Out of curiosity, is there anyone who believes the actual academic scholarship done here (word frequency analysis without contextual controls) qualifies as good scholarship? I'm not sure I have seen a Brookings-level report before where the discussion about the publication is so unanimous in agreement that the underlying methodology is significantly flawed. Maybe I am missing something, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know where Vanessa’s children go to school. That would be interesting for context. It is unclear how much the authors actually know about the specifics of DC Public Schools. I think that is why they blatantly misinterpret their data - confirmation bias.

I strongly disagree w/the premise that experts in X area pertaining to kids need to be parents themselves, or that their personal decisions should somehow color perceptions of their work. My two cents.

I don't think you *need* to have been through this particular set of decisions to have a perspective. However, the researchers in this field overall have such a comically terrible track record of putting their money where their mouth is on this -- that is, sending their kids (past elementary school) to the kinds of schools they are calling other parents racist for avoiding -- that it's absolutely worth pointing out.

If the authors of this had sent their kids to the kinds of schools UMC kids avoid in DC, I would still not think much of this research, but I'd think they would have something to contribute to this overall conversation. I'd want to know about their experiences, and if they said "all of the things you're imagining would happen were actually totally fine, let me tell you" I would be extremely interested in hearing that. But that's not the case, and it's never the case.

The problem is that people are not making choices to “uphold segregation.” That may be a by-product, but it is not the goal.

To solve the by-product, we need to solve the factors that people ate focused on.

It’s all well and good to point out the result of the choices, but unless the actual educational concerns are addressed, the pattern of choices will continue.

And simply eye-rolling at others’ concerns (eg, “schools perceived as ‘good’) doesn’t solve the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think what a lot of people are missing here is the mindset that you are either making an anti-racist decision, or you are making a racist decision.

Often, what white people consider to be the default or obvious choice is one that supports a racist, segregated country. It doesn't mean you are a member of the KKK, but it is still true. THAT is what the author is trying to get at, but bc it is a Brookings piece she can't be more obvious about driving home that conclusion.

Great point. I think a lot of folks are getting defensive (Jeff included) because they see this as a black or white issue--either the report says we're segregationists/racists, or we're not. Really, this should be seen collectively as shades of grey--many decisions made by white families in American perpetuate systemic racism to some degree. But increased awareness will hopefully lead some folks to be more thoughtful about their role in the system and how their individual behaviors can help to dismantle it (e.g., housing decisions, lottery rankings).

The poster that you say is making a "Great point" is making exactly the type of binary determination that you think is wrong ("you are either making an anti-racist decision, or you are making a racist decision"). My "defensiveness" is primarily due to my frustration that a complex issue is being over-simplified. There are a considerable number of shades of grey. Making this an either/or proposition ignores all of those. Many factors contribute to school choices. It is lazy to decide than any decision other than the one that you support is racist.

PP here. I guess I didn't write clearly enough. I'm saying exactly this--it's not an either/or issue. We, collectively, as highly educated (mostly white, although I myself am not) Americans with choices when it comes to schools--are all complicit in a system that isn't of our own making, but which we participate in and perpetuate. It is like implicit bias--by virtue of being raised in this country, with America's original sin of racism at its very core--we're all influenced by it, whether we are aware or not. So it doesn't make sense to categorize people as "racists" or not, because most people are not blatant racists these days. But the absence of overt racism doesn't mean that systemic racism is absent. As a social scientist, there are many studies that suggest that our decision-making and behaviors are still influenced by beliefs about race. For example, there are the studies of physicians and how patient race affects clinical care. Many of these people will consider themselves good white people, liberal in politics and policy, but not so when it comes to school and housing choices. I have neighbors and colleagues that fit this description.

I'm reminded of MLK's quote about the "white moderate." I hope that this report and other research like it will invite some introspection, even if the methods here are imperfect.

DP. But if the methodology is so deeply flawed, it makes it easy for people to dismiss the entire thing. That's my primary issue here: this is very, very badly done research. You and other PPs seem content to sweep that under the rug because you think the message is more important than the substance of the report. To me, this is terrible, because it provides an easy target for what should be an important message. To my mind, these authors have handed a tool to racists more than anything, because their work is so shoddy. That is what frustrates me here: they've made the arguments for the racists, by doing such terrible work.

