Ludlow-Taylor getting a new a new Principal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw a picture of the new candidate. My confidence is renewed that LT is headed in the right direction.

I'm AA and I posted this comment. When I did, I was thinking about the saying, "You have to beat the grass to drive out snakes." Evidently, my plan worked flawlessly. Why did I make the comment? Because I really wanted to see if people if there were people IB for LT who hold views about individuals based on race. Sadly, there are despite their level of income and education. Truly, I think we all make some judgements about people based on superficial characteristics. However, we should be advanced enough to recognize that we are and change our thinking. For example, someone recently posted that low-SES children have may have to deal with challenges, at home, that high-SES children don't-like physical abuse and general family dysfunction. However, domestic violence, prescription drug abuse, and alcoholism occurs in many homes regardless of household income. Perhaps, some of the parents who recently spent $900k for a house on G St came from a home, or knows someone from their midwestern hometown, where they dealt with dysfunction. There are a lot of posts about low-SES children being headed by single parent households. Yet, there are numerous high-SES households with divorced parents. The only difference may be that one household never married, and the other married and divorced. The end result is still the same.

Many of you should be able to reasonably acknowledge that there are some clearly prejudiced views about AA children at LT. Additionally, if you are someone who holds prejudiced views about AA children and families, you should not get upset when someone calls you a racist. If you don't want your children to attend school with AA children, then why would you purchase a house in a community filled with AA?

Lastly, for those who think the principal's job is to grow the community, you have little understanding of school leadership. The principal's job is not to grow the neighborhood, that is the job of city planners. According to DCPS, the principal's job is the following:

Leading Instruction
• Articulating a clear instructional vision with a school-wide focus on teaching and learning that is data-driven, standards-aligned and rooted in a belief that all students can achieve at high levels.
• Implementing consistent school-wide instructional practices that are clear, results-oriented and research-based.
• Creating opportunities for ongoing learning and staff development that are informed by data.


Leading Operations
• Executing results-focused school operations and resource management that ensure minimal disruptions to teaching and learning and promote the success of all students and staff.
• Developing and maintaining a purposeful school culture that supports a safe and effective learning environment.
• Aligning human resources to school needs, setting high expectations and effectively managing all school employees to meet school goals.

Leading for Increased Effectiveness
• Focusing on evidence-based growth and results to drive the school towards annual and long-term goals.
• Engaging school community members effectively to ensure all stakeholders are included in school improvement efforts.
• Listening to and communicating with all the school’s stakeholders; building successful interpersonal relationships with faculty, staff members, family and community members and students.
• Managing the change process, including making tough decisions when necessary to move the school and students forward.
• Engaging in constant personal learning, including the need to learn and adapt when faced with challenges and successes.

I agree with most of the post, troll or no troll (that comment was weird!).
With one exception: high-SES families are not moving into a neighborhood full of AA kids, not anymore.

The troll comment really meant that the poster is a sockpuppet trying to instigate discord by acting like a racist against AA people when he says he is AA. The sockpuppet act is weird.

Nothing weird about it. Any commentary about the individuals who obviously hold negative views for AA children? Again, it is sad that in 2014, some people feel that AA are inferior because of some standardized test. The DC-CAS is not a predictor of one's future. The news is filled with many a high-achieving, high-SES white child who throws their life away after becoming addicted to prescription drugs or some other narcotic. Whether you choose to admit it or not, some of you may have family members or friend's whose children are in such a situation. History is also filled with many a non-white child who grew up in adverse circumstances, but through hard work and perseverance have graduated from Ivys and lead successful lives. In fact, an AA male student from Banneker, who grew up in a low-SES, single parent household was recently accepted into 5 Ivy league schools (UPenn, Harvard, Princeton, Brown and Yale). He will be attending Harvard in the fall. Another student, whose family lives at DC general and graduated from Anacostia will be attending Georgetown this fall. You just can't judge people on superficial traits like skin color.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you, but that doesn't justify being a sockpuppet as a means for expression.

[Anonymous]

Troll: You are purposefully inciting racial tensions in a thread about an elementary school. What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Troll: You are purposefully inciting racial tensions in a thread about an elementary school. What is wrong with you?

