Public education: competing interests, philosophical divide

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

WRT no boundaries, sure tons of high SES people would move, but many wouldn't. Either way, all those folks bailing for the suburbs would be replaced by younger families who would suddenly find good housing stock in the city more affordable. I'm not sure anyone would even miss the high SES folks bailing to the suburbs.

We don't know each other obviously on the anonymous internet, but I am nevertheless certain you are young. Young enough to have not lived through the early 70s and been cognizant of what was happening around you WRT public schools.

the first "S" in SES is for socio (economic status). right? so by saying 'high SES,' this means that this group of parent-homebuyers has high educational attainment, high career success, high prestige within their careers, high discipline, high drive, high goal-oriented behavior .... regardless of their take-home pay. (the "E" in SES).

This ^^^ breed of parent-homebuyer, isn't going to rush right in and "replace" the newly destabilized DCPS system, buying right-priced housing that was 1) existing, & just vacated by departed high SES parents or 2) newly built affordable middle-class SFHs. This ^^^breed of parent-homebuyer didn't get where they are today (remember, great pedigree, not "high paycheck") by settling for good enough, so-so, destablized schools and 1+ hour bus commutes for their 4 year olds. That would be an irrational decision, and adults with the high SOCIO status didn't make it to the top by making a series of irrational decisions.

Also? you are way off base on your low estimate about the percentage of high achievers who will decamp to other school districts or private. see, e.g., every. single. US city where bussing occurred

Simple example to demonstrate ...

In this "no-neighborhood schools" paradigm, where every seat becomes a lottery chance, the Janney Family of AU Park enters the mandatory lottery to find out where their son will attend high school. Their lottery results assign their teen to Dunbar, where a whopping 95% of students are not proficient in math http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Dunbar+High+School

The Janney Family rationally decides not to send their capable son to a high school where 95% of students can't add 4 numbers together. The Janney Family puts their brick colonial on the market and moves to a different school district in Maryland or Virginia that has assigned schools. (they can't afford private x 3 kids).

Who will purchase their 5-bedroom colonial?

a) a childless gay couple or a couple of empty nesters
b) a moderate income family of non-profit employees who cares deeply about education
c) a high SES couple of lawyers who care deeply about education but, just like the Janney Family, cannot afford $120,000 annual tuition after taxes
d) a single woman with no kids, because she loves living in a 5-bedroom house
e) an investor, who will rent the large home to several unrelated AU students (see, e.g., 1970 to 1998 Washington DC).

What about none of the above: a young family who couldn't afford it at top dollar, but can do so at a 20% discount caused by an increase in supply after the new rules go into effect and Janney Family decides to sell? I think practically speaking current paths and such would be grandfathered in, so I don't think things are as dire for the Janney Family as the picture you paint. Also, over time, wouldn't Dunbar be seen as less of a non-viable option? Dunbar is brand new school with facilities better than many suburban schools (maybe not in Arlington or Bethesda, but in lots of the US).

please tell me you don't have kids or own property in DC ...

Why?

because you're floating grad-school type GGW musings on policies that would destroy schools and property values in DC, I can at least hope you are totally uniformed.

I still haven't seen anyone make a coherent argument that these admittedly radical and unrealistic approaches wouldn't work, just that they wouldn't work for High SES WOTP.

I'll bite.

WOTP is a distraction. There are many, many families of equal and possibly greater wealth than those who cluster into those ugly little houses in Friendship Heights in the Janney district.

This is a conversation about resources: who has them, how to share them, and whether or not we are drained by them. At the end of the day, either you want high SES families in your school or you don't. They are demanding. They bring a lot of social capital. Actually, social capital is only one thing they bring to the table. They have money, they have high expectations, their children perform well academically and raise the bar for their classrooms. Can they also be annoying as hell? Yes. Nonetheless, they contribute, and then they expect things as a result. Honestly, if you don't understand this, you're being deliberately blind.

You can't want their money, their energy, and their high-performing children, and then be resentful about their influence.

[Anonymous]

There are many, many families of equal and possibly greater wealth than those who cluster into those ugly little houses in Friendship Heights in the Janney district.

sigh. you again. do you never leave your condo in the pretty, yet chopped-up, 1890s row home?

