Integration and DC Schools -- A high priority? Yay or nay?

[Anonymous]

socioeconomically diverse public schools are big picture a really good thing. schools run better when a majority of the students are not economically at-risk and/or have a significant level of family/community support. but thats mostly keeping the often overlooked middle class of all races in dc public schools.

When a school becomes comprised over more than 30% at-risk students, the middle class families generally tend to leave. They may stick around for k-2 but once third grade hits and it is more about reading to learn instead of learning to read, the middle class families will peel off if they believe that their children's needs are not being met because the school is having to focus the bulk of its resources on the most struggling kids. And, as the strength of the charter sector has shown, not only did a significant amount of middle class families turn to the charter world, but a large number of working and at-risk families will also peel off from regular DCPS if they think that the charters can provide a more attentive and rigorous environment with respect to academics and behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

socioeconomically diverse public schools are big picture a really good thing. schools run better when a majority of the students are not economically at-risk and/or have a significant level of family/community support. but thats mostly keeping the often overlooked middle class of all races in dc public schools.

When a school becomes comprised over more than 30% at-risk students, the middle class families generally tend to leave. They may stick around for k-2 but once third grade hits and it is more about reading to learn instead of learning to read, the middle class families will peel off if they believe that their children's needs are not being met because the school is having to focus the bulk of its resources on the most struggling kids. And, as the strength of the charter sector has shown, not only did a significant amount of middle class families turn to the charter world, but a large number of working and at-risk families will also peel off from regular DCPS if they think that the charters can provide a more attentive and rigorous environment with respect to academics and behavior.

This would not happen if there was tracking but of course we can’t have that because of equity. Also the reality is DCPS doesn’t care about meeting the needs of the higher performing kids. All they care about and concentrate resources to is the bottom.

They will be “OK” however you define that, even if bored to death and not learning much. But hey, they can be helpers for the other students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

socioeconomically diverse public schools are big picture a really good thing. schools run better when a majority of the students are not economically at-risk and/or have a significant level of family/community support. but thats mostly keeping the often overlooked middle class of all races in dc public schools.

When a school becomes comprised over more than 30% at-risk students, the middle class families generally tend to leave. They may stick around for k-2 but once third grade hits and it is more about reading to learn instead of learning to read, the middle class families will peel off if they believe that their children's needs are not being met because the school is having to focus the bulk of its resources on the most struggling kids. And, as the strength of the charter sector has shown, not only did a significant amount of middle class families turn to the charter world, but a large number of working and at-risk families will also peel off from regular DCPS if they think that the charters can provide a more attentive and rigorous environment with respect to academics and behavior.

I've heard this 30% threshold quoted before. Do you have a source by any chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

socioeconomically diverse public schools are big picture a really good thing. schools run better when a majority of the students are not economically at-risk and/or have a significant level of family/community support. but thats mostly keeping the often overlooked middle class of all races in dc public schools.

When a school becomes comprised over more than 30% at-risk students, the middle class families generally tend to leave. They may stick around for k-2 but once third grade hits and it is more about reading to learn instead of learning to read, the middle class families will peel off if they believe that their children's needs are not being met because the school is having to focus the bulk of its resources on the most struggling kids. And, as the strength of the charter sector has shown, not only did a significant amount of middle class families turn to the charter world, but a large number of working and at-risk families will also peel off from regular DCPS if they think that the charters can provide a more attentive and rigorous environment with respect to academics and behavior.

I've heard this 30% threshold quoted before. Do you have a source by any chance?

It’s actually 20%. FCPS did their own study of this years ago also and got same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Integration is very important to me and I am engaged in it, but it is generally overtaken by other priorities on this board.

I'd say mostly, this board wants differentiation and to not have children of board participants in the same schools as students with behavior problems. Those goals do not go well with generalized integration.

There are also more general segregation/race and class relations issues, with a major one being a distribution of income and educational attainment that is at the edges with nobody in the middle (we have a bunch of high income advanced degree holders and HS-or-worse educated low income parents, nothing in between in DC).

If you actually think this, it's a reflection of your own limited social circle. It's wrong. DC has plenty of families that are middle income. Lots of people just have college degrees and no advanced degree, plus plenty of fields offer steady income but not high income. We can afford to own homes (condos or houses in part so the city outside the most gentrified neighborhoods, and also if you bought before rates went up) and care about education, but also money is tight because this is an expensive city and it gets more expensive all the time. On the other hand, living in the city often gives us the ability to live without a car or with just one car, living in small homes keep us from accumulating so much stuff, and there are real cost savings to being close in to work and lots of free entertainment. So a lot of us are loathe to move out of the city where we might get cheaper housing and food but more expensive and longer commutes and a host of other expenses just by virtue of living far away from things.