Nobody is defending their study methodology. Nobody! That's honestly shocking for an institution as storied as Brookings. The debate isn't about the quality of the report: everyone agrees it is shoddily done. The only people defending the authors are people who are essentially saying "well, I know it was shoddy and the methodology is deeply flawed, but let's ignore that because the message is important." That is not persuasive at best, and at worst, it hands an academic weapon to racists.

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know where Vanessa’s children go to school. That would be interesting for context. It is unclear how much the authors actually know about the specifics of DC Public Schools. I think that is why they blatantly misinterpret their data - confirmation bias.

I strongly disagree w/the premise that experts in X area pertaining to kids need to be parents themselves, or that their personal decisions should somehow color perceptions of their work. My two cents.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

Saying, "well, we aren't segregationists because you aren't telling us what the solution is" is a complete non sequitur. The solution is really complicated, and involves things beyond what schools parents send their kids to, but it will NEVER happen as long as parents who are participating in and benefiting from the system hear "systemic racism" and immediately bristle because someone is calling them "racist." Some problems don't have easy solutions, but pretending that they aren't problems because of that doesn't help.

Part of it is that we really need to think HARD about what we think makes a "good school," and the ways that race plays into that. There are studies about how people's perception of a school's quality declines when the percentage of black students increases, even if things like test scores stay the same.

Nobody has said anything remotely similar to what you are suggesting. I agree completely that, "The solution is really complicated, and involves things beyond what schools parents send their kids". We live in a nation built on racism. Every institution is tarnished by racism. What I have said is that given the options available, parents attempt to make the best choice. That is a normal and natural thing to do. If you believe that the options parents are choosing are racist or are supporting segregation, then it would be very helpful to offer suggestions for what they should do differently. What is the benefit in simply telling someone they are supporting institutionalized racism and leaving it at that? Why not help with a plan of action that could encourage real change?

Literally nobody thinks there is not a problem. The racial dynamics of DC schools are probably the most discussed topic here. Whether it is school choice, school quality, boundaries, funding, renovations, or even opening or closing schools due to the pandemic, race is part of the discussion. We talk about it all the time.

Let's assume the report is correct for a second. What can I, as the owner of the forum, do to stop the forum from promoting segregation? I can't really think of realistic steps I could take. Everything that comes to mind seems absurd. Should I ban discussions of certain schools or discussions about the lottery? Should I remove posts which encourage moving to a school with a higher percentage of White students? Should I close the whole thing down? By participating in this forum are you also contributing to its use in supporting segregation? If pointing out the problem is the first step, what is the second?

Thanks to all for this very thoughtful debate. Jeff -- you might want to ensure that in whatever response you make to this that your are crystal clear that you believe there are racial equity problems to be solved in DC. It is not always obvious to all readers that white folks believe this.

I would love to know where Vanessa’s children go to school. That would be interesting for context. It is unclear how much the authors actually know about the specifics of DC Public Schools. I think that is why they blatantly misinterpret their data - confirmation bias.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, exactly. A lot of the books that have come out this year (How to Be Anti-racist, Caste) are about exactly this. It's really understandable that people get defensive when they think they are being "called a segregationist." this year has been a long journey of trying to get people to face instead that they are participating in a racist system. it's a subtle difference but maybe one that can relieve some of that defensiveness.

To an extent I agree with you and I acknowledge that I probably should have viewed things more in this light. However, with regard to this report, I think its research is extremely shoddy, doesn't support the conclusions, and both ignores and reveals the obvious. Because the research is so light and flawed, what stands out are the allegations that are repeated throughout the report about supporting segregation. Perhaps the authors could have made their point without using such a loaded term? Is there really any justification for using such a term toward people who have chosen to remain in DC public schools rather than fleeing for private or the suburbs? Why antagonize the very folks with whom you must partner to find a solution?

I can see that your heart is in the right place. Frankly i think this is one of the most worthwhile conversations that DCUM has every hosted.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, exactly. A lot of the books that have come out this year (How to Be Anti-racist, Caste) are about exactly this. It's really understandable that people get defensive when they think they are being "called a segregationist." this year has been a long journey of trying to get people to face instead that they are participating in a racist system. it's a subtle difference but maybe one that can relieve some of that defensiveness.

