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

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so "too angry still" i guess.

the adult thing to do is to not indulge your hurt feelings but to respond to the rest of the suggestion. Someone questioned whether you have any "obligation" to change your site's demographics. The authors didn't have any obligation to protect your feelings. It's an accurate portrayal of the forum's zeitgeist. suck it up and decide whether you want your community to change or not.

It's not my feelings that are the issue. What expertise does this author have? Her data analysis was trash. I know nothing about her other than she produced a report that is laughable in its quality. Why would I ever turn to such a person for advice? Based on what I know, the advice is likely to be wrong and probably counter-productive.

Ok, guess I was wrong about you being an adult. You know the lead author is a Harvard PhD and a senior fellow at Brookings. And you've even admitted the report boils down to the finding that rich white people living in rich white neighborhoods talk more about schools in rich white neighborhoods, which you said was obvious.

Seriously, what's more likely:

a) The authors are legitimate experts who did valid research, but you feel personally attacked and are flailing about to find ways to "prove" the Mean Thing Said About You was wrong, or

b) You calmly and dispassionately have proven the authors have scammed their way into doctorates and professorships and think tanks and produced trash and the Washington Post and NPR and all the others praising and promoting the report are part of the conspiracy against you

?

I hate criticism too! It makes me feel bad. and angry! And I have some friends who will say no matter what, "Nah you didn't do anything wrong, they're just haters and they're stupid". But my better friends are the ones who can tell me "Yeah, this criticism is fair. It doesn't mean you're a bad person. I'm here to help you do a better job."

I assume that you are one of the authors so would you mind ending the charade and letting us know which one?

Scholars are judged by their work. I don't care about credentials. What do you say about the inherent sampling errors resulting from the geographic concentration of our user base? What do you say about the failure to correct samples for school size? What do you say about the fact that the report compares attention to charter schools which draw upon the entire District for their students to neighborhood schools that draw from a defined boundary? These are all basic data analysis errors that don't require a Harvard education to identify (and, to be clear, I found them and have no such education).

Please drop the condescension. There are legitimate problems with this report. It may hurt your feelings to acknowledge them, but this is not about feelings -- yours or mine.

so sticking with option b

[Anonymous]

Out of cynicism, I went and read the "study" and immediately concluded it is just as bad as this (not unbiased) forum says it is: I mean, using one sub-forum's discussion of car price data to bootstrap a conclusion that ALL of the site's users are rich (and most likely white)? Ludicrous! You would at least need to look at volume of users within each sub-forum to come to a tentative conclusion like that. Ignoring the already stated fact that there is no concrete race data for the site's participants. And, of course, the worst, from the "conclusion" section of the "study": "When privileged parents choose, they tend to choose segregation." I mean, why use such a pejorative term as "segregation?" Even the "study" itself acknowledges that there are several factors that complicate an assessment of the popularity of any school...yet, they just gotta go with "segregation," in order to cancel each and every participant of DCUM as (now proven) white racists. This is just shameful stuff... and I'd hazard a guess that it's self-hating stuff, at that.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I assume that you are one of the authors so would you mind ending the charade and letting us know which one?

Scholars are judged by their work. I don't care about credentials. What do you say about the inherent sampling errors resulting from the geographic concentration of our user base? What do you say about the failure to correct samples for school size? What do you say about the fact that the report compares attention to charter schools which draw upon the entire District for their students to neighborhood schools that draw from a defined boundary? These are all basic data analysis errors that don't require a Harvard education to identify (and, to be clear, I found them and have no such education).

Please drop the condescension. There are legitimate problems with this report. It may hurt your feelings to acknowledge them, but this is not about feelings -- yours or mine.

so sticking with option b

LOL. So typical. Credentials don't replace substance. Get back to us when you have something substantive to contribute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Banneker does send kids to those schools. More than Latin. So now what?

Latin HS is tiny. Almost all Banneker kids go to decent or meh schools. I’m guessing the college advising is not great at Banneker. That could be one issue. Also, their lack of emphasis on sports and extracurricular activities could be another issue. I think their goal of getting kids to just any college could be more ambitious. Given they do better than most of DCPS means there is no pressure on them to aim higher. That is unfortunate. They are too complacent and a bit old school. They don’t offer Computer Science for example. Banneker kids deserve more in my opinion.

So that’s why people pay thousands for a college counselor. Just stop with the BS already and be happy with the wildly successful college counselors at Wilson.

People pay thousands for college counselors because they are gullible. Colleges don't care at all about that stuff.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I assume that you are one of the authors so would you mind ending the charade and letting us know which one?

