just can't relate to Potomac anymore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been at two other schools with DEI - it's a hard thing to get right.

One school has done a great job and started over a decade ago, going slow, being thoughtful - training for teachers, tweaks in curriculum, broader sets of books in library, speakers, hiring. Not everyone buys in but it is something where much of the progress has been slowly woven into the fabric without taking over. It bugs me that there will always be "those parents" who will always see the hiring of a person of color as a DEI hire, though.

The other (more prominent) school comes up with big initiatives and actions that flame out and disappear. It all feels "for show". That school already had more diversity than the first. I don't know how parents/students feel about DEI at the school or these initiatives.

I feel like the first school has been more genuine and made more progress.

My child’s elementary teacher this year was a new hire who turned out to be abysmal and by far the worst teacher in elementary. It has done real harm to a class full of students including my child. We have no other explanation for this situation besides a DEI hire. True or not, this is the perception.

But this sort of thing happens with white teachers too....why blame it on their skin color. Why can't it just be a bad hire? Why do you need to equate it to DEI. We have had two horrible teachers for my kids (over many years) and one was a person of color and the other wasn't. I don't blame the POC bad teacher on DEI - she was just a really bad fit. And to be honest, the parents that complained and made it about race did nobody any favors - because the school (and me too) had to discount those opinions immediately. It's the tangible defaults/misteps that matter - so blaming things on DEI and not focusing on what criteria are used to evaluate a good hire or to evaluate current teachers helps nobody. Same with leadership positions. Of the few that fell short (not horrible but not inspiring) some were POC and others weren't. they all left the same way....with a note saying they chose to transition to something else.

This is why DEI is bad for everyone, even those it purports to help. With DEI, a bad hire who is a POC will automatically be considered a DEI hire. Any POC hired will have the label of being a DEI hire, whether that person was hired based on merit or skin color. Without DEI and no racial preference being given, a bad hire will just be a bad hire regardless of color. The time for DEI is over, it's divisive and unfair.

Because no one has ever attributed any success by a black person to a racial preference prior to DEI becoming a thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP means: minorities don’t belong at Potomac. Any group that threatens “whiteness” is unwelcome at the school. Anything in society that threatens “whiteness”
is also unwelcome.

OP is among the many at Potomac who believe in being "colorblind." It's quite parochial and many people like OP will use the DEI and "affirmative action" argument to complain about why students of color are able to get into better colleges than their kids. Meanwhile, nothing really is done to give students of color, or really students of any color, who may come from more underprivileged backgrounds the same opportunities that the above-average wealthy students are getting. They come in at the bottom and are left to feel less valuable throughout their time there. This played out with the gravest consequences a few years ago and nothing has changed since. Thanks to leadership and parents like OP.

I'm black and other than being accepted (and funded) to attend the school what else are black students supposed to be "given"? It certainly makes sense to provide necessary academic and social support, but what else? I mean, many of the black private school kids are already as wealthy as their white peers, and the truly underprivileged ones would likely feel just as out of sorts at a wealthy public school. These feelings are being "less valuable" are just about being less well-heeled than other students --- probably doesn't feel good but they are getting an excellent education and a springboard into a world that will allow them to give their eventual kids an entirely different experience.

I guess what I'm saying is, we need to look at this inter-generationally. These kids are having their lives changed in a way that will redound to the benefit of their descendants. And those descendants, one day, will likely be among the wealthy, privileged set that their forefather/mother felt somewhat alienated from so many years ago.

We are not disagreeing here. You came to Potomac already well-prepared. If you are highly intelligent or gifted, regardless of the color of your skin, then you do not experience what I am talking about. I am talking about the exclusion from important opportunities that go to only the privileged. Just look at the rolls of the advanced classes and exclusive ECs. You probably haven't experienced the exclusion. And for that I am happy for you. My children did. The feeling of not being good enough to be there can, did, have tragic consequences.

I'm not going to question you when it comes to what feelings your children experienced. We feel like we feel and it should be acknowledged.

