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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the language and appreciate the working group telling it like it is. WOTP schools are too white, period.

Too white? Why? Because EOTR is not white at all?

NW is less white than national averages, and it’s less white than many neighborhoods a mile or two away (ie, in other states but closer than EOTR).

So the problem is the DCPS student population from NW is “too white” compared to the student population EOTR.

So the issues include arbitrary borders, historical housing discrimination, self-selected housing preferences, capitalism-based income disparities, discrimination-based income disparities, etc etc.

But sure. Why should DCPS focus energetically on using providing the best educational experience to each of its 40,000 students, when, instead, it can focus on “mitigating whiteness”?

Because segregation is bad. We have, as a country, shown we are not capable of providing equal educational opportunities for schools with white kids versus schools with black kids. It’s easy in the abstract to oppose segregation, but the reaction here shows how hard it is to deal with in the real world.

But my point is that DCPS can’t solve problems for the country, and, more importantly, that it sees the issue from an idiosyncratic angle.

Saying “The schools in NW are too white” is a bizarre thing to say and only makes sense when considering that DC has spent a bunch of recent decades as a majority Black city.”

Or just let me second what a PP said above: White students are not a “problem” in need of managing. The zeal to correct large historical wrongs has thrown perspective off.

Wilson is white because UNW is white.

The only real solution here is to really bus in kids from all over the city: a magnet.

Then build another high school. Then more problems will arise. Or, make the magnet Eastern....

Any school that has upper north west as in bounds will be rich, white, and high performing. Make Wilson a magnet and build Wilson II to handle the IB kids and Wilson II will end up being the higher performing school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White people don’t like it when people say ‘too white’.

But they have no problem saying ‘too Black’ or ‘too Asian’.

Yes isn't that the case!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with that statement OP. We have a problem with resource hogging in this city.

You define resource hogging as "attending your inbounds school?" Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the issue is the word whitening. I’ve never heard that and it does sound hostile or just offensive even if trie. You’d never be caught dead saying blackening that’s for sure.

Right — concentration of white students would have been less awkward

But the problem isn’t the white students (who are IB and just following the rules and attending thei IB schools.) The problem is that black kids’ IB schools are failing.

Yes and that is an extremely difficult problem to fix. Has any large metropolitan school district turned out excellent majority black schools? How did they do it. DcPs should replicate that in addition to creating some all-city magnet schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the issue is the word whitening. I’ve never heard that and it does sound hostile or just offensive even if trie. You’d never be caught dead saying blackening that’s for sure.

Right — concentration of white students would have been less awkward

But the problem isn’t the white students (who are IB and just following the rules and attending thei IB schools.) The problem is that black kids’ IB schools are failing.

This is it exactly.

This "problem" is the result of DCPS completely abdicating its responsibility to work to improve schools for kids all over the city. Instead of putting in the work, it was just much more expedient, and easier, to send kids of color from across the city to Wilson and it's feeders, which were perceived as "good" schools already, and adding feeder rights on top of it. This is the inevitable result. But since there isn't a cadre of strong schools Quite obviously, those schools across the city, DCPS is left with no choice but to try to preserve what OOB access they can.

The result, of course, is more and more poor kids have to trek across the city to go to school. It's idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the language and appreciate the working group telling it like it is. WOTP schools are too white, period.

Too white? Why? Because EOTR is not white at all?

NW is less white than national averages, and it’s less white than many neighborhoods a mile or two away (ie, in other states but closer than EOTR).

So the problem is the DCPS student population from NW is “too white” compared to the student population EOTR.

So the issues include arbitrary borders, historical housing discrimination, self-selected housing preferences, capitalism-based income disparities, discrimination-based income disparities, etc etc.

But sure. Why should DCPS focus energetically on using providing the best educational experience to each of its 40,000 students, when, instead, it can focus on “mitigating whiteness”?

Because segregation is bad. We have, as a country, shown we are not capable of providing equal educational opportunities for schools with white kids versus schools with black kids. It’s easy in the abstract to oppose segregation, but the reaction here shows how hard it is to deal with in the real world.

But my point is that DCPS can’t solve problems for the country, and, more importantly, that it sees the issue from an idiosyncratic angle.

Saying “The schools in NW are too white” is a bizarre thing to say and only makes sense when considering that DC has spent a bunch of recent decades as a majority Black city.”

Or just let me second what a PP said above: White students are not a “problem” in need of managing. The zeal to correct large historical wrongs has thrown perspective off.

White students aren’t a problem, but increasing concentration of white students (“whitening”) is a problem. It’s good that the city is trying to figure out what to do about it.

You realize this comes from people choosing their local DCPS schools, as opposed to opting for private schools, or charters? It's very strange that this is considered a "problem" in some quarters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of white kids in the Deal/Wilson feeder pattern here: I don't have a problem with this language. It's a little clumsy, obviously, but I'm fine with the goal of diverse schools.