+1 I'm AA was has deeply hurt by the comments. Now, I'm glad to know it was a troll. Troll, don't do this again. It's not helping anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Troll: You are purposefully inciting racial tensions in a thread about an elementary school. What is wrong with you?

+1 I'm AA was has deeply hurt by the comments. Now, I'm glad to know it was a troll. Troll, don't do this again. It's not helping anyone.

Deeply offended by which comments?

I believe the trolling sock puppetry started at 09:41 yesterday.

[Anonymous]

^^^ Ah, res ipsa loquitur. You made a sockpuppet admission. Get out your mirror.

[Anonymous]

Let's just shut these posts down. There's nothing beneficial to come out of it. Nothing to learn. Nothing to help LT or the community.Nothing to be proud about.

It's very likely that the people causing trouble are not even in the community. I envision a stay-at-home mom in the suburbs who rarely spends time in DC (or working mom that takes too many breaks) feeding this ugly beast and trying to stir up trouble. What a waste of time!

[Anonymous]

Or since it's summer, it may be a kid with too much time on his/her hands. When I reread the comments, I think it's doubtful that the negative comments are coming from an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or since it's summer, it may be a kid with too much time on his/her hands. When I reread the comments, I think it's doubtful that the negative comments are coming from an adult.

+ 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leading for Increased Effectiveness should include a bullet for "Increasing in-boundary percentages with cash bonus awarded to principal, teachers and PTA for each in-boundary student attracted or retained above prek..."

That's a brilliant suggestion! have you thought about providing that feedback to the chancellor's Critical Response Team? Also, do you have any concrete suggestions for how a principal, teacher, or PTA can in-boundary percentages beyond pre-k, especially when parents don't want their children at L-T, for example? What I can't wrap my head around is that so many in-boundary parents on DCUM talk about wanting a neighborhood school yet they don't want to grow the school with their children. It stands to reason that if there is a large percentage of in-boundary ps3, pk4, and k students, and parents keep their in-boundary children enrolled after ps3 - k, they then will have a bona fide neighorhood school with high achieving, high-SES students.

Thanks. I've made this suggestion to Tommy Wells and Charles Allen at any rate, but maybe I should suggest it to the CRT. The cynic in me says that DCPS could care less if neighborhood kids use neighborhood schools as long as seats are filled. If DCPS cared, they wouldn't have stood by these past six or seven years as Watkins has slipped from 40% in-boundary to 21%. Nor would they have let Payne and Miner hover at around one-third in-boundary year after year, even as the neighborhoods around them change radically. No, bonuses are only paid for raising test scores, even if mass cheating is obviously involved (as at L-T in 2009 and 2010).

Concrete suggestions on how L-T could raise in-boundary percentages? Brent and Maury in-boundary parents with kids in the upper grades (I am not one) are the local experts on the subject. Growing LT with one's children is just too big a headache for most in-boundary gentrifiers in a city where lottery seats at far more diverse and upper middle-income friendly schools can be found without much trouble. Look at this thread - posters are called racist at the drop of a hat when the truth is almost always a lot more complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leading for Increased Effectiveness should include a bullet for "Increasing in-boundary percentages with cash bonus awarded to principal, teachers and PTA for each in-boundary student attracted or retained above prek..."

That's a brilliant suggestion! have you thought about providing that feedback to the chancellor's Critical Response Team? Also, do you have any concrete suggestions for how a principal, teacher, or PTA can in-boundary percentages beyond pre-k, especially when parents don't want their children at L-T, for example? What I can't wrap my head around is that so many in-boundary parents on DCUM talk about wanting a neighborhood school yet they don't want to grow the school with their children. It stands to reason that if there is a large percentage of in-boundary ps3, pk4, and k students, and parents keep their in-boundary children enrolled after ps3 - k, they then will have a bona fide neighorhood school with high achieving, high-SES students.

