Help me Edit: Response to Brookings Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we’re talking past each other here.

Generally, I don’t think Brookings has to offer solutions to problems it identifies in order for its research to make accurate truth claims.

I also think they are right about what they identify here. Not universally, but more right than wrong.

I don’t expect “someone else” to solve this problem. When I recognize the dynamics they’re describing in my own life, I try to take steps to lessen them. With the climate here being what it is lately, I’m not down for describing those steps. That climate issue is worth some of your energy. It’s worse than it has been. That, more than Brookings, is going to cut into your traffic after the initial bump.

Regardless: Brookings doesn’t have to identify solutions to be identifying problems.

Talking past each other or not, we are definitely having trouble communicating. Because neither Brookings nor you propose alternative actions for DCUM posters, all you have to offer is criticism. You say that your criticism is correct. But my argument is that while our users are making choices that might not be perfect, they are still the best choices available to them. If there are better choices, what are they? You won't say and Brookings didn't say. I assume that whatever secrets you are keeping are unknown to our users, so even though better choices may secretly exist, they are unknown to our posters who are still making the best choices among the alternatives known to them.

It really seems like common sense that if you are going to criticize someone's actions, you should be able to tell them what they should do differently. Otherwise, it is not clear that you wouldn't do exactly the same thing they are doing if you were in their circumstances.

Please spend time in the "integrated schools" movement -- the podcast, and other sources around the internet, before publishing a response. the solutions are in there, and it will feel like a paradigm shift to you, because they are actively "anti-racist" decisions. There is momentum building for that kind of thinking this year.

That is where Vanessa is coming from, and understanding that foundation will help you understand the study.

Could you identify some of these for us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i think what a lot of people are missing here is the mindset that you are either making an anti-racist decision, or you are making a racist decision.

Often, what white people consider to be the default or obvious choice is one that supports a racist, segregated country. It doesn't mean you are a member of the KKK, but it is still true. THAT is what the author is trying to get at, but bc it is a Brookings piece she can't be more obvious about driving home that conclusion.

to make it perfectly clear, moving to upper NW to be in a majority white elementary school and choosing a lesser quality charter to be with more white people are both decision that perpetuate that. They are all mildly racist white liberals. I live in Shaw, i have seen many many many people do that. I also have seen the white families who have remained in our EOTP DCPS for the duration -- they are people who are comfortable being a minority as a white person, who actively believe in integration, and who have a lot of faith in their children and aren't worried about them. The number of these people is growing every year. I hope this study does more to increase it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i think what a lot of people are missing here is the mindset that you are either making an anti-racist decision, or you are making a racist decision.

Often, what white people consider to be the default or obvious choice is one that supports a racist, segregated country. It doesn't mean you are a member of the KKK, but it is still true. THAT is what the author is trying to get at, but bc it is a Brookings piece she can't be more obvious about driving home that conclusion.

Great point. I think a lot of folks are getting defensive (Jeff included) because they see this as a black or white issue--either the report says we're segregationists/racists, or we're not. Really, this should be seen collectively as shades of grey--many decisions made by white families in American perpetuate systemic racism to some degree. But increased awareness will hopefully lead some folks to be more thoughtful about their role in the system and how their individual behaviors can help to dismantle it (e.g., housing decisions, lottery rankings).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we’re talking past each other here.

Generally, I don’t think Brookings has to offer solutions to problems it identifies in order for its research to make accurate truth claims.

I also think they are right about what they identify here. Not universally, but more right than wrong.

I don’t expect “someone else” to solve this problem. When I recognize the dynamics they’re describing in my own life, I try to take steps to lessen them. With the climate here being what it is lately, I’m not down for describing those steps. That climate issue is worth some of your energy. It’s worse than it has been. That, more than Brookings, is going to cut into your traffic after the initial bump.

Regardless: Brookings doesn’t have to identify solutions to be identifying problems.

