Why is Oyster only 7% Black?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a profound endorsement for Oyster needing to leave the Deal cluster. Like mucus, it is important somehow, yet grotesque to contemplate too deeply.

Let Oyster and Adams be forever together, in perfect harmony.

(But for those Oyster families who don't like Adams? You get Hardy. The ancient reasons that attached you to Deal have expired. Let it go. LET IT GO!) Look: your new anthem is already a hit!

What are you talking about? And how is your statement relevant to the topic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a profound endorsement for Oyster needing to leave the Deal cluster. Like mucus, it is important somehow, yet grotesque to contemplate too deeply.

Let Oyster and Adams be forever together, in perfect harmony.

(But for those Oyster families who don't like Adams? You get Hardy. The ancient reasons that attached you to Deal have expired. Let it go. LET IT GO!) Look: your new anthem is already a hit!

What are you talking about? And how is your statement relevant to the topic?

Yes, that was a pretty loopy response, wasn't it?! What on Earth is she trying to say?

[Anonymous]

However the students look, Oyster is only 7% black in a public school system that is over 70% black. Why don't you address that point.

That point has already been addressed. It'a a neighborhood school that is predominantly white. It has a special designation where it balances the in boundary population with out of boundary Spanish-dominant speakers. These students are predominantly hispanic. There are very few out of bound slots for english-dominant speakers.

You can ask the same question about each JKLM school; Oyster is not the only school that doesn't reflect an equal population distribution in this city. That's a question for the chancellor and mayor; perhaps that will be addressed when boundaries are redrawn this fall.

By the way, that guy in the picture is totally not black. He can call himself anything he wants, but I would bet my life that he has not faced the same sort of discrimination at school, at work, on the street, or by law enforcement officials than someone who "looks" black. You can say "black" comes in all colors, but there is no way that guy is perceived by others as black first. And discrimination is all about how people perceive you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

However the students look, Oyster is only 7% black in a public school system that is over 70% black. Why don't you address that point.

That point has already been addressed. It'a a neighborhood school that is predominantly white. It has a special designation where it balances the in boundary population with out of boundary Spanish-dominant speakers. These students are predominantly hispanic. There are very few out of bound slots for english-dominant speakers.

You can ask the same question about each JKLM school; Oyster is not the only school that doesn't reflect an equal population distribution in this city. That's a question for the chancellor and mayor; perhaps that will be addressed when boundaries are redrawn this fall.

By the way, that guy in the picture is totally not black. He can call himself anything he wants, but I would bet my life that he has not faced the same sort of discrimination at school, at work, on the street, or by law enforcement officials than someone who "looks" black. You can say "black" comes in all colors, but there is no way that guy is perceived by others as black first. And discrimination is all about how people perceive you.

why does being black=discrimination? I would think OP is merely commenting on the fact OA lacks a 'Benneton' appearance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
By the way, that guy in the picture is totally not black. He can call himself anything he wants, but I would bet my life that he has not faced the same sort of discrimination at school, at work, on the street, or by law enforcement officials than someone who "looks" black. You can say "black" comes in all colors, but there is no way that guy is perceived by others as black first. And discrimination is all about how people perceive you.

The guy in the picture IS totally black, by US customs and practice. Back in the day he would have been barred from voting or attending white schools if anyone knew his ancestry. Heck, if he were to run into a klansman tomorrow I doubt he'd be embraced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a profound endorsement for Oyster needing to leave the Deal cluster. Like mucus, it is important somehow, yet grotesque to contemplate too deeply.

Let Oyster and Adams be forever together, in perfect harmony.

(But for those Oyster families who don't like Adams? You get Hardy. The ancient reasons that attached you to Deal have expired. Let it go. LET IT GO!) Look: your new anthem is already a hit!

What are you talking about? And how is your statement relevant to the topic?

Yes, that was a pretty loopy response, wasn't it?! What on Earth is she trying to say?

She's probably on drugs (hopefully prescribed and designed to help address mental health issues)

[Anonymous]

I feel like this thread is the same two or three people posting on the other oyster thread. Get a hobby, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this thread is the same two or three people posting on the other oyster thread. Get a hobby, people.

Now that you have posted, that makes three or four. It looks as if you need to get a hobby as well. Lol!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By the way, that guy in the picture is totally not black. He can call himself anything he wants, but I would bet my life that he has not faced the same sort of discrimination at school, at work, on the street, or by law enforcement officials than someone who "looks" black. You can say "black" comes in all colors, but there is no way that guy is perceived by others as black first. And discrimination is all about how people perceive you.

The guy in the picture IS totally black, by US customs and practice. Back in the day he would have been barred from voting or attending white schools if anyone knew his ancestry. Heck, if he were to run into a klansman tomorrow I doubt he'd be embraced.

