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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The super weird thing about the idea of 'mitigating whitening' is that what is causing the whitening is more and more WOTP families are choosing public schools. That should be celebrated, and adapted to, with strategies to preserve and promote socioeconomic and ethnic diversity (I'm the PP who wrote that earlier), while welcoming back into the public school system the families that had historically eschewed public schools for privates or moved.

From a social progress perspective, have more WOTP families chose public is not a problem to mitigate, it is a fantastic development to take into account as we work toward integration.

You are very right. BUT, no one since Williams and Fenty has seen it that way. The DC government has been pretty clear that they don't actually want students with educated parents in the schools, since we bring expectations for developing our high-achieving students that they would rather not deal with.

I'm the PP you are agreeing with.... except I just cannot agree with you back.

I'm further to the left than most, and definitely further than you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did DCPS apologize for the phrasing or at least edit the wording?

The language was very intentional. This is how they talk now. Please don't let them continue to do this. Parents need to speak up.

Not sure why some white people want so badly to play the victim, you're not. DCPS owes you nothing.

It's a pretty big problem when a public school district believes it owes the citizens in its own jurisdiction and the students in its own schools nothing. You can't be serious. DCPS is obligated to educate all of its students to according to their ability to make the most of each child's years in school. That's the explicit reason they exist. The fact that it has become socially acceptable to outright claim this is not so is bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The super weird thing about the idea of 'mitigating whitening' is that what is causing the whitening is more and more WOTP families are choosing public schools. That should be celebrated, and adapted to, with strategies to preserve and promote socioeconomic and ethnic diversity (I'm the PP who wrote that earlier), while welcoming back into the public school system the families that had historically eschewed public schools for privates or moved.

From a social progress perspective, have more WOTP families chose public is not a problem to mitigate, it is a fantastic development to take into account as we work toward integration.

You are very right. BUT, no one since Williams and Fenty has seen it that way. The DC government has been pretty clear that they don't actually want students with educated parents in the schools, since we bring expectations for developing our high-achieving students that they would rather not deal with.

I'm the PP you are agreeing with.... except I just cannot agree with you back.

I'm further to the left than most, and definitely further than you are.

Fair, but how many years has DCPS been in your life? I've sent a child all the way through, so my opinion is based on years of experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did DCPS apologize for the phrasing or at least edit the wording?

The language was very intentional. This is how they talk now. Please don't let them continue to do this. Parents need to speak up.

Not sure why some white people want so badly to play the victim, you're not. DCPS owes you nothing.

It's a pretty big problem when a public school district believes it owes the citizens in its own jurisdiction and the students in its own schools nothing. You can't be serious. DCPS is obligated to educate all of its students to according to their ability to make the most of each child's years in school. That's the explicit reason they exist. The fact that it has become socially acceptable to outright claim this is not so is bizarre.

YES!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The super weird thing about the idea of 'mitigating whitening' is that what is causing the whitening is more and more WOTP families are choosing public schools. That should be celebrated, and adapted to, with strategies to preserve and promote socioeconomic and ethnic diversity (I'm the PP who wrote that earlier), while welcoming back into the public school system the families that had historically eschewed public schools for privates or moved.

From a social progress perspective, have more WOTP families chose public is not a problem to mitigate, it is a fantastic development to take into account as we work toward integration.

You are very right. BUT, no one since Williams and Fenty has seen it that way. The DC government has been pretty clear that they don't actually want students with educated parents in the schools, since we bring expectations for developing our high-achieving students that they would rather not deal with.

Ah yes, only whites are educated. No, they would rather not deal with the fake 'woke' whites who flock to DC.

Well, that actually wasn't my contention, and I intentionally shifted the language from one of race to include all parents with high expectations because that's the real issue that focusing on race obscures. But, as CRT replaces the explicit teaching of logic in the curriculum, it may come to pass that no public school students are actually educated and I think your misunderstanding suggests your reading material hasn't done much for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not okay for a government agency to make disparaging remarks about any race, full stop. At best the wording was clumsy. An apology or at least clarification is in order

You're right, but DC is doing this now. I think the discourse surrounding vaccination was another recent example. We had government officials openly demonizing groups of eligible citizens for actually doing exactly what they were supposed to do to sign up for appointments, but the language used to justifying cutting off parts of the city from a shared resource made them sound like monsters.