Talking past each other or not, we are definitely having trouble communicating. Because neither Brookings nor you propose alternative actions for DCUM posters, all you have to offer is criticism. You say that your criticism is correct. But my argument is that while our users are making choices that might not be perfect, they are still the best choices available to them. If there are better choices, what are they? You won't say and Brookings didn't say. I assume that whatever secrets you are keeping are unknown to our users, so even though better choices may secretly exist, they are unknown to our posters who are still making the best choices among the alternatives known to them.

It really seems like common sense that if you are going to criticize someone's actions, you should be able to tell them what they should do differently. Otherwise, it is not clear that you wouldn't do exactly the same thing they are doing if you were in their circumstances.

Please spend time in the "integrated schools" movement -- the podcast, and other sources around the internet, before publishing a response. the solutions are in there, and it will feel like a paradigm shift to you, because they are actively "anti-racist" decisions. There is momentum building for that kind of thinking this year.

That is where Vanessa is coming from, and understanding that foundation will help you understand the study.

No. The study cannot simply be part of Vanessa's personal mission in life. Readers of the article cannot be expected to read other material and "understand the foundation". The study either proves what it says it proves, or doesn't. It needs to stand alone; that's reasearch.

If Vanessa wanted to write an opinion piece and cite a few correlation-not-causation word analysis results, well, fine, Twitter is a nice medium for her.

If she's going to waste four years doing "research" at Brookings, her results need to stand alone. End of story. Let's stop letting this report off the hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. I would not respond in the way you are planning to. It makes you look tone deaf at best, and an apologist for nasty behavior at worst. I don't think that is what or who you want to be, or be seen as. The racism and classism is present in all of this. Any denial of that won't work.

I will ask you the same question I asked above. If DCUM is a bunch of segregationists perpetuating a racist system, what is the solution? Do you want people to stop moving into neighborhoods that they perceive as having good schools? Are posters supposed to stop talking about their local schools? One poster wants us to stop supporting charters despite many of them being among the most diverse schools in the city -- all in the name of ending segregation. Just calling people racists is easy. What's the solution that you propose?

There doesn’t have to be an accurate prescription for the diagnosis to be true.

You will live to regret having reacted to this paper’s accurate description of what is happening here as though it is inaccurate because there isn’t an obvious prescription for fixing it, is my guess. The list of what kind of posters are here reads a lot like “some of my best friends are Black.”

+1

Saying, "well, we aren't segregationists because you aren't telling us what the solution is" is a complete non sequitur. The solution is really complicated, and involves things beyond what schools parents send their kids to, but it will NEVER happen as long as parents who are participating in and benefiting from the system hear "systemic racism" and immediately bristle because someone is calling them "racist." Some problems don't have easy solutions, but pretending that they aren't problems because of that doesn't help.

Part of it is that we really need to think HARD about what we think makes a "good school," and the ways that race plays into that. There are studies about how people's perception of a school's quality declines when the percentage of black students increases, even if things like test scores stay the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we’re talking past each other here.

Generally, I don’t think Brookings has to offer solutions to problems it identifies in order for its research to make accurate truth claims.

I also think they are right about what they identify here. Not universally, but more right than wrong.

I don’t expect “someone else” to solve this problem. When I recognize the dynamics they’re describing in my own life, I try to take steps to lessen them. With the climate here being what it is lately, I’m not down for describing those steps. That climate issue is worth some of your energy. It’s worse than it has been. That, more than Brookings, is going to cut into your traffic after the initial bump.

Regardless: Brookings doesn’t have to identify solutions to be identifying problems.

Talking past each other or not, we are definitely having trouble communicating. Because neither Brookings nor you propose alternative actions for DCUM posters, all you have to offer is criticism. You say that your criticism is correct. But my argument is that while our users are making choices that might not be perfect, they are still the best choices available to them. If there are better choices, what are they? You won't say and Brookings didn't say. I assume that whatever secrets you are keeping are unknown to our users, so even though better choices may secretly exist, they are unknown to our posters who are still making the best choices among the alternatives known to them.

