Reply to Since the Lafayette Thread was Removed

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Since the Lafayette Thread was Removed"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]the implication of some comments seems to be that people EOTP are willing to directly share public resources and mix within schools with those who are poor and low-achieving, mostly black, sometimes Latino, while those WOTP are only OK if their group is a substantial cohort within a certain neighborhood/school. Well there are also certain charters, where probably the majority of EOTP upper class families have their kids, that are places where families of similar background cohort together rather than end up tiny minorities in schools full of poor students. So it's more complex than EOTP good, WOTP racist. [/quote]

[b]It's not racist[/b] to want your kids to be at a school where there is a strong cohort of others from a similar background. Studies have shown that nobody benefits when the low-achieving cohort is too strong.[/quote]

So you're saying background amounts to just skin color? This drives me crazy. A black kid can't have same background as a white kid? What if their parents income is the same? What if the white kid is Irish-American? What if the white kid comes from Atheist family? What defines background?[/quote]

Don't let yourself be driven crazy by something I didn't say. Where did I talk about skin color? "Similar background" usually refers to SES, and that's what I meant, because that is what primarily determines achievement, which is what I explicitly talked about. Now of course in DC SES and race are closely correlated, which is why people of higher SES who seek schools with a student population of higher (and in my case that means upper middle class) SES are often cast as racist, because they appear to prefer "white" schools. That this is not the case was the point of my post.[/quote]
It's hard to ignore the racial implication when you could have said "It's not unreasonable...."[/quote]

I could have, but I was directly responding to the PP's comment who had cited the often-made allegation that WOTP are racist. My point was that the desire to segregate to a certain degree is NOT about race. Which you completely missed by erroneously inferring that I was talking about skin color.[/quote]

I'm the first PP you quoted but not the 2nd, so clearly I wasn't the only one who read it that way. You seem pretty smart, enough to mean what you say and say what you mean....but you missed it on that one and are now backpedaling.[/quote]

Just because two people read something into my statement that I didn't say doesn't prove that I said it. People often do that when the topic of racism comes up because they have reflexive reactions to the issue (see "This drives me crazy"). No need to backpedal from anything: "Similar background" refers to SES, "it's not racist" is a direct response to "So it's more complex than EOTP good, WOTP racist" (and I realize that this PP was merely quoting that allegation, not making it herself). My statement was maybe too brief for you to understand, but there is no way you can read "background equals skin color" into it, especially since I clearly mentioned the issue of "low achieving", which as we all know is correlated with SES more than anything.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics