Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
DC Public and Public Charter Schools
Reply to "Help me Edit: Response to Brookings Report"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote] 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. [b]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. [/b] Otherwise, it is not clear that you wouldn't do exactly the same thing they are doing if you were in their circumstances. [/quote] I agree with the PP. I have only skimmed the report but it is seems they are calling attention to a specific example of the perpetuation of school segregation in DC, but it is not their charge to offer solutions. It was not their primary objective for this one report, and it may not even fit their expertise. This is common among researchers (as one myself)--I have experience in traditional clinical trials, but it's not my charge to figure out how to actually implement the findings; that's left to implementation researchers. Similarly, the Brookings authors went in the weeds to describe the problem, but those who describe the problem sometimes have a different skill set than those who might offer a solution. Also, a discussion of solutions might take more funding and another 40 pages. I commented earlier on the other thread that you may take issue with the methodology and research ethics, but I'd remove the defensive tone, if you plan to respond at all. Otherwise, it's really not a good look. It is at odds with lots of people's experience with this site, where posters are often steered to the whitest sides of town or schools, and it is also at odds with other research in this area that has found similar results. I posted an earlier article about the Mathematica lottery study, which spoke about "carefully curated integration." I have no doubt that most of the good posters in this forum want diversity; they want their kids to have friends of other backgrounds and cultures. But they still want schools with the highest proportion of white students, as this is seen as a marker for quality. You see it with the popularity of schools like CMI in years past despite poor scores, while the reverse is true with Shepherd and to some extent, Banneker. I would point out the methodological flaws, similar to what letters to the editor accomplish when critiquing a prior published article in a scientific journal--it adds context and fair criticism. But I'd remove the personal tone for the reasons noted by others.[/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