Anonymous wrote:Let me clarify again

Looks like the only schools that have 50% or better test scores are.... wait for it..... majority white

Not even charters can get 50%

Looks like one campus of DC prep and KIPP is close

Shout out to Basics


Math
Student Proficiency Levels
3% 11% 27% 48% 11%
ELA
Student Proficiency Levels
2% 8% 23% 52% 15%
Did not yet meet expectations
Partially met expectations
Approached expectations
Met expectations
Exceeded expectations
TOTAL 2014-15 ENROLLMENT 551 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
42% Black, non-Hispanic
5% Asian
40% White, non-Hispanic
7% Hispanic/Latino
<1% Native American/Alaska Native
<1% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
6% Multiracial

That's my ideal DC school right there. Now how to replicate it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can't be "disparate impact" if the citizens are the ones making choices to live in specific neighborhoods that feed into local schools. In the case of DC public schools, there is no government policy that creates the outcome that many on this board don't like. To them, the outcome seems unfair, but that's just the way life is. Throughout human history, btw.

Yup, kids choose to be born to poor parents who can only afford to live in school zones with poor performing schools. Must be nice to live in your little world where every child gets to make that choice.

How facetious. You may be correct that your ideal world would be the most "fair," but don't pretend the law is on your side.

The law has been clear about segregation, whether de jure or de facto:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/05/16/judge-orders-mississippi-school-district-to-desegregate-62-years-after-brown-v-board-of-education/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_schools-desegregate-950pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Disparate impact theory has been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court with regard to location of Affordable Housing: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417433460/in-fair-housing-act-case-supreme-court-backs-disparate-impact-claims

But keep trying to maintain that where people live and where they are able to send their children to school is in any way a choice, or that separate can ever be equal.

LOL in both of these cases PP cites the courts are overturning activist government law and policies that CREATED disparate, unwelcome, outcomes based on race. Ergo, those cases are only relevant to OUR discussion if the District of Columbia government is actively making laws or regulations which manipulate the opportunities afforded to (in these examples) non-white people. Nothing of that sort is happening in D.C., where the vast majority of folks, black or white or whatever, are making choice to live where they want to live. The ideal, wished-for law that PP is so authoritatively referencing don't even exist in D.C. or the rest of the country for that matter. Well, maybe San Francisco but good luck with that here.

Ok sparky. Disparate impact has to do with the impact on racial groups whether or not the have purportedly made a "choice" to live or work or make purchases the way they do. Your stupid argument about black people chosing to live in black neighborhoods is irrelevant. Do you think if DC decided to say cut off electricity in Ward 8 alone they could defend that on the black people had chosen to live there? No. Also not sure what you are getting at when you say "activist" policies, but disparate impact only requires that there be a policy that impacts on the basis of race. In DC the argument would be that providing inferior schools in black zip codes is disparate impact.

I am not PPs. I am a left-leaning person who wants to see equal schools.

But you are overstating the strength of the SCOTUS case law on this. If bad schools in black neighborhoods was so clearly unconstitutional, don't you think we'd see lots of successful civil rights suits? After all that'S been the status quo for decades. But we don't, because unfortunately Brown has been watered down, a lot, as this article explains (another PP posted it up thread):

http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/disparate-impact.html

PP here again, here is a quote from the above article:

The constitutional right to education that has survived into the Roberts Court is a limited right: of children residing in the United States to attend a public school free of intentional discrimination on the basis of race and other protected categories. While Brown and its progeny clearly established a federal right for children to be free from governmentsponsored segregation (and other invidious discrimination), the federal courts in the main did not require more than a minimal set of educational inputs. Moreover, administrative enforcement of Title VI by the Department of Education’s (the Department’s) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has proven insufficient to bring about systemic improvement in reducing resegregation, excessive discipline rates experienced by minority students, or inequitable resource allocation to schools.

Did you even read that whole article? It clearly outlines how the feds could take action against states based on disparate impact, and additional state law bases for suits by private individuals under state law.

Yes I did read it. It goes on to outline an aspirational litigation plan. But the quote above and the paragraphs preceding it are the correct statement of the law as it stands today.

A lot hinges on who is appointed to fill Scalia's slot, but if it is a conservative I believe that the aspirational strategy would fail. Certainly, it has not succeeded to date.