Those houses that make you so sad are the rentals that people like me own. We kept them when we sold at 31 and moved deeper into the neighborhoods. You're welcome

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are many, many families of equal and possibly greater wealth than those who cluster into those ugly little houses in Friendship Heights in the Janney district.

sigh. you again. do you never leave your condo in the pretty, yet chopped-up, 1890s row home?

Those houses that make you so sad are the rentals that people like me own. We kept them when we sold at 31 and moved deeper into the neighborhoods. You're welcome

Exactly, thank you for making the point.

Other than people who want to rent out their ugly little ratholes in upper NW so that they can live elsewhere, there's not a good reason to be in some of these neighborhoods. They are gross and the pretense that "the schools are good" is more of real estate shill than a reality.

[Anonymous]

>>>>I wish it weren't ironic that one of the GGW "bigwig" moved out of DC because his family didn't get into a decent school.


Oh that makes me laugh. I'd pay to hear the strained "Actually, it's a good thing..." reasoning offered at cocktail parties when discussing the move.

[Anonymous]

NP. When you step back, it seems really strange that as a society, we're desperate to "integrate the schools," and yet the very reason those schools aren't naturally integrated is that our society chooses to self-segregate (largely by race) into neighborhoods. Seems like we're fighting against our own desires.

Personally, I have a cynical attitude on all this. Here's my view of how we got where we are ....

1. All families want the very best schools for their own children.

2. Almost all families will screw over others to get the best outcome for their children. That's white, black, high-SES, low-SES, everyone. Some may talk a good game to try to hide their self-interest, but it almost always boils down to self-interest.

3. High-SES families are more likely white. Low-SES families are more likely black. Yes, there are exceptions, and skin color is not destiny. Yes, it's unfair and probably a result of historic racism. But in the end, the correlation is clear.

4. White, high-SES children do much better in school than black, low-SES children. They not only score higher on the various test, but they also make for a less chaotic learning environment. Again, there are exceptions, and skin color and income are not destiny. But on average, it's the correlation is difficult to escape.

5. White parents want their children to attend the best possible schools. (See Point #1) Since white parents have more money on average, they accomplish this by moving to neighborhoods that are mostly white and high-SES. They're not opposed to all black kids, or all low-income kids, but they're simply and logically playing the averages that high-SES white schools will be better environments for kids to learn. These white parents dislike school choice models, because they earned, saved, and spent their money to get the best schools, and they don't want others to get the same for free. They also don't want too many low-income black students around, because they're more likely on average to disrupt the learning environment.

6. Black parents want their children to attend the best possible schools. (See Point #1) High-SES black parents can accomplish this by simply moving to high-SES white neighborhoods. Low-SES black parents can't afford to move to high-income neighborhoods, so they favor school choice and other mechanisms that allow them to get into high-SES white schools. They're trying to get the best possible learning environment for their kids, and they frankly don't care if they're screwing some white families out of spots.

7. So when white posters here argue for "neighborhood schools," what they're really saying is that they don't want too many low-income black kids disrupting the learning environment. They don't really care about the neighborhood; they just want to help their own kids. When black posters here argue for "school choice" and "integration," what they're really saying is that they just want to get a spot for their own kids in the white schools, so they themselves can escape the crappy low-income black schools. They don't really care about integration in general; they just want to help themselves.

8. I don't think that makes either set of parents bad or racist or evil - parents are just all selfish pricks when it comes to seeking the best for their own kids. Simple evolution.

Cynical, I know. Maybe I've had one too many drinks, so I'm not saying it in a sweet way. But I think that's how most people approach this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. When you step back, it seems really strange that as a society, we're desperate to "integrate the schools," and yet the very reason those schools aren't naturally integrated is that our society chooses to self-segregate (largely by race) into neighborhoods. Seems like we're fighting against our own desires.

Personally, I have a cynical attitude on all this. Here's my view of how we got where we are ....

1. All families want the very best schools for their own children.

2. Almost all families will screw over others to get the best outcome for their children. That's white, black, high-SES, low-SES, everyone. Some may talk a good game to try to hide their self-interest, but it almost always boils down to self-interest.

