Anonymous wrote:And if you keep posting your drivel here, I will do a more thorough investigation of your fine "foundation's" finances, and your founder's personal life. Because I can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So for those that hate the Daily Caller stories, is your argument that:

- there are not students that live MD (along with both parents) who go to DCPS schools
- there are only a handful so the story was over blown
- it does not matter as long as children are being educated

No. I realize that after Dartmouth and that rejection from law school this daily caller gig was the only thing your dad could find for you... But my entire argument is:

1.) The daily caller did not publish credible stories with real facts about residency fraud.
2.) Anyone slithering around this site still repeating blindingly obvious points about residency fraud is not on a crusade to stop Maryland residents from benefitting from dc perks (a concept I expect most Maryland residents find laughable as it is, but that's another article.). They are instead just trying to further their, "dc sucks because liberals suck. And also the black people." Message.
3.) Speaking of that, are you sad you didn't get to go to Cleveland this week with the other indigo children?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So for those that hate the Daily Caller stories, is your argument that:

- there are not students that live MD (along with both parents) who go to DCPS schools
- there are only a handful so the story was over blown
- it does not matter as long as children are being educated

No. I realize that after Dartmouth and that rejection from law school this daily caller gig was the only thing your dad could find for you... But my entire argument is:

1.) The daily caller did not publish credible stories with real facts about residency fraud.
2.) Anyone slithering around this site still repeating blindingly obvious points about residency fraud is not on a crusade to stop Maryland residents from benefitting from dc perks (a concept I expect most Maryland residents find laughable as it is, but that's another article.). They are instead just trying to further their, "dc sucks because liberals suck. And also the black people." Message.
3.) Speaking of that, are you sad you didn't get to go to Cleveland this week with the other indigo children?

Anonymous wrote:So for those that hate the Daily Caller stories, is your argument that:

- there are not students that live MD (along with both parents) who go to DCPS schools
- there are only a handful so the story was over blown
- it does not matter as long as children are being educated

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the daily caller in depth, but from the little I have read, its entire point seems to be a self-appointed watchdog "foundation" engaged in pointing our DC corruption, and how that is a metaphor for liberals being bad. Am I missing something?

I have actually been disgusted by some of the things I've seen DC waste money on--dcps renovation budgets are a joke of inefficiency. The metro is a catastrophe. Development is poorly planned and all reliant on these massive "projects" all meant to bring more bland retail chains into new buildings--which is supposed to magically make nice places to live... (Although the last is a million times worse in Virginia and MD).

But the daily caller is not a credible watchdog. As the lack of actual reporting in its school fraud stories shows all too well, its agenda is almost entirely concerned with calling out of country and mayor Barry "cronyims."--even beyond any logic or sense. And taken as such, that can only be code for. "make DC whiter, please, so we can feel safe leaving the panera bread in Arlington, to come to the panera bread on H street."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ It certainly is an interesting approach to consider. Maybe the numbers are not exact, but the basic analysis strongly suggests a problem.

no, the numbers show nothing of the sort. the census undercounts poor black kids by almost 9%. the annual census projections are esimates with a margin of error. dcps may under or over count its own numbers. the article id 100% horse shit and shame on anyone who thinks it is has an iota of credibility.

The undercounts are no longer that high, and they are much worse for kids under 4. see table 4 with undercounts of kids by race since 1940: https://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/ssm2014-03.pdf Agree on margin of error but not as much on undercount.

Also, DCPS/charters probably have an *over*count incentive since that is how they are paid, right, per pupil?

"I just love black people," said Daily Caller news reporter Katie Watson, during a recent visit to the hip new Cold Stone Creamery location in downtown Silver Spring. "They have such a vibrant culture! Have you been to the Busboys and Poets in the new Hyattsville Arts District? I mean, the book selection is a little... You know. *Biased.* But all lives matter, don't they? And I think it's wonderful we can sell Langston Hughes t-shirts here in America, even if he was probably a communist."

[Redacted response from confused cashier.]

"Oh. Are you sure? I mean, he was a waiter, right?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ It certainly is an interesting approach to consider. Maybe the numbers are not exact, but the basic analysis strongly suggests a problem.

no, the numbers show nothing of the sort. the census undercounts poor black kids by almost 9%. the annual census projections are esimates with a margin of error. dcps may under or over count its own numbers. the article id 100% horse shit and shame on anyone who thinks it is has an iota of credibility.

The undercounts are no longer that high, and they are much worse for kids under 4. see table 4 with undercounts of kids by race since 1940: https://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/ssm2014-03.pdf Agree on margin of error but not as much on undercount.

Also, DCPS/charters probably have an *over*count incentive since that is how they are paid, right, per pupil?

No, the undercount is still very significant particularly for inner city black kids ie a huge chunk of DC. the daily caller screed is ludicrous.

A big chunk that still leaves a big chunk of non-poor blacks. Even if the city were 100% low-income poor blacks, it wouldn't erase all of the 11% discrepancy the article calculated.

Where is your data? Why are you so adamant in insisting there's no problem against the observation of many (even aside from the scary Daily Caller)?

it's just so transparently hackish to literally steal your article from DCUM and do literally no background research and declare that 11% of DCPS students are from MD based on the census projections. I am certain there is some fraud but daily caller is risible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ It certainly is an interesting approach to consider. Maybe the numbers are not exact, but the basic analysis strongly suggests a problem.

no, the numbers show nothing of the sort. the census undercounts poor black kids by almost 9%. the annual census projections are esimates with a margin of error. dcps may under or over count its own numbers. the article id 100% horse shit and shame on anyone who thinks it is has an iota of credibility.

The undercounts are no longer that high, and they are much worse for kids under 4. see table 4 with undercounts of kids by race since 1940: https://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/ssm2014-03.pdf Agree on margin of error but not as much on undercount.

Also, DCPS/charters probably have an *over*count incentive since that is how they are paid, right, per pupil?

No, the undercount is still very significant particularly for inner city black kids ie a huge chunk of DC. the daily caller screed is ludicrous.

A big chunk that still leaves a big chunk of non-poor blacks. Even if the city were 100% low-income poor blacks, it wouldn't erase all of the 11% discrepancy the article calculated.

Where is your data? Why are you so adamant in insisting there's no problem against the observation of many (even aside from the scary Daily Caller)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ It certainly is an interesting approach to consider. Maybe the numbers are not exact, but the basic analysis strongly suggests a problem.

no, the numbers show nothing of the sort. the census undercounts poor black kids by almost 9%. the annual census projections are esimates with a margin of error. dcps may under or over count its own numbers. the article id 100% horse shit and shame on anyone who thinks it is has an iota of credibility.

The undercounts are no longer that high, and they are much worse for kids under 4. see table 4 with undercounts of kids by race since 1940: https://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/ssm2014-03.pdf Agree on margin of error but not as much on undercount.

Also, DCPS/charters probably have an *over*count incentive since that is how they are paid, right, per pupil?

No, the undercount is still very significant particularly for inner city black kids ie a huge chunk of DC. the daily caller screed is ludicrous.

A big chunk that still leaves a big chunk of non-poor blacks. Even if the city were 100% low-income poor blacks, it wouldn't erase all of the 11% discrepancy the article calculated.

Where is your data? Why are you so adamant in insisting there's no problem against the observation of many (even aside from the scary Daily Caller)?

Because the cheaters and fraudsters have every incentive to attack, obstruct and deflect, in the hope that the spotlight moves elsewhere.