Study: "Discussions of D.C. public school options in an online forum" (yes, this one)

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, whenever you ask people to take a critical look at themselves- the reaction is defensive.

To ask DCUM users if a critique of DCUM users is accurate is naturally not going to end well. Asking people if they are in privileged bubble is not going to go well. Because if you are in a bubble, by definition you do not know that you are.

In general I have found many on this board to be totally blind to the realities of DC Public Schools and blind to your own motivations behind how you move in this space. Is it segregation- kinda sorta. But mostly in the way that we would all select calm.caring, and safe places for our own children.

I think the rub comes in with it is juxtaposed with the self identification as a liberal community with a strong NIMBY action plan.

What you say is true, but does not rule out that the study is still flawed and unfair. Even you are not completely willing to agree with the report's conclusion.

What this report "reveals" is that a group of largely white, largely affluent posters who primarily live in largely white, largely affluent neighborhoods mostly talk about their local schools which are are largely white, largely affluent. It is true that largely white, largely affluent posters do not spend a lot of time talking about schools in parts of the city in which they do not live and which have poor academic outcomes. Why it took them four years and a word frequency analysis of 10 years worth of posts to figure this out is beyond me.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious - because the DCUM community is a "group of largely white, largely affluent posters who primarily live in largely white, largely affluent neighborhoods", it doesn't matter whether individual participants are racist or anti-racist or whatever. It's not a "bunch of segregationists" or a "bunch of Klan members" (jsteele's characterization of how the study portrays DCUM) but is a community segregated from other communities in DC by race, class, and geography.

jsteele knows that DCUM is a forum for rich white people who live in rich white neighborhoods and seems to be 100% fine with that, since he keeps bringing it up and acting like it's no big deal.

(OK one person noticed this: "you know your demo because that is what you sell to advertisers. and the fact that your site isn't inclusive is what they are studying")

The problem isn't the individuals. It's the community. And it's the community jsteele wants. Maybe that's why he's so defensive about and feels personally targeted by a study that exposes his community's failings - it ends up being an accurate study of his failings.

Maybe I should be nicer and protect jsteele's feelings so that it's easier for him to hear.

But I have enough respect for his ability to act like an adult and think about the idea of taking action to make DCUM be a forum that is for the entire city of Washington DC and not only its rich white neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Banneker is a decent school but only within DCPS would it be considered excellent. In most states, it would be mediocre. But DC unfortunately has settled for low standards. I don’t understand why Banneker kids don’t go to better colleges. You can accuse me of being ratings obsessed but the fact is it does matter where you go to college especially for minority and low income kids. The ivys are over-hyped but it is well known that they can make a huge difference for poor, first gen and minority kids. For upperclass white kids, where they go matters a bit less. I think Banneker is underperforming for the kids they claim to serve.

You’re ratings obsessed but Banneker is rated #99 in the country and Washington Latin is #9500. Latin is ranked #16 for high schools in WASHINGTON DC!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS - I have to say when people say they don’t want to disrespect the sanctity of the HBCU atmosphere at Banneker, it’s quite insulting. Especially given the gentrification that already happens in this city in so many other parts of the city.

The only response I want to hear and would respect is that you don’t want your child to be an only. It’s a practical and respectable response. However, I would counter that response by asking why can’t some families rally together like that did with Hardy to make it so they’re not an only. I imagine if today Banneker published demographics showing 8% white, the number of applicants would go up 1000% in just one year.

do you think it’s racist for white kids not to apply to HBCUs?

Not PP, but I don't think it's the same. You're looking for a high school within a few miles of your house, but that doesn't describe most people who go to residential colleges, so you just have a much wider set of options at the college level. If your HS list is "Wilson, SWW, BASIS, or Latin, or else private school/we move," then you're willing to pay a really big price to avoid your kid being one of the only white kids in a way that you're not if you're doing a national (or even regional) college search and avoiding HBCUs.

Yes, it’s the same. There are many very good HBCUs (Howard just to name one) and nobody calls white kids racist for not applying.