It really seems like common sense that if you are going to criticize someone's actions, you should be able to tell them what they should do differently. Otherwise, it is not clear that you wouldn't do exactly the same thing they are doing if you were in their circumstances.

Please spend time in the "integrated schools" movement -- the podcast, and other sources around the internet, before publishing a response. the solutions are in there, and it will feel like a paradigm shift to you, because they are actively "anti-racist" decisions. There is momentum building for that kind of thinking this year.

That is where Vanessa is coming from, and understanding that foundation will help you understand the study.

No. The study cannot simply be part of Vanessa's personal mission in life. Readers of the article cannot be expected to read other material and "understand the foundation". The study either proves what it says it proves, or doesn't. It needs to stand alone; that's reasearch.

If Vanessa wanted to write an opinion piece and cite a few correlation-not-causation word analysis results, well, fine, Twitter is a nice medium for her.

If she's going to waste four years doing "research" at Brookings, her results need to stand alone. End of story. Let's stop letting this report off the hook.

Who is the intended audience for this report? Who are the important stakeholders? Maybe they are more familiar with the research than we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think what a lot of people are missing here is the mindset that you are either making an anti-racist decision, or you are making a racist decision.

Often, what white people consider to be the default or obvious choice is one that supports a racist, segregated country. It doesn't mean you are a member of the KKK, but it is still true. THAT is what the author is trying to get at, but bc it is a Brookings piece she can't be more obvious about driving home that conclusion.

to make it perfectly clear, moving to upper NW to be in a majority white elementary school and choosing a lesser quality charter to be with more white people are both decision that perpetuate that. They are all mildly racist white liberals. I live in Shaw, i have seen many many many people do that. I also have seen the white families who have remained in our EOTP DCPS for the duration -- they are people who are comfortable being a minority as a white person, who actively believe in integration, and who have a lot of faith in their children and aren't worried about them. The number of these people is growing every year. I hope this study does more to increase it.

Shaw is zoned to Cardozo, which is 1% white. That's ~7 kids. The number of white families who are remaining and sending their kids there is miniscule. And that should tell you something about the difficulty of it. Because you have families who are comfortable being in a minority, who do believe in integration, and who still go charter (where they will also be a minority) or selective high school, or leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are reacting emotionally and defensively and if you take a few days to process this and calm down, you may see that the report has many good points.

Basically, many white gentrifiers don’t want their kids going to the public schools in the neighborhood they moved into and boards like this help them figure out how to send their kids to “better,” typically whiter and less economically diverse non neighborhood schools. That’s pretty obvious.

But that's not what happens in DC. By far the biggest factor around SES clustering in DC (as basically everywhere else in America) is the housing market. Kids go to Deal and Lafayette and Murch and Janney and Ross and Oyster not because of the lottery, but because their parents bought expensive houses in those areas. The lottery doesn't place that many kids in the Ward 3 elementaries. In-bounds preference does.

The fact that there are many schools in DC that are majority-minority and whose test scores are low is a big, big, big problem. But it's not because parents don't choose those schools in the lottery. Which is what the report is trying (poorly) to argue.

Yeah but parents bought in that area/Ward 3 BECAUSE of the schools and what are perceived as “good” schools. High demand for those schools; high housing prices. Anyway, the better research paper would have focused on housing segregation and/or what schools people deem “good.”

They also bought in Upper NW and not a mile away in Bethesda for even better schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think what a lot of people are missing here is the mindset that you are either making an anti-racist decision, or you are making a racist decision.

Often, what white people consider to be the default or obvious choice is one that supports a racist, segregated country. It doesn't mean you are a member of the KKK, but it is still true. THAT is what the author is trying to get at, but bc it is a Brookings piece she can't be more obvious about driving home that conclusion.

to make it perfectly clear, moving to upper NW to be in a majority white elementary school and choosing a lesser quality charter to be with more white people are both decision that perpetuate that. They are all mildly racist white liberals. I live in Shaw, i have seen many many many people do that. I also have seen the white families who have remained in our EOTP DCPS for the duration -- they are people who are comfortable being a minority as a white person, who actively believe in integration, and who have a lot of faith in their children and aren't worried about them. The number of these people is growing every year. I hope this study does more to increase it.