It's a scary trend and I think DC needs to get the strong message that yes, they are responsible for providing city services to ALL their citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The super weird thing about the idea of 'mitigating whitening' is that what is causing the whitening is more and more WOTP families are choosing public schools. That should be celebrated, and adapted to, with strategies to preserve and promote socioeconomic and ethnic diversity (I'm the PP who wrote that earlier), while welcoming back into the public school system the families that had historically eschewed public schools for privates or moved.

From a social progress perspective, have more WOTP families chose public is not a problem to mitigate, it is a fantastic development to take into account as we work toward integration.

You are very right. BUT, no one since Williams and Fenty has seen it that way. The DC government has been pretty clear that they don't actually want students with educated parents in the schools, since we bring expectations for developing our high-achieving students that they would rather not deal with.

Ah yes, only whites are educated. No, they would rather not deal with the fake 'woke' whites who flock to DC.

Well, that actually wasn't my contention, and I intentionally shifted the language from one of race to include all parents with high expectations because that's the real issue that focusing on race obscures. But, as CRT replaces the explicit teaching of logic in the curriculum, it may come to pass that no public school students are actually educated and I think your misunderstanding suggests your reading material hasn't done much for you.

This thread is about white parents, perhaps you should work on your inference skills. But it's a nice try at veiled racism, as usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not okay for a government agency to make disparaging remarks about any race, full stop. At best the wording was clumsy. An apology or at least clarification is in order

You're right, but DC is doing this now. I think the discourse surrounding vaccination was another recent example. We had government officials openly demonizing groups of eligible citizens for actually doing exactly what they were supposed to do to sign up for appointments, but the language used to justifying cutting off parts of the city from a shared resource made them sound like monsters.

It's a scary trend and I think DC needs to get the strong message that yes, they are responsible for providing city services to ALL their citizens.

LOL. Limiting whitening is not a disparaging remark. Limiting white privilege is not a bad thing for a district to do, I'm actually quite surprised they worded it the way they did.
But of course all the commenters getting angry about the wording are those who don't believe in white privilege, don't care, or just ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not okay for a government agency to make disparaging remarks about any race, full stop. At best the wording was clumsy. An apology or at least clarification is in order

You're right, but DC is doing this now. I think the discourse surrounding vaccination was another recent example. We had government officials openly demonizing groups of eligible citizens for actually doing exactly what they were supposed to do to sign up for appointments, but the language used to justifying cutting off parts of the city from a shared resource made them sound like monsters.

It's a scary trend and I think DC needs to get the strong message that yes, they are responsible for providing city services to ALL their citizens.

LOL. Limiting whitening is not a disparaging remark. Limiting white privilege is not a bad thing for a district to do, I'm actually quite surprised they worded it the way they did.
But of course all the commenters getting angry about the wording are those who don't believe in white privilege, don't care, or just ignorant.

Of course it is disparaging. Stop your gaslighting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not okay for a government agency to make disparaging remarks about any race, full stop. At best the wording was clumsy. An apology or at least clarification is in order

You're right, but DC is doing this now. I think the discourse surrounding vaccination was another recent example. We had government officials openly demonizing groups of eligible citizens for actually doing exactly what they were supposed to do to sign up for appointments, but the language used to justifying cutting off parts of the city from a shared resource made them sound like monsters.

It's a scary trend and I think DC needs to get the strong message that yes, they are responsible for providing city services to ALL their citizens.

LOL. Limiting whitening is not a disparaging remark. Limiting white privilege is not a bad thing for a district to do, I'm actually quite surprised they worded it the way they did.
But of course all the commenters getting angry about the wording are those who don't believe in white privilege, don't care, or just ignorant.

Of course it is disparaging. Stop your gaslighting.

We are tired of white privilege being the norm. I'm sorry Martha but it's seriously time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The super weird thing about the idea of 'mitigating whitening' is that what is causing the whitening is more and more WOTP families are choosing public schools. That should be celebrated, and adapted to, with strategies to preserve and promote socioeconomic and ethnic diversity (I'm the PP who wrote that earlier), while welcoming back into the public school system the families that had historically eschewed public schools for privates or moved.

From a social progress perspective, have more WOTP families chose public is not a problem to mitigate, it is a fantastic development to take into account as we work toward integration.