Honest question here: have there been any recent suits? Is the issue here that there hasn't been an attempt to challenge the status quo using the aspirational litigation plan yet? Not that it hasn't been successful, by has not yet been tested?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can't be "disparate impact" if the citizens are the ones making choices to live in specific neighborhoods that feed into local schools. In the case of DC public schools, there is no government policy that creates the outcome that many on this board don't like. To them, the outcome seems unfair, but that's just the way life is. Throughout human history, btw.

Yup, kids choose to be born to poor parents who can only afford to live in school zones with poor performing schools. Must be nice to live in your little world where every child gets to make that choice.

How facetious. You may be correct that your ideal world would be the most "fair," but don't pretend the law is on your side.

The law has been clear about segregation, whether de jure or de facto:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/05/16/judge-orders-mississippi-school-district-to-desegregate-62-years-after-brown-v-board-of-education/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_schools-desegregate-950pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Disparate impact theory has been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court with regard to location of Affordable Housing: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417433460/in-fair-housing-act-case-supreme-court-backs-disparate-impact-claims

But keep trying to maintain that where people live and where they are able to send their children to school is in any way a choice, or that separate can ever be equal.

LOL in both of these cases PP cites the courts are overturning activist government law and policies that CREATED disparate, unwelcome, outcomes based on race. Ergo, those cases are only relevant to OUR discussion if the District of Columbia government is actively making laws or regulations which manipulate the opportunities afforded to (in these examples) non-white people. Nothing of that sort is happening in D.C., where the vast majority of folks, black or white or whatever, are making choice to live where they want to live. The ideal, wished-for law that PP is so authoritatively referencing don't even exist in D.C. or the rest of the country for that matter. Well, maybe San Francisco but good luck with that here.

Ok sparky. Disparate impact has to do with the impact on racial groups whether or not the have purportedly made a "choice" to live or work or make purchases the way they do. Your stupid argument about black people chosing to live in black neighborhoods is irrelevant. Do you think if DC decided to say cut off electricity in Ward 8 alone they could defend that on the black people had chosen to live there? No. Also not sure what you are getting at when you say "activist" policies, but disparate impact only requires that there be a policy that impacts on the basis of race. In DC the argument would be that providing inferior schools in black zip codes is disparate impact.

I am not PPs. I am a left-leaning person who wants to see equal schools.

But you are overstating the strength of the SCOTUS case law on this. If bad schools in black neighborhoods was so clearly unconstitutional, don't you think we'd see lots of successful civil rights suits? After all that'S been the status quo for decades. But we don't, because unfortunately Brown has been watered down, a lot, as this article explains (another PP posted it up thread):

http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/disparate-impact.html

PP here again, here is a quote from the above article:

The constitutional right to education that has survived into the Roberts Court is a limited right: of children residing in the United States to attend a public school free of intentional discrimination on the basis of race and other protected categories. While Brown and its progeny clearly established a federal right for children to be free from governmentsponsored segregation (and other invidious discrimination), the federal courts in the main did not require more than a minimal set of educational inputs. Moreover, administrative enforcement of Title VI by the Department of Education’s (the Department’s) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has proven insufficient to bring about systemic improvement in reducing resegregation, excessive discipline rates experienced by minority students, or inequitable resource allocation to schools.

Did you even read that whole article? It clearly outlines how the feds could take action against states based on disparate impact, and additional state law bases for suits by private individuals under state law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can't be "disparate impact" if the citizens are the ones making choices to live in specific neighborhoods that feed into local schools. In the case of DC public schools, there is no government policy that creates the outcome that many on this board don't like. To them, the outcome seems unfair, but that's just the way life is. Throughout human history, btw.

Yup, kids choose to be born to poor parents who can only afford to live in school zones with poor performing schools. Must be nice to live in your little world where every child gets to make that choice.

How facetious. You may be correct that your ideal world would be the most "fair," but don't pretend the law is on your side.

The law has been clear about segregation, whether de jure or de facto:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/05/16/judge-orders-mississippi-school-district-to-desegregate-62-years-after-brown-v-board-of-education/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_schools-desegregate-950pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Disparate impact theory has been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court with regard to location of Affordable Housing: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417433460/in-fair-housing-act-case-supreme-court-backs-disparate-impact-claims

But keep trying to maintain that where people live and where they are able to send their children to school is in any way a choice, or that separate can ever be equal.