Scholars are judged by their work. I don't care about credentials. What do you say about the inherent sampling errors resulting from the geographic concentration of our user base? What do you say about the failure to correct samples for school size? What do you say about the fact that the report compares attention to charter schools which draw upon the entire District for their students to neighborhood schools that draw from a defined boundary? These are all basic data analysis errors that don't require a Harvard education to identify (and, to be clear, I found them and have no such education).

Please drop the condescension. There are legitimate problems with this report. It may hurt your feelings to acknowledge them, but this is not about feelings -- yours or mine.

so sticking with option b

LOL. So typical. Credentials don't replace substance. Get back to us when you have something substantive to contribute.

quick switch there from "I love when posters are honest and treat me like the adult that I am"

do you want to broaden the demographics of your forum of being for rich white people or don't you?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I assume that you are one of the authors so would you mind ending the charade and letting us know which one?

Scholars are judged by their work. I don't care about credentials. What do you say about the inherent sampling errors resulting from the geographic concentration of our user base? What do you say about the failure to correct samples for school size? What do you say about the fact that the report compares attention to charter schools which draw upon the entire District for their students to neighborhood schools that draw from a defined boundary? These are all basic data analysis errors that don't require a Harvard education to identify (and, to be clear, I found them and have no such education).

Please drop the condescension. There are legitimate problems with this report. It may hurt your feelings to acknowledge them, but this is not about feelings -- yours or mine.

so sticking with option b

LOL. So typical. Credentials don't replace substance. Get back to us when you have something substantive to contribute.

quick switch there from "I love when posters are honest and treat me like the adult that I am"

do you want to broaden the demographics of your forum of being for rich white people or don't you?

Yes, but I need no advice from a hack academic whose only work of which I am aware is full of basic data analysis errors that nobody is willing to address.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White affluent parents do a lot of things that exacerbate racial inequities--moving to segregated neighborhoods, choosing schools w/larger white populations, redshirting, pandemic pods, etc., all in the name of "doing what's best for my kids." I hope with more recent scholarship on these issues (opportunity hoarding, etc.), this leads to some reflection.

Reflection by itself is meaningless. I reflect every time I eat an extra brownie. That doesn't stop me from eating it. At some point, the narrative will have to move beyond name-calling and shaming and start proposing ideas for changing things. If parents are faced with an inbound DCPS school in which over half the kids are not a grade level and you can't convince them that this is still a good opportunity for their child, they will avoid the school. Whether they avoid it by going OOB, charter, private, or moving probably doesn't matter much, but they will avoid it.

And these "ideas for change" cannot be "white parents need to decide to do better." Relying on individual action to address systemic problems is unrealistic and likely futile.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I assume that you are one of the authors so would you mind ending the charade and letting us know which one?

Scholars are judged by their work. I don't care about credentials. What do you say about the inherent sampling errors resulting from the geographic concentration of our user base? What do you say about the failure to correct samples for school size? What do you say about the fact that the report compares attention to charter schools which draw upon the entire District for their students to neighborhood schools that draw from a defined boundary? These are all basic data analysis errors that don't require a Harvard education to identify (and, to be clear, I found them and have no such education).

Please drop the condescension. There are legitimate problems with this report. It may hurt your feelings to acknowledge them, but this is not about feelings -- yours or mine.

so sticking with option b

LOL. So typical. Credentials don't replace substance. Get back to us when you have something substantive to contribute.

quick switch there from "I love when posters are honest and treat me like the adult that I am"

do you want to broaden the demographics of your forum of being for rich white people or don't you?

Yes, but I need no advice from a hack academic whose only work of which I am aware is full of basic data analysis errors that nobody is willing to address.

yeah take your advice from anons it's been working great so far

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Out of cynicism, I went and read the "study" and immediately concluded it is just as bad as this (not unbiased) forum says it is: I mean, using one sub-forum's discussion of car price data to bootstrap a conclusion that ALL of the site's users are rich (and most likely white)? Ludicrous! You would at least need to look at volume of users within each sub-forum to come to a tentative conclusion like that. Ignoring the already stated fact that there is no concrete race data for the site's participants. And, of course, the worst, from the "conclusion" section of the "study": "When privileged parents choose, they tend to choose segregation." I mean, why use such a pejorative term as "segregation?" Even the "study" itself acknowledges that there are several factors that complicate an assessment of the popularity of any school...yet, they just gotta go with "segregation," in order to cancel each and every participant of DCUM as (now proven) white racists. This is just shameful stuff... and I'd hazard a guess that it's self-hating stuff, at that.

Best answer yet ^^

[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!

Sure. But it's very difficult Black kids (and adults) to deal with that pressure. They do it because they often have no choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Sure. But it's very difficult Black kids (and adults) to deal with that pressure. They do it because they often have no choice.