But I guess I'm trying to tease out whether this is a Potomac problem, a private school problem, or just a school problem in general. I would assume that the criteria for entry into advanced classes are based on some form of objective criteria (but I'm not so naive as to think other factors don't come into play). But in terms of experiences that the privileged get to experience vs others --- well, that's just the benefit of privilege playing out. Some people might say that having the opportunity to attend an elite private school is a "privilege" that equally deserving students don't get. Is the implication that had they gone to their zoned public school things would be better on the whole? A different private school?

I suppose that if we only measure our fortunes through the narrow lens of the (school) community we're in, we're bound to emphasize what others have (or don't have) versus ourselves. But school is transitory and the right approach (especially for black folks, I think) is to extract all the benefits out of the situation to get where you want to go. Maybe your kids didn't come to Potomac as well-prepared as some others, but Potomac saw fit to admit them because they assumed that they could certainly leave Potomac well-prepared for what comes after.

But all of this is a fact that can be easily lost with an inordinate focus on the "gap" between us and them -- with "them" being the narrow slither of families able to afford a $50K/ year private school. Almost all Americans would find themselves out of place with that lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been at two other schools with DEI - it's a hard thing to get right.

One school has done a great job and started over a decade ago, going slow, being thoughtful - training for teachers, tweaks in curriculum, broader sets of books in library, speakers, hiring. Not everyone buys in but it is something where much of the progress has been slowly woven into the fabric without taking over. It bugs me that there will always be "those parents" who will always see the hiring of a person of color as a DEI hire, though.

The other (more prominent) school comes up with big initiatives and actions that flame out and disappear. It all feels "for show". That school already had more diversity than the first. I don't know how parents/students feel about DEI at the school or these initiatives.

I feel like the first school has been more genuine and made more progress.

My child’s elementary teacher this year was a new hire who turned out to be abysmal and by far the worst teacher in elementary. It has done real harm to a class full of students including my child. We have no other explanation for this situation besides a DEI hire. True or not, this is the perception.

But this sort of thing happens with white teachers too....why blame it on their skin color. Why can't it just be a bad hire? Why do you need to equate it to DEI. We have had two horrible teachers for my kids (over many years) and one was a person of color and the other wasn't. I don't blame the POC bad teacher on DEI - she was just a really bad fit. And to be honest, the parents that complained and made it about race did nobody any favors - because the school (and me too) had to discount those opinions immediately. It's the tangible defaults/misteps that matter - so blaming things on DEI and not focusing on what criteria are used to evaluate a good hire or to evaluate current teachers helps nobody. Same with leadership positions. Of the few that fell short (not horrible but not inspiring) some were POC and others weren't. they all left the same way....with a note saying they chose to transition to something else.

This is why DEI is bad for everyone, even those it purports to help. With DEI, a bad hire who is a POC will automatically be considered a DEI hire. Any POC hired will have the label of being a DEI hire, whether that person was hired based on merit or skin color. Without DEI and no racial preference being given, a bad hire will just be a bad hire regardless of color. The time for DEI is over, it's divisive and unfair.

Because no one has ever attributed any success by a black person to a racial preference prior to DEI becoming a thing

Same problems as affirmative action but just significantly amplified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been at two other schools with DEI - it's a hard thing to get right.

One school has done a great job and started over a decade ago, going slow, being thoughtful - training for teachers, tweaks in curriculum, broader sets of books in library, speakers, hiring. Not everyone buys in but it is something where much of the progress has been slowly woven into the fabric without taking over. It bugs me that there will always be "those parents" who will always see the hiring of a person of color as a DEI hire, though.

The other (more prominent) school comes up with big initiatives and actions that flame out and disappear. It all feels "for show". That school already had more diversity than the first. I don't know how parents/students feel about DEI at the school or these initiatives.

I feel like the first school has been more genuine and made more progress.

My child’s elementary teacher this year was a new hire who turned out to be abysmal and by far the worst teacher in elementary. It has done real harm to a class full of students including my child. We have no other explanation for this situation besides a DEI hire. True or not, this is the perception.

But this sort of thing happens with white teachers too....why blame it on their skin color. Why can't it just be a bad hire? Why do you need to equate it to DEI. We have had two horrible teachers for my kids (over many years) and one was a person of color and the other wasn't. I don't blame the POC bad teacher on DEI - she was just a really bad fit. And to be honest, the parents that complained and made it about race did nobody any favors - because the school (and me too) had to discount those opinions immediately. It's the tangible defaults/misteps that matter - so blaming things on DEI and not focusing on what criteria are used to evaluate a good hire or to evaluate current teachers helps nobody. Same with leadership positions. Of the few that fell short (not horrible but not inspiring) some were POC and others weren't. they all left the same way....with a note saying they chose to transition to something else.

This is why DEI is bad for everyone, even those it purports to help. With DEI, a bad hire who is a POC will automatically be considered a DEI hire. Any POC hired will have the label of being a DEI hire, whether that person was hired based on merit or skin color. Without DEI and no racial preference being given, a bad hire will just be a bad hire regardless of color. The time for DEI is over, it's divisive and unfair.

Because no one has ever attributed any success by a black person to a racial preference prior to DEI becoming a thing

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just pointing out with DEI people will always question if a POC was hired because DEI when that person fails at their job. Remove DEI, and remove the unfair label placed on a POC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been at two other schools with DEI - it's a hard thing to get right.

One school has done a great job and started over a decade ago, going slow, being thoughtful - training for teachers, tweaks in curriculum, broader sets of books in library, speakers, hiring. Not everyone buys in but it is something where much of the progress has been slowly woven into the fabric without taking over. It bugs me that there will always be "those parents" who will always see the hiring of a person of color as a DEI hire, though.

The other (more prominent) school comes up with big initiatives and actions that flame out and disappear. It all feels "for show". That school already had more diversity than the first. I don't know how parents/students feel about DEI at the school or these initiatives.

I feel like the first school has been more genuine and made more progress.

My child’s elementary teacher this year was a new hire who turned out to be abysmal and by far the worst teacher in elementary. It has done real harm to a class full of students including my child. We have no other explanation for this situation besides a DEI hire. True or not, this is the perception.

But this sort of thing happens with white teachers too....why blame it on their skin color. Why can't it just be a bad hire? Why do you need to equate it to DEI. We have had two horrible teachers for my kids (over many years) and one was a person of color and the other wasn't. I don't blame the POC bad teacher on DEI - she was just a really bad fit. And to be honest, the parents that complained and made it about race did nobody any favors - because the school (and me too) had to discount those opinions immediately. It's the tangible defaults/misteps that matter - so blaming things on DEI and not focusing on what criteria are used to evaluate a good hire or to evaluate current teachers helps nobody. Same with leadership positions. Of the few that fell short (not horrible but not inspiring) some were POC and others weren't. they all left the same way....with a note saying they chose to transition to something else.

This is why DEI is bad for everyone, even those it purports to help. With DEI, a bad hire who is a POC will automatically be considered a DEI hire. Any POC hired will have the label of being a DEI hire, whether that person was hired based on merit or skin color. Without DEI and no racial preference being given, a bad hire will just be a bad hire regardless of color. The time for DEI is over, it's divisive and unfair.

Because no one has ever attributed any success by a black person to a racial preference prior to DEI becoming a thing

Yeah, it just was called affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been at two other schools with DEI - it's a hard thing to get right.

One school has done a great job and started over a decade ago, going slow, being thoughtful - training for teachers, tweaks in curriculum, broader sets of books in library, speakers, hiring. Not everyone buys in but it is something where much of the progress has been slowly woven into the fabric without taking over. It bugs me that there will always be "those parents" who will always see the hiring of a person of color as a DEI hire, though.

The other (more prominent) school comes up with big initiatives and actions that flame out and disappear. It all feels "for show". That school already had more diversity than the first. I don't know how parents/students feel about DEI at the school or these initiatives.

I feel like the first school has been more genuine and made more progress.

My child’s elementary teacher this year was a new hire who turned out to be abysmal and by far the worst teacher in elementary. It has done real harm to a class full of students including my child. We have no other explanation for this situation besides a DEI hire. True or not, this is the perception.

But this sort of thing happens with white teachers too....why blame it on their skin color. Why can't it just be a bad hire? Why do you need to equate it to DEI. We have had two horrible teachers for my kids (over many years) and one was a person of color and the other wasn't. I don't blame the POC bad teacher on DEI - she was just a really bad fit. And to be honest, the parents that complained and made it about race did nobody any favors - because the school (and me too) had to discount those opinions immediately. It's the tangible defaults/misteps that matter - so blaming things on DEI and not focusing on what criteria are used to evaluate a good hire or to evaluate current teachers helps nobody. Same with leadership positions. Of the few that fell short (not horrible but not inspiring) some were POC and others weren't. they all left the same way....with a note saying they chose to transition to something else.

