement in 2017, what time, sweat equity, and charitable giving did the buyer provide to Wilson and its feeder schools? Aren't they freeloaders? We have lived in DC for 20+ years, paid a shitload in tax, and have volunteered our time to IB elementary, and our kids have the option of a truly horrible NW EC. Great new principal, beautiful new building, horrible horrible scores, and almost no neighborhood children attend. Our options are to try to lottery into cachement/charter, pony up for private, or move to MC or PG+private. You call us freeloaders? Because of your bank account or to make yourself feel better, e.g., for bodily deficiencies? Eff you. |