I regularly feel completely invisible in discussions about education in the city because so many people think as you do. That there are only two kinds of people in the city: (1) rich, mostly white people with advanced degrees, and (2) poor black and hispanic people with a HS education or less. I'm sure your in group #1 and it's actually an embarrassment to your education that you are so ignorant of the many many families of every race in this city that are dual income, have college degrees, are not rich, can still pay our bills, and obviously send our kids to public schools because where the hell else are we going to send them?

What's funny is that we send our kids to school with rich people and poor people, and people just lack the observational skills or common sense to understand that we are middle class. Some of the rich people at our school just assume we are also rich, because we wear professional clothes and have read books, and they seem confused when we don't have opinions on whether Colorado or Vermont is better for New Year's skiing. Other rich people at our school just group us in with the poor people. The poor people all think we are rich, which is fair, because compared to them we are. Literally no one cares if our family's needs are being met by the school system.

Group 1 makes these sorts of assumptions in all areas, not just education. As you allude to, they aren’t really aware of middle class people and have no idea of how to interact with them socially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

socioeconomically diverse public schools are big picture a really good thing. schools run better when a majority of the students are not economically at-risk and/or have a significant level of family/community support. but thats mostly keeping the often overlooked middle class of all races in dc public schools.

When a school becomes comprised over more than 30% at-risk students, the middle class families generally tend to leave. They may stick around for k-2 but once third grade hits and it is more about reading to learn instead of learning to read, the middle class families will peel off if they believe that their children's needs are not being met because the school is having to focus the bulk of its resources on the most struggling kids. And, as the strength of the charter sector has shown, not only did a significant amount of middle class families turn to the charter world, but a large number of working and at-risk families will also peel off from regular DCPS if they think that the charters can provide a more attentive and rigorous environment with respect to academics and behavior.

I've heard this 30% threshold quoted before. Do you have a source by any chance?

It’s actually 20%. FCPS did their own study of this years ago also and got same.

20 or 30%—but how can this be sustainable in a community with 45% at risk students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zoning restrictions aren’t creating segregation. Let developers do what they want without zoning and they will build more 1 and 2 bedroom apartments with lots of amenities to attract young people without children. They aren’t going to start building small affordable family friendly home.

Agree but what I think matters more in this context is that consultant types have gotten the cause and effect completely opposite.

Housing prices are correlated with the perceived quality of schools. But it's not high housing costs that create good schools. It's good schools creating high housing costs.

Teachers and facilities are roughly the same across the district. Good schools have good students from solid families. They are created by excluding underperforming students with behavioral issues. And yes, once you have that in place, people will definitely pay a premium to buy into a neighborhood school that is sufficiently segregated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's really such a high priority then maybe DME shouldn't have botched the Maury-Miner presentation. Failing to notify the Miner PTO was the cherry on top-- they only found out because the supposedly awful Maury parents told them.

100 percent. I think they floated that plan to give lip service to caring about integration. If they actually cared, they would have done more to create the conditions for it to be successful - like made a real attempt at community and teacher buy-in. It may not have worked, but they didn't even seem to try.

Seriously. They couldn't answer the most basic and reasonable questions, like would it cause Miner to lose Title I status and funding. The whole thing was sad.

I do think Miner is doing better lately, seems like maybe their change in leadership helped?

It was hilarious watching the ed consultants who live in Bethesda call the Maury parents racist while ignoring that colossal fukkup

Not just Maury!

"But if more Brent parents were to give Jefferson a chance, it might do wonders for the community at large, says Richard Kahlenberg. He’s a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, where he studies inequality in schools.

“I think it’s problematic when middle-class people pull out of traditional public schools,” Kahlenberg [who lives in Bethesda and sent his kids to school there] says."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

socioeconomically diverse public schools are big picture a really good thing. schools run better when a majority of the students are not economically at-risk and/or have a significant level of family/community support. but thats mostly keeping the often overlooked middle class of all races in dc public schools.

When a school becomes comprised over more than 30% at-risk students, the middle class families generally tend to leave. They may stick around for k-2 but once third grade hits and it is more about reading to learn instead of learning to read, the middle class families will peel off if they believe that their children's needs are not being met because the school is having to focus the bulk of its resources on the most struggling kids. And, as the strength of the charter sector has shown, not only did a significant amount of middle class families turn to the charter world, but a large number of working and at-risk families will also peel off from regular DCPS if they think that the charters can provide a more attentive and rigorous environment with respect to academics and behavior.

This would not happen if there was tracking but of course we can’t have that because of equity. Also the reality is DCPS doesn’t care about meeting the needs of the higher performing kids. All they care about and concentrate resources to is the bottom.

They will be “OK” however you define that, even if bored to death and not learning much. But hey, they can be helpers for the other students.