This is DC. Everyone calls everyone racist FOR EVERYTHING.

I'm not calling anyone racist. But I think if you were insistent on going to college within DC proper and the cost of not doing that was going to be extremely high, you should look at Howard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS - I have to say when people say they don’t want to disrespect the sanctity of the HBCU atmosphere at Banneker, it’s quite insulting. Especially given the gentrification that already happens in this city in so many other parts of the city.

The only response I want to hear and would respect is that you don’t want your child to be an only. It’s a practical and respectable response. However, I would counter that response by asking why can’t some families rally together like that did with Hardy to make it so they’re not an only. I imagine if today Banneker published demographics showing 8% white, the number of applicants would go up 1000% in just one year.

do you think it’s racist for white kids not to apply to HBCUs?

Not PP, but I don't think it's the same. You're looking for a high school within a few miles of your house, but that doesn't describe most people who go to residential colleges, so you just have a much wider set of options at the college level. If your HS list is "Wilson, SWW, BASIS, or Latin, or else private school/we move," then you're willing to pay a really big price to avoid your kid being one of the only white kids in a way that you're not if you're doing a national (or even regional) college search and avoiding HBCUs.

Yes, it’s the same. There are many very good HBCUs (Howard just to name one) and nobody calls white kids racist for not applying.

This is DC. Everyone calls everyone racist FOR EVERYTHING.

You know it’s not the same to compare a college to a local high school. But if you want to talk about Howard, the white population there is 3 times HIGHER than at Banneker, in a city where many don’t have better options. NOW that is a telling statistic!!! And Howard has gotten really hard to get into. My niece didn’t get in with a 3.8 GPA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, whenever you ask people to take a critical look at themselves- the reaction is defensive.

To ask DCUM users if a critique of DCUM users is accurate is naturally not going to end well. Asking people if they are in privileged bubble is not going to go well. Because if you are in a bubble, by definition you do not know that you are.

In general I have found many on this board to be totally blind to the realities of DC Public Schools and blind to your own motivations behind how you move in this space. Is it segregation- kinda sorta. But mostly in the way that we would all select calm.caring, and safe places for our own children.

I think the rub comes in with it is juxtaposed with the self identification as a liberal community with a strong NIMBY action plan.

What you say is true, but does not rule out that the study is still flawed and unfair. Even you are not completely willing to agree with the report's conclusion.

What this report "reveals" is that a group of largely white, largely affluent posters who primarily live in largely white, largely affluent neighborhoods mostly talk about their local schools which are are largely white, largely affluent. It is true that largely white, largely affluent posters do not spend a lot of time talking about schools in parts of the city in which they do not live and which have poor academic outcomes. Why it took them four years and a word frequency analysis of 10 years worth of posts to figure this out is beyond me.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious - because the DCUM community is a "group of largely white, largely affluent posters who primarily live in largely white, largely affluent neighborhoods", it doesn't matter whether individual participants are racist or anti-racist or whatever. It's not a "bunch of segregationists" or a "bunch of Klan members" (jsteele's characterization of how the study portrays DCUM) but is a community segregated from other communities in DC by race, class, and geography.

jsteele knows that DCUM is a forum for rich white people who live in rich white neighborhoods and seems to be 100% fine with that, since he keeps bringing it up and acting like it's no big deal.

(OK one person noticed this: "you know your demo because that is what you sell to advertisers. and the fact that your site isn't inclusive is what they are studying")

The problem isn't the individuals. It's the community. And it's the community jsteele wants. Maybe that's why he's so defensive about and feels personally targeted by a study that exposes his community's failings - it ends up being an accurate study of his failings.

Maybe I should be nicer and protect jsteele's feelings so that it's easier for him to hear.

But I have enough respect for his ability to act like an adult and think about the idea of taking action to make DCUM be a forum that is for the entire city of Washington DC and not only its rich white neighborhoods.

Geez. It’s a private business offering a free-to-use platform to all comers, not Augusta National. What obligation does Jeff have to insist that some people use his site more and others less?!

