FARMS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Banneker question is out there though. What say those who avoid Banneker? I know what is said to me privately by those I know with HS aged children, and it had nothing to do with SES. Many have admitted that they and their children would never consider Banneker because they feel uncomfortable with the idea of possibly being the "only." I know exactly what is meant by that and I personally think that it's sad.

Banneker, SWW, Wilson, Ellington, McKinley, parochial and independent schools are ALL on my list. The jury is still out on the charter high schools. Our HS choice will be based on course offerings, not pigment.

Here's why we won't consider Banneker - it isn't that good. See the SAT scores for the previous graduating class - and this from an application high school.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/186327.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A pp seems to be jumping to the conclusion that anyone who is avoiding a school that has a large majority of low income students must, then, be racist.

This is a clear sign of someone who doesn't get out of DC nearly enough and probably received a crappy education themselves.

Research proves that schools with more than about 50% of low income students enrolled has poorer educational outcomes for all the students there. It isn't good for anyone.

To read raciism into rational decision making is ignorant

No, I'm not assuming shit! Not wanting your child to go to school with low income children because of low scores or poor schooling is one thing but accompanying it with a particular race or specifying the race while distinguishing status is racist and I can prove it by the amount of posts that say it on here but as involved with the school system as I am and as many PTA's that I've attended, I've NEVER hear anyone say anything remotely close to what is said on these threads when it comes to being sooooo particular. Stop trying to turn it around and it's impossible and pointless to keep having these "points of views" behind computers anyway. All "Anonymous" does is give the cowards balls to say what they really want to say without reveiling who they really are. I don't have a chip, I'm not racist not nor do I have a problem with people expressing their opinion but I will speak out on that dumb shit y'all be talking!!!!

Me: I don't want to live in a high crime neighborhood. It's dangerous, and my child wouldn't be able to actually play on the sidewalk in front of our house.

You: You are such a total racist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A pp seems to be jumping to the conclusion that anyone who is avoiding a school that has a large majority of low income students must, then, be racist.

This is a clear sign of someone who doesn't get out of DC nearly enough and probably received a crappy education themselves.

Research proves that schools with more than about 50% of low income students enrolled has poorer educational outcomes for all the students there. It isn't good for anyone.

To read raciism into rational decision making is ignorant

No, I'm not assuming shit! Not wanting your child to go to school with low income children because of low scores or poor schooling is one thing but accompanying it with a particular race or specifying the race while distinguishing status is racist and I can prove it by the amount of posts that say it on here but as involved with the school system as I am and as many PTA's that I've attended, I've NEVER hear anyone say anything remotely close to what is said on these threads when it comes to being sooooo particular. Stop trying to turn it around and it's impossible and pointless to keep having these "points of views" behind computers anyway. All "Anonymous" does is give the cowards balls to say what they really want to say without reveiling who they really are. I don't have a chip, I'm not racist not nor do I have a problem with people expressing their opinion but I will speak out on that dumb shit y'all be talking!!!!

That doesn't any balls. 10 year-olds at slumber parties used to place "prank calls" back in the days when there wasn't phone ID.

It takes balls to actually put your name and/or face behind what you say. Which is why fully anonymous message boards are so nasty. People wouldn't dare talk to each other like this face-to-face.

Hiding behind anonymity doesn't take balls, it demonstrate cowardice.

[Anonymous]

Let's see, just recently the Washpost had a list showing the schools with the highest graduation rate. The top three were Banneker, SWW and McKinley but out of the three there's only one that has a double-digit of whites in attendance and that is SWW. Also out of the three, there's only one who has this year's Principal of the Year honors and that is McKinley. Lastly of the top three schools, Banneker is the oldest and is not in an newly remodeled million dollar building. That might be one slight reason their SAT scores are not mind-boggling. I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's see, just recently the Washpost had a list showing the schools with the highest graduation rate. The top three were Banneker, SWW and McKinley but out of the three there's only one that has a double-digit of whites in attendance and that is SWW. Also out of the three, there's only one who has this year's Principal of the Year honors and that is McKinley. Lastly of the top three schools, Banneker is the oldest and is not in an newly remodeled million dollar building. That might be one slight reason their SAT scores are not mind-boggling. I doubt it.