To an extent I agree with you and I acknowledge that I probably should have viewed things more in this light. However, with regard to this report, I think its research is extremely shoddy, doesn't support the conclusions, and both ignores and reveals the obvious. Because the research is so light and flawed, what stands out are the allegations that are repeated throughout the report about supporting segregation. Perhaps the authors could have made their point without using such a loaded term? Is there really any justification for using such a term toward people who have chosen to remain in DC public schools rather than fleeing for private or the suburbs? Why antagonize the very folks with whom you must partner to find a solution?

Jeff, this reaction is white fragility in action. You can do better.

You may be correct that it is white fragility, but it is also reality. If people are interested in hard truths, it is a simple fact that this sort of language alienates your most likely allies. Why accuse people who didn't choose private schools and who didn't flee to the suburbs of supporting segregation? What solution does that help achieve?

You feel alienated by it; that is clear. I understand that it is hard to find yourself the object of study and even harder when you think the study is poorly done (although note that the subjects of studies typically feel those studies are poorly done).

But you have a fairly powerful venue as the host of this site and what you are doing here is demurring about that power by raising concerns about what other people will think and do. The actions you take here, or do not take, set the tone and standard of the conversation on DCUM, and one of the implications of this study is that DCUM is important.

So far, you have been clear that your line is at openly racist invective--you delete it, and I'm glad you do. There are other actions you could take, including requiring people to use logins (not even real names!), that would have a powerful influence on the tone and would introduce some level of accountability into the conversation.

I have just published my response here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/weblog/2021/03/31/brookings

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, exactly. A lot of the books that have come out this year (How to Be Anti-racist, Caste) are about exactly this. It's really understandable that people get defensive when they think they are being "called a segregationist." this year has been a long journey of trying to get people to face instead that they are participating in a racist system. it's a subtle difference but maybe one that can relieve some of that defensiveness.

To an extent I agree with you and I acknowledge that I probably should have viewed things more in this light. However, with regard to this report, I think its research is extremely shoddy, doesn't support the conclusions, and both ignores and reveals the obvious. Because the research is so light and flawed, what stands out are the allegations that are repeated throughout the report about supporting segregation. Perhaps the authors could have made their point without using such a loaded term? Is there really any justification for using such a term toward people who have chosen to remain in DC public schools rather than fleeing for private or the suburbs? Why antagonize the very folks with whom you must partner to find a solution?

Jeff, this reaction is white fragility in action. You can do better.

You may be correct that it is white fragility, but it is also reality. If people are interested in hard truths, it is a simple fact that this sort of language alienates your most likely allies. Why accuse people who didn't choose private schools and who didn't flee to the suburbs of supporting segregation? What solution does that help achieve?

I think there are several items to unpack here, and I don't have answers for all of them.

1) There is no better word choice than "upholding segregation" if you want to talk have an honest discussion about how certain schools are discussed on this forum, and similar forums around the country. Individual families (including my own) often make choices that uphold segregation, and if we mask that term with euphemisms, it doesn't change the facts on the ground. Residential and educational segregation are real phenomena, and are frankly trending the wrong direction.

2) "Fleeing to the suburbs" feels like some defensive whataboutism here. Yes, Whitman is more segregated than Woodrow Wilson, but that's choosing an extreme outlier. The number of people who can just throw money down in-bounds for Whitman is pretty rare. More likely, among the DCUM types, are folks trying to decide between Wilson and B-CC, or between Kennedy HS in DC or Blair HS in Montgomery County. B-CC and Blair are both integrated schools like Wilson, and I don't think there's a moral high ground to living in upper NW over Silver Spring.

3) The puzzler here is whether you, as a forum manager, have any recourse if your product is being used to uphold segregation. I don't know the answer to that, but I think it is worth engaging with the question honestly and without defensiveness. We all swim in a white supremacist soup, and we (white folks) owe it to ourselves to interrogate our roles. You can't ban discussion of SWW or Janney, and I think you do a great job of swinging the Ban Hammer on flat-out racist posts. But it might be worth starting a separate thread to get real advice, maybe from BIPOC posters, about how DCUM can be anti-racist rather than just non-racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think what a lot of people are missing here is the mindset that you are either making an anti-racist decision, or you are making a racist decision.

Often, what white people consider to be the default or obvious choice is one that supports a racist, segregated country. It doesn't mean you are a member of the KKK, but it is still true. THAT is what the author is trying to get at, but bc it is a Brookings piece she can't be more obvious about driving home that conclusion.

to make it perfectly clear, moving to upper NW to be in a majority white elementary school and choosing a lesser quality charter to be with more white people are both decision that perpetuate that. They are all mildly racist white liberals. I live in Shaw, i have seen many many many people do that. I also have seen the white families who have remained in our EOTP DCPS for the duration -- they are people who are comfortable being a minority as a white person, who actively believe in integration, and who have a lot of faith in their children and aren't worried about them. The number of these people is growing every year. I hope this study does more to increase it.

Shaw is zoned to Cardozo, which is 1% white. That's ~7 kids. The number of white families who are remaining and sending their kids there is miniscule. And that should tell you something about the difficulty of it. Because you have families who are comfortable being in a minority, who do believe in integration, and who still go charter (where they will also be a minority) or selective high school, or leave.

i think we can all agree that 2020 was a paradigm-shifting year. In particular, the way white people think about their own privilege and how they benefit from racist systems has changed. It's all out in the open now. I don't think it's a coincedence that this study came out now... i think there are more people now who are ready to hear it. Maybe even on DCUM.

If you're saying that in the future this might happen, we'll see. But I don't think a lot of UMC parents who are obsessive about schools looked at DCPS in 2020 and thought "this is definitely a capable, functional system that is concerned with the needs of my kids, and I can afford to take a chance that I previously wouldn't have felt comfortable taking."

Overall I think this is a useful debate to have come to the fire. I agree with the point about separating out research comments from the bigger issue of structural racism - so what if parents in DC "know" there's a problem unless there is active work to resolve the problem. Perhaps acknowledging the structural issues and having a dedicated pinned forum and encouraging debate/solutions would be a positive way to go on all this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP but it seems like common sense to me that Brookings is actually critiquing both the system and the actors, and you're interpreting it primarily as a personal attack ("they keep calling us segregationists"). When you try to turn a discussion about systemic racism into a conversation about whether or not you're a nice person, you're centering yourself in an unhelpful and unsympathetic way. I agree with the PPs that say you should leave this alone or at least re-read and edit it when you're not so upset. If you have to respond it should be about the weaknesses inherent in the methodology, the fact that boundaries were redrawn during the survey time, and the less outraged points.

Not to pile on, but I've reported enough overtly racist stuff on the schools forum to know that there's plenty of meat on the report's bones. You've deleted most, though not all, of it, so I'm not sure why you're committed to arguing that racism doesn't play a role in the school choices made by posters here. Stop looking at it as about you and start looking at is about the aggregate of posts. The methodology is flawed but it's not like they're coming out of fantasy land.

Directly from the report, "The conversations on DC Urban Moms illustrate what other research has also shown: When privileged parents choose, they tend to choose segregation." What is this saying if it is not saying that we are segregationists? Their description includes you, by the way. I don't know why I shouldn't take this misrepresentation of a website I own personally. I actually think I should.

As I have said, there are racists here. There are racists everywhere in America. Racism, whether conscious or unconscious, may play a role in school choices. But, I disagree with the report's conclusion that DCUM posters are choosing segregation. You are one of our posters. Did you choose segregation? The aggregate of the posts here are not racist. I don't know how many you have reported, but I guarantee that they are such a small percentage of the posts as to be almost unnoticeable. The report is doing a grave disservice by reducing a complex and nuanced issue to a simple accusation of racism. You know there is more to it than that. Why are you defending such their conclusion?

Many, many conversations on DCUM do illustrate what other research has shown, that privileged parents choose segregation. I am not horrified by this report because it rings true to me based on the comical amount of time I spend here. The conclusion is overbroad, especially since you seem to be reading "the conversations on DCUM" to mean "every single conversation on DCUM," but the defensiveness (and trying to transfer the defensiveness to me?) is also overblown. Their description doesn't include me, because I have not participated in the conversations that support their point other than to debate people who insist that SWW is the bees knees and Banneker is for problem cases with no dads (real thread!).

I think there are methodological problems with the report, and I think you've described some of them persuasively. I also think the overly-personal reactions in other parts of your draft are inappropriate and you may come to regret publishing this while upset. But this is your site, and it's your essay. If that's the direction you want to go, I'm not going to keep arguing against it.