This is why DEI is bad for everyone, even those it purports to help. With DEI, a bad hire who is a POC will automatically be considered a DEI hire. Any POC hired will have the label of being a DEI hire, whether that person was hired based on merit or skin color. Without DEI and no racial preference being given, a bad hire will just be a bad hire regardless of color. The time for DEI is over, it's divisive and unfair.

Because no one has ever attributed any success by a black person to a racial preference prior to DEI becoming a thing

Yeah, it just was called affirmative action.

Remove the albatross and work toward meritocracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP means: minorities don’t belong at Potomac. Any group that threatens “whiteness” is unwelcome at the school. Anything in society that threatens “whiteness”
is also unwelcome.

OP is among the many at Potomac who believe in being "colorblind." It's quite parochial and many people like OP will use the DEI and "affirmative action" argument to complain about why students of color are able to get into better colleges than their kids. Meanwhile, nothing really is done to give students of color, or really students of any color, who may come from more underprivileged backgrounds the same opportunities that the above-average wealthy students are getting. They come in at the bottom and are left to feel less valuable throughout their time there. This played out with the gravest consequences a few years ago and nothing has changed since. Thanks to leadership and parents like OP.

I'm black and other than being accepted (and funded) to attend the school what else are black students supposed to be "given"? It certainly makes sense to provide necessary academic and social support, but what else? I mean, many of the black private school kids are already as wealthy as their white peers, and the truly underprivileged ones would likely feel just as out of sorts at a wealthy public school. These feelings are being "less valuable" are just about being less well-heeled than other students --- probably doesn't feel good but they are getting an excellent education and a springboard into a world that will allow them to give their eventual kids an entirely different experience.

I guess what I'm saying is, we need to look at this inter-generationally. These kids are having their lives changed in a way that will redound to the benefit of their descendants. And those descendants, one day, will likely be among the wealthy, privileged set that their forefather/mother felt somewhat alienated from so many years ago.

We are not disagreeing here. You came to Potomac already well-prepared. If you are highly intelligent or gifted, regardless of the color of your skin, then you do not experience what I am talking about. I am talking about the exclusion from important opportunities that go to only the privileged. Just look at the rolls of the advanced classes and exclusive ECs. You probably haven't experienced the exclusion. And for that I am happy for you. My children did. The feeling of not being good enough to be there can, did, have tragic consequences.

I'm not going to question you when it comes to what feelings your children experienced. We feel like we feel and it should be acknowledged.

But I guess I'm trying to tease out whether this is a Potomac problem, a private school problem, or just a school problem in general. I would assume that the criteria for entry into advanced classes are based on some form of objective criteria (but I'm not so naive as to think other factors don't come into play). But in terms of experiences that the privileged get to experience vs others --- well, that's just the benefit of privilege playing out. Some people might say that having the opportunity to attend an elite private school is a "privilege" that equally deserving students don't get. Is the implication that had they gone to their zoned public school things would be better on the whole? A different private school?

I suppose that if we only measure our fortunes through the narrow lens of the (school) community we're in, we're bound to emphasize what others have (or don't have) versus ourselves. But school is transitory and the right approach (especially for black folks, I think) is to extract all the benefits out of the situation to get where you want to go. Maybe your kids didn't come to Potomac as well-prepared as some others, but Potomac saw fit to admit them because they assumed that they could certainly leave Potomac well-prepared for what comes after.

But all of this is a fact that can be easily lost with an inordinate focus on the "gap" between us and them -- with "them" being the narrow slither of families able to afford a $50K/ year private school. Almost all Americans would find themselves out of place with that lot.

This is all thoughtful and well-written, but how can you see the preponderance of ignorant posts here and not understand why students of color and those with disabilities or other aspects of the DEI (notice how people here don't even bother with the A?) spectrum might feel excluded at Potomac. It's not just parents. It's leadership who talk a big game, but who are actual bros who work very hard to see one kind of student succeed at Potomac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP means: minorities don’t belong at Potomac. Any group that threatens “whiteness” is unwelcome at the school. Anything in society that threatens “whiteness”
is also unwelcome.