DCPS isn't actually doing much for kids at the bottom either. They say they are focusing on kids with the most needs, but where's the evidence? As many have pointed out, you're much better off being a poor black child in a Mississippi school than in DCPS. Poor kids in DC are used as an excuse by DCPS not to help UMC kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

socioeconomically diverse public schools are big picture a really good thing. schools run better when a majority of the students are not economically at-risk and/or have a significant level of family/community support. but thats mostly keeping the often overlooked middle class of all races in dc public schools.

When a school becomes comprised over more than 30% at-risk students, the middle class families generally tend to leave. They may stick around for k-2 but once third grade hits and it is more about reading to learn instead of learning to read, the middle class families will peel off if they believe that their children's needs are not being met because the school is having to focus the bulk of its resources on the most struggling kids. And, as the strength of the charter sector has shown, not only did a significant amount of middle class families turn to the charter world, but a large number of working and at-risk families will also peel off from regular DCPS if they think that the charters can provide a more attentive and rigorous environment with respect to academics and behavior.

This would not happen if there was tracking but of course we can’t have that because of equity. Also the reality is DCPS doesn’t care about meeting the needs of the higher performing kids. All they care about and concentrate resources to is the bottom.

They will be “OK” however you define that, even if bored to death and not learning much. But hey, they can be helpers for the other students.

DCPS isn't actually doing much for kids at the bottom either. They say they are focusing on kids with the most needs, but where's the evidence? As many have pointed out, you're much better off being a poor black child in a Mississippi school than in DCPS. Poor kids in DC are used as an excuse by DCPS not to help UMC kids.

Yeah, the longer I witness this system (and have had kids at a Title 1 DCPS school and a low-risk Charter), I think the problem is the low expectations baked into DCPS. It actually breaks my heart to see these kids whose parents are trusting the system to challenge their kids and give them a pathway to success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

socioeconomically diverse public schools are big picture a really good thing. schools run better when a majority of the students are not economically at-risk and/or have a significant level of family/community support. but thats mostly keeping the often overlooked middle class of all races in dc public schools.

When a school becomes comprised over more than 30% at-risk students, the middle class families generally tend to leave. They may stick around for k-2 but once third grade hits and it is more about reading to learn instead of learning to read, the middle class families will peel off if they believe that their children's needs are not being met because the school is having to focus the bulk of its resources on the most struggling kids. And, as the strength of the charter sector has shown, not only did a significant amount of middle class families turn to the charter world, but a large number of working and at-risk families will also peel off from regular DCPS if they think that the charters can provide a more attentive and rigorous environment with respect to academics and behavior.

I've heard this 30% threshold quoted before. Do you have a source by any chance?

It’s actually 20%. FCPS did their own study of this years ago also and got same.

20 or 30%—but how can this be sustainable in a community with 45% at risk students?

It’s not sustainable. And most DC schools are just going to be around 50% at-risk. We can still successfully educate those kids, but not typically via approaches amenable to UMC folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's really such a high priority then maybe DME shouldn't have botched the Maury-Miner presentation. Failing to notify the Miner PTO was the cherry on top-- they only found out because the supposedly awful Maury parents told them.

100 percent. I think they floated that plan to give lip service to caring about integration. If they actually cared, they would have done more to create the conditions for it to be successful - like made a real attempt at community and teacher buy-in. It may not have worked, but they didn't even seem to try.

Seriously. They couldn't answer the most basic and reasonable questions, like would it cause Miner to lose Title I status and funding. The whole thing was sad.

I do think Miner is doing better lately, seems like maybe their change in leadership helped?

It was hilarious watching the ed consultants who live in Bethesda call the Maury parents racist while ignoring that colossal fukkup

Not just Maury!

"But if more Brent parents were to give Jefferson a chance, it might do wonders for the community at large, says Richard Kahlenberg. He’s a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, where he studies inequality in schools.

“I think it’s problematic when middle-class people pull out of traditional public schools,” Kahlenberg [who lives in Bethesda and sent his kids to school there] says."

So knows of what he speaks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Charters are super integrated. Even the fancy ones -- BASIS, DCI and Latin fit the actual definition of integrated (no one race more than 70 percent of the population).

Other charters are not integrated but at serving their low-income populations better than the DCPS schools (like DC Prep getting everyone into college).

DCPS schools in gentrifying neighborhoods are sometimes integrated and there is an opportunity here to be a model. Like I feel Garrison actually serves all demographics well.

Other DCPS schools are not integrated because the housing is segregated. Do people really want to run busses between Ward 3 and EOTR or something? This sounds like a mess.

BASIS might meet the letter of the law definition of integration, but I don't think a school with 6% of students at risk in a city with a public student population that's 45% at risk is actually what anybody is talking about when they say integration.

Pffft.

At least it's possible for very poor children to attend BASIS.