3. High-SES families are more likely white. Low-SES families are more likely black. Yes, there are exceptions, and skin color is not destiny. Yes, it's unfair and probably a result of historic racism. But in the end, the correlation is clear.

4. White, high-SES children do much better in school than black, low-SES children. They not only score higher on the various test, but they also make for a less chaotic learning environment. Again, there are exceptions, and skin color and income are not destiny. But on average, it's the correlation is difficult to escape.

5. White parents want their children to attend the best possible schools. (See Point #1) Since white parents have more money on average, they accomplish this by moving to neighborhoods that are mostly white and high-SES. They're not opposed to all black kids, or all low-income kids, but they're simply and logically playing the averages that high-SES white schools will be better environments for kids to learn. These white parents dislike school choice models, because they earned, saved, and spent their money to get the best schools, and they don't want others to get the same for free. They also don't want too many low-income black students around, because they're more likely on average to disrupt the learning environment.

6. Black parents want their children to attend the best possible schools. (See Point #1) High-SES black parents can accomplish this by simply moving to high-SES white neighborhoods. Low-SES black parents can't afford to move to high-income neighborhoods, so they favor school choice and other mechanisms that allow them to get into high-SES white schools. They're trying to get the best possible learning environment for their kids, and they frankly don't care if they're screwing some white families out of spots.

7. So when white posters here argue for "neighborhood schools," what they're really saying is that they don't want too many low-income black kids disrupting the learning environment. They don't really care about the neighborhood; they just want to help their own kids. When black posters here argue for "school choice" and "integration," what they're really saying is that they just want to get a spot for their own kids in the white schools, so they themselves can escape the crappy low-income black schools. They don't really care about integration in general; they just want to help themselves.

8. I don't think that makes either set of parents bad or racist or evil - parents are just all selfish pricks when it comes to seeking the best for their own kids. Simple evolution.

Cynical, I know. Maybe I've had one too many drinks, so I'm not saying it in a sweet way. But I think that's how most people approach this.

Your conclusion in #7 applies to some people - more likely around JKLM type schools. But what about the EOTP people arguing for the same? In my case, the "best possible school" I want for my kids is not the JKLM type. The neighborhood school that I support is very mixed - both by SES and race.

[Anonymous]

From what I've read on this board, many of the "go to your neighborhood" school people are driven more by a passion for telling others what to do and fear that someone is gaming the system than than by any coherent ideology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From what I've read on this board, many of the "go to your neighborhood" school people are driven more by a passion for telling others what to do and fear that someone is gaming the system than than by any coherent ideology.

That's a very biased sample to draw conclusions from. This place is a hotbed of judgment and bitchiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are many, many families of equal and possibly greater wealth than those who cluster into those ugly little houses in Friendship Heights in the Janney district.

sigh. you again. do you never leave your condo in the pretty, yet chopped-up, 1890s row home?

Those houses that make you so sad are the rentals that people like me own. We kept them when we sold at 31 and moved deeper into the neighborhoods. You're welcome

Exactly, thank you for making the point.

Other than people who want to rent out their ugly little ratholes in upper NW so that they can live elsewhere, there's not a good reason to be in some of these neighborhoods. They are gross and the pretense that "the schools are good" is more of real estate shill than a reality.

Sorry I wasn't more clear: I, the PP, live in the same neighborhood where I also rent out a smaller home, a few blocks in from the FH heights metro.

When you drive to my neighborhood to shop at TJ Maxx and DSW, you are too cheap to pay for parking in the garage, so you park on the street (Jenifer) where I own a rental home. Then you apparently get upset.

I don't understand why other people's modestly-scaled property makes you so spitting angry? What does this have to do with public schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

WRT no boundaries, sure tons of high SES people would move, but many wouldn't. Either way, all those folks bailing for the suburbs would be replaced by younger families who would suddenly find good housing stock in the city more affordable. I'm not sure anyone would even miss the high SES folks bailing to the suburbs.

We don't know each other obviously on the anonymous internet, but I am nevertheless certain you are young. Young enough to have not lived through the early 70s and been cognizant of what was happening around you WRT public schools.

the first "S" in SES is for socio (economic status). right? so by saying 'high SES,' this means that this group of parent-homebuyers has high educational attainment, high career success, high prestige within their careers, high discipline, high drive, high goal-oriented behavior .... regardless of their take-home pay. (the "E" in SES).