OP is among the many at Potomac who believe in being "colorblind." It's quite parochial and many people like OP will use the DEI and "affirmative action" argument to complain about why students of color are able to get into better colleges than their kids. Meanwhile, nothing really is done to give students of color, or really students of any color, who may come from more underprivileged backgrounds the same opportunities that the above-average wealthy students are getting. They come in at the bottom and are left to feel less valuable throughout their time there. This played out with the gravest consequences a few years ago and nothing has changed since. Thanks to leadership and parents like OP.

I'm black and other than being accepted (and funded) to attend the school what else are black students supposed to be "given"? It certainly makes sense to provide necessary academic and social support, but what else? I mean, many of the black private school kids are already as wealthy as their white peers, and the truly underprivileged ones would likely feel just as out of sorts at a wealthy public school. These feelings are being "less valuable" are just about being less well-heeled than other students --- probably doesn't feel good but they are getting an excellent education and a springboard into a world that will allow them to give their eventual kids an entirely different experience.

I guess what I'm saying is, we need to look at this inter-generationally. These kids are having their lives changed in a way that will redound to the benefit of their descendants. And those descendants, one day, will likely be among the wealthy, privileged set that their forefather/mother felt somewhat alienated from so many years ago.

We are not disagreeing here. You came to Potomac already well-prepared. If you are highly intelligent or gifted, regardless of the color of your skin, then you do not experience what I am talking about. I am talking about the exclusion from important opportunities that go to only the privileged. Just look at the rolls of the advanced classes and exclusive ECs. You probably haven't experienced the exclusion. And for that I am happy for you. My children did. The feeling of not being good enough to be there can, did, have tragic consequences.

I'm not going to question you when it comes to what feelings your children experienced. We feel like we feel and it should be acknowledged.

But I guess I'm trying to tease out whether this is a Potomac problem, a private school problem, or just a school problem in general. I would assume that the criteria for entry into advanced classes are based on some form of objective criteria (but I'm not so naive as to think other factors don't come into play). But in terms of experiences that the privileged get to experience vs others --- well, that's just the benefit of privilege playing out. Some people might say that having the opportunity to attend an elite private school is a "privilege" that equally deserving students don't get. Is the implication that had they gone to their zoned public school things would be better on the whole? A different private school?

I suppose that if we only measure our fortunes through the narrow lens of the (school) community we're in, we're bound to emphasize what others have (or don't have) versus ourselves. But school is transitory and the right approach (especially for black folks, I think) is to extract all the benefits out of the situation to get where you want to go. Maybe your kids didn't come to Potomac as well-prepared as some others, but Potomac saw fit to admit them because they assumed that they could certainly leave Potomac well-prepared for what comes after.

But all of this is a fact that can be easily lost with an inordinate focus on the "gap" between us and them -- with "them" being the narrow slither of families able to afford a $50K/ year private school. Almost all Americans would find themselves out of place with that lot.

This is all thoughtful and well-written, but how can you see the preponderance of ignorant posts here and not understand why students of color and those with disabilities or other aspects of the DEI (notice how people here don't even bother with the A?) spectrum might feel excluded at Potomac. It's not just parents. It's leadership who talk a big game, but who are actual bros who work very hard to see one kind of student succeed at Potomac.

How do you expect kids to function in the real world? What exactly do you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP means: minorities don’t belong at Potomac. Any group that threatens “whiteness” is unwelcome at the school. Anything in society that threatens “whiteness”
is also unwelcome.

OP is among the many at Potomac who believe in being "colorblind." It's quite parochial and many people like OP will use the DEI and "affirmative action" argument to complain about why students of color are able to get into better colleges than their kids. Meanwhile, nothing really is done to give students of color, or really students of any color, who may come from more underprivileged backgrounds the same opportunities that the above-average wealthy students are getting. They come in at the bottom and are left to feel less valuable throughout their time there. This played out with the gravest consequences a few years ago and nothing has changed since. Thanks to leadership and parents like OP.

