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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The study also didn't take into account that imo 25%-ish of the POSTS (of undetermined source -- more than just a FEW trolls? Who knows?) are non-white, race-baiting trolls. And another 25%-ish of the actual users are POC honestly trying to learn from, and contribute to, the forum. And I'd guess the rest of the participants are of the relatively wealthy, white-person variety. Overall, the site is useful, notwithstanding the race-baiting trolls, but his observation is 100% ignored by the Brookings thought leaders.

Someone truly interested in advancing the forum would not be going after Jeff for defending his creation from an obviously biased and shoddy piece of work.

[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.

Do you really think that is or will be the end result? I have trouble believing anyone who has posted before will be turned off by the article and it has generated a lot of publicity that will probably bring new people to the site, some who may linger.

I'm not necessarily saying you don't have grounds to be pissed, but I wonder if this will turn out to be a blessing in disguise for you.

[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.

Logon on here to get advice lmao I can’t with this guy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the Banneker poster is pointing out is that in DC's successful process of getting more white students to stay in DC public high schools, Banneker is next on the agenda. Parents who chose Wilson and Walls are not segregating, they were integrating Wilson and Walls, and have done so, and DC will work to sustain that presence. Now, instead of those schools shifting to majority white (SWW has tipped, Wilson is far off yet), the next schools to increase the share of the very small pool of white high school students are Banneker, DE, and McKinley, and to encourage that, Banneker, at least, has made some changes by adding more APs, focusing on their problem keeping boys in the school, allowing kids to play sports at other high schools, etc. It's the next step in the process. DC is moving in the right direction.

Adding #8 (spin off from #4).

Don’t worry, soon enough, as soon as XYZ is done to appease me, us white folks will come and save your Banneker. This one might be neck in neck with #1 (I don’t want to mess up your sacred HBCU feeling school) on the ridiculous meter. Banneker doesn’t have to do XYX to attract you, just like Hardy didn’t have to get rid of uniforms to attract rich white folks. They don’t need saving. You need to prove that you’re not afraid of black 14 year olds. But keep clamoring to Creative Minds and Inspired Teaching because you want “play-based” learning. 🙄

X1 million times this. And thank you as well to the long-Banneker PPP. (From a Ward 6 parent crossing my fingers for tomorrow for Duke Ellington 1st choice or Banneker 2nd).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Do you really not see the difference? Have you ever read any books on racial constructs. They are not the same and you should know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the Banneker poster is pointing out is that in DC's successful process of getting more white students to stay in DC public high schools, Banneker is next on the agenda. Parents who chose Wilson and Walls are not segregating, they were integrating Wilson and Walls, and have done so, and DC will work to sustain that presence. Now, instead of those schools shifting to majority white (SWW has tipped, Wilson is far off yet), the next schools to increase the share of the very small pool of white high school students are Banneker, DE, and McKinley, and to encourage that, Banneker, at least, has made some changes by adding more APs, focusing on their problem keeping boys in the school, allowing kids to play sports at other high schools, etc. It's the next step in the process. DC is moving in the right direction.

Adding #8 (spin off from #4).

Don’t worry, soon enough, as soon as XYZ is done to appease me, us white folks will come and save your Banneker. This one might be neck in neck with #1 (I don’t want to mess up your sacred HBCU feeling school) on the ridiculous meter. Banneker doesn’t have to do XYX to attract you, just like Hardy didn’t have to get rid of uniforms to attract rich white folks. They don’t need saving. You need to prove that you’re not afraid of black 14 year olds. But keep clamoring to Creative Minds and Inspired Teaching because you want “play-based” learning. 🙄

X1 million times this. And thank you as well to the long-Banneker PPP. (From a Ward 6 parent crossing my fingers for tomorrow for Duke Ellington 1st choice or Banneker 2nd).

Good luck tomorrow!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The study also didn't take into account that imo 25%-ish of the POSTS (of undetermined source -- more than just a FEW trolls? Who knows?) are non-white, race-baiting trolls. And another 25%-ish of the actual users are POC honestly trying to learn from, and contribute to, the forum. And I'd guess the rest of the participants are of the relatively wealthy, white-person variety. Overall, the site is useful, notwithstanding the race-baiting trolls, but his observation is 100% ignored by the Brookings thought leaders.

Someone truly interested in advancing the forum would not be going after Jeff for defending his creation from an obviously biased and shoddy piece of work.

Yep us POC come to DCUM to learn from white ladies.