There is some validity (and some inaccuracies) in what both of you are saying. The guy in the photo is "black," as it is socially constructed in this country, because that is how he chooses to identify himself. However, if he chose to identify as white, few would question him (white supremacists who cling to the "one drop rule" aside). We are no longer living, for the most part, in a society that discriminates against people based solely on their racial ancestry. If someone looks white, they will generally be treated as such, whatever that entails (i.e., hailing a taxi, applying for a job, casual encounters with law enforcement, etc). If people only know that you're black because you tell them, your life experiences will be very different from those who are clearly black from a distance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By the way, that guy in the picture is totally not black. He can call himself anything he wants, but I would bet my life that he has not faced the same sort of discrimination at school, at work, on the street, or by law enforcement officials than someone who "looks" black. You can say "black" comes in all colors, but there is no way that guy is perceived by others as black first. And discrimination is all about how people perceive you.

The guy in the picture IS totally black, by US customs and practice. Back in the day he would have been barred from voting or attending white schools if anyone knew his ancestry. Heck, if he were to run into a klansman tomorrow I doubt he'd be embraced.

There is some validity (and some inaccuracies) in what both of you are saying. The guy in the photo is "black," as it is socially constructed in this country, because that is how he chooses to identify himself. However, if he chose to identify as white, few would question him (white supremacists who cling to the "one drop rule" aside). We are no longer living, for the most part, in a society that discriminates against people based solely on their racial ancestry. If someone looks white, they will generally be treated as such, whatever that entails (i.e., hailing a taxi, applying for a job, casual encounters with law enforcement, etc). If people only know that you're black because you tell them, your life experiences will be very different from those who are clearly black from a distance.

And what is your expertise in this matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By the way, that guy in the picture is totally not black. He can call himself anything he wants, but I would bet my life that he has not faced the same sort of discrimination at school, at work, on the street, or by law enforcement officials than someone who "looks" black. You can say "black" comes in all colors, but there is no way that guy is perceived by others as black first. And discrimination is all about how people perceive you.

The guy in the picture IS totally black, by US customs and practice. Back in the day he would have been barred from voting or attending white schools if anyone knew his ancestry. Heck, if he were to run into a klansman tomorrow I doubt he'd be embraced.

There is some validity (and some inaccuracies) in what both of you are saying. The guy in the photo is "black," as it is socially constructed in this country, because that is how he chooses to identify himself. However, if he chose to identify as white, few would question him (white supremacists who cling to the "one drop rule" aside). We are no longer living, for the most part, in a society that discriminates against people based solely on their racial ancestry. If someone looks white, they will generally be treated as such, whatever that entails (i.e., hailing a taxi, applying for a job, casual encounters with law enforcement, etc). If people only know that you're black because you tell them, your life experiences will be very different from those who are clearly black from a distance.

And what is your expertise in this matter?

Um, let's see: Common sense, personal experience and observation. I sure hope that my "expertise" passes muster with you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a profound endorsement for Oyster needing to leave the Deal cluster. Like mucus, it is important somehow, yet grotesque to contemplate too deeply.

Let Oyster and Adams be forever together, in perfect harmony.

(But for those Oyster families who don't like Adams? You get Hardy. The ancient reasons that attached you to Deal have expired. Let it go. LET IT GO!) Look: your new anthem is already a hit!

Ah, the person who is pushing an "astroturf" (i.e., faux 'grass roots') campaign to push Oyster out of Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I asked this question on the DCPS demographic thread, but I’m interested in hearing if any current Oyster parents have some insight. I think Oyster now has the lowest percentage of Black students in any DCPS. Given DCPS’ overall demographic make-up, and Oyster’s proximity to Adams Morgan and Mount Pleasant, I would expect to see a much higher percentage. Further, I think the percentage of Black students at Oyster was at 12 or 13% six to eight years ago. I’m not trying to insinuate that anything untoward is happening at Oyster, I’m just interested in why there has been such a dramatic demographic change in a relatively short period of time.

To answer part of your question that has not been addressed, the change in % is due to the outflow of English-speaking only AA families who were grandfathered into to Oyster when it merged with Adams elementary in 2007. The merger was basically because the principal in 2005, not the current one, wanted a building for a bilingual middle school extension of Oyster. Inconveniently for her, the Adams building housed an English-only elementary school that was nearly all OOB (parents worked nearby) and mostly AA. Much public debate and rancor ensued. Who knows what went on behind closed doors. No need to rehash how Rhee fired that principal.

For a somewhat sanitized view of the merger, read the excerpt from the current principal's promotion speech in 2010. Nine of the 38 graduates had started at Adams elementary.

