Can Gentrifers Use Their Skills and Resources to "Make" a Great School?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP- Poster here. This is a great debate. I can take the criticism because I am willing to ask the questions that most of peers would not. Most people who can leave- don't ask what they can do for DC schools- they just leave or go private.

If I wanted to live in Arlington or Bethesda it wouldnt be a problem. But I'm not putting myself in that suburban nightmare. I'd prefer to stay in the city and really help to improve things.

When I look at the resources that DCPS has to spend its hard to think that an active PTA can't help transform any school into a great school. I'm just wondering if too many DC parents of underperforming schools aren't willing (or aren't able) to do all they can to turn things around.

OP- Here is the very hard question we confronted when we were at Thomson and a group of about 50 parents thought that they could do the same. Are you willing to put that money and effort towards changing the lives of the kids who don't have parents gentrifying? It is making a difference in their lives that changes the schools trajectory. One of the significant reasons schools struggle is that they are expected to make up for the many, many deficiencies in children's lives like food, decent clothes, non-depressed adults, English language. I am not saying these things because these are bad parents, but poverty is hard on people, it takes a lot and gives nothing and it takes even more from children.

When we were at Thomson we could not break the issues of language- that over 50% of the school spoke another language and only in some cases could read even the non-English version. I just saw this on the DCPS twitter feed about Thomson and I am grateful to those teachers and administrators for figuring it out, but this is what is needed not extra smartboards for your advanced learner.

http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Press+Releases+and+Announcements/School+News/A+Family+That+Listens+Together+Learns+Together

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not OP. I agree that, on paper, Powell is already a well-run school with a creative program, and is helping a majority-Latino population improve dramatically by 5th grade. It's probably the wrong example of a school that can be "improved."

Figure out how Powell is going to sustain its successes once the principal leaves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you're well intentioned, but you come off as super condescending.

And naive, sheltered and stupid. And white, 30 years old, and from Evanston, IL. I have no doubt, however, that OP takes tests well and writes scintialting reports for her non-profit.

Yes. Publicly liberal, privately segregationist. Oh, Democrats...

You're going to blame them, after all the hate hurled in their direction?

Hate hurled in this city is rarely, if ever, at Democrats. We're all so busy vilifying Brian Williams for his lies, exaggerations, and outright fabrications that we're giving Hillary Clinton a free pass for doing the exact same thing.

The point remains that in this very Democrat city, we all talk a big game, but when push comes to shove everyone who isn't poor, either moves or becomes a closet segregationist.

You seem to be forgetting that the segregation was already in place before the gentrifiers came along.

Gentrifiers buying homes in already-segregated neighborhoods are the exact opposite of segregationists.
Gentrifiers sending their kids to already-segregated schools are the exact opposite of segregationists.
Gentrifiers trying to make those neighborhoods and schools more attractive to a more diverse group of people is the exact opposite of segregation.

Seems to me the argument is exactly backwards.

The resistance to gentrification is what is pro-segregationist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP. I agree that, on paper, Powell is already a well-run school with a creative program, and is helping a majority-Latino population improve dramatically by 5th grade. It's probably the wrong example of a school that can be "improved."

Figure out how Powell is going to sustain its successes once the principal leaves.

The principal is leaving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you're well intentioned, but you come off as super condescending.

And naive, sheltered and stupid. And white, 30 years old, and from Evanston, IL. I have no doubt, however, that OP takes tests well and writes scintialting reports for her non-profit.

Yes. Publicly liberal, privately segregationist. Oh, Democrats...

You're going to blame them, after all the hate hurled in their direction?

Hate hurled in this city is rarely, if ever, at Democrats. We're all so busy vilifying Brian Williams for his lies, exaggerations, and outright fabrications that we're giving Hillary Clinton a free pass for doing the exact same thing.

The point remains that in this very Democrat city, we all talk a big game, but when push comes to shove everyone who isn't poor, either moves or becomes a closet segregationist.

You seem to be forgetting that the segregation was already in place before the gentrifiers came along.

Gentrifiers buying homes in already-segregated neighborhoods are the exact opposite of segregationists.
Gentrifiers sending their kids to already-segregated schools are the exact opposite of segregationists.
Gentrifiers trying to make those neighborhoods and schools more attractive to a more diverse group of people is the exact opposite of segregation.

Seems to me the argument is exactly backwards.

The resistance to gentrification is what is pro-segregationist.

That is the easy narrative. I think you can assume that the first people that move in are often more open, desirous of living in a neighborhood and more often than not see its price point as being a critical part of moving into a neighborhood. I know as a white person that moved into Brookland in the 90's it was the cost issue more than anything that drew us. Since that time we have seen much better off white and black families move into significantly upgraded homes. The price point has significantly shifted. This is good for older African Americans that are selling now, they should get the reward for a better market, but all those upper class families including myself are not investing as much into the community, especially into the schools. They continue to be largely segregated. I make myself feel better in saying I want a diverse school and we do attend a diverse school with no one group being the majority. But gentrification really does represent choices of those that are wealthier, not increased power to the preexisting community.

