Dumb WaPoo Article on Public Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would welcome a lawsuit that forced DC to integrate its schools. I was really against the idea of "choice sets" last year, but now I think it's a great idea. It just makes no sense that on Capitol Hill there are schools that are 50% white within less than a mile of schools that are 99% FARMS. I think that integrating Capitol Hill schools would be the best possible solution for everyone. That said I agree with posters that for upper grades and jr highs, DCPS would have to provide programming appropriate for on-grade level kids. I also think we need an even more robust charter sector, but one that is better regulated to ensure that all families have reasonable access to all kinds of charters -- KIPP style and CMI style.

High SES whites would never send their kids to KIPP.

I know several.

That is the most annoying argument- the PP was (implicitly) arguing that the vast majority of high SES whites wouldn't send their kids to KIPP. The statistics show this to be true. KIPP Grow, at 421 P St NW, which you think might interest some families in Shaw or along the green line, is 0.6% white. That is 2 students out of 312. You may happen to know those 2 families. But it doesn't invalidate the point that the number of white students at this school is very low.

And are you aware of the WL at KIPP?

Oh sure, I bet despite the school being .6% white, the waitlist looks like a Vineyard Vines catalog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A zip code cannot correspond to race; it is simply where people choose to live. In contrast, in Apartheid South Africa, a zip code or neighborhood certainly did "correspond to" race, as the government forced races to live in specific places.

You are confusing self-selecting outcomes with outcomes determined by governmental policies. The latter does not exist in D.C.

[Anonymous]

Hi I'm np. And new to the public schools discussion (oldest entering k in fall).

What I never get about education is the unequal investment in facilities and overall budget.

What if states enacted equal budget for equal kids?

Please don't jump down my throat if this is crazy....like I said I'm new. But why wouldn't this work in the long run?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi I'm np. And new to the public schools discussion (oldest entering k in fall).

What I never get about education is the unequal investment in facilities and overall budget.

What if states enacted equal budget for equal kids?

Please don't jump down my throat if this is crazy....like I said I'm new. But why wouldn't this work in the long run?

Are you talking about DC or other localities?

DC is odd since the city/state are the same thing.

In other places most funding is at the local, not state level. Therefore the state of MD gives money to each district based on population, with more to kids in poor areas. But Montgomery County puts in most of the money and it has more money than Cecil or Baltimore County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi I'm np. And new to the public schools discussion (oldest entering k in fall).

What I never get about education is the unequal investment in facilities and overall budget.

What if states enacted equal budget for equal kids?

Please don't jump down my throat if this is crazy....like I said I'm new. But why wouldn't this work in the long run?

The high-SES students in DC are already allocated less per-pupil spending and special programs than lower-income students. I suppose DCPS could continue to disproportionally allocate funding to lower-income (as well as non-white students -- see "male students of color" school) if that's what you're getting at.

[Anonymous]

ok to make all the whiny holier than though liberals shutup

You have a kid in DC what would you do here are your choices

all taken from the DC website http://find.myschooldc.org/

PARCC
Met or Exceeded Expectations of 33% right a fairly low bar I would push 50% but then it would be even worse who makes the cut

I'm going to ignore the 6 magnet high schools because everyone wants their kid to go there

Achievement Prep Wahler Pace Middle Math 33% ELA 30% 99% Black (An option for blacks to escape their truly crappy neighborhood school)
BASIS DC PCS 59% 68% 42% Black 40% White (The middle school option for Capitol hill people and some blacks an ideal model to follow)
Brent Elementary School 57 68 Black 21% White 64% (Fairly typical majority white higher test scores)
Center City PCS – Brightwood 32 30 39% Black 49% Hispanic 3% white lol (An option for blacks/hispanics) to escape their truly crappy neighborhood school)

I have better things to do with my time than to keep going but you see the pattern

The whites demand high quality or they leave DC/go private
The blacks and hispanics will take meidocre because the schools are so bad

There are two tiers of charter schools

Where would you send your kid, where would you choose to live

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You misunderstand the legal definition of discrimination, which is disparate impact.:

"The problem is not just that students are more isolated, according to the GAO, but that minority students who are concentrated in high-poverty schools don’t have the same access to opportunities as students in other schools. High-poverty, majority-black and Hispanic schools were less likely to offer a full range of math and science courses than other schools, for example, and more likely to use expulsion and suspension as disciplinary tools, according to the GAO."

We can't continue to stick black and Hispanic kids in segregated, low performing schools in the name of "specialization," or whatever you want to call it. Separate but Equal was thrown out a long time ago.