We don't come here to laugh at you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The study also didn't take into account that imo 25%-ish of the POSTS (of undetermined source -- more than just a FEW trolls? Who knows?) are non-white, race-baiting trolls. And another 25%-ish of the actual users are POC honestly trying to learn from, and contribute to, the forum. And I'd guess the rest of the participants are of the relatively wealthy, white-person variety. Overall, the site is useful, notwithstanding the race-baiting trolls, but his observation is 100% ignored by the Brookings thought leaders.

Someone truly interested in advancing the forum would not be going after Jeff for defending his creation from an obviously biased and shoddy piece of work.

Where do you get that 25% of the users are non white race baiters? Why do you assume people that question why you don’t consider Banneker are non white? Why are you so afraid of looking in the mirror? Is it that much easier to just chalk up people that question your school choose if Latin/Basis over Banneker as race-baiting??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The study also didn't take into account that imo 25%-ish of the POSTS (of undetermined source -- more than just a FEW trolls? Who knows?) are non-white, race-baiting trolls. And another 25%-ish of the actual users are POC honestly trying to learn from, and contribute to, the forum. And I'd guess the rest of the participants are of the relatively wealthy, white-person variety. Overall, the site is useful, notwithstanding the race-baiting trolls, but his observation is 100% ignored by the Brookings thought leaders.

Someone truly interested in advancing the forum would not be going after Jeff for defending his creation from an obviously biased and shoddy piece of work.

Where do you get that 25% of the users are non white race baiters? Why do you assume people that question why you don’t consider Banneker are non white? Why are you so afraid of looking in the mirror? Is it that much easier to just chalk up people that question your school choose if Latin/Basis over Banneker as race-baiting??

Well, I wrote the comment, but your response has nothing to do with what I wrote. But, to answer part of your question, the part about "race baiting" was based on my personal observations, after checking in every once and a while over the years. I come here for information, not race-based hectoring from wounded people, but you take the good with the challenging in this world of ours. I couldn't help but step in to defend Jeff, as I consider his contribution to our D.C. community to be one of value.

[Anonymous]

I just did a Google search for news articles on the study, and yes they are brutal and an embarrassment to this forum. I wish I could say that the bad press isn’t well deserved . . . The truth is, there are a lot of clueless, privileged, and completely tone deaf participants on this forum, and as the authors of the study have suggested, sometimes words alone CAN actually do real world harm. Reflect, people.

[Anonymous]

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?


Do you really not see the difference? Have you ever read any books on racial constructs. They are not the same and you should know that.

Ok, I'll bite. What exactly is the difference between an AA school teacher residing in Ward 7 refusing to send his or her child to the local Ward 7 high school and a white parent in Ward 7 making the same decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just did a Google search for news articles on the study, and yes they are brutal and an embarrassment to this forum. I wish I could say that the bad press isn’t well deserved . . . The truth is, there are a lot of clueless, privileged, and completely tone deaf participants on this forum, and as the authors of the study have suggested, sometimes words alone CAN actually do real world harm. Reflect, people.

I don't disagree that there are a lot of tone deaf participants but I just did several Google searches in an incognito window and I'm not seeing "brutal" articles or really more than a handful of articles at all. Vanessa Williamson seems to be trying to promote the work a lot on Twitter but beyond a fairly limited Twitter discussion, I just don't see anything like what you wrote. I mean maybe there are a handful of DC focused summary articles out there, but as far as I can tell, this report has not landed particularly broadly. Maybe I am missing something, though.

[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.

I can't remember what it's called when your way to win an argument is to call the other person names ??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?


Do you really not see the difference? Have you ever read any books on racial constructs. They are not the same and you should know that.

Ok, I'll bite. What exactly is the difference between an AA school teacher residing in Ward 7 refusing to send his or her child to the local Ward 7 high school and a white parent in Ward 7 making the same decision?

Well . . . there aren't any white parents of white Woodson students are there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can't remember what it's called when your way to win an argument is to call the other person names ??

DP. I've been looking around a lot and I am not finding any academics who believe the methodology of this study was good. At best, people say it is shoddy in parts. Normally I would expect to see some debate about methodology at least, but the only really debate seems to be phrased as "well, yes, it was badly done but the conclusions are important anyhow." I rarely see that sort of agreement in academia.

Why do you think Jeff should take this person's advice when there seems to be consensus that the study was badly done? I am not Jeff but I wouldn't want to take advice from someone with that kind of history.

I don't disagree with the proposal to discuss but why would you credit this particular author?