Shaw is zoned to Cardozo, which is 1% white. That's ~7 kids. The number of white families who are remaining and sending their kids there is miniscule. And that should tell you something about the difficulty of it. Because you have families who are comfortable being in a minority, who do believe in integration, and who still go charter (where they will also be a minority) or selective high school, or leave.

i think we can all agree that 2020 was a paradigm-shifting year. In particular, the way white people think about their own privilege and how they benefit from racist systems has changed. It's all out in the open now. I don't think it's a coincedence that this study came out now... i think there are more people now who are ready to hear it. Maybe even on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are reacting emotionally and defensively and if you take a few days to process this and calm down, you may see that the report has many good points.

Basically, many white gentrifiers don’t want their kids going to the public schools in the neighborhood they moved into and boards like this help them figure out how to send their kids to “better,” typically whiter and less economically diverse non neighborhood schools. That’s pretty obvious.

But that's not what happens in DC. By far the biggest factor around SES clustering in DC (as basically everywhere else in America) is the housing market. Kids go to Deal and Lafayette and Murch and Janney and Ross and Oyster not because of the lottery, but because their parents bought expensive houses in those areas. The lottery doesn't place that many kids in the Ward 3 elementaries. In-bounds preference does.

The fact that there are many schools in DC that are majority-minority and whose test scores are low is a big, big, big problem. But it's not because parents don't choose those schools in the lottery. Which is what the report is trying (poorly) to argue.

The housing market is also shaped by segregation. The area around Fort Reno Park/Tenleytown was home to many African Americans after the Civil War. They were deliberately pushed out by white developers, and with the active participation of the federal government.

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/e400085dbcf54a9aa0fc13c6fa541f87

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/188488/the-battle-of-fort-reno/

And, of course, redlining, restrictive covenants, and other policies supporting residential segregation kept NW DC white.

So parents choosing that expensive house in NWDC are participating in and benefiting from segregation. And they are often choosing those neighborhoods precisely because of the "good schools."

[Anonymous]

In our long experience on Capitol Hill in DCPS schools, the absolute best tool urban elementary schools can be given to promote integration, at least after white parents have been drawn in by free preschool and preK, is the provision of more qualified adult hands on deck in classrooms than the school system provides.

For example, Maury, Brent and Ludlow-Taylor have attracted and retained droves of in-boundary families in the last decade in large part by dramatically improving standard DCPS teacher:student ratios. This is done with classroom aides (often grad students in education) and/or "floater teachers" supported by PTA dollars.

Under the "floater teacher" model, one highly experienced teacher per grade is not assigned a class. Instead, s/he who moves from classroom to classroom for that grade providing extra help for struggling students, and extra challenge for advanced learners. Without floater teachers at our school, we'd have bailed several years ago. From our point of view, and that of many other UMC parents in our school community, the low SES/high SES achievement gap in the classroom would have been too wide for one teacher to effectively differentiate instruction, at least by the upper grades.

Classroom aides and floater teachers are the critical carrots DCPS schools need to retain sizeable white cohorts in majority-minority elementary schools, after free ECE has drawn in this demographic. However, retention of white families into the upper grades only happens when PTAs fund the extra help. Rotten, short-sighted system making replication very difficult and slow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we’re talking past each other here.

Generally, I don’t think Brookings has to offer solutions to problems it identifies in order for its research to make accurate truth claims.

I also think they are right about what they identify here. Not universally, but more right than wrong.

I don’t expect “someone else” to solve this problem. When I recognize the dynamics they’re describing in my own life, I try to take steps to lessen them. With the climate here being what it is lately, I’m not down for describing those steps. That climate issue is worth some of your energy. It’s worse than it has been. That, more than Brookings, is going to cut into your traffic after the initial bump.