This ^^^ breed of parent-homebuyer, isn't going to rush right in and "replace" the newly destabilized DCPS system, buying right-priced housing that was 1) existing, & just vacated by departed high SES parents or 2) newly built affordable middle-class SFHs. This ^^^breed of parent-homebuyer didn't get where they are today (remember, great pedigree, not "high paycheck") by settling for good enough, so-so, destablized schools and 1+ hour bus commutes for their 4 year olds. That would be an irrational decision, and adults with the high SOCIO status didn't make it to the top by making a series of irrational decisions.

Also? you are way off base on your low estimate about the percentage of high achievers who will decamp to other school districts or private. see, e.g., every. single. US city where bussing occurred

Simple example to demonstrate ...

In this "no-neighborhood schools" paradigm, where every seat becomes a lottery chance, the Janney Family of AU Park enters the mandatory lottery to find out where their son will attend high school. Their lottery results assign their teen to Dunbar, where a whopping 95% of students are not proficient in math http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Dunbar+High+School

The Janney Family rationally decides not to send their capable son to a high school where 95% of students can't add 4 numbers together. The Janney Family puts their brick colonial on the market and moves to a different school district in Maryland or Virginia that has assigned schools. (they can't afford private x 3 kids).

Who will purchase their 5-bedroom colonial?

a) a childless gay couple or a couple of empty nesters
b) a moderate income family of non-profit employees who cares deeply about education
c) a high SES couple of lawyers who care deeply about education but, just like the Janney Family, cannot afford $120,000 annual tuition after taxes
d) a single woman with no kids, because she loves living in a 5-bedroom house
e) an investor, who will rent the large home to several unrelated AU students (see, e.g., 1970 to 1998 Washington DC).

What about none of the above: a young family who couldn't afford it at top dollar, but can do so at a 20% discount caused by an increase in supply after the new rules go into effect and Janney Family decides to sell? I think practically speaking current paths and such would be grandfathered in, so I don't think things are as dire for the Janney Family as the picture you paint. Also, over time, wouldn't Dunbar be seen as less of a non-viable option? Dunbar is brand new school with facilities better than many suburban schools (maybe not in Arlington or Bethesda, but in lots of the US).

please tell me you don't have kids or own property in DC ...

Why?

because you're floating grad-school type GGW musings on policies that would destroy schools and property values in DC, I can at least hope you are totally uniformed.

I still haven't seen anyone make a coherent argument that these admittedly radical and unrealistic approaches wouldn't work, just that they wouldn't work for High SES WOTP.

I'll bite.

WOTP is a distraction. There are many, many families of equal and possibly greater wealth than those who cluster into those ugly little houses in Friendship Heights in the Janney district.

This is a conversation about resources: who has them, how to share them, and whether or not we are drained by them. At the end of the day, either you want high SES families in your school or you don't. They are demanding. They bring a lot of social capital. Actually, social capital is only one thing they bring to the table. They have money, they have high expectations, their children perform well academically and raise the bar for their classrooms. Can they also be annoying as hell? Yes. Nonetheless, they contribute, and then they expect things as a result. Honestly, if you don't understand this, you're being deliberately blind.

You can't want their money, their energy, and their high-performing children, and then be resentful about their influence.

Oh, it's the butt hurt rich PTA lady. Yes, in fact one can be in favor of integrated schools and not think we have to grant you and your PTA buddies everything you demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are many, many families of equal and possibly greater wealth than those who cluster into those ugly little houses in Friendship Heights in the Janney district.

sigh. you again. do you never leave your condo in the pretty, yet chopped-up, 1890s row home?

Those houses that make you so sad are the rentals that people like me own. We kept them when we sold at 31 and moved deeper into the neighborhoods. You're welcome

Exactly, thank you for making the point.

Other than people who want to rent out their ugly little ratholes in upper NW so that they can live elsewhere, there's not a good reason to be in some of these neighborhoods. They are gross and the pretense that "the schools are good" is more of real estate shill than a reality.