Seems to me that citing "graduation rate" is pretty pointless and meaningless when the entire system has been predicated on social promotion for k-12 prior. Same with things like "college acceptance rate" when that could mean anything, from hundreds of students applying to and being accepted to ivy leagues, versus only a handful of students applying to community college and getting accepted - "100% college acceptance" could accurately mean either of those scenarios. More meaningful metrics are needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Banneker question is out there though. What say those who avoid Banneker? I know what is said to me privately by those I know with HS aged children, and it had nothing to do with SES. Many have admitted that they and their children would never consider Banneker because they feel uncomfortable with the idea of possibly being the "only." I know exactly what is meant by that and I personally think that it's sad.

Banneker, SWW, Wilson, Ellington, McKinley, parochial and independent schools are ALL on my list. The jury is still out on the charter high schools. Our HS choice will be based on course offerings, not pigment.

Here's why we won't consider Banneker - it isn't that good. See the SAT scores for the previous graduating class - and this from an application high school.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/186327.page

OMG! According to your link, my children are doomed since we make just under $200K.

I think you really should visit all of these schools and encourage your child do a shadow day before you conclude anything. If you are only looking at numbers, then you better hightail it to the suburbs or to a private school. DCPS and the charters are not for you.

[Anonymous]

All metrics are needed to be considered. If you think about it married teachers with children are borderline FARM candidates. Which I have poised this question, what do you do if your highly qualified teacher is a graduate of a community college and is borderline poverty. Do I demand an upgrade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Banneker question is out there though. What say those who avoid Banneker? I know what is said to me privately by those I know with HS aged children, and it had nothing to do with SES. Many have admitted that they and their children would never consider Banneker because they feel uncomfortable with the idea of possibly being the "only." I know exactly what is meant by that and I personally think that it's sad.

Banneker, SWW, Wilson, Ellington, McKinley, parochial and independent schools are ALL on my list. The jury is still out on the charter high schools. Our HS choice will be based on course offerings, not pigment.

Here's why we won't consider Banneker - it isn't that good. See the SAT scores for the previous graduating class - and this from an application high school.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/186327.page

OMG! According to your link, my children are doomed since we make just under $200K.

I think you really should visit all of these schools and encourage your child do a shadow day before you conclude anything. If you are only looking at numbers, then you better hightail it to the suburbs or to a private school. DCPS and the charters are not for you.

Funny thing is when a white parent doesn't want their white child to be "the only one" in the school their being responsible parents looking out for their child's best interest. When a black parent or minority has the same concerns they have "a chip on their shoulder" or are going against the grain. I would LOVE for my kids to go to school without white kids. This is the first year my kids have gone to a school with almost half of the students and with only two weeks in the school year, there was a letter sent home of an outbreak of damn lice! Nasty fuckers! If we really got a fair share and could have schools in bad neighborhoods or black neighborhood that were academically equipt, I would NEVER send my kids to school with whites PERIOD! Call my post what you want. I'm not racist, I just don't want myself or my family to be where we are not wanted and since so many of you (not all) have a problem with expressing your true feelings unless in private, I don't wanna be around you mutha f#*kas unless I ABSOLUTLY have to!

[Anonymous]

I call these threads the If Only discussions. You know it's "if only there was a way we could shield ourselves from certain people." Today it's FARMs. Tomorrow it's SPED.

