jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And, BTW, the most helpful contribution the city could make in order to attract and retain the middle class is to improve schools outside of Ward 3. Which takes us right back to the beginning of this discussion.

I agree, but "improve the schools" was the issue. There are things you can do to improve the schools for very, very poor. And there are things you can do to improve the schools for the middle-class. Those two things are different. And there's a finite pool of resources.

The things that attract and keep middle-class residents in DC are the same things that attract and keep middle-class residents in NoVa: curriculum, facilities improvements, "specials" teachers, things like G&T programs, etc...

These things will also improve the school for the very poor. But the kinds of (very expensive) programs that target only the poor don't attract middle-class parents. And since they're expensive, they tend to crowd out things like language teachers, art teachers, facilities improvements, etc... And since driving out the middle-class drives down revenues (as the Brookings Instititue paper observes) it's a downward spiral.

That dynamic was at the base of my (much derided) argument that schools must primarily be a place for educating kids, and secondarily a delivery mechanism for social services.

Whatever helps middle-class students enroll in, and stay at, DCPS schools is what helps poor kids. Maximize the number of middle-class residents settling in DC and the money to fund social programs (that should not be a "core" function of schools, but should interface with them) will come.

I don't know why it would be necessary to take a "one size fits" all approach. There are schools in the city that are ready for the type of improvements you suggest will attract middle-class families. But, there are schools that aren't -- or at least they are not the top priorities. In this second group, wrap around services may be as important to achieving positive education results as academic services. This ability to be flexible is what is behind much of the charter school success. DCPS should strive for similar flexibility.

Nothing I disagree with here. But I'm afraid that any attempt to create a "many sizes for all" approach would be subject to a socioeconomic/racial backlash. It's why one or more test-in middle-schools would likely meet with fierce opposition. It's one of the reasons I find the "some are left behind" construct so irritating. When middle-class residents stay or move into the city, that's a good thing--people aren't being left behind. When middle-class kids are enrolled in DCPS, that's (generally) a good thing, too.

Anonymous wrote:

And, BTW, the most helpful contribution the city could make in order to attract and retain the middle class is to improve schools outside of Ward 3. Which takes us right back to the beginning of this discussion.

I agree, but "improve the schools" was the issue. There are things you can do to improve the schools for very, very poor. And there are things you can do to improve the schools for the middle-class. Those two things are different. And there's a finite pool of resources.

The things that attract and keep middle-class residents in DC are the same things that attract and keep middle-class residents in NoVa: curriculum, facilities improvements, "specials" teachers, things like G&T programs, etc...

These things will also improve the school for the very poor. But the kinds of (very expensive) programs that target only the poor don't attract middle-class parents. And since they're expensive, they tend to crowd out things like language teachers, art teachers, facilities improvements, etc... And since driving out the middle-class drives down revenues (as the Brookings Instititue paper observes) it's a downward spiral.

That dynamic was at the base of my (much derided) argument that schools must primarily be a place for educating kids, and secondarily a delivery mechanism for social services.

Whatever helps middle-class students enroll in, and stay at, DCPS schools is what helps poor kids. Maximize the number of middle-class residents settling in DC and the money to fund social programs (that should not be a "core" function of schools, but should interface with them) will come.

Middle class families want a compelling curriculum that actually has a realistic possibility of preparing a student for a professional career, whether college or otherwise. They don't want classrooms that gravitate to the lowest common denominator, dealing with kids years behind where they should be rather than focusing on where kids should be - getting the kids who are behind up to speed should not be at the expense of everything else, it should be in addition to everything else. It's unrealistic to expect teachers to juggle differentiation for example in a middle school classroom where some students can read at a college level, while others cannot read at all. They also want to be assured that the school is safe and that there is minimal disruption in the classroom. Currently many DCPS schools suffer from far too much undisciplined chaos.

Anonymous wrote:

And, BTW, the most helpful contribution the city could make in order to attract and retain the middle class is to improve schools outside of Ward 3. Which takes us right back to the beginning of this discussion.

I agree, but "improve the schools" was the issue. There are things you can do to improve the schools for very, very poor. And there are things you can do to improve the schools for the middle-class. Those two things are different. And there's a finite pool of resources.