Jackson-Reid, Janney, Murch, Deal, etc. all impose de facto wealth tests on their students. If your parents can't afford a house in Ward 3, sorry you have to go somewhere else!

The only schools with a lower at risk percentage than BASIS are Lafayette, Key, Janney, Stokes Brookland, and Mann.

You are literally advocating for ignoring race in discussions of integration. Tell me you're white without telling me.

I like a school with a critical mass of not at-risk black students. We need such schools to exist too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

socioeconomically diverse public schools are big picture a really good thing. schools run better when a majority of the students are not economically at-risk and/or have a significant level of family/community support. but thats mostly keeping the often overlooked middle class of all races in dc public schools.

When a school becomes comprised over more than 30% at-risk students, the middle class families generally tend to leave. They may stick around for k-2 but once third grade hits and it is more about reading to learn instead of learning to read, the middle class families will peel off if they believe that their children's needs are not being met because the school is having to focus the bulk of its resources on the most struggling kids. And, as the strength of the charter sector has shown, not only did a significant amount of middle class families turn to the charter world, but a large number of working and at-risk families will also peel off from regular DCPS if they think that the charters can provide a more attentive and rigorous environment with respect to academics and behavior.

This would not happen if there was tracking but of course we can’t have that because of equity. Also the reality is DCPS doesn’t care about meeting the needs of the higher performing kids. All they care about and concentrate resources to is the bottom.

They will be “OK” however you define that, even if bored to death and not learning much. But hey, they can be helpers for the other students.

DCPS isn't actually doing much for kids at the bottom either. They say they are focusing on kids with the most needs, but where's the evidence? As many have pointed out, you're much better off being a poor black child in a Mississippi school than in DCPS. Poor kids in DC are used as an excuse by DCPS not to help UMC kids.

Yeah, the longer I witness this system (and have had kids at a Title 1 DCPS school and a low-risk Charter), I think the problem is the low expectations baked into DCPS. It actually breaks my heart to see these kids whose parents are trusting the system to challenge their kids and give them a pathway to success.

Raising academic standards through the system would help everyone. Unfortunately we elect social justice warriors to office (looking at you Janeese Lewis George) who will never in a million years agree to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

socioeconomically diverse public schools are big picture a really good thing. schools run better when a majority of the students are not economically at-risk and/or have a significant level of family/community support. but thats mostly keeping the often overlooked middle class of all races in dc public schools.

When a school becomes comprised over more than 30% at-risk students, the middle class families generally tend to leave. They may stick around for k-2 but once third grade hits and it is more about reading to learn instead of learning to read, the middle class families will peel off if they believe that their children's needs are not being met because the school is having to focus the bulk of its resources on the most struggling kids. And, as the strength of the charter sector has shown, not only did a significant amount of middle class families turn to the charter world, but a large number of working and at-risk families will also peel off from regular DCPS if they think that the charters can provide a more attentive and rigorous environment with respect to academics and behavior.

This would not happen if there was tracking but of course we can’t have that because of equity. Also the reality is DCPS doesn’t care about meeting the needs of the higher performing kids. All they care about and concentrate resources to is the bottom.

They will be “OK” however you define that, even if bored to death and not learning much. But hey, they can be helpers for the other students.

DCPS isn't actually doing much for kids at the bottom either. They say they are focusing on kids with the most needs, but where's the evidence? As many have pointed out, you're much better off being a poor black child in a Mississippi school than in DCPS. Poor kids in DC are used as an excuse by DCPS not to help UMC kids.

Yeah, the longer I witness this system (and have had kids at a Title 1 DCPS school and a low-risk Charter), I think the problem is the low expectations baked into DCPS. It actually breaks my heart to see these kids whose parents are trusting the system to challenge their kids and give them a pathway to success.

Raising academic standards through the system would help everyone. Unfortunately we elect social justice warriors to office (looking at you Janeese Lewis George) who will never in a million years agree to that.

Politicians on the left will never admit their education policies are a failure, but the evidence is becoming harder and harder to ignore.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/09/opinion/red-states-good-schools.html

"Louisiana ranks No. 1 in the country in recovery from pandemic losses in reading, while Alabama ranks No. 1 in math recovery.

The state with the lowest chronic absenteeism in schools is Alabama, according to a tracker with data from 40 states.

Once an educational laughingstock, Mississippi now ranks ninth in the country in fourth-grade reading levels — and after adjusting for demographics such as poverty and race, Mississippi ranks No. 1, while Louisiana ranks No. 2, according to calculations by the Urban Institute. Using the same demographic adjustment, Mississippi also ranks No. 1 in America in both fourth-grade and eighth-grade math.

Black fourth graders in Mississippi are on average better readers than those in Massachusetts, which is often thought to have the best public school system in the country (and one that spends twice as much per pupil)."