Sorry I wasn't more clear: I, the PP, live in the same neighborhood where I also rent out a smaller home, a few blocks in from the FH heights metro.

When you drive to my neighborhood to shop at TJ Maxx and DSW, you are too cheap to pay for parking in the garage, so you park on the street (Jenifer) where I own a rental home. Then you apparently get upset.

I don't understand why other people's modestly-scaled property makes you so spitting angry? What does this have to do with public schools?

She's bitter because she tried to take over the PTA in her 99% FARMS IB school (which she thinks she should be able to "use" because she paid 900k for her rowhouse) and the school is not immediately falling in line with her plans for "enrichment".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've read on this board, many of the "go to your neighborhood" school people are driven more by a passion for telling others what to do and fear that someone is gaming the system than than by any coherent ideology.

That's a very biased sample to draw conclusions from. This place is a hotbed of judgment and bitchiness.

Yes, but I'm making fun of the people with that attitude on this board. Fortunately, I don't know anyone like that irl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. When you step back, it seems really strange that as a society, we're desperate to "integrate the schools," and yet the very reason those schools aren't naturally integrated is that our society chooses to self-segregate (largely by race) into neighborhoods. Seems like we're fighting against our own desires.

Personally, I have a cynical attitude on all this. Here's my view of how we got where we are ....

1. All families want the very best schools for their own children.

2. Almost all families will screw over others to get the best outcome for their children. That's white, black, high-SES, low-SES, everyone. Some may talk a good game to try to hide their self-interest, but it almost always boils down to self-interest.

3. High-SES families are more likely white. Low-SES families are more likely black. Yes, there are exceptions, and skin color is not destiny. Yes, it's unfair and probably a result of historic racism. But in the end, the correlation is clear.

4. White, high-SES children do much better in school than black, low-SES children. They not only score higher on the various test, but they also make for a less chaotic learning environment. Again, there are exceptions, and skin color and income are not destiny. But on average, it's the correlation is difficult to escape.

5. White parents want their children to attend the best possible schools. (See Point #1) Since white parents have more money on average, they accomplish this by moving to neighborhoods that are mostly white and high-SES. They're not opposed to all black kids, or all low-income kids, but they're simply and logically playing the averages that high-SES white schools will be better environments for kids to learn. These white parents dislike school choice models, because they earned, saved, and spent their money to get the best schools, and they don't want others to get the same for free. They also don't want too many low-income black students around, because they're more likely on average to disrupt the learning environment.

6. Black parents want their children to attend the best possible schools. (See Point #1) High-SES black parents can accomplish this by simply moving to high-SES white neighborhoods. Low-SES black parents can't afford to move to high-income neighborhoods, so they favor school choice and other mechanisms that allow them to get into high-SES white schools. They're trying to get the best possible learning environment for their kids, and they frankly don't care if they're screwing some white families out of spots.

7. So when white posters here argue for "neighborhood schools," what they're really saying is that they don't want too many low-income black kids disrupting the learning environment. They don't really care about the neighborhood; they just want to help their own kids. When black posters here argue for "school choice" and "integration," what they're really saying is that they just want to get a spot for their own kids in the white schools, so they themselves can escape the crappy low-income black schools. They don't really care about integration in general; they just want to help themselves.

8. I don't think that makes either set of parents bad or racist or evil - parents are just all selfish pricks when it comes to seeking the best for their own kids. Simple evolution.

Cynical, I know. Maybe I've had one too many drinks, so I'm not saying it in a sweet way. But I think that's how most people approach this.

Your conclusion in #7 applies to some people - more likely around JKLM type schools. But what about the EOTP people arguing for the same? In my case, the "best possible school" I want for my kids is not the JKLM type. The neighborhood school that I support is very mixed - both by SES and race.

Very good writeup and summary

I'll chime in on 7 too. Those of us who are high SES paid a really high real estate premium to live in a nehighborhood with good schools. Why should someone who paid much less for their real estate (Lower SES problably black person) get to reap the benefits of a higher school too. Its the free rider effect. I think everyone would love to buy a cheaper house in a crappy school district and then get to go to a great school district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. When you step back, it seems really strange that as a society, we're desperate to "integrate the schools," and yet the very reason those schools aren't naturally integrated is that our society chooses to self-segregate (largely by race) into neighborhoods. Seems like we're fighting against our own desires.