The things that attract and keep middle-class residents in DC are the same things that attract and keep middle-class residents in NoVa: curriculum, facilities improvements, "specials" teachers, things like G&T programs, etc...

These things will also improve the school for the very poor. But the kinds of (very expensive) programs that target only the poor don't attract middle-class parents. And since they're expensive, they tend to crowd out things like language teachers, art teachers, facilities improvements, etc... And since driving out the middle-class drives down revenues (as the Brookings Instititue paper observes) it's a downward spiral.

That dynamic was at the base of my (much derided) argument that schools must primarily be a place for educating kids, and secondarily a delivery mechanism for social services.

Whatever helps middle-class students enroll in, and stay at, DCPS schools is what helps poor kids. Maximize the number of middle-class residents settling in DC and the money to fund social programs (that should not be a "core" function of schools, but should interface with them) will come.

I don't know why it would be necessary to take a "one size fits" all approach. There are schools in the city that are ready for the type of improvements you suggest will attract middle-class families. But, there are schools that aren't -- or at least they are not the top priorities. In this second group, wrap around services may be as important to achieving positive education results as academic services. This ability to be flexible is what is behind much of the charter school success. DCPS should strive for similar flexibility.

And, BTW, the most helpful contribution the city could make in order to attract and retain the middle class is to improve schools outside of Ward 3. Which takes us right back to the beginning of this discussion.

I agree, but "improve the schools" was the issue. There are things you can do to improve the schools for very, very poor. And there are things you can do to improve the schools for the middle-class. Those two things are different. And there's a finite pool of resources.

The things that attract and keep middle-class residents in DC are the same things that attract and keep middle-class residents in NoVa: curriculum, facilities improvements, "specials" teachers, things like G&T programs, etc...

These things will also improve the school for the very poor. But the kinds of (very expensive) programs that target only the poor don't attract middle-class parents. And since they're expensive, they tend to crowd out things like language teachers, art teachers, facilities improvements, etc... And since driving out the middle-class drives down revenues (as the Brookings Instititue paper observes) it's a downward spiral.

That dynamic was at the base of my (much derided) argument that schools must primarily be a place for educating kids, and secondarily a delivery mechanism for social services.

Whatever helps middle-class students enroll in, and stay at, DCPS schools is what helps poor kids. Maximize the number of middle-class residents settling in DC and the money to fund social programs (that should not be a "core" function of schools, but should interface with them) will come.

Anonymous wrote:
In other words, 50,000 "non-poor" people. I agree that "just as the government is capable of making policies to attract [non-poor] new residents, it can surely make plans to address the needs of the existing [poor] residents."

Then we are in agreement.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm a lifelong DC resident, and I want to see all of our residents taken care of. But I also want to see the city thrive economically. Any I have a problem with the disingenuous way that the case for social services is often made. Take for example this article on the "income gap" which drives much of the talk about "giving to the rich and leaving some behind".

Again, we are in agreement in wanting all of the District's residents taken care of.

Anonymous wrote:
The income gap exists because almost every middle class person who could, left the city. The only people left were the extremely wealthy, and the extremely poor:

Here I disagree. Ward 4 is full of middle class people who have generations-long roots in the City. I assume the same is true of other wards that I know less well.

Anonymous wrote:
The only way that DC is going to claw its way out of the dysfunction of the last 50 years or so--and so be able to strengthen our commitment to poor residents--is to continue to increase the number of middle-class residents (in the Brooking's words the "non-poor"; or in the Post's words the "well-off").

Again we are in agreement.

Edit: And, BTW, the most helpful contribution the city could make in order to attract and retain the middle class is to improve schools outside of Ward 3. Which takes us right back to the beginning of this discussion.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So again, not seeing the many policies the city pursued to court "affluent people". Seems to me the policies the city did pursue were "not interfering when changing consumer preferences led to a return of the middle-class (and the affluent) to the city."