[Anonymous]

So what would happen to Powell in say 5 years when say 50 Gentrifier families have sent their kids there in each year. Based on earlier posts these higher SES parents would have a really big difference.

In the past most people have just left the city when they could (if they had the money). But right now it seems like there is a chance for a tipping point- as so many people are buying the high priced renovations.

So why I suggest is a Gentrifiera pact- where we all agree to pick one school and send our kids there. Each year we sign up more and more parents- and when are kids are too young for school we get enough of us to help in advance of attendance. Kind of like a pay it forward pact.

Anyone else think this could work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what would happen to Powell in say 5 years when say 50 Gentrifier families have sent their kids there in each year. Based on earlier posts these higher SES parents would have a really big difference.

In the past most people have just left the city when they could (if they had the money). But right now it seems like there is a chance for a tipping point- as so many people are buying the high priced renovations.

So why I suggest is a Gentrifiera pact- where we all agree to pick one school and send our kids there. Each year we sign up more and more parents- and when are kids are too young for school we get enough of us to help in advance of attendance. Kind of like a pay it forward pact.

Anyone else think this could work?

It could definitely work if you remember to all wear the uniform t-shirts that say "GREAT WHITE SAVIOR." This way, all of you will be able to find each other when you're out and about. Then you can compare notes while sitting in your high-priced renovated homes.

[Anonymous]

They should wear beanies or some other haute couture headwear!ijs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would happen to Powell in say 5 years when say 50 Gentrifier families have sent their kids there in each year. Based on earlier posts these higher SES parents would have a really big difference.

In the past most people have just left the city when they could (if they had the money). But right now it seems like there is a chance for a tipping point- as so many people are buying the high priced renovations.

So why I suggest is a Gentrifiera pact- where we all agree to pick one school and send our kids there. Each year we sign up more and more parents- and when are kids are too young for school we get enough of us to help in advance of attendance. Kind of like a pay it forward pact.

Anyone else think this could work?

It could definitely work if you remember to all wear the uniform t-shirts that say "GREAT WHITE SAVIOR." This way, all of you will be able to find each other when you're out and about. Then you can compare notes while sitting in your high-priced renovated homes.

PP here again. I should've revealed that I am, myself, white and I live in a renovated home someplace in the District.

Where we would part company is that I don't think I'm here to save the day for the poor brown masses who I was shocked, shocked to encounter when I moved to DC many years ago. Also, I've never tried to create little white-enough islands that 1.0 meet my standards while 2.) offering the prospect of trickle-down goodness for those helpless brown masses living in homes without high-priced renovations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should wear beanies or some other haute couture headwear!ijs

This is so sad to see. This doesn't need to be a race thing. PP was talking about making great schools. If we play the race card each time then you sound dumb and bitter.

I think it could work if folks wanted to make some great schools in DC- but probably people won't bother- they will just leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you're well intentioned, but you come off as super condescending.

And naive, sheltered and stupid. And white, 30 years old, and from Evanston, IL. I have no doubt, however, that OP takes tests well and writes scintialting reports for her non-profit.

Yes. Publicly liberal, privately segregationist. Oh, Democrats...

You're going to blame them, after all the hate hurled in their direction?

Hate hurled in this city is rarely, if ever, at Democrats. We're all so busy vilifying Brian Williams for his lies, exaggerations, and outright fabrications that we're giving Hillary Clinton a free pass for doing the exact same thing.

The point remains that in this very Democrat city, we all talk a big game, but when push comes to shove everyone who isn't poor, either moves or becomes a closet segregationist.

You seem to be forgetting that the segregation was already in place before the gentrifiers came along.

Gentrifiers buying homes in already-segregated neighborhoods are the exact opposite of segregationists.
Gentrifiers sending their kids to already-segregated schools are the exact opposite of segregationists.
Gentrifiers trying to make those neighborhoods and schools more attractive to a more diverse group of people is the exact opposite of segregation.

Seems to me the argument is exactly backwards.

The resistance to gentrification is what is pro-segregationist.

That is the easy narrative. I think you can assume that the first people that move in are often more open, desirous of living in a neighborhood and more often than not see its price point as being a critical part of moving into a neighborhood. I know as a white person that moved into Brookland in the 90's it was the cost issue more than anything that drew us. Since that time we have seen much better off white and black families move into significantly upgraded homes. The price point has significantly shifted. This is good for older African Americans that are selling now, they should get the reward for a better market, but all those upper class families including myself are not investing as much into the community, especially into the schools. They continue to be largely segregated. I make myself feel better in saying I want a diverse school and we do attend a diverse school with no one group being the majority. But gentrification really does represent choices of those that are wealthier, not increased power to the preexisting community.