"The Adams School history comes from the days when students were segregated by color. There was the John Quincy Adams School that was for white students and the Thomas P. Morgan School that was for black students. (Adams school had the better amenities. It was the first school in DC with bathrooms on every floor and the first school with a cafeteria.) The two schools formed the community now called Adams-Morgan. Beginning in the late 1940’s, a group of parents filed a complaint called Bolling vs. Sharpe calling to integrate the brand new Sousa Junior High School that was built in Anacostia. In 1954, the same year that Brown vs. the Board of Education was decided (this is the Supreme Court Case decision that decided that separate but equal educational opportunities for children was unconstitutional), the Supreme Court ruled to desegregate Sousa and in 1955, all school in DC were desegregated and the Morgan School eventually closed.

Fast forward to 2005…The Oyster school, about a mile away geographically from Adams, was bursting at its seams. Over-enrolled with no space to grow into middle grades, classrooms housed in the library, a group of parents also decided to become active and together with Principal Guzmán, maneuvered a complicated merging of two very different schools to become one. In the fall of 2007, Oyster students merged with Adams students and the rest is history. I didn’t live this merging of schools—most of you did— but I know it couldn’t have been easy on anyone.

And so I’d like to recognize the nine original Adams School students who are graduating today. Nine who weathered the merge, who were thrown into a dual language program, who demonstrated “living graciously” to an extreme."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked this question on the DCPS demographic thread, but I’m interested in hearing if any current Oyster parents have some insight. I think Oyster now has the lowest percentage of Black students in any DCPS. Given DCPS’ overall demographic make-up, and Oyster’s proximity to Adams Morgan and Mount Pleasant, I would expect to see a much higher percentage. Further, I think the percentage of Black students at Oyster was at 12 or 13% six to eight years ago. I’m not trying to insinuate that anything untoward is happening at Oyster, I’m just interested in why there has been such a dramatic demographic change in a relatively short period of time.

To answer part of your question that has not been addressed, the change in % is due to the outflow of English-speaking only AA families who were grandfathered into to Oyster when it merged with Adams elementary in 2007. The merger was basically because the principal in 2005, not the current one, wanted a building for a bilingual middle school extension of Oyster. Inconveniently for her, the Adams building housed an English-only elementary school that was nearly all OOB (parents worked nearby) and mostly AA. Much public debate and rancor ensued. Who knows what went on behind closed doors. No need to rehash how Rhee fired that principal.

For a somewhat sanitized view of the merger, read the excerpt from the current principal's promotion speech in 2010. Nine of the 38 graduates had started at Adams elementary.

"The Adams School history comes from the days when students were segregated by color. There was the John Quincy Adams School that was for white students and the Thomas P. Morgan School that was for black students. (Adams school had the better amenities. It was the first school in DC with bathrooms on every floor and the first school with a cafeteria.) The two schools formed the community now called Adams-Morgan. Beginning in the late 1940’s, a group of parents filed a complaint called Bolling vs. Sharpe calling to integrate the brand new Sousa Junior High School that was built in Anacostia. In 1954, the same year that Brown vs. the Board of Education was decided (this is the Supreme Court Case decision that decided that separate but equal educational opportunities for children was unconstitutional), the Supreme Court ruled to desegregate Sousa and in 1955, all school in DC were desegregated and the Morgan School eventually closed.

Fast forward to 2005…The Oyster school, about a mile away geographically from Adams, was bursting at its seams. Over-enrolled with no space to grow into middle grades, classrooms housed in the library, a group of parents also decided to become active and together with Principal Guzmán, maneuvered a complicated merging of two very different schools to become one. In the fall of 2007, Oyster students merged with Adams students and the rest is history. I didn’t live this merging of schools—most of you did— but I know it couldn’t have been easy on anyone.

And so I’d like to recognize the nine original Adams School students who are graduating today. Nine who weathered the merge, who were thrown into a dual language program, who demonstrated “living graciously” to an extreme."

PP, good intentions there but you're a bit confused. There wasn't any merger. Adams had failed as a school and was to be closed. DCPS didn't know what to do with it (give it to a charter?) and that's when Oyster made the proposal to absorb and run the Adams campus (not the school itself, which was closed) as part of a combined education campus, from PK to 8th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a profound endorsement for Oyster needing to leave the Deal cluster. Like mucus, it is important somehow, yet grotesque to contemplate too deeply.

Let Oyster and Adams be forever together, in perfect harmony.

(But for those Oyster families who don't like Adams? You get Hardy. The ancient reasons that attached you to Deal have expired. Let it go. LET IT GO!) Look: your new anthem is already a hit!

Ah, the person who is pushing an "astroturf" (i.e., faux 'grass roots') campaign to push Oyster out of Deal.

As opposed to what? Those pushing for a geography-based reason to move Oyster to Hardy? Or those pushing an academically-based reason to move Oyster to Adams? Or perhaps everyone? Because if it makes sense to move Eaton to Hardy (and it does), then it makes even more sense to move Oyster to Hardy.