Really, you are asking an involved question that could take many pages to answer properly and doesn't deal with DC schools in any case. But, while this article doesn't answer your question perfectly, it is a good resource. Also, the article deals with a number of issues beyond this immediate one that may be of interest to DCUM readers.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-25/opinions/35456628_1_playground-urban-areas-newcomers

"He [Anthony Williams] was working off of a Brookings Institution report that said by attracting 50,000 well-off single people and couples without school-age children, the District could increase its revenue by $300 million. Williams and his planners laid the groundwork for nearly all the current major real estate projects and for the new condominiums and apartments that continue to rise — faster than anywhere else in the country since the recession began. If you look up and see a crane today, it is probably at work on a project that Williams’s team set in motion."

The bolding of "well-off" is mine. We can argue whether that is affluent or middle class or whatever. But, clearly Williams was planning for people better off than those already there.

Here is the impact of that growth:

"Many longtime District residents and families surely have been pushed out by the incredible rise in housing costs the city has experienced. A recent report found that the number of low-cost rental units fell from 70,600 to 34,500 over the past decade. It’s difficult to buy a house in many D.C. neighborhoods for less than $400,000."

Just to be clear, I am not against growth. To the contrary, I'm very happy with most of the development. But, just as the government is capable of making policies to attract "well-off" new residents, it can surely make plans to address the needs of the existing not-so-well-off residents. I'm not even sure why that idea is controversial.

I disagree that those two things are linked. Let's say Williams was working off the Brookings report. But the Post piece mischaracterized the Brookings report, which didn't say 50,000 "well-off" residents, but rather:

"Our rough calculations indicate that adding an average single, non-poor adult resident would increase the District’s revenue, net of the cost of additional services for that added resident, by about $4,300. An additional two-earner couple would bring in almost $13,000 net of added costs. If the city’s population of middle- and upper-income singles and childless couples increased by 50,000, the net annual increase in the District’s revenues over operating expenditures would be in the neighborhood of $300 million. It would be possible both to improve public services and reduce tax rates.2"

In other words, 50,000 "non-poor" people. I agree that "just as the government is capable of making policies to attract [non-poor] new residents, it can surely make plans to address the needs of the existing [poor] residents."

I'm a lifelong DC resident, and I want to see all of our residents taken care of. But I also want to see the city thrive economically. Any I have a problem with the disingenuous way that the case for social services is often made. Take for example this article on the "income gap" which drives much of the talk about "giving to the rich and leaving some behind".

The income gap exists because almost every middle class person who could, left the city. The only people left were the extremely wealthy, and the extremely poor:

“The African Americans who stayed in the District were the poorest, who didn’t have opportunities to leave,” said Peter Tatian, a senior research associate with the Urban Institute’s Center on Metropolitan Housing and Communities. “The District does provide affordable housing in many neighborhoods, particularly east of the river, so there’s the opportunity to stay if you’re poor. But if you’re middle class, it’s a different story. As housing became more expensive here, those folks moved to the suburbs.”

This dynamic had nothing to do with city policies that favored the affluent, but rather city policies that forced middle-class residents to head for the suburbs--it was the near-total elimination of services to the middle-class in the 80s and 90s. To misunderstand that cause is to misunderstand the solution. As an example:

[DCFPI's Ed] Lazere noted that during the city’s financial crisis in the 1990s, vocational training programs were cut that would have helped people who weren’t headed to college.

“We’re reaping the effects of that now,” he said. “We do have a mayor who talks a lot about jobs, but we don’t have a citywide strategy to address the literacy and skills gap.”

Stuff like this drives me nuts. Lazere knows as well as anyone that the income gap in DC was not produced by cuts to vocational training programs. It was caused by the elimination of DC's middle-class which was precipitated by a combination of local, regional, and national policies to drive the middle-class out of the cities. Adding vocational training programs will do nothing to close the income gap--at least not without policies that cater to "the affluent" (i.e. non-poor people); it will merely create new middle-class residents who will decamp for the suburbs.

The only way that DC is going to claw its way out of the dysfunction of the last 50 years or so--and so be able to strengthen our commitment to poor residents--is to continue to increase the number of middle-class residents (in the Brooking's words the "non-poor"; or in the Post's words the "well-off").

In the olden days, before poor people had cars, there were occasional blocks of little houses for servants just walking distance away from the bigger houses.

the house are still there -- you can see them around town - but now single people live in them, or young married couples

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Pay the poor to move" is a misrepresentation. My position is that it should be DC policy to target a level of poverty well below what we have now. That doesn't mean we pay people to move. It means we build housing for more middle class residents. In other words, the denominator gets larger. And we don't see it as a policy failing if our demographics start to look more like the suburbs (still with more poverty, but not 13% sub-$10k to the suburbs' 5%.)