Communities come and go - I'm not sure what you mean by "increased power to the preexisting community" - the preexisting community of 5 years ago is not the same pre-existing community of 25 years ago, which is not the same as the preexisting community of 50 years ago, which is not the preexisting community of 75 years ago, why would one particular snapshot in time of a community take precedence over all others?

And as for "increased power" - power to do what, and how would it be meaningfully different than what others want? Gentrifiers want safe, walkable communities, with good schools and amenities. Don't we all want that? Where things might diverge is in real estate prices. Gentrifiers want affordable houses, but they also tend to view their property as an investment, chances are they made far more of a financial outlay and sacrifice than the person who's been living there for 25 years, and as such the gentifiers want to protect their investments. On the downside, it tends to drive property prices up. But on the up side, the folks who've been living there for 25 years now have an opportunity to sell for far more than they otherwise would have ever imagined being able to get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP- Poster here. This is a great debate. I can take the criticism because I am willing to ask the questions that most of peers would not. Most people who can leave- don't ask what they can do for DC schools- they just leave or go private.

If I wanted to live in Arlington or Bethesda it wouldnt be a problem. But I'm not putting myself in that suburban nightmare. I'd prefer to stay in the city and really help to improve things.

When I look at the resources that DCPS has to spend its hard to think that an active PTA can't help transform any school into a great school. I'm just wondering if too many DC parents of underperforming schools aren't willing (or aren't able) to do all they can to turn things around.

Coming from someone who lives in Petworth, this is hysterical. Next thing you know you'll be telling us that Barnaby Woods is an urban mecca. You, my dear, live in a suburb without any benefits of suburban life.

[Anonymous]

I agree, what is so "urban" about Petworth? Why are you putting down Arlington and Bethesda? You realize those are pretty diverse communities overall. There are lots of apartments and bike share is available.

[Anonymous]

Note that this discussion has been going on for decades.
Here a WCP article on Ross from 2005, when Ross was at risk of closure.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/cover/2006/cover0616.html
From this I glean: Raise money, and be prepared for incremental change.
Ross today is almost in recognizable from that of the article. Barely an OOB kid in the younger grades. No battles over gentrification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you're well intentioned, but you come off as super condescending.

And naive, sheltered and stupid. And white, 30 years old, and from Evanston, IL. I have no doubt, however, that OP takes tests well and writes scintialting reports for her non-profit.

Yes. Publicly liberal, privately segregationist. Oh, Democrats...

You're going to blame them, after all the hate hurled in their direction?

Hate hurled in this city is rarely, if ever, at Democrats. We're all so busy vilifying Brian Williams for his lies, exaggerations, and outright fabrications that we're giving Hillary Clinton a free pass for doing the exact same thing.

The point remains that in this very Democrat city, we all talk a big game, but when push comes to shove everyone who isn't poor, either moves or becomes a closet segregationist.

You seem to be forgetting that the segregation was already in place before the gentrifiers came along.

Gentrifiers buying homes in already-segregated neighborhoods are the exact opposite of segregationists.
Gentrifiers sending their kids to already-segregated schools are the exact opposite of segregationists.
Gentrifiers trying to make those neighborhoods and schools more attractive to a more diverse group of people is the exact opposite of segregation.

Seems to me the argument is exactly backwards.

The resistance to gentrification is what is pro-segregationist.

That is the easy narrative. I think you can assume that the first people that move in are often more open, desirous of living in a neighborhood and more often than not see its price point as being a critical part of moving into a neighborhood. I know as a white person that moved into Brookland in the 90's it was the cost issue more than anything that drew us. Since that time we have seen much better off white and black families move into significantly upgraded homes. The price point has significantly shifted. This is good for older African Americans that are selling now, they should get the reward for a better market, but all those upper class families including myself are not investing as much into the community, especially into the schools. They continue to be largely segregated. I make myself feel better in saying I want a diverse school and we do attend a diverse school with no one group being the majority. But gentrification really does represent choices of those that are wealthier, not increased power to the preexisting community.

Communities come and go - I'm not sure what you mean by "increased power to the preexisting community" - the preexisting community of 5 years ago is not the same pre-existing community of 25 years ago, which is not the same as the preexisting community of 50 years ago, which is not the preexisting community of 75 years ago, why would one particular snapshot in time of a community take precedence over all others?

And as for "increased power" - power to do what, and how would it be meaningfully different than what others want? Gentrifiers want safe, walkable communities, with good schools and amenities. Don't we all want that? Where things might diverge is in real estate prices. Gentrifiers want affordable houses, but they also tend to view their property as an investment, chances are they made far more of a financial outlay and sacrifice than the person who's been living there for 25 years, and as such the gentifiers want to protect their investments. On the downside, it tends to drive property prices up. But on the up side, the folks who've been living there for 25 years now have an opportunity to sell for far more than they otherwise would have ever imagined being able to get.

^^ The added supports and help that the poorer residents want most from local government don't grow on trees. They come via tax base - which comes from having wealthier people, and specifically gentrifiers, coming back into the city.