Regardless: Brookings doesn’t have to identify solutions to be identifying problems.

Talking past each other or not, we are definitely having trouble communicating. Because neither Brookings nor you propose alternative actions for DCUM posters, all you have to offer is criticism. You say that your criticism is correct. But my argument is that while our users are making choices that might not be perfect, they are still the best choices available to them. If there are better choices, what are they? You won't say and Brookings didn't say. I assume that whatever secrets you are keeping are unknown to our users, so even though better choices may secretly exist, they are unknown to our posters who are still making the best choices among the alternatives known to them.

It really seems like common sense that if you are going to criticize someone's actions, you should be able to tell them what they should do differently. Otherwise, it is not clear that you wouldn't do exactly the same thing they are doing if you were in their circumstances.

Please spend time in the "integrated schools" movement -- the podcast, and other sources around the internet, before publishing a response. the solutions are in there, and it will feel like a paradigm shift to you, because they are actively "anti-racist" decisions. There is momentum building for that kind of thinking this year.

That is where Vanessa is coming from, and understanding that foundation will help you understand the study.

No. The study cannot simply be part of Vanessa's personal mission in life. Readers of the article cannot be expected to read other material and "understand the foundation". The study either proves what it says it proves, or doesn't. It needs to stand alone; that's reasearch.

If Vanessa wanted to write an opinion piece and cite a few correlation-not-causation word analysis results, well, fine, Twitter is a nice medium for her.

If she's going to waste four years doing "research" at Brookings, her results need to stand alone. End of story. Let's stop letting this report off the hook.

Who is the intended audience for this report? Who are the important stakeholders? Maybe they are more familiar with the research than we are.

It doesn't matter!!! The study does not in any way prove the conclusions it appears to. Did you read it? Did you read this and the other thread? It's just crap scholarship is the problem. Total crap.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think what a lot of people are missing here is the mindset that you are either making an anti-racist decision, or you are making a racist decision.

Often, what white people consider to be the default or obvious choice is one that supports a racist, segregated country. It doesn't mean you are a member of the KKK, but it is still true. THAT is what the author is trying to get at, but bc it is a Brookings piece she can't be more obvious about driving home that conclusion.

Great point. I think a lot of folks are getting defensive (Jeff included) because they see this as a black or white issue--either the report says we're segregationists/racists, or we're not. Really, this should be seen collectively as shades of grey--many decisions made by white families in American perpetuate systemic racism to some degree. But increased awareness will hopefully lead some folks to be more thoughtful about their role in the system and how their individual behaviors can help to dismantle it (e.g., housing decisions, lottery rankings).

The poster that you say is making a "Great point" is making exactly the type of binary determination that you think is wrong ("you are either making an anti-racist decision, or you are making a racist decision"). My "defensiveness" is primarily due to my frustration that a complex issue is being over-simplified. There are a considerable number of shades of grey. Making this an either/or proposition ignores all of those. Many factors contribute to school choices. It is lazy to decide than any decision other than the one that you support is racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In our long experience on Capitol Hill in DCPS schools, the absolute best tool urban elementary schools can be given to promote integration, at least after white parents have been drawn in by free preschool and preK, is the provision of more qualified adult hands on deck in classrooms than the school system provides.

For example, Maury, Brent and Ludlow-Taylor have attracted and retained droves of in-boundary families in the last decade in large part by dramatically improving standard DCPS teacher:student ratios. This is done with classroom aides (often grad students in education) and/or "floater teachers" supported by PTA dollars.

Under the "floater teacher" model, one highly experienced teacher per grade is not assigned a class. Instead, s/he who moves from classroom to classroom for that grade providing extra help for struggling students, and extra challenge for advanced learners. Without floater teachers at our school, we'd have bailed several years ago. From our point of view, and that of many other UMC parents in our school community, the low SES/high SES achievement gap in the classroom would have been too wide for one teacher to effectively differentiate instruction, at least by the upper grades.