You are very right. BUT, no one since Williams and Fenty has seen it that way. The DC government has been pretty clear that they don't actually want students with educated parents in the schools, since we bring expectations for developing our high-achieving students that they would rather not deal with.

Ah yes, only whites are educated. No, they would rather not deal with the fake 'woke' whites who flock to DC.

Well, that actually wasn't my contention, and I intentionally shifted the language from one of race to include all parents with high expectations because that's the real issue that focusing on race obscures. But, as CRT replaces the explicit teaching of logic in the curriculum, it may come to pass that no public school students are actually educated and I think your misunderstanding suggests your reading material hasn't done much for you.

This thread is about white parents, perhaps you should work on your inference skills. But it's a nice try at veiled racism, as usual.

Actually, you're the only one, of the two of us, thinking about race. This thread, and the DCPS statement, and you, are wrong to talk about Whiteness as a relevant factor. That's not the point. It's a convenient demon that relieves DCPS of responsibility for the achievement of ALL of its students.

I want presume that parents of every race who send their kids to school want their kids to be supported at a level that offers them the right amount of challenge to help them grow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not okay for a government agency to make disparaging remarks about any race, full stop. At best the wording was clumsy. An apology or at least clarification is in order

You're right, but DC is doing this now. I think the discourse surrounding vaccination was another recent example. We had government officials openly demonizing groups of eligible citizens for actually doing exactly what they were supposed to do to sign up for appointments, but the language used to justifying cutting off parts of the city from a shared resource made them sound like monsters.

It's a scary trend and I think DC needs to get the strong message that yes, they are responsible for providing city services to ALL their citizens.

LOL. Limiting whitening is not a disparaging remark. Limiting white privilege is not a bad thing for a district to do, I'm actually quite surprised they worded it the way they did.
But of course all the commenters getting angry about the wording are those who don't believe in white privilege, don't care, or just ignorant.

I do not believe white privilege is as significant a factor in the course of an individual's achievement, or indeed in the course of world (or even just American) history, as you, CRT, and apparently now the DC government make it out to be. Your paradigm is faulty and it needs to stop being accepted as fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not okay for a government agency to make disparaging remarks about any race, full stop. At best the wording was clumsy. An apology or at least clarification is in order

You're right, but DC is doing this now. I think the discourse surrounding vaccination was another recent example. We had government officials openly demonizing groups of eligible citizens for actually doing exactly what they were supposed to do to sign up for appointments, but the language used to justifying cutting off parts of the city from a shared resource made them sound like monsters.

It's a scary trend and I think DC needs to get the strong message that yes, they are responsible for providing city services to ALL their citizens.

LOL. Limiting whitening is not a disparaging remark. Limiting white privilege is not a bad thing for a district to do, I'm actually quite surprised they worded it the way they did.
But of course all the commenters getting angry about the wording are those who don't believe in white privilege, don't care, or just ignorant.

Of course it is disparaging. Stop your gaslighting.

We are tired of white privilege being the norm. I'm sorry Martha but it's seriously time.

We are tired of subpar trolling like “Martha.” Do better.

[Anonymous]

It seems it would have been a better a strategic move to substitute “white supremacy and systemic racism” for “whiteness” or even “toxic whiteness” would have probably been wiser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not okay for a government agency to make disparaging remarks about any race, full stop. At best the wording was clumsy. An apology or at least clarification is in order

You're right, but DC is doing this now. I think the discourse surrounding vaccination was another recent example. We had government officials openly demonizing groups of eligible citizens for actually doing exactly what they were supposed to do to sign up for appointments, but the language used to justifying cutting off parts of the city from a shared resource made them sound like monsters.

It's a scary trend and I think DC needs to get the strong message that yes, they are responsible for providing city services to ALL their citizens.

LOL. Limiting whitening is not a disparaging remark. Limiting white privilege is not a bad thing for a district to do, I'm actually quite surprised they worded it the way they did.
But of course all the commenters getting angry about the wording are those who don't believe in white privilege, don't care, or just ignorant.

I do not believe white privilege is as significant a factor in the course of an individual's achievement, or indeed in the course of world (or even just American) history, as you, CRT, and apparently now the DC government make it out to be. Your paradigm is faulty and it needs to stop being accepted as fact.

Tell that to George Floyd and the others.