I must be confused. As I understand it, "disparate impact" means that if a school has some policy that's race-neutral on its face, but is nevertheless causing a disparate impact, then the government could challenge that policy as discriminatory. But I've never seen it suggested that the government can force a school district to adopt additional policies to force diversity. Is that what you're suggesting here?

I must not have been clear about my suggestion. I'm certainly not proposing to create racially segregated schools. I'm just saying school districts might decide to quit pursuing a policy of artificial diversity, and instead focus on educating the children who are in each school. For example, if a neighborhood school is "H/PBH," the school district could spend its money to try to tailor the curriculum to match what the students are ready for, and hire the most qualified teachers possible for that school. That's not an effort to short-change those students, but rather to match the education to the needs.

By contrast, the diversity-first approach might call for busing half of the H/PBH students across town to a different school, and busing a bunch of other students over to the H/PBH school, to get a mix of races and incomes. But then, the school district needs to spend more money to ensure appropriate classrooms for all students at two different schools. Or more likely given how underfunded schools are, the school district cannot afford to offer both schools a full slate of classes, so they both get less. Seems costly and inefficient. Maybe the benefits of diversity outweigh those costs, but I'm not so sure.

No easy answers.

Let me put it to you this way: You are the poor parent of a bright African American daughter. Do you think it's fair that she has to go to the low-test score, chaotic, rat-filled jr high with a 30% suspension rate? Or do you think she should be allowed to attend the shiny new, safe, high test-score jr high just across town? What do you think is fair in this situation?

The "race neutral" discriminatory policy is the one that assigns her to the subpar school based on her zipcode, which corresponds to race.

http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/disparate-impact.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

While it sound like a good argument, the fact is that it fails. And not just because there is not a single majority white Jr high school in DC, across town or otherwise. What is your proposal for the girl that would guarantee her the school of her choice above every other kid in DC who wants to go to the same school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... I must not have been clear about my suggestion. I'm certainly not proposing to create racially segregated schools. I'm just saying school districts might decide to quit pursuing a policy of artificial diversity, and instead focus on educating the children who are in each school. For example, if a neighborhood school is "H/PBH," the school district could spend its money to try to tailor the curriculum to match what the students are ready for, and hire the most qualified teachers possible for that school. That's not an effort to short-change those students, but rather to match the education to the needs. ...

Let me put it to you this way: You are the poor parent of a bright African American daughter. Do you think it's fair that she has to go to the low-test score, chaotic, rat-filled jr high with a 30% suspension rate? Or do you think she should be allowed to attend the shiny new, safe, high test-score jr high just across town? What do you think is fair in this situation?

The "race neutral" discriminatory policy is the one that assigns her to the subpar school based on her zipcode, which corresponds to race.

http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/disparate-impact.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

First, we should discard all your extra facts about schools being "rat-filled" or "shiny new." No one is defending a system that funds school facilities in wealthy areas over those in poor areas. Wherever that's happening, we can agree it's wrong.

So let's focus on the other part of your comparison: School A, a "low-test score, chaotic school with 30% suspension rate" versus School B, a "safe, high test-score" school. We can agree most parents would want their children to attend School B's "safe, high test-score school," but how can we make that happen? It's an especially hard problem because it's the students themselves that are causing School A to be a low-test score, chaotic school with a 30% suspension rate. If we simply make all the students swap buildings, School B will suddenly become the one that's a low-test score, chaotic school with a 30% suspension rate. What you're really asking is how a poor parent of a bright African-American daughter can get her away from other "H/PBH" students. That's a blunt way of putting it, but it's true.

So let's consider a few options. Pretend our school district costs $500m per year just to keep the doors open and hire enough teachers. In some years when the school district gets extra money, we can spend an extra $50m or so on effort to improve the quality of life for all students. When we get that money, how should we spend it?

1. The "pure neighborhood" approach. Every child attends the school where she lives. All schools get equal funding, but schools in H/PBH neighborhoods will likely be low-performing H/PBH schools because of the students that attend them. If you want to attend a better-performing school, move to a different neighborhood. IMHO, that's a pretty unsatisfying answer because it offers bright & motivated children in H/PBH neighborhoods few options if their parents cannot afford to move. But overall, if the school district is low on funding and doesn't have that extra $50m to spend, this might be the only option.

2. The "max diversity" approach. All schools are getting equal funding, but schools in H/PBH neighborhoods are still H/PBH and low-performing, and we don't like that disparity. So let's spend our school district's extra money to shuffle the H/PBH students around to all the schools equally. That way, all schools and all students suffer an equal burden and we can say each school is equally integrated. And if our school district is 70% H/PBH, that means every individual school will be 70% H/PBH, which means they're all pretty much low-test score, chaotic schools with a 30% suspension rate now.