Thanks. I've made this suggestion to Tommy Wells and Charles Allen at any rate, but maybe I should suggest it to the CRT. The cynic in me says that DCPS could care less if neighborhood kids use neighborhood schools as long as seats are filled. If DCPS cared, they wouldn't have stood by these past six or seven years as Watkins has slipped from 40% in-boundary to 21%. Nor would they have let Payne and Miner hover at around one-third in-boundary year after year, even as the neighborhoods around them change radically. No, bonuses are only paid for raising test scores, even if mass cheating is obviously involved (as at L-T in 2009 and 2010).

Concrete suggestions on how L-T could raise in-boundary percentages? Brent and Maury in-boundary parents with kids in the upper grades (I am not one) are the local experts on the subject. Growing LT with one's children is just too big a headache for most in-boundary gentrifiers in a city where lottery seats at far more diverse and upper middle-income friendly schools can be found without much trouble. Look at this thread - posters are called racist at the drop of a hat when the truth is almost always a lot more complicated.

No, folks are not called racist when they are advocating for their child to be in classrooms with fewer disruptions, more advanced opportunities, more diversity, more resources, etc. They are called racist when they make negative assumptions and hold low expecations about other people's children based merely on their skin color.

[Anonymous]

Concrete suggestions on how L-T could raise in-boundary percentages? Brent and Maury in-boundary parents with kids in the upper grades (I am not one) are the local experts on the subject. Growing LT with one's children is just too big a headache for most in-boundary gentrifiers in a city where lottery seats at far more diverse and upper middle-income friendly schools can be found without much trouble. Look at this thread - posters are called racist at the drop of a hat when the truth is almost always a lot more complicated.

First, the high volume traffic and high anxiety on this public schools forum is proof positive that it is "much trouble" to get a seat at one of these schools.

Next, the "truth" of your "headache" isn't about finding friendliness to your middle income. DCPS - or rather MySchoolDC - is very clearly courting gentrifiers, and anyone with an ounce of objectivity could see that the DME proposals have been designed to corral families into their neighborhood schools. At the very least, the unified lottery pretty much forced everyone to take a look at the school down the street, something that parents with other options didn't do previously.

Finally, if you're taking shortcuts - like IB participation - to determine the quality of a school, you are indeed an -ist of some sort. Not wanting your child to be an only is totally understandable. So is the feeling that factors beyond your control, like poverty or a large percentage of English language learners, will dilute the quality of instruction at a school. But the problem comes when you expect - and pressure - a principal, and by context a teacher, to eliminate that factor from a classroom. This is a city with great economic disparity, and when you enter the public school system, you accept that and (for those not in the homogenous upper NW) look for the schools that know how to deal with it.

That's the success of charter schools. They've got the support of a broad range of families and the autonomy to experiment and find solutions that meet diverse needs. If you want your neighborhood school to succeed, commit to the "headache" and convince your neighbors to do the same.

But don't hamstring the school's leaders and staff with your elitist requirements that only upper income kids attend.

[Anonymous]

^^^ I can't fully agree with. Life is a two-way street. DCPS has to innovate and offer a program to attract IB families. It's not just on the IB families to make it work. Otherwise DCPS just needs to go out of business, and make the whole city charter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Concrete suggestions on how L-T could raise in-boundary percentages? Brent and Maury in-boundary parents with kids in the upper grades (I am not one) are the local experts on the subject. Growing LT with one's children is just too big a headache for most in-boundary gentrifiers in a city where lottery seats at far more diverse and upper middle-income friendly schools can be found without much trouble. Look at this thread - posters are called racist at the drop of a hat when the truth is almost always a lot more complicated.

First, the high volume traffic and high anxiety on this public schools forum is proof positive that it is "much trouble" to get a seat at one of these schools.

Next, the "truth" of your "headache" isn't about finding friendliness to your middle income. DCPS - or rather MySchoolDC - is very clearly courting gentrifiers, and anyone with an ounce of objectivity could see that the DME proposals have been designed to corral families into their neighborhood schools. At the very least, the unified lottery pretty much forced everyone to take a look at the school down the street, something that parents with other options didn't do previously.