I'm black and other than being accepted (and funded) to attend the school what else are black students supposed to be "given"? It certainly makes sense to provide necessary academic and social support, but what else? I mean, many of the black private school kids are already as wealthy as their white peers, and the truly underprivileged ones would likely feel just as out of sorts at a wealthy public school. These feelings are being "less valuable" are just about being less well-heeled than other students --- probably doesn't feel good but they are getting an excellent education and a springboard into a world that will allow them to give their eventual kids an entirely different experience.

I guess what I'm saying is, we need to look at this inter-generationally. These kids are having their lives changed in a way that will redound to the benefit of their descendants. And those descendants, one day, will likely be among the wealthy, privileged set that their forefather/mother felt somewhat alienated from so many years ago.

We are not disagreeing here. You came to Potomac already well-prepared. If you are highly intelligent or gifted, regardless of the color of your skin, then you do not experience what I am talking about. I am talking about the exclusion from important opportunities that go to only the privileged. Just look at the rolls of the advanced classes and exclusive ECs. You probably haven't experienced the exclusion. And for that I am happy for you. My children did. The feeling of not being good enough to be there can, did, have tragic consequences.

I'm not going to question you when it comes to what feelings your children experienced. We feel like we feel and it should be acknowledged.

But I guess I'm trying to tease out whether this is a Potomac problem, a private school problem, or just a school problem in general. I would assume that the criteria for entry into advanced classes are based on some form of objective criteria (but I'm not so naive as to think other factors don't come into play). But in terms of experiences that the privileged get to experience vs others --- well, that's just the benefit of privilege playing out. Some people might say that having the opportunity to attend an elite private school is a "privilege" that equally deserving students don't get. Is the implication that had they gone to their zoned public school things would be better on the whole? A different private school?

I suppose that if we only measure our fortunes through the narrow lens of the (school) community we're in, we're bound to emphasize what others have (or don't have) versus ourselves. But school is transitory and the right approach (especially for black folks, I think) is to extract all the benefits out of the situation to get where you want to go. Maybe your kids didn't come to Potomac as well-prepared as some others, but Potomac saw fit to admit them because they assumed that they could certainly leave Potomac well-prepared for what comes after.

But all of this is a fact that can be easily lost with an inordinate focus on the "gap" between us and them -- with "them" being the narrow slither of families able to afford a $50K/ year private school. Almost all Americans would find themselves out of place with that lot.

This is all thoughtful and well-written, but how can you see the preponderance of ignorant posts here and not understand why students of color and those with disabilities or other aspects of the DEI (notice how people here don't even bother with the A?) spectrum might feel excluded at Potomac. It's not just parents. It's leadership who talk a big game, but who are actual bros who work very hard to see one kind of student succeed at Potomac.

You know, some of us who fit into this category of the marginalized and oppressed feel patronized and just as fed up by DEI crap as other people…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is giving me hope, both that DEI-overload is going to end and that there are other people who feel like me that DEI shouldn’t be as big a part of a child’s school life as it is currently is in many schools.

It is ending. Look at Colleges starting to change and high schools. Like so many other exercises, it was another educational fad, although expensive and harmful to many

DEI was always more of a project of white folks (and the only blacks they know) rather than normal middle-class black folks.

Huh? Our school hung DEI out on full display via Ibram X Kendi and was led by educated POC alum and professionals.

These are not regular middle-class black folks. They are the "black folks you know."

(Genuine question) - why would you not be ok with the educated POC alum and professionals associated with the school (who also brought in Kendi - in person - as part of the process) be looked down upon in their DEI efforts by the "normal middle-class black folks" you mention? DEI was not led by white folks at our school - it was the families and staff and admin who are POC that spearheaded and designed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been at two other schools with DEI - it's a hard thing to get right.

One school has done a great job and started over a decade ago, going slow, being thoughtful - training for teachers, tweaks in curriculum, broader sets of books in library, speakers, hiring. Not everyone buys in but it is something where much of the progress has been slowly woven into the fabric without taking over. It bugs me that there will always be "those parents" who will always see the hiring of a person of color as a DEI hire, though.

The other (more prominent) school comes up with big initiatives and actions that flame out and disappear. It all feels "for show". That school already had more diversity than the first. I don't know how parents/students feel about DEI at the school or these initiatives.

I feel like the first school has been more genuine and made more progress.