As far as Penn Quarter goes, obviously a "host of government policies led to the development of Penn Quarter". But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask--if that's the singular example of DC government catering to "the affluent"--that you actually give specifics if you're going to argue that that development took place in favor of the rich at the expense of the poor.

My understanding of how development took place in Penn Quarter is pretty sketchy, but this seems like a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Avenue_National_Historic_Site#Rejuvenation

But I am curious: If the redevelopment of Penn Quarter is an example of DC's kowtowing to "affluent people", what would be a counter-factual of how that area could have developed to the benefit of middle-class people? All we seem to be talking about is the very poor and "the affluent".

If everyone who is poor is shipped out of DC, pray tell who is going to do the menial work that allows you to live your comfortable life in the city? You'll have to start paying workers a fee like they do in London, "London waiting" because the cost of living there is so prohibitive to workers in government and service industry jobs. Some of the comments are sickening on this page, what kind of world do some of you want to live in? Do you only care about yourself? What happened to it takes a village to raise a child?

Who would do that menial work? The same Latinos and others who come in from Falls Church and other surrounding areas that are already doing it.

Anonymous wrote:
So again, not seeing the many policies the city pursued to court "affluent people". Seems to me the policies the city did pursue were "not interfering when changing consumer preferences led to a return of the middle-class (and the affluent) to the city."

Really, you are asking an involved question that could take many pages to answer properly and doesn't deal with DC schools in any case. But, while this article doesn't answer your question perfectly, it is a good resource. Also, the article deals with a number of issues beyond this immediate one that may be of interest to DCUM readers.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-25/opinions/35456628_1_playground-urban-areas-newcomers

"He [Anthony Williams] was working off of a Brookings Institution report that said by attracting 50,000 well-off single people and couples without school-age children, the District could increase its revenue by $300 million. Williams and his planners laid the groundwork for nearly all the current major real estate projects and for the new condominiums and apartments that continue to rise — faster than anywhere else in the country since the recession began. If you look up and see a crane today, it is probably at work on a project that Williams’s team set in motion."

The bolding of "well-off" is mine. We can argue whether that is affluent or middle class or whatever. But, clearly Williams was planning for people better off than those already there.

Here is the impact of that growth:

"Many longtime District residents and families surely have been pushed out by the incredible rise in housing costs the city has experienced. A recent report found that the number of low-cost rental units fell from 70,600 to 34,500 over the past decade. It’s difficult to buy a house in many D.C. neighborhoods for less than $400,000."

Just to be clear, I am not against growth. To the contrary, I'm very happy with most of the development. But, just as the government is capable of making policies to attract "well-off" new residents, it can surely make plans to address the needs of the existing not-so-well-off residents. I'm not even sure why that idea is controversial.

Anonymous wrote:"Pay the poor to move" is a misrepresentation. My position is that it should be DC policy to target a level of poverty well below what we have now. That doesn't mean we pay people to move. It means we build housing for more middle class residents. In other words, the denominator gets larger. And we don't see it as a policy failing if our demographics start to look more like the suburbs (still with more poverty, but not 13% sub-$10k to the suburbs' 5%.)

As far as Penn Quarter goes, obviously a "host of government policies led to the development of Penn Quarter". But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask--if that's the singular example of DC government catering to "the affluent"--that you actually give specifics if you're going to argue that that development took place in favor of the rich at the expense of the poor.

My understanding of how development took place in Penn Quarter is pretty sketchy, but this seems like a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Avenue_National_Historic_Site#Rejuvenation

But I am curious: If the redevelopment of Penn Quarter is an example of DC's kowtowing to "affluent people", what would be a counter-factual of how that area could have developed to the benefit of middle-class people? All we seem to be talking about is the very poor and "the affluent".

If everyone who is poor is shipped out of DC, pray tell who is going to do the menial work that allows you to live your comfortable life in the city? You'll have to start paying workers a fee like they do in London, "London waiting" because the cost of living there is so prohibitive to workers in government and service industry jobs. Some of the comments are sickening on this page, what kind of world do some of you want to live in? Do you only care about yourself? What happened to it takes a village to raise a child?