OP here:
If you want to promote equity, you discuss the positives - seats for OOB, at risk preferences, benefits for those populations, etc.
You don’t talk about an entire ethnicity as if it’s a “problem” to be solved. This isn’t clumsy; it’s hostile.

So now, what, we're going to be all up in arms about whatever proposal they make because of some dumb language in a PowerPoint? I don't think it's hostile, anyway.

Substitute black for white here and you’d be all over this. Hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Apparently, it isn't racial diversity that concerns DCPS, is SES diversity. From the presentation:

The general profile of the OOB student is they are from Ward 1 and Ward 4 and students of color. But they are not families who qualify as at-risk. Implementing an at-risk preference for OOB seats can help with this.

In other words, middle or upper-class black kids filling the OOB slots isn't sufficient.

[Anonymous]

DCPS is scheduled to re-draw boundaries soon (2022?). How will each scenario affect or be affected by the boundary process?

If they are serious about increasing diversity and supporting at-risk students, they should tighten the boundaries in WOTP schools to reduce the number of IB students and make room for 15% OOB at-risk students which would reduce overcrowding and increase SES diversity in those schools. This would force those OOB students who are not at-risk to use their IB school which would bring more of those schools to capacity, increase neighborhood involvement in the local school and increase SES diversity in those schools.

[Anonymous]

the PP has a real point - the real access they need to maintain is for at-risk students in DC. Those who aren't in at-risk categories would be very welcome at neighborhood schools around DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White people don’t like it when people say ‘too white’.

But they have no problem saying ‘too Black’ or ‘too Asian’.

Yes isn't that the case!!!!

No it really isn’t. What I object to is defining people by skin color rather than the content of their character. Hmm, where have I heard that before?

[Anonymous]

Yeah if DCPS had 10 additional schools that people of all backgrounds would attend, it would greatly increase overall system flexibility. I am convinced now that it's demographics that drive the near-shunning of many EOTP schools by UMC families, not teacher quality, and it's a shame that DCPS won't focus their demographics work on a swath of Ward 1, 2, and 4 where a mix is achievable with neighborhood residents rather than trying to fix the "neighborhood schools" in Upper Northwest by jerry-rigging access methods to them that UMC families from EOTP are bound to continue to game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of white kids in the Deal/Wilson feeder pattern here: I don't have a problem with this language. It's a little clumsy, obviously, but I'm fine with the goal of diverse schools.

OP here:
If you want to promote equity, you discuss the positives - seats for OOB, at risk preferences, benefits for those populations, etc.
You don’t talk about an entire ethnicity as if it’s a “problem” to be solved. This isn’t clumsy; it’s hostile.

So now, what, we're going to be all up in arms about whatever proposal they make because of some dumb language in a PowerPoint? I don't think it's hostile, anyway.

Substitute black for white here and you’d be all over this. Hypocrite.

Gee, can you think of any reasons why, in a majority-white country that allowed black people to be owned and sold as property for hundreds of years and still has massive race-driven structural inequities in place, it would seem worse to talk about growth of a minority black population in schools as a problem than it is to talk about the opposite of that? If not, perhaps you should talk to whoever ran the history classes in whatever school district you attended for high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of white kids in the Deal/Wilson feeder pattern here: I don't have a problem with this language. It's a little clumsy, obviously, but I'm fine with the goal of diverse schools.

OP here:
If you want to promote equity, you discuss the positives - seats for OOB, at risk preferences, benefits for those populations, etc.
You don’t talk about an entire ethnicity as if it’s a “problem” to be solved. This isn’t clumsy; it’s hostile.

So now, what, we're going to be all up in arms about whatever proposal they make because of some dumb language in a PowerPoint? I don't think it's hostile, anyway.

Substitute black for white here and you’d be all over this. Hypocrite.

Gee, can you think of any reasons why, in a majority-white country that allowed black people to be owned and sold as property for hundreds of years and still has massive race-driven structural inequities in place, it would seem worse to talk about growth of a minority black population in schools as a problem than it is to talk about the opposite of that? If not, perhaps you should talk to whoever ran the history classes in whatever school district you attended for high school.

DCPS is not minority Black.

The solution to racism is not racism. You know, two wrongs don’t make a right....

[Anonymous]

This seems like a typical DCPS central office presentation which pretends to be community engagement, but at the outset declares so many "nonnegotiable" requirements and premises that the community engagement is significantly hamstrung. I disagree with many of the nonnegotiable statements in this presentation.

As one example, the current feeder pattern system has a significant negative side effect of diverting many high achieving students and families away from schools east of the part and actually hurting those neighborhoods schools.
Preserving access of out of boundary students into the Wilson feeder pattern in the face of growing in-boundary overcrowding should not be a given that is not open for conversation. It might be the position that the city ends up with after considering the alternatives, but there are other options for achieving equity and providing more opportunities to students in need.