Classroom aides and floater teachers are the critical carrots DCPS schools need to retain sizeable white cohorts in majority-minority elementary schools, after free ECE has drawn in this demographic. However, retention of white families into the upper grades only happens when PTAs fund the extra help. Rotten, short-sighted system making replication very difficult and slow.

this is a great comment. I think differentiation is the key to making integrated schools work, because students have a wider range of capabilities. there are some DCPS school principals who actively focus on differentiation and funnel their schools recources into floating coaches who can do exactly what you are describing (this is our experience at Seaton).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP but it seems like common sense to me that Brookings is actually critiquing both the system and the actors, and you're interpreting it primarily as a personal attack ("they keep calling us segregationists"). When you try to turn a discussion about systemic racism into a conversation about whether or not you're a nice person, you're centering yourself in an unhelpful and unsympathetic way. I agree with the PPs that say you should leave this alone or at least re-read and edit it when you're not so upset. If you have to respond it should be about the weaknesses inherent in the methodology, the fact that boundaries were redrawn during the survey time, and the less outraged points.

Not to pile on, but I've reported enough overtly racist stuff on the schools forum to know that there's plenty of meat on the report's bones. You've deleted most, though not all, of it, so I'm not sure why you're committed to arguing that racism doesn't play a role in the school choices made by posters here. Stop looking at it as about you and start looking at is about the aggregate of posts. The methodology is flawed but it's not like they're coming out of fantasy land.

Directly from the report, "The conversations on DC Urban Moms illustrate what other research has also shown: When privileged parents choose, they tend to choose segregation." What is this saying if it is not saying that we are segregationists? Their description includes you, by the way. I don't know why I shouldn't take this misrepresentation of a website I own personally. I actually think I should.

As I have said, there are racists here. There are racists everywhere in America. Racism, whether conscious or unconscious, may play a role in school choices. But, I disagree with the report's conclusion that DCUM posters are choosing segregation. You are one of our posters. Did you choose segregation? The aggregate of the posts here are not racist. I don't know how many you have reported, but I guarantee that they are such a small percentage of the posts as to be almost unnoticeable. The report is doing a grave disservice by reducing a complex and nuanced issue to a simple accusation of racism. You know there is more to it than that. Why are you defending such their conclusion?

Many, many conversations on DCUM do illustrate what other research has shown, that privileged parents choose segregation. I am not horrified by this report because it rings true to me based on the comical amount of time I spend here. The conclusion is overbroad, especially since you seem to be reading "the conversations on DCUM" to mean "every single conversation on DCUM," but the defensiveness (and trying to transfer the defensiveness to me?) is also overblown. Their description doesn't include me, because I have not participated in the conversations that support their point other than to debate people who insist that SWW is the bees knees and Banneker is for problem cases with no dads (real thread!).

I think there are methodological problems with the report, and I think you've described some of them persuasively. I also think the overly-personal reactions in other parts of your draft are inappropriate and you may come to regret publishing this while upset. But this is your site, and it's your essay. If that's the direction you want to go, I'm not going to keep arguing against it.

I also think that saying that "privileged parents choose segregation" is the same as saying that they are "segregationists" is a mistake, because you make it an attack on your character rather than a statement about the ways in which everyone participates in a racist system. There are no "pure" choices. You can choose segregation without really meaning to, by not thinking about why things are the way they are, by not interrogating your own sense of what make a "good" school or a "good" neighborhood, by relying on "objective" measures, like test scores, that really aren't.

It's funny to me that parents who consider themselves liberal and progressive on race in many ways can be reliably counted on to get all their hackles up when someone points out that their choice of neighborhood or school for their kids was informed by racism (even unconscious) or entrenches racism, even if that's an unintended consequence. Because you're doing what's "best for your kid," and that trumps every other obligation and consideration, and justifies anything.