3. The "extra funding" approach. This is like the "pure neighborhood" approach, because we do not spend money on shuffling students. But all schools do not get equal funding. Every school gets a base level of funding to keep the lights on, but all our extra money goes for extra teachers and programs at the H/PBH schools, in an effort to lift their performance and options. One complication is that in a city with 70% H/PBH students, that extra funding gets spread out among a bunch of H/PBH students, so any change is slow.

4. The "lucky few" approach. This starts with the "pure neighborhood" approach, because we do not spend money on shuffling students. But we spend our school district's extra money to identify bright & motivated children in the H/PBH schools, and we give them an opportunity to leave their H/PBH neighborhood schools and instead attend better-performing schools. This essentially means we're spending our money to test children and group them according to their abilities. We anticipate that grouping together the the bright & motivated students from H/PBH neighborhoods will allow them to escape their old "low-test score, chaotic schools with a 30% suspension rate," and will instead let them form high test-score, safe schools. This creates some tension because the school district is picking "winners and losers" when it decides who will get to escape the H/PBH schools.

So which option(s) make the most sense? I know this is highly simplified, and there are countless subtle variations or combinations we could create, but these are the basic choices I see. Remember you only have limited funds each year to devote to any of these plans, and most will take many years to show results. None are perfect. All will create frustration. Also, the approach that might make sense in one city might be a disaster in another city with different population demographics, so it's not one-size-fits-all.

I don't know what the right answer is either. I think the "max diversity" approach provides the easiest path to quick results, because within a couple years a school district can brag about its improved school diversity numbers. But I don't think it provides much of a path to performance improvement for students, unless you believe that the mere fact of more diversity will make students and schools perform better. I think the "lucky few" approach might offer the best long-term results, but it's politically hard to swallow.

What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... I must not have been clear about my suggestion. I'm certainly not proposing to create racially segregated schools. I'm just saying school districts might decide to quit pursuing a policy of artificial diversity, and instead focus on educating the children who are in each school. For example, if a neighborhood school is "H/PBH," the school district could spend its money to try to tailor the curriculum to match what the students are ready for, and hire the most qualified teachers possible for that school. That's not an effort to short-change those students, but rather to match the education to the needs. ...

Let me put it to you this way: You are the poor parent of a bright African American daughter. Do you think it's fair that she has to go to the low-test score, chaotic, rat-filled jr high with a 30% suspension rate? Or do you think she should be allowed to attend the shiny new, safe, high test-score jr high just across town? What do you think is fair in this situation?

The "race neutral" discriminatory policy is the one that assigns her to the subpar school based on her zipcode, which corresponds to race.

http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/disparate-impact.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

First, we should discard all your extra facts about schools being "rat-filled" or "shiny new." No one is defending a system that funds school facilities in wealthy areas over those in poor areas. Wherever that's happening, we can agree it's wrong.

So let's focus on the other part of your comparison: School A, a "low-test score, chaotic school with 30% suspension rate" versus School B, a "safe, high test-score" school. We can agree most parents would want their children to attend School B's "safe, high test-score school," but how can we make that happen? It's an especially hard problem because it's the students themselves that are causing School A to be a low-test score, chaotic school with a 30% suspension rate. If we simply make all the students swap buildings, School B will suddenly become the one that's a low-test score, chaotic school with a 30% suspension rate. What you're really asking is how a poor parent of a bright African-American daughter can get her away from other "H/PBH" students. That's a blunt way of putting it, but it's true.

So let's consider a few options. Pretend our school district costs $500m per year just to keep the doors open and hire enough teachers. In some years when the school district gets extra money, we can spend an extra $50m or so on effort to improve the quality of life for all students. When we get that money, how should we spend it?

1. The "pure neighborhood" approach. Every child attends the school where she lives. All schools get equal funding, but schools in H/PBH neighborhoods will likely be low-performing H/PBH schools because of the students that attend them. If you want to attend a better-performing school, move to a different neighborhood. IMHO, that's a pretty unsatisfying answer because it offers bright & motivated children in H/PBH neighborhoods few options if their parents cannot afford to move. But overall, if the school district is low on funding and doesn't have that extra $50m to spend, this might be the only option.

2. The "max diversity" approach. All schools are getting equal funding, but schools in H/PBH neighborhoods are still H/PBH and low-performing, and we don't like that disparity. So let's spend our school district's extra money to shuffle the H/PBH students around to all the schools equally. That way, all schools and all students suffer an equal burden and we can say each school is equally integrated. And if our school district is 70% H/PBH, that means every individual school will be 70% H/PBH, which means they're all pretty much low-test score, chaotic schools with a 30% suspension rate now.