Personally, I have a cynical attitude on all this. Here's my view of how we got where we are ....

1. All families want the very best schools for their own children.

2. Almost all families will screw over others to get the best outcome for their children. That's white, black, high-SES, low-SES, everyone. Some may talk a good game to try to hide their self-interest, but it almost always boils down to self-interest.

3. High-SES families are more likely white. Low-SES families are more likely black. Yes, there are exceptions, and skin color is not destiny. Yes, it's unfair and probably a result of historic racism. But in the end, the correlation is clear.

4. White, high-SES children do much better in school than black, low-SES children. They not only score higher on the various test, but they also make for a less chaotic learning environment. Again, there are exceptions, and skin color and income are not destiny. But on average, it's the correlation is difficult to escape.

5. White parents want their children to attend the best possible schools. (See Point #1) Since white parents have more money on average, they accomplish this by moving to neighborhoods that are mostly white and high-SES. They're not opposed to all black kids, or all low-income kids, but they're simply and logically playing the averages that high-SES white schools will be better environments for kids to learn. These white parents dislike school choice models, because they earned, saved, and spent their money to get the best schools, and they don't want others to get the same for free. They also don't want too many low-income black students around, because they're more likely on average to disrupt the learning environment.

6. Black parents want their children to attend the best possible schools. (See Point #1) High-SES black parents can accomplish this by simply moving to high-SES white neighborhoods. Low-SES black parents can't afford to move to high-income neighborhoods, so they favor school choice and other mechanisms that allow them to get into high-SES white schools. They're trying to get the best possible learning environment for their kids, and they frankly don't care if they're screwing some white families out of spots.

7. So when white posters here argue for "neighborhood schools," what they're really saying is that they don't want too many low-income black kids disrupting the learning environment. They don't really care about the neighborhood; they just want to help their own kids. When black posters here argue for "school choice" and "integration," what they're really saying is that they just want to get a spot for their own kids in the white schools, so they themselves can escape the crappy low-income black schools. They don't really care about integration in general; they just want to help themselves.

8. I don't think that makes either set of parents bad or racist or evil - parents are just all selfish pricks when it comes to seeking the best for their own kids. Simple evolution.

Cynical, I know. Maybe I've had one too many drinks, so I'm not saying it in a sweet way. But I think that's how most people approach this.

Your conclusion in #7 applies to some people - more likely around JKLM type schools. But what about the EOTP people arguing for the same? In my case, the "best possible school" I want for my kids is not the JKLM type. The neighborhood school that I support is very mixed - both by SES and race.

Very good writeup and summary

I'll chime in on 7 too. Those of us who are high SES paid a really high real estate premium to live in a nehighborhood with good schools. Why should someone who paid much less for their real estate (Lower SES problably black person) get to reap the benefits of a higher school too. Its the free rider effect. I think everyone would love to buy a cheaper house in a crappy school district and then get to go to a great school district.

These are great discussion points. I disagree with part of #5 "These white parents dislike school choice models, because they earned, saved, and spent their money to get the best schools, and they don't want others to get the same for free." These parents don't necessarily dislike school choice models because they don't want others to get the same for free- they dislike them because they come with inherent risks (not a sure thing your kid will go to the school you want) and those risks are all on the downside for high SES families. If the previous all-high SES neighborhood school now becomes part of a lottery, they have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Conversely, the lower SES family who lives in a neighborhood with a crappy school has everything to gain and nothing to lose with a lottery. I don't think it has anything to do with not wanting others to have what you have.

The truth is that the vast majority of parents want their kid to attend the very best academic school possible and people will move, advocate, argue, vote etc. according to what will give them that outcome.

Also, I think it's important to understand that DC is very different from most places- White = high SES, Black = low SES here in a way that is not true across the country.

[Anonymous]

Nah. People in Ward 3 aren't afraid of school choice. They rightly know a city-wide lottery will not happen in any time frame that affects their children's (and probably their grandchildren's) education.

It is people in Petworth and Brookland and Bloomingdale with bad lottery luck, who think their IB schools would improve if they could drag back in their neighbors' kids who attend the various charters.