There are communities of like-minded, demographically-similar people all over the place — churches, the Boys and Girls Club, the Fringe Festival crowd, whatever. There is nothing wrong with providing non-exclusive service to people who want it.

[Anonymous]

I'm a white, middle-class (used to UMC but things have changed for us a lot financially) parent in NE DC. I have long wished there was a way to discuss schools on DCUM that wasn't so centered on the upper NW schools.

But it's not DCUM that pushes parents like me (as well as many of my black and latino neighbors) to charters. It's the fact that our IB school isn't very good and it's really hard to get into a decent DCPS from OOB. I don't love charters and would rather send my kid to the local school. In fact, I currently do. But I'm not opposed to charters because I want my kid to have a positive education experience. I understand all the institutional factors, including white supremacy, that weigh on our IB and make it harder for it to be considered a "good" school. But contrary to the opinions of many, it's not even test scores that are the central issue. There are lots of charters with similar test scores, as well as many popular charters that don't even report PARCC scores because they are too new or small to do so.

Nope, the reason we apply to the lottery is because our school has to work so hard to meet the needs of the many at risk kids that attend. Poverty, homelessness, exposure to trauma, family turmoil (usually related to one of the foregoing factors) is just very common. And of course those kids need more. But when you have a school that is 95% kids with those needs, and your kid is one of the 5%, it's hard. Are you helping anyone by staying? It's not even clear that we are. And it feels like we could really be harming our child because they are generally treated as getting their needs met outside of school and thus not considered a priority. Ever.

So while I think there is something to the criticism of DCUM as a haven for rich white parents, I agree with Jeff that what you see on DCUM largely reflects forces outside the control of individual parents, or even groups of parents. I am involved at my kids school (and yet, not too involved, as I don't want to be seen as the interloping, demanding white mom) and would love to make it better. But honestly, what we really need to do is make the lives of these kids better so that it doesn't fall entirely on the school to address all of these issues (something they don't do very well anyway, even with many resources devoted to improving outcomes for at-risk kids). So yes, we apply to the lottery and we consider moving out of the city. We want our child at a diverse school and we are fine with them attending a school where white students are a distinct minority. But it should be possible to do this without also just accepting that my child will never have access to support or programming that even meets their basic education needs (like grade-level reading instruction, or access to arts activities that are a particular area of interest). It feels like parental malpractice to just be fine with that. So sue me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banneker is a decent school but only within DCPS would it be considered excellent. In most states, it would be mediocre. But DC unfortunately has settled for low standards. I don’t understand why Banneker kids don’t go to better colleges. You can accuse me of being ratings obsessed but the fact is it does matter where you go to college especially for minority and low income kids. The ivys are over-hyped but it is well known that they can make a huge difference for poor, first gen and minority kids. For upperclass white kids, where they go matters a bit less. I think Banneker is underperforming for the kids they claim to serve.

You’re ratings obsessed but Banneker is rated #99 in the country and Washington Latin is #9500. Latin is ranked #16 for high schools in WASHINGTON DC!!

The ratings don't mean anything. The proof is in the pudding. Where do the top students at a given high school go to college? If the answer isn't Harvard/Yale/Princeton, your schools is nothing special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, whenever you ask people to take a critical look at themselves- the reaction is defensive.

To ask DCUM users if a critique of DCUM users is accurate is naturally not going to end well. Asking people if they are in privileged bubble is not going to go well. Because if you are in a bubble, by definition you do not know that you are.

In general I have found many on this board to be totally blind to the realities of DC Public Schools and blind to your own motivations behind how you move in this space. Is it segregation- kinda sorta. But mostly in the way that we would all select calm.caring, and safe places for our own children.

I think the rub comes in with it is juxtaposed with the self identification as a liberal community with a strong NIMBY action plan.

What you say is true, but does not rule out that the study is still flawed and unfair. Even you are not completely willing to agree with the report's conclusion.