I also think that saying that "privileged parents choose segregation" is the same as saying that they are "segregationists" is a mistake, because you make it an attack on your character rather than a statement about the ways in which everyone participates in a racist system. There are no "pure" choices. You can choose segregation without really meaning to, by not thinking about why things are the way they are, by not interrogating your own sense of what make a "good" school or a "good" neighborhood, by relying on "objective" measures, like test scores, that really aren't.

It's funny to me that parents who consider themselves liberal and progressive on race in many ways can be reliably counted on to get all their hackles up when someone points out that their choice of neighborhood or school for their kids was informed by racism (even unconscious) or entrenches racism, even if that's an unintended consequence. Because you're doing what's "best for your kid," and that trumps every other obligation and consideration, and justifies anything.

yes, exactly. A lot of the books that have come out this year (How to Be Anti-racist, Caste) are about exactly this. It's really understandable that people get defensive when they think they are being "called a segregationist." this year has been a long journey of trying to get people to face instead that they are participating in a racist system. it's a subtle difference but maybe one that can relieve some of that defensiveness.

You think white parents who choose DCPS need to be told that education in the U.S. is a racist system? Your comment and the report completely ignore the fact that any white parent who chooses DCPS is doing the opposite of perpetuating a racist system. They are the ones engaging the system and working within it. They are the integration that is happening in DC, and it is troubling that the report ignores how far DC has come, choosing instead to hold it up as an example that they suggest is going in the wrong direction, when the opposite is true. Bumpy, uneven, sometimes even ugly, yes, but still integration of DC schools is moving in the right direction based on the numbers across the city. Even the most privileged parent who chooses, say Wilson, where white students are not even a plurality, could have gone private, or moved a mile away out of DC where there is cheaper real estate, better services, gifted programs, and in state college tuition (the big one). But they stayed. They chose integration in DC. They are a part of the solution. The only solution for DC is to get more white families to stay in DC public schools. Reports like this create a damned if you do damned if you don't social construct. It isn't helpful. Pretending these parents are actually choosing between Eastern or Wilson is a straw man. There are so few white high school students in DCPS that you cannot integrate even a quarter of the high schools. Calling parents who stay in that system and choose a school that is not even a plurality white "segregationist" because they didn't choose one of the other schools that also isn't plurality white, but is further away and has fewer course offerings, is really poor thinking.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

Saying, "well, we aren't segregationists because you aren't telling us what the solution is" is a complete non sequitur. The solution is really complicated, and involves things beyond what schools parents send their kids to, but it will NEVER happen as long as parents who are participating in and benefiting from the system hear "systemic racism" and immediately bristle because someone is calling them "racist." Some problems don't have easy solutions, but pretending that they aren't problems because of that doesn't help.

Part of it is that we really need to think HARD about what we think makes a "good school," and the ways that race plays into that. There are studies about how people's perception of a school's quality declines when the percentage of black students increases, even if things like test scores stay the same.

Nobody has said anything remotely similar to what you are suggesting. I agree completely that, "The solution is really complicated, and involves things beyond what schools parents send their kids". We live in a nation built on racism. Every institution is tarnished by racism. What I have said is that given the options available, parents attempt to make the best choice. That is a normal and natural thing to do. If you believe that the options parents are choosing are racist or are supporting segregation, then it would be very helpful to offer suggestions for what they should do differently. What is the benefit in simply telling someone they are supporting institutionalized racism and leaving it at that? Why not help with a plan of action that could encourage real change?

Literally nobody thinks there is not a problem. The racial dynamics of DC schools are probably the most discussed topic here. Whether it is school choice, school quality, boundaries, funding, renovations, or even opening or closing schools due to the pandemic, race is part of the discussion. We talk about it all the time.

Let's assume the report is correct for a second. What can I, as the owner of the forum, do to stop the forum from promoting segregation? I can't really think of realistic steps I could take. Everything that comes to mind seems absurd. Should I ban discussions of certain schools or discussions about the lottery? Should I remove posts which encourage moving to a school with a higher percentage of White students? Should I close the whole thing down? By participating in this forum are you also contributing to its use in supporting segregation? If pointing out the problem is the first step, what is the second?

I think that responding to shoddy research and how to improve DCUM/your actions on the site need to be handled separately. The latter takes more spec-reflection, and listening to what people here and any valid points in the paper. I think your heart is in the right place.