It really is a shame that there are so many beautifully behaved, gifted children, at least based on the discussions here, that are being deprived because of FARMers, etc. (sarcasm)

Sigh. I don't know where everyone else lives, but I live in this city with all sorts. I knew this when I moved here had children. Luckily, there are more and more middle class families who have planted a flag and are willing to rub shoulders with those who were here when they arrived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Banneker question is out there though. What say those who avoid Banneker? I know what is said to me privately by those I know with HS aged children, and it had nothing to do with SES. Many have admitted that they and their children would never consider Banneker because they feel uncomfortable with the idea of possibly being the "only." I know exactly what is meant by that and I personally think that it's sad.

Banneker, SWW, Wilson, Ellington, McKinley, parochial and independent schools are ALL on my list. The jury is still out on the charter high schools. Our HS choice will be based on course offerings, not pigment.

Here's why we won't consider Banneker - it isn't that good. See the SAT scores for the previous graduating class - and this from an application high school.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/186327.page

OMG! According to your link, my children are doomed since we make just under $200K.

I think you really should visit all of these schools and encourage your child do a shadow day before you conclude anything. If you are only looking at numbers, then you better hightail it to the suburbs or to a private school. DCPS and the charters are not for you.

Funny thing is when a white parent doesn't want their white child to be "the only one" in the school their being responsible parents looking out for their child's best interest. When a black parent or minority has the same concerns they have "a chip on their shoulder" or are going against the grain. I would LOVE for my kids to go to school without white kids. This is the first year my kids have gone to a school with almost half of the students and with only two weeks in the school year, there was a letter sent home of an outbreak of damn lice! Nasty fuckers! If we really got a fair share and could have schools in bad neighborhoods or black neighborhood that were academically equipt, I would NEVER send my kids to school with whites PERIOD! Call my post what you want. I'm not racist, I just don't want myself or my family to be where we are not wanted and since so many of you (not all) have a problem with expressing your true feelings unless in private, I don't wanna be around you mutha f#*kas unless I ABSOLUTLY have to!

Can someone help me translate this?



I think it reads:

Being the "lonely only" is recognized in all communities as difficult. Therefore, I don't want my children to ever interact with anyone different from them. I want them to be in a cocoon. Furthermore, I want them to only be exposed to people of their same race. (Can I also control for religion? What about being gay/straight?) Oh, now that I think about it, they can only speak English. Or Spanish. But not both, because that's a compromise that pisses me off. What if I could demand that they are vegetarians? Or vegans? Or at least single-parent families who agree with my politics, and sew, knit, or tape their own clothing? I got a letter about lice and I can't make any sense of or about it, but I'm freaked out to the point of being incomprehensible. So, can I use that as an excuse to demand racial segregation? Because I'm not a racist, but I just know that anyone I don't like is a "mutha f#*kas"

Did I miss anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All metrics are needed to be considered. If you think about it married teachers with children are borderline FARM candidates. Which I have poised this question, what do you do if your highly qualified teacher is a graduate of a community college and is borderline poverty. Do I demand an upgrade.

You are really messed up. This is not about judging individuals by their socio economic situation or salary. This is about parents who have a choice about where they may send their child to be educated.looking at the true fact that schools with a high percentage of kids from poor families ( don't care what color, language, etc) perform at a lower academic level than schools with a lower percentage of poor kids. Everyone does better when there are fewer poor kids in one place, including the poor kids. Thus far, this is just a fact. There may be school models out there that beat these odds, but they are not yet prevalent.

[Anonymous]

Did you miss something, yes. Snowflakes can thrive as one and lonely if they don't have helicopting parents. Translation: white chocolate does an education stats well.

[Anonymous]

I find this snowflake label completely offensive. Please don't use it anymore. I can't see why we have to label and denigrate children. Go ahead and label parents "helicopter parents" or whatever. Please leave the children out of it, especially with the racial overtones.

[Anonymous]

Ok white chocolate, whatever you say.

[Anonymous]

I have no problem with my child being in a school with AA kids, he has a ton of close AA friends at his school, but I doubt anyone would want to hang with someone like 21:26 with that foul attitude.