LOL in both of these cases PP cites the courts are overturning activist government law and policies that CREATED disparate, unwelcome, outcomes based on race. Ergo, those cases are only relevant to OUR discussion if the District of Columbia government is actively making laws or regulations which manipulate the opportunities afforded to (in these examples) non-white people. Nothing of that sort is happening in D.C., where the vast majority of folks, black or white or whatever, are making choice to live where they want to live. The ideal, wished-for law that PP is so authoritatively referencing don't even exist in D.C. or the rest of the country for that matter. Well, maybe San Francisco but good luck with that here.

Ok sparky. Disparate impact has to do with the impact on racial groups whether or not the have purportedly made a "choice" to live or work or make purchases the way they do. Your stupid argument about black people chosing to live in black neighborhoods is irrelevant. Do you think if DC decided to say cut off electricity in Ward 8 alone they could defend that on the black people had chosen to live there? No. Also not sure what you are getting at when you say "activist" policies, but disparate impact only requires that there be a policy that impacts on the basis of race. In DC the argument would be that providing inferior schools in black zip codes is disparate impact.

I am not PPs. I am a left-leaning person who wants to see equal schools.

But you are overstating the strength of the SCOTUS case law on this. If bad schools in black neighborhoods was so clearly unconstitutional, don't you think we'd see lots of successful civil rights suits? After all that'S been the status quo for decades. But we don't, because unfortunately Brown has been watered down, a lot, as this article explains (another PP posted it up thread):

http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/disparate-impact.html

PP here again, here is a quote from the above article:

The constitutional right to education that has survived into the Roberts Court is a limited right: of children residing in the United States to attend a public school free of intentional discrimination on the basis of race and other protected categories. While Brown and its progeny clearly established a federal right for children to be free from governmentsponsored segregation (and other invidious discrimination), the federal courts in the main did not require more than a minimal set of educational inputs. Moreover, administrative enforcement of Title VI by the Department of Education’s (the Department’s) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has proven insufficient to bring about systemic improvement in reducing resegregation, excessive discipline rates experienced by minority students, or inequitable resource allocation to schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can't be "disparate impact" if the citizens are the ones making choices to live in specific neighborhoods that feed into local schools. In the case of DC public schools, there is no government policy that creates the outcome that many on this board don't like. To them, the outcome seems unfair, but that's just the way life is. Throughout human history, btw.

Yup, kids choose to be born to poor parents who can only afford to live in school zones with poor performing schools. Must be nice to live in your little world where every child gets to make that choice.

How facetious. You may be correct that your ideal world would be the most "fair," but don't pretend the law is on your side.

The law has been clear about segregation, whether de jure or de facto:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/05/16/judge-orders-mississippi-school-district-to-desegregate-62-years-after-brown-v-board-of-education/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_schools-desegregate-950pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Disparate impact theory has been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court with regard to location of Affordable Housing: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417433460/in-fair-housing-act-case-supreme-court-backs-disparate-impact-claims

But keep trying to maintain that where people live and where they are able to send their children to school is in any way a choice, or that separate can ever be equal.

LOL in both of these cases PP cites the courts are overturning activist government law and policies that CREATED disparate, unwelcome, outcomes based on race. Ergo, those cases are only relevant to OUR discussion if the District of Columbia government is actively making laws or regulations which manipulate the opportunities afforded to (in these examples) non-white people. Nothing of that sort is happening in D.C., where the vast majority of folks, black or white or whatever, are making choice to live where they want to live. The ideal, wished-for law that PP is so authoritatively referencing don't even exist in D.C. or the rest of the country for that matter. Well, maybe San Francisco but good luck with that here.

Ok sparky. Disparate impact has to do with the impact on racial groups whether or not the have purportedly made a "choice" to live or work or make purchases the way they do. Your stupid argument about black people chosing to live in black neighborhoods is irrelevant. Do you think if DC decided to say cut off electricity in Ward 8 alone they could defend that on the black people had chosen to live there? No. Also not sure what you are getting at when you say "activist" policies, but disparate impact only requires that there be a policy that impacts on the basis of race. In DC the argument would be that providing inferior schools in black zip codes is disparate impact.

I am not PPs. I am a left-leaning person who wants to see equal schools.