My child’s elementary teacher this year was a new hire who turned out to be abysmal and by far the worst teacher in elementary. It has done real harm to a class full of students including my child. We have no other explanation for this situation besides a DEI hire. True or not, this is the perception.

But this sort of thing happens with white teachers too....why blame it on their skin color. Why can't it just be a bad hire? Why do you need to equate it to DEI. We have had two horrible teachers for my kids (over many years) and one was a person of color and the other wasn't. I don't blame the POC bad teacher on DEI - she was just a really bad fit. And to be honest, the parents that complained and made it about race did nobody any favors - because the school (and me too) had to discount those opinions immediately. It's the tangible defaults/misteps that matter - so blaming things on DEI and not focusing on what criteria are used to evaluate a good hire or to evaluate current teachers helps nobody. Same with leadership positions. Of the few that fell short (not horrible but not inspiring) some were POC and others weren't. they all left the same way....with a note saying they chose to transition to something else.

This is why DEI is bad for everyone, even those it purports to help. With DEI, a bad hire who is a POC will automatically be considered a DEI hire. Any POC hired will have the label of being a DEI hire, whether that person was hired based on merit or skin color. Without DEI and no racial preference being given, a bad hire will just be a bad hire regardless of color. The time for DEI is over, it's divisive and unfair.

I hate to break it to you - but this was happening before DEI "got hot". DEI just allows the racist people to give their opinions a cleaner label. Do you not know this?

[Anonymous]

No school with average SAT scores of 1400 should be legally allowed to pretend they value "equity" whatever it even means - just say you value hierarchy and merit - as Sheryl Sandberg said, lean in! The hypocrisy is the worst part of all this stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been at two other schools with DEI - it's a hard thing to get right.

One school has done a great job and started over a decade ago, going slow, being thoughtful - training for teachers, tweaks in curriculum, broader sets of books in library, speakers, hiring. Not everyone buys in but it is something where much of the progress has been slowly woven into the fabric without taking over. It bugs me that there will always be "those parents" who will always see the hiring of a person of color as a DEI hire, though.

The other (more prominent) school comes up with big initiatives and actions that flame out and disappear. It all feels "for show". That school already had more diversity than the first. I don't know how parents/students feel about DEI at the school or these initiatives.

I feel like the first school has been more genuine and made more progress.

My child’s elementary teacher this year was a new hire who turned out to be abysmal and by far the worst teacher in elementary. It has done real harm to a class full of students including my child. We have no other explanation for this situation besides a DEI hire. True or not, this is the perception.

But this sort of thing happens with white teachers too....why blame it on their skin color. Why can't it just be a bad hire? Why do you need to equate it to DEI. We have had two horrible teachers for my kids (over many years) and one was a person of color and the other wasn't. I don't blame the POC bad teacher on DEI - she was just a really bad fit. And to be honest, the parents that complained and made it about race did nobody any favors - because the school (and me too) had to discount those opinions immediately. It's the tangible defaults/misteps that matter - so blaming things on DEI and not focusing on what criteria are used to evaluate a good hire or to evaluate current teachers helps nobody. Same with leadership positions. Of the few that fell short (not horrible but not inspiring) some were POC and others weren't. they all left the same way....with a note saying they chose to transition to something else.

This is why DEI is bad for everyone, even those it purports to help. With DEI, a bad hire who is a POC will automatically be considered a DEI hire. Any POC hired will have the label of being a DEI hire, whether that person was hired based on merit or skin color. Without DEI and no racial preference being given, a bad hire will just be a bad hire regardless of color. The time for DEI is over, it's divisive and unfair.

I hate to break it to you - but this was happening before DEI "got hot". DEI just allows the racist people to give their opinions a cleaner label. Do you not know this?

It isn’t racist to say Claudine Gay was not qualified for her job. Or to say she was an obvious DEI hire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been at two other schools with DEI - it's a hard thing to get right.

One school has done a great job and started over a decade ago, going slow, being thoughtful - training for teachers, tweaks in curriculum, broader sets of books in library, speakers, hiring. Not everyone buys in but it is something where much of the progress has been slowly woven into the fabric without taking over. It bugs me that there will always be "those parents" who will always see the hiring of a person of color as a DEI hire, though.