Sure would be terrible for White kids to develop any empathy for that experience. They might even grow up into the type of person who would want to change society.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I love when posters are honest and treat me like the adult that I am. So, thank you PP. I appreciate your post. Since you were honest, I will also be honest. The DCUM community is heavily represented by white, affluent, well-educated women. Of course that is not representative of the entire community, but that describes the core. And, you know what? I am very proud of that community. I have always said that I will put the DCUM community up against any other online community. My pride is not due to their race, wealth, gender, or education, though I appreciate all of those things. I am proud because for over 15 years they have consistently and ably responded to complete strangers with whom they may have nothing in common to offer support and assistance. They are funny, entertaining, extremely helpful, and, let's face it, sometimes really big pains in the ass. But, this is a great community and nobody will change my mind about that.

You are right about another thing. Our audience is an extremely marketable demographic. But, do you know what I did to create that audience? Nothing. Do you know what I do to maintain it? Nothing. Let's be honest. I am male. I don't make law partner money and am not in the same socio-economic class as many of our users (though I make more than I deserve). I am rude and frequently piss off our users. There is no good explanation for how I could create such a community which I hope makes it easy to believe the truth, which is that I didn't. I'm just the guy who serves the drinks and washes the glasses and occasionally tosses out a disruptive customer.

I've have made efforts to attract other voices to the forum. But, we don't have an advertising budget and never have had. We do no marketing. This community was created organically, more often in spite of me than because of me. I wish it would grow to include others and I think it has, though not to the extent that I would like.

I know that it is pretty common to think "Jeff just has to do this and that will happen", but that doesn't even work with my kids, let alone an audience of hundreds of thousands. If I really could control segregation in the District, I would be selling corporate sponsorships for weekly school desegregation's. You know, "This week's school desegregation brought to you by AT&T. Enroll your white, upper class kid in this Title 1 school. It's safe, secure, and reliable, just like AT&T's mobile service." But, things don't work that way.

I am happy to work with you to help expand our user base. Just let me know how I can help.

Except for the most part they actually DO have much in common with the strangers that you refer to, right? I mean, as you said, this site is heavily a single demographic. It's largely the same demographic helping each other out. It's also a demographic that needs less help than most others . . .

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Except for the most part they actually DO have much in common with the strangers that you refer to, right? I mean, as you said, this site is heavily a single demographic. It's largely the same demographic helping each other out. It's also a demographic that needs less help than most others . . .

Well, that's the thing. The person getting the help might be a Harvard-educated Brookings fellow who obviously is quite superior to our run-of-the-mill posters or it might be a low-life website owner. Either case, they get the same help because nobody knows which they are. Beautiful isn't it? Instead of producing reports tarnishing DCUM's reputation, those who want to assist the underserved should be helping them logon on here to get advice.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except for the most part they actually DO have much in common with the strangers that you refer to, right? I mean, as you said, this site is heavily a single demographic. It's largely the same demographic helping each other out. It's also a demographic that needs less help than most others . . .

Well, that's the thing. The person getting the help might be a Harvard-educated Brookings fellow who obviously is quite superior to our run-of-the-mill posters or it might be a low-life website owner. Either case, they get the same help because nobody knows which they are. Beautiful isn't it? Instead of producing reports tarnishing DCUM's reputation, those who want to assist the underserved should be helping them logon on here to get advice.

Jeff, you should take a break. You are sounding more bitter and less sympathetic as this goes on. I am sure it's not intentional. Just take a breather.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most important thing you could do to improve these threads is to require users to login so that their posts can be associated with one another over time and so that it would be clear how many people are participating in any given discussion.

You don't need to require real names (nor would that be practicable)--this alone would help. Most people aren't going to go to the trouble of setting up multiple accounts to troll as someone other than their core persona.

That would kill the forum. This is especially true for the schools forums because people are often discussing sensitive issues involving their children. Moreover, usernames only slightly reduce negativity. While there are obvious negative aspects to anonymous posting, there are also benefits. People are more willing to be honest. Particularly important to a female-dominated forum, anonymous posting essentially eliminates cyber-stalking and bullying. On this issue, I have a settled view that is not going to change.

I'm not conceding PP's suggestion is a good one, but have you considered a format like PoPville? It's still anonymous but with usernames attached.

What good will that do? No one will still talk about ward 7 and 8 schools because most people on this forum don’t live there. Also, I know AA teachers at my school who live in wards 7 and 8 and they send their own kids to charter schools rather than the DCPS schools there. Does that make them classists or racists. And no DCPS senior administrators have enough faith in those schools to send their own kids there. They either do top rated DC schools or private or live in the suburbs. Why is no one calling them out?