What this report "reveals" is that a group of largely white, largely affluent posters who primarily live in largely white, largely affluent neighborhoods mostly talk about their local schools which are are largely white, largely affluent. It is true that largely white, largely affluent posters do not spend a lot of time talking about schools in parts of the city in which they do not live and which have poor academic outcomes. Why it took them four years and a word frequency analysis of 10 years worth of posts to figure this out is beyond me.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious - because the DCUM community is a "group of largely white, largely affluent posters who primarily live in largely white, largely affluent neighborhoods", it doesn't matter whether individual participants are racist or anti-racist or whatever. It's not a "bunch of segregationists" or a "bunch of Klan members" (jsteele's characterization of how the study portrays DCUM) but is a community segregated from other communities in DC by race, class, and geography.

jsteele knows that DCUM is a forum for rich white people who live in rich white neighborhoods and seems to be 100% fine with that, since he keeps bringing it up and acting like it's no big deal.

(OK one person noticed this: "you know your demo because that is what you sell to advertisers. and the fact that your site isn't inclusive is what they are studying")

The problem isn't the individuals. It's the community. And it's the community jsteele wants. Maybe that's why he's so defensive about and feels personally targeted by a study that exposes his community's failings - it ends up being an accurate study of his failings.

Maybe I should be nicer and protect jsteele's feelings so that it's easier for him to hear.

But I have enough respect for his ability to act like an adult and think about the idea of taking action to make DCUM be a forum that is for the entire city of Washington DC and not only its rich white neighborhoods.

Buzz off. It’s obvious what you’re doing. You will claim that this website is not for “the entire city” unless Mr. Steele silences all non-woke perspectives here. You’re wrong about him, you are wrong about this site, you are wrong about what the study “exposes.” It’s silly for anyone to engage with you, since you are not acting in good faith about any of this. Mr. Steele has done much more for this community than your warmed-over talking points ever will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, whenever you ask people to take a critical look at themselves- the reaction is defensive.

To ask DCUM users if a critique of DCUM users is accurate is naturally not going to end well. Asking people if they are in privileged bubble is not going to go well. Because if you are in a bubble, by definition you do not know that you are.

In general I have found many on this board to be totally blind to the realities of DC Public Schools and blind to your own motivations behind how you move in this space. Is it segregation- kinda sorta. But mostly in the way that we would all select calm.caring, and safe places for our own children.

I think the rub comes in with it is juxtaposed with the self identification as a liberal community with a strong NIMBY action plan.

What you say is true, but does not rule out that the study is still flawed and unfair. Even you are not completely willing to agree with the report's conclusion.

What this report "reveals" is that a group of largely white, largely affluent posters who primarily live in largely white, largely affluent neighborhoods mostly talk about their local schools which are are largely white, largely affluent. It is true that largely white, largely affluent posters do not spend a lot of time talking about schools in parts of the city in which they do not live and which have poor academic outcomes. Why it took them four years and a word frequency analysis of 10 years worth of posts to figure this out is beyond me.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious - because the DCUM community is a "group of largely white, largely affluent posters who primarily live in largely white, largely affluent neighborhoods", it doesn't matter whether individual participants are racist or anti-racist or whatever. It's not a "bunch of segregationists" or a "bunch of Klan members" (jsteele's characterization of how the study portrays DCUM) but is a community segregated from other communities in DC by race, class, and geography.

jsteele knows that DCUM is a forum for rich white people who live in rich white neighborhoods and seems to be 100% fine with that, since he keeps bringing it up and acting like it's no big deal.

(OK one person noticed this: "you know your demo because that is what you sell to advertisers. and the fact that your site isn't inclusive is what they are studying")

The problem isn't the individuals. It's the community. And it's the community jsteele wants. Maybe that's why he's so defensive about and feels personally targeted by a study that exposes his community's failings - it ends up being an accurate study of his failings.

Maybe I should be nicer and protect jsteele's feelings so that it's easier for him to hear.

But I have enough respect for his ability to act like an adult and think about the idea of taking action to make DCUM be a forum that is for the entire city of Washington DC and not only its rich white neighborhoods.

Geez. It’s a private business offering a free-to-use platform to all comers, not Augusta National. What obligation does Jeff have to insist that some people use his site more and others less?!

There are communities of like-minded, demographically-similar people all over the place — churches, the Boys and Girls Club, the Fringe Festival crowd, whatever. There is nothing wrong with providing non-exclusive service to people who want it.

he doesn't have any "obligation" but he does seem upset that his site helps perpetuate DC segregation and has asked for suggestions on what to do

[Anonymous]

Lot of rice white and so-called liberal thinkers on the defensive on this thread, Jeff in particular. Self-reflection can be tough. You can criticize the methods behind this report all you want, but there is more than a kernel of truth to it to conclusions. Jeff, you are making money off of rich white folks. That’s just the way it is.

I commend to all of you the recent New York Times bestseller “white fragility: why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism.” Many of you, in particular the moderator of this website, could learn from it.

[Anonymous]

*rich not rice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was really about race, you'd see daycares being segregated too. (Why would all these supposedly racist people wait until elementary or high school to start being racist?)

But has anyone ever heard of a black daycare? Or a predominantly white daycare?

No, no one has ever heard of that.

That's because this isn't about race. This is about public schools in DC being awful and people not wanting to send their kids to awful schools.

Oh, but that discussion is about nannies v. daycare.

i have kids and honestly ive never met anyone who has a nanny. people with nannies seem rare.

That's because we aren't rich. The people who I know with nannies are like my ob/gyn, my boss, etc. Or maybe think not individual nannies, but nanny-shares. Or maybe think au pairs.

But the dialogue there seems to be that the BEST thing is to have a nanny or au pair, then the next is to have a nanny share, then daycares. These discussions are likely also racially coded, in the sense that race and class go hand-in-hand, particularly in DC.

I think you're missing the point. The larger point here is that daycares are extremely diverse (at least all the ones I've ever come into contact with), and that shouldnt be the case if everyone is supposedly as racist as people on this thread to seem assume.

DP. One can opt to send their 8 month old to a diverse daycare or even have a black nanny. I am a “what’s wrong with Banneker poster” and I have to say, I still don’t think people opting out of Banneker are outright racist. Again, they wouldn’t live in DC, Petworth, Columbia Heights if that were the case. They wouldn’t send their kid to even Wilson. The issue is, there is definitely something racially motivating driving some white families to not look at Banneker. I see it happen all the time. White people are fine with a safe number of people that don’t look like them, but when it gets closer to 75-80%, the comfort level changes. There have been many studies in here that show white families, all things equal, will choose to self-segregate or even have racial components e a driving factor for them. Let’s admit, many of the racial issues of our entire country are due to “some” white men dealing with the fact that they are losing their power in numbers and are realizing they are no longer going to be a majority in this country.

I am not asking families to opt into a failing Eastern as some people keep taking about. I’m simply asking for a reason people don’t look at a top 100 school that’s centrally located with metro accessibility.

Because Banneker isn't 75-80% non-white, it's 98% non-white. It would take a very self-confident student who is super comfortable not only with being the "only" but also with dealing with their own biases and having those conversations to attend Banneker as a 2%-er. I want you to consider your own white kids and if you would expect them to attend Banneker - not only they need to be that amazingly racially sensitive and honestly a standout human, but also willing to take on the workload and style of Banneker!

The other alternative is to band together a small group of white kids to attend Banneker - that would be an interesting social experiment but sounds a lot like let's gentrify Banneker.

I admit I would LOVE my kid to be that one kid who feels totally awesome at Banneker. Thanks for giving me a goal. But living in DC, that's not likely. This ish is hard.

dude this is the life of black people like every day, figuring out how to navigate 98% white spaces they manage to be "amazingly racially sensitive and honestly a standout human"

white people can do it too!

Um....but would they do it if they had another option? Is this something they actively choose to do, for reasons of pure charity to integrate white spaces? No! I hope you can see the absurdity of the comparison. Indeed I'm sure it's pretty damn tiresome to navigate 98% white spaces all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, whenever you ask people to take a critical look at themselves- the reaction is defensive.