Anonymous wrote:It is painfully obvious that your understanding of most public policy issues is pretty sketchy. Notwithstanding such an authoritative source as Wikipedia, setting up the PADC, which could barely save the Old Post Office, and.constructing the Hoover building hardly led to revitalization. Undervalued properties, many of which were snatched up by Doug Jemal and other developers operating at the fringes, allowed commercial development to close the gap between the traditional downtown area and Union Station. Abe Pollin and the Verizon center then provided impetus for condo-residential development as infill.

It's safe to assume my understanding of "most public policy issues is pretty sketchy". Please enlighten me. What specifically were the policies that the city pursued to specifically appeal to "affluent interests"? Discounting Wikipedia is low-hanging fruit. It's tough to tell, but you seem to be making the point that most public initiatives failed, and because that area was depressed for so long, those who had the foresight to buy up property and commercial development to slowly take hold. Abe Pollin's Verizon center (which I understand was mostly funded with private money) furthered that renaissance. Today, the cost of market rate housing has skyrocketed, but that's a function of its being adjacent to the traditional downtown, and it's rebirth as a cultural and retail destination.

So again, not seeing the many policies the city pursued to court "affluent people". Seems to me the policies the city did pursue were "not interfering when changing consumer preferences led to a return of the middle-class (and the affluent) to the city."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think I have any reasonable expectation to be able to still afford to live in DC when I retire - that's realistic. I will likely move to a more affordable community when I retire. I've had to move several times in order to find jobs, in order to find affordable places to live, et cetera. Why would anyone else have such expectations of things never changing and always being able to live wherever you want?
And, ex-offenders reflects another set of very poor life choices. Yet it's everyone else who ends up paying the price for their irresponsibility. How is that fair or equitable?

Perhaps you should offer classes to citizens to teach them how to be as reasonable and realistic as you are. You could include calculations on people's earning power and match it with communities other than DC where they would be better off.

Basic common sense and basic math. How much do you have coming in each month, how much has to go out for rent, food, bills each month. If you can't make ends meet, find a way to either reduce the expense (like somewhere with cheaper rent) and/or try and make more money. It's not rocket science, it's what most regular folks have to do. But of course, basic math and common sense seem to be what are lacking in the first place.

But what's been argued here is that some people don't have the sense to know when they should get out of town to make way for people who can better afford live here. Thus the need for basic classes. Perhaps at the end of the course, the teacher could offer to rent a U-haul to anyone willing to leave on the spot.

The way things are going, the teachers can't afford to live here either!

It is painfully obvious that your understanding of most public policy issues is pretty sketchy. Notwithstanding such an authoritative source as Wikipedia, setting up the PADC, which could barely save the Old Post Office, and.constructing the Hoover building hardly led to revitalization. Undervalued properties, many of which were snatched up by Doug Jemal and other developers operating at the fringes, allowed commercial development to close the gap between the traditional downtown area and Union Station. Abe Pollin and the Verizon center then provided impetus for condo-residential development as infill.

DCPS will continue to suck unless it stops the obsession with standardize testing and makes parents value education. Getting parents involved is more of a City Counsel thing, like arresting/giving a fine for truancy.

The obsession with testing is horrible. I was at a NWDC elementary school last week when they started testing (my preschooler gets services through Early Stages) and I was floored at how a teacher was intimidating a group of 4th grade boys on "doing their absolute best". I did standardized testing in school as a kid and teachers never said things like that to us! Based on my experience, I am rethinking public education.

Back to Rhee -- it was obvious that her priority was to address the failing schools in neglected neighborhoods with high truancy rates, and one of her grand plans was to address the out-of-school-time hours from 3 to 6. Instead she spent most of her time (when not on her self-promotional media tours) meddling in Wards 2 and 3 and firing principals of schools that were thriving with great prospects for future success in the firs place. Now Catania and the rest of our city leaders refuse to investigate the cheating frenzy she ignored. If we can put rapists away years after a crime because of modern methods of DNA testing why can't we sort through the evidence that still exists here in the District that if proven, demonstrates Rhee & Co. aiding and abetting a crime against students.