But you are overstating the strength of the SCOTUS case law on this. If bad schools in black neighborhoods was so clearly unconstitutional, don't you think we'd see lots of successful civil rights suits? After all that'S been the status quo for decades. But we don't, because unfortunately Brown has been watered down, a lot, as this article explains (another PP posted it up thread):

http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/disparate-impact.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can't be "disparate impact" if the citizens are the ones making choices to live in specific neighborhoods that feed into local schools. In the case of DC public schools, there is no government policy that creates the outcome that many on this board don't like. To them, the outcome seems unfair, but that's just the way life is. Throughout human history, btw.

Yup, kids choose to be born to poor parents who can only afford to live in school zones with poor performing schools. Must be nice to live in your little world where every child gets to make that choice.

How facetious. You may be correct that your ideal world would be the most "fair," but don't pretend the law is on your side.

The law has been clear about segregation, whether de jure or de facto:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/05/16/judge-orders-mississippi-school-district-to-desegregate-62-years-after-brown-v-board-of-education/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_schools-desegregate-950pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Disparate impact theory has been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court with regard to location of Affordable Housing: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417433460/in-fair-housing-act-case-supreme-court-backs-disparate-impact-claims

But keep trying to maintain that where people live and where they are able to send their children to school is in any way a choice, or that separate can ever be equal.

LOL in both of these cases PP cites the courts are overturning activist government law and policies that CREATED disparate, unwelcome, outcomes based on race. Ergo, those cases are only relevant to OUR discussion if the District of Columbia government is actively making laws or regulations which manipulate the opportunities afforded to (in these examples) non-white people. Nothing of that sort is happening in D.C., where the vast majority of folks, black or white or whatever, are making choice to live where they want to live. The ideal, wished-for law that PP is so authoritatively referencing don't even exist in D.C. or the rest of the country for that matter. Well, maybe San Francisco but good luck with that here.

Ok sparky. Disparate impact has to do with the impact on racial groups whether or not the have purportedly made a "choice" to live or work or make purchases the way they do. Your stupid argument about black people chosing to live in black neighborhoods is irrelevant. Do you think if DC decided to say cut off electricity in Ward 8 alone they could defend that on the black people had chosen to live there? No. Also not sure what you are getting at when you say "activist" policies, but disparate impact only requires that there be a policy that impacts on the basis of race. In DC the argument would be that providing inferior schools in black zip codes is disparate impact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can't be "disparate impact" if the citizens are the ones making choices to live in specific neighborhoods that feed into local schools. In the case of DC public schools, there is no government policy that creates the outcome that many on this board don't like. To them, the outcome seems unfair, but that's just the way life is. Throughout human history, btw.

Yup, kids choose to be born to poor parents who can only afford to live in school zones with poor performing schools. Must be nice to live in your little world where every child gets to make that choice.

How facetious. You may be correct that your ideal world would be the most "fair," but don't pretend the law is on your side.

The law has been clear about segregation, whether de jure or de facto:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/05/16/judge-orders-mississippi-school-district-to-desegregate-62-years-after-brown-v-board-of-education/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_schools-desegregate-950pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Disparate impact theory has been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court with regard to location of Affordable Housing: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417433460/in-fair-housing-act-case-supreme-court-backs-disparate-impact-claims

But keep trying to maintain that where people live and where they are able to send their children to school is in any way a choice, or that separate can ever be equal.

LOL in both of these cases PP cites the courts are overturning activist government law and policies that CREATED disparate, unwelcome, outcomes based on race. Ergo, those cases are only relevant to OUR discussion if the District of Columbia government is actively making laws or regulations which manipulate the opportunities afforded to (in these examples) non-white people. Nothing of that sort is happening in D.C., where the vast majority of folks, black or white or whatever, are making choice to live where they want to live. The ideal, wished-for law that PP is so authoritatively referencing don't even exist in D.C. or the rest of the country for that matter. Well, maybe San Francisco but good luck with that here.

Anonymous wrote:By the way - "WaPoo"??? Ugh. It reminds me of the very derogatory nicknames that some have recently given to Muslims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second, I think there may be one charter school in the city which is actually majority white (Lee?). There are a number of them which have white populations in the 30-40% range, which is certainly more than most schools in the city. Also, your use of "Tier 1" as the indicator of majority white charters is ridiculous- over half of the Tier 1 charters are KIPP and Achievement Prep and similar schools, which are vastly majority black, almost 100%.

.

Majority white charter schools

Lee = 54% white
Washington Latin middle school = 54.9% white

Great. Numbers. But don't those numbers indicate almost perfect INTEGRATION, not segregation. Aren't these the numbers we'd like to see everywhere? So confused.