The other (more prominent) school comes up with big initiatives and actions that flame out and disappear. It all feels "for show". That school already had more diversity than the first. I don't know how parents/students feel about DEI at the school or these initiatives.

I feel like the first school has been more genuine and made more progress.

My child’s elementary teacher this year was a new hire who turned out to be abysmal and by far the worst teacher in elementary. It has done real harm to a class full of students including my child. We have no other explanation for this situation besides a DEI hire. True or not, this is the perception.

But this sort of thing happens with white teachers too....why blame it on their skin color. Why can't it just be a bad hire? Why do you need to equate it to DEI. We have had two horrible teachers for my kids (over many years) and one was a person of color and the other wasn't. I don't blame the POC bad teacher on DEI - she was just a really bad fit. And to be honest, the parents that complained and made it about race did nobody any favors - because the school (and me too) had to discount those opinions immediately. It's the tangible defaults/misteps that matter - so blaming things on DEI and not focusing on what criteria are used to evaluate a good hire or to evaluate current teachers helps nobody. Same with leadership positions. Of the few that fell short (not horrible but not inspiring) some were POC and others weren't. they all left the same way....with a note saying they chose to transition to something else.

This is why DEI is bad for everyone, even those it purports to help. With DEI, a bad hire who is a POC will automatically be considered a DEI hire. Any POC hired will have the label of being a DEI hire, whether that person was hired based on merit or skin color. Without DEI and no racial preference being given, a bad hire will just be a bad hire regardless of color. The time for DEI is over, it's divisive and unfair.

I hate to break it to you - but this was happening before DEI "got hot". DEI just allows the racist people to give their opinions a cleaner label. Do you not know this?

It isn’t racist to say Claudine Gay was not qualified for her job. Or to say she was an obvious DEI hire.

I know nothing about Claudine Gay - I'm speaking more broadly based on various comments people have made here about "DEI hires"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been at two other schools with DEI - it's a hard thing to get right.

One school has done a great job and started over a decade ago, going slow, being thoughtful - training for teachers, tweaks in curriculum, broader sets of books in library, speakers, hiring. Not everyone buys in but it is something where much of the progress has been slowly woven into the fabric without taking over. It bugs me that there will always be "those parents" who will always see the hiring of a person of color as a DEI hire, though.

The other (more prominent) school comes up with big initiatives and actions that flame out and disappear. It all feels "for show". That school already had more diversity than the first. I don't know how parents/students feel about DEI at the school or these initiatives.

I feel like the first school has been more genuine and made more progress.

My child’s elementary teacher this year was a new hire who turned out to be abysmal and by far the worst teacher in elementary. It has done real harm to a class full of students including my child. We have no other explanation for this situation besides a DEI hire. True or not, this is the perception.

But this sort of thing happens with white teachers too....why blame it on their skin color. Why can't it just be a bad hire? Why do you need to equate it to DEI. We have had two horrible teachers for my kids (over many years) and one was a person of color and the other wasn't. I don't blame the POC bad teacher on DEI - she was just a really bad fit. And to be honest, the parents that complained and made it about race did nobody any favors - because the school (and me too) had to discount those opinions immediately. It's the tangible defaults/misteps that matter - so blaming things on DEI and not focusing on what criteria are used to evaluate a good hire or to evaluate current teachers helps nobody. Same with leadership positions. Of the few that fell short (not horrible but not inspiring) some were POC and others weren't. they all left the same way....with a note saying they chose to transition to something else.

This is why DEI is bad for everyone, even those it purports to help. With DEI, a bad hire who is a POC will automatically be considered a DEI hire. Any POC hired will have the label of being a DEI hire, whether that person was hired based on merit or skin color. Without DEI and no racial preference being given, a bad hire will just be a bad hire regardless of color. The time for DEI is over, it's divisive and unfair.

I hate to break it to you - but this was happening before DEI "got hot". DEI just allows the racist people to give their opinions a cleaner label. Do you not know this?

It isn’t racist to say Claudine Gay was not qualified for her job. Or to say she was an obvious DEI hire.

I know nothing about Claudine Gay - I'm speaking more broadly based on various comments people have made here about "DEI hires"

Maybe they are correct about these individual situations then.