Does anyone know what the demographics of Van Ness Elementary School is like this school year?

[Anonymous]

Context is important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except that the demographics of Van Ness' boundary are pretty evenly split between black and white, with the SE side mostly white and the SW side mostly black. So IB does not equal any particular race here.

Engaged and high SES do not equal any specific race there either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not racist to ask about the racial demographics of a school.

For those who think it is, please explain why DCPS prominently displays the racial makeup of each school on its website. Do you contend that DCPS is intentionally catering to racists? If so, what if any actions have you taken to have this practice stopped?

I agree - the NPR story on desegregation basically said that desegregation has been the only program known to increase the overall test scores of poor black kids. According to that story, schools that are overwhelmingly black and poor receive less media attention, less resources, less everything, and kids there suffer. So, it's fair to ask about the racial demographics of a school.

What is racist, in my opinion, is using "engaged" as a code word for white. Or "high SES" as a code word for white. People on DCUM think they aren't being racist if they use euphemisms because hey, as long as they aren't talking about race directly and they're not using the N word, they aren't racist, right? But if you are using "engaged" when you really mean white, what you are saying is that only white parents are engaged, which is a racist assumption. Or if you describe a 50% white room as "50% high SES," you are making the racist assumption that only white parents can be high SES.

What is racist is looking at a room of parents at BTSN and describing them in the terms that the poster used. If you are saying that the group was 50% white seeming and 50% black/ brown seeming, that is objective reporting based on observation. If you are saying that 50% of the room is high SES, I'm going to call bullshit and racist euphemisms unless you can prove that income information was collected and shared at the door. If you say that 50% of the room was "engaged," I'm also going to call bullshit and racism unless you can produce data from a survey administered at BTSN that showed that half the parents who showed up to their child's school for a school event didn't give a shit.

[Anonymous]

This relying on skin color to figure out SES seems imprecise to me. We are at a Ward 4 school that is majority minority but mostly middle class (but also some high SES and some FARMS). There are other things that suggest SES, such as clothing (suits vs. sweatpants at BTSN) and behaviors (frantically returning work emails vs. yelling at one's kids). Not that these things are 100% accurate--we live close to the school so will often change out of work clothes before walking to evening school events. But there are definitely ways to figure these things out without solely relying on skin color as a signal for SES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This relying on skin color to figure out SES seems imprecise to me. We are at a Ward 4 school that is majority minority but mostly middle class (but also some high SES and some FARMS). There are other things that suggest SES, such as clothing (suits vs. sweatpants at BTSN) and behaviors (frantically returning work emails vs. yelling at one's kids). Not that these things are 100% accurate--we live close to the school so will often change out of work clothes before walking to evening school events. But there are definitely ways to figure these things out without solely relying on skin color as a signal for SES.

P.S. We are a well-educated and upper middle class AA family, despite our sweats/workout clothes at these events. So for those trying to figure out the SES of other parents, I think the best (although not foolproof) indicator is behavior.

[Anonymous]

I posted a few days ago that parent turnout at BTSN reflected the overall student body - parents of all backgrounds took the time to show up, see the school, meet admin, teachers and other parents. I noted it intentionally because of assumptions that a pp's mention of seeing "a lot of engaged parents" was a code word for white. Well in this case, it's not. It's a diverse school, many parents seem interested in their child's education so just take the term "engaged" for face value. There is no deeper meaning.

[Anonymous]

"Engaged"? I still don't know what that means. Is it simply showing up at BTSN to meet you child's teacher and check out her classroom and new school facility? Or is it something more and somewhat less tangible? Using an ambiguous term such as this in the context of a school reopened only a couple of weeks earlier is suspect or, at best, lazy. What parent, regardless of race, ethnicity and SES, isn't going to do their damnest to attend BTSN when their 2-5 YO child is attending a new PK or K program. Don't forget that a not insignificant number lotteried into VN and have to start thinking about returning to their IB school in a year or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Engaged"? I still don't know what that means. Is it simply showing up at BTSN to meet you child's teacher and check out her classroom and new school facility? Or is it something more and somewhat less tangible? Using an ambiguous term such as this in the context of a school reopened only a couple of weeks earlier is suspect or, at best, lazy. What parent, regardless of race, ethnicity and SES, isn't going to do their damnest to attend BTSN when their 2-5 YO child is attending a new PK or K program. Don't forget that a not insignificant number lotteried into VN and have to start thinking about returning to their IB school in a year or two.

FFS, why is engaged such a four letter when it comes to this thread? If parents are excited about this school, good for them. And kudos to you if you think it's the default for pre-k parents to attend school functions, because as someone who sat in a nearly empty classroom this year at back to school night, I can tell you it's not.

[Anonymous]

Engaged is a perfectly fine word. But when the question posed is a question about demographics, and the response is "there were many engaged parents," one has to wonder what "engaged" means in this context, particularly since it is a known code word in DCUM for white. If you want to answer a posting about demographics, why use the word engaged unless you are trying to be PC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a kid in PK4 at Van Ness. We saw a lot of engaged parents at Back To School night. About half of the kids are in bound, other half are out of bound. My thinking is that the school is not a Title I school.

that is a loaded statement. By engaged you mean white? and thats how you know its not title 1?

Why would you assume engaged means white? Back to School night had many parents of different races.

NP. Why use the term "engaged" in a thread asking about demographics?

Who cares? If it's that important to stay on topic (a first for this board) then the thread should have ended at the under age 5 response because that's all that be confirmed at this point.

NP. I'll admit that I do. I don't want my kid at a school where they are an "only". Only white kid, only black kid, only non-FARMS or non-trust fund kid, only native English speaker or non-native English speaker, etc. OP's mistake was dancing around the issue instead of asking it straight out: "Did there appear to be a even distribution of black, white, latino, low income, high income, etc.?" Yes, some close minded people associate income with race, some people assess that based on the manner of dress, the manner in which people interact and interact with their kids, etc. The fact that some people are closed minded bigots doesn't make the everyone who asks a closed minded bigot.

Your assertion that some closed minded people associate income with race confirms that you're hopelessly out of touch. Every discussion of Van Ness eventually devolves into the correlation between the two in DC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where are the large numbers of poor white families living in-bound for Van Ness. OP opened the door for the umpteenth time by inquiring about "demographics." It's tried and true dog whistle terminology. Again, if you're asking about demographics youbhave more than a passing familiarity with the economic disparities between families living east of S. Capitol (mostly white) and families living west of S. Capitol (mostly black). Spare us the piety.

You are missing my point (and that made by others). But that says a great deal about you, not us. We're not pious. We're honest. We care about racial makeup as we don't want to be an only one. I also care about SES diversity. And that doesn't necessarily track with race. The fact that YOU think it does says something about you, not me. I'm guessing your faux liberalism can't grasp that concept - that's ok, you're forgiven (THAT's piety my friend, ironic and sarcastic as it may be). And you actually don't know much about the area around Van Ness if you think the areas "East of S Cap" are predominantly black. There's almost no original housing stock there. Its all new townhouses and mixed use and condos. The townhouses sell for a million bucks on the open market, and some percentage were reserved for low income and can't be sold above some capped rate. But there's no original housing stock...unless someone is camping out in Nat's Park. And the sample size at Van Ness is too small to extrapolate broader stats from DC. If I used my HRCS as a model for the broader population then 25% of all black women would be corporate lawyers.

But let me be clear: My liberalism isn't faux, it's real, it's sincere and I don't apologize for it. I see color. I see SES. I see differences. To pretend like those things don't exist, or to conflate the concepts and pretend like you're just taking the position of bigots exposes you as a faux liberal.

Yes, there are individual homes ("housing stock") near Yards Park.

Who would want to be a faux liberal, when the authentic ones are such idiots?

[Anonymous]

And you're overcompensating for what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Engaged is a perfectly fine word. But when the question posed is a question about demographics, and the response is "there were many engaged parents," one has to wonder what "engaged" means in this context, particularly since it is a known code word in DCUM for white. If you want to answer a posting about demographics, why use the word engaged unless you are trying to be PC?

Engaged means engaged. Period.

The word I object to is "parents" -- everyone knows that is code for whites.

[Anonymous]

By the way... word on the street is that Van Ness Elementary will have guaranteed PS3 & PK4 for in-bound students for the 2016-2017 school year as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engaged is a perfectly fine word. But when the question posed is a question about demographics, and the response is "there were many engaged parents," one has to wonder what "engaged" means in this context, particularly since it is a known code word in DCUM for white. If you want to answer a posting about demographics, why use the word engaged unless you are trying to be PC?

Engaged means engaged. Period.

The word I object to is "parents" -- everyone knows that is code for whites.

Ridiculous. Parents is code for nothing.

Most of the high SES white parents I know seem aware that the nature of poverty in this country in this century is such that being an "engaged" public school parent generally takes free time, spare energy and, in the case of OOB or charter attendance, transportation support that most low-income minority parents lack.

Most high SES parents with kids in public school are in fact white, but certainly not all. You're painting with too broad a brush. The local parents I talk to, and I've lived a mile from Van Ness for the better part of two decades, are, for the most part, more thoughtful, inclusive and reasonable in their orientation than those you describe, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By the way... word on the street is that Van Ness Elementary will have guaranteed PS3 & PK4 for in-bound students for the 2016-2017 school year as well.

If that's true, it probably means it's a Title I school. The DME's plans are to ultimately provide guaranteed PK for people IB for all DCPS Title I elementary schools and the other schools that offered it last year were all Title I.