Finally, if you're taking shortcuts - like IB participation - to determine the quality of a school, you are indeed an -ist of some sort. Not wanting your child to be an only is totally understandable. So is the feeling that factors beyond your control, like poverty or a large percentage of English language learners, will dilute the quality of instruction at a school. But the problem comes when you expect - and pressure - a principal, and by context a teacher, to eliminate that factor from a classroom. This is a city with great economic disparity, and when you enter the public school system, you accept that and (for those not in the homogenous upper NW) look for the schools that know how to deal with it.

That's the success of charter schools. They've got the support of a broad range of families and the autonomy to experiment and find solutions that meet diverse needs. If you want your neighborhood school to succeed, commit to the "headache" and convince your neighbors to do the same.

But don't hamstring the school's leaders and staff with your elitist requirements that only upper income kids attend.

Who needs this preachy screed? If DCPS were indeed courting gentrifiers as you claim, they definitely wouldn't be allowing Watkins to sink, or Payne to remain 1% white in a school district that the US Census tells me was already more than half white in 2010. Yes, 1%, down from a whopping 3% (all in preschool and prek) several years ago.

PPs claim that there's no path for those awful parents with elitist requirements from the LT district to charters or OOB schools where most kids are high SES without spectacular luck. Average stamina is more like it.

Every in-boundary family I know who has stayed the course on the lottery has found an appealing spot no later than 1st grade (charter, SWS, Cap Hill Montessori or OOB). Every one. One in-boundary family I know even home schooled for K to buy time until they cracked a spot. Nobody who can't afford private school needs to put up with the L-T politically correct boosters hassling them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Concrete suggestions on how L-T could raise in-boundary percentages? Brent and Maury in-boundary parents with kids in the upper grades (I am not one) are the local experts on the subject. Growing LT with one's children is just too big a headache for most in-boundary gentrifiers in a city where lottery seats at far more diverse and upper middle-income friendly schools can be found without much trouble. Look at this thread - posters are called racist at the drop of a hat when the truth is almost always a lot more complicated.

First, the high volume traffic and high anxiety on this public schools forum is proof positive that it is "much trouble" to get a seat at one of these schools.

Next, the "truth" of your "headache" isn't about finding friendliness to your middle income. DCPS - or rather MySchoolDC - is very clearly courting gentrifiers, and anyone with an ounce of objectivity could see that the DME proposals have been designed to corral families into their neighborhood schools. At the very least, the unified lottery pretty much forced everyone to take a look at the school down the street, something that parents with other options didn't do previously.

Finally, if you're taking shortcuts - like IB participation - to determine the quality of a school, you are indeed an -ist of some sort. Not wanting your child to be an only is totally understandable. So is the feeling that factors beyond your control, like poverty or a large percentage of English language learners, will dilute the quality of instruction at a school. But the problem comes when you expect - and pressure - a principal, and by context a teacher, to eliminate that factor from a classroom. This is a city with great economic disparity, and when you enter the public school system, you accept that and (for those not in the homogenous upper NW) look for the schools that know how to deal with it.

That's the success of charter schools. They've got the support of a broad range of families and the autonomy to experiment and find solutions that meet diverse needs. If you want your neighborhood school to succeed, commit to the "headache" and convince your neighbors to do the same.

But don't hamstring the school's leaders and staff with your elitist requirements that only upper income kids attend.

Who needs this preachy screed? If DCPS were indeed courting gentrifiers as you claim, they definitely wouldn't be allowing Watkins to sink, or Payne to remain 1% white in a school district that the US Census tells me was already more than half white in 2010. Yes, 1%, down from a whopping 3% (all in preschool and prek) several years ago.

PPs claim that there's no path for those awful parents with elitist requirements from the LT district to charters or OOB schools where most kids are high SES without spectacular luck. Average stamina is more like it.

Every in-boundary family I know who has stayed the course on the lottery has found an appealing spot no later than 1st grade (charter, SWS, Cap Hill Montessori or OOB). Every one. One in-boundary family I know even home schooled for K to buy time until they cracked a spot. Nobody who can't afford private school needs to put up with the L-T politically correct boosters hassling them.

Good point. So why put time and energy into your screed

if everyone who's worthwhile in your esteem has moved on?

What's making you so angry?