3. The "extra funding" approach. This is like the "pure neighborhood" approach, because we do not spend money on shuffling students. But all schools do not get equal funding. Every school gets a base level of funding to keep the lights on, but all our extra money goes for extra teachers and programs at the H/PBH schools, in an effort to lift their performance and options. One complication is that in a city with 70% H/PBH students, that extra funding gets spread out among a bunch of H/PBH students, so any change is slow.

4. The "lucky few" approach. This starts with the "pure neighborhood" approach, because we do not spend money on shuffling students. But we spend our school district's extra money to identify bright & motivated children in the H/PBH schools, and we give them an opportunity to leave their H/PBH neighborhood schools and instead attend better-performing schools. This essentially means we're spending our money to test children and group them according to their abilities. We anticipate that grouping together the the bright & motivated students from H/PBH neighborhoods will allow them to escape their old "low-test score, chaotic schools with a 30% suspension rate," and will instead let them form high test-score, safe schools. This creates some tension because the school district is picking "winners and losers" when it decides who will get to escape the H/PBH schools.

So which option(s) make the most sense? I know this is highly simplified, and there are countless subtle variations or combinations we could create, but these are the basic choices I see. Remember you only have limited funds each year to devote to any of these plans, and most will take many years to show results. None are perfect. All will create frustration. Also, the approach that might make sense in one city might be a disaster in another city with different population demographics, so it's not one-size-fits-all.

I don't know what the right answer is either. I think the "max diversity" approach provides the easiest path to quick results, because within a couple years a school district can brag about its improved school diversity numbers. But I don't think it provides much of a path to performance improvement for students, unless you believe that the mere fact of more diversity will make students and schools perform better. I think the "lucky few" approach might offer the best long-term results, but it's politically hard to swallow.

What do you think?

Option 4 sounds like AAP in Fairfax County. Instead of silly lotteries you should be able to test out of poor performing schools. That makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option 4 sounds like AAP in Fairfax County. Instead of silly lotteries you should be able to test out of poor performing schools. That makes sense.

I'm the PP with the 4 options. I can see how #4 sounds like FFX's AAP, but I personally don't think that's a good model. I'm not in FFX, but from where I sit, AAP looks more like a mechanism to let middle-class and wealthy white and Asian students cluster themselves further in highly segregated schools. I'm obviously no fan of promoting diversity over performance, but I don't think school districts should be discouraging diversity. As I envision #4, the "lucky few" would be pulled mostly from H/PBH schools. But as I wrote, there are lots of variations and different plans might make sense for different school districts, so maybe something like AAP makes sense for a place like FFX.

[Anonymous]

Number 3 is what we have in DC today, and it's' not really working. DCPS is still very segregated by race and the achievement gap is as wide as ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Number 3 is what we have in DC today, and it's' not really working. DCPS is still very segregated by race and the achievement gap is as wide as ever.

And #4 is the idea behind the application high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Number 3 is what we have in DC today, and it's' not really working. DCPS is still very segregated by race and the achievement gap is as wide as ever.

DC is not "segregated." Population demographics are different in different neighborhoods. That's it.

I suppose one could describe demographic disparities based on racial categories, between nearby districts or zones, as "segregated" zones, but that wouldn't mean anything other than people have decided to live in different zones for any number of reasons. Plus, the word "segregation" would not really be an accurate descriptor for the phenomenon under discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Number 3 is what we have in DC today, and it's' not really working. DCPS is still very segregated by race and the achievement gap is as wide as ever.

DC is not "segregated." Population demographics are different in different neighborhoods. That's it.

I suppose one could describe demographic disparities based on racial categories, between nearby districts or zones, as "segregated" zones, but that wouldn't mean anything other than people have decided to live in different zones for any number of reasons. Plus, the word "segregation" would not really be an accurate descriptor for the phenomenon under discussion.

#1 reason: Segregation of housing due to a history of gov't and financial institution policy. Don't be pedantic, DC is extremely segregated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Number 3 is what we have in DC today, and it's' not really working. DCPS is still very segregated by race and the achievement gap is as wide as ever.

You will never overcome the achievement gap as long as there are parents who barely speak to their kids let alone read to their kids. Kids who come from these homes come to school with a 30 million word gap by the time they are 3 years old.

It is unrealistic to think that schools will ever be able to completely overcome this gap even if we pour tons of money at it. I am totally in favor of offering preschool to even 2 year olds who come from disadvantage families as well as year round school for these kids.

I think there should be sound reading and math curricula used as well.

The gap is not due to so called segregation that happens due to neighborhoods or to racism IMHO. It is due to the huge word gap.