To ask DCUM users if a critique of DCUM users is accurate is naturally not going to end well. Asking people if they are in privileged bubble is not going to go well. Because if you are in a bubble, by definition you do not know that you are.

In general I have found many on this board to be totally blind to the realities of DC Public Schools and blind to your own motivations behind how you move in this space. Is it segregation- kinda sorta. But mostly in the way that we would all select calm.caring, and safe places for our own children.

I think the rub comes in with it is juxtaposed with the self identification as a liberal community with a strong NIMBY action plan.

What you say is true, but does not rule out that the study is still flawed and unfair. Even you are not completely willing to agree with the report's conclusion.

What this report "reveals" is that a group of largely white, largely affluent posters who primarily live in largely white, largely affluent neighborhoods mostly talk about their local schools which are are largely white, largely affluent. It is true that largely white, largely affluent posters do not spend a lot of time talking about schools in parts of the city in which they do not live and which have poor academic outcomes. Why it took them four years and a word frequency analysis of 10 years worth of posts to figure this out is beyond me.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious - because the DCUM community is a "group of largely white, largely affluent posters who primarily live in largely white, largely affluent neighborhoods", it doesn't matter whether individual participants are racist or anti-racist or whatever. It's not a "bunch of segregationists" or a "bunch of Klan members" (jsteele's characterization of how the study portrays DCUM) but is a community segregated from other communities in DC by race, class, and geography.

jsteele knows that DCUM is a forum for rich white people who live in rich white neighborhoods and seems to be 100% fine with that, since he keeps bringing it up and acting like it's no big deal.

(OK one person noticed this: "you know your demo because that is what you sell to advertisers. and the fact that your site isn't inclusive is what they are studying")

The problem isn't the individuals. It's the community. And it's the community jsteele wants. Maybe that's why he's so defensive about and feels personally targeted by a study that exposes his community's failings - it ends up being an accurate study of his failings.

Maybe I should be nicer and protect jsteele's feelings so that it's easier for him to hear.

But I have enough respect for his ability to act like an adult and think about the idea of taking action to make DCUM be a forum that is for the entire city of Washington DC and not only its rich white neighborhoods.

Buzz off. It’s obvious what you’re doing. You will claim that this website is not for “the entire city” unless Mr. Steele silences all non-woke perspectives here. You’re wrong about him, you are wrong about this site, you are wrong about what the study “exposes.” It’s silly for anyone to engage with you, since you are not acting in good faith about any of this. Mr. Steele has done much more for this community than your warmed-over talking points ever will.

huh how does making DCUM a forum for the entire city mean silencing all non-woke perspectives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lot of rice white and so-called liberal thinkers on the defensive on this thread, Jeff in particular. Self-reflection can be tough. You can criticize the methods behind this report all you want, but there is more than a kernel of truth to it to conclusions. Jeff, you are making money off of rich white folks. That’s just the way it is.

I commend to all of you the recent New York Times bestseller “white fragility: why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism.” Many of you, in particular the moderator of this website, could learn from it.

+1
As a teacher who was previously really pissed off from being called racist, it takes time to and a willingness to accept your imperfections to realize you are contributing to the problems instead of the solutions. Proud to be working hard to come out on the other side. Parents on here who are upset, I get that nobody likes the stigma, but you also have some reflecting to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot of rice white and so-called liberal thinkers on the defensive on this thread, Jeff in particular. Self-reflection can be tough. You can criticize the methods behind this report all you want, but there is more than a kernel of truth to it to conclusions. Jeff, you are making money off of rich white folks. That’s just the way it is.

I commend to all of you the recent New York Times bestseller “white fragility: why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism.” Many of you, in particular the moderator of this website, could learn from it.

+1
As a teacher who was previously really pissed off from being called racist, it takes time to and a willingness to accept your imperfections to realize you are contributing to the problems instead of the solutions. Proud to be working hard to come out on the other side. Parents on here who are upset, I get that nobody likes the stigma, but you also have some reflecting to do.

He’s probably a witch too. I mean, once you define denial of an accusation to be proof of that accusation, why not?