Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the schools are better wotp, right? Isn't that the crux of the entire argument? That the original Lafayette thread OP was considering to enroll in a wotp school?

Define "better".

Average scores are higher - definitely.
Going to make a difference in my children's outcome? Less clear.

I'll agree. The test scores would concern me less than a potential peer group full of thugs and teen moms (not saying that's the case at your school, or at the majority of EOTP schools). On the other hand, WOTP one has to worry about a potential peer group full of entitled rich kids... You really can't win in this society where the socioeconomic divide is that extreme.

Another hip, entitled EOTPer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the schools are better wotp, right? Isn't that the crux of the entire argument? That the original Lafayette thread OP was considering to enroll in a wotp school?

Define "better".

Average scores are higher - definitely.
Going to make a difference in my children's outcome? Less clear.

I'll agree. The test scores would concern me less than a potential peer group full of thugs and teen moms (not saying that's the case at your school, or at the majority of EOTP schools). On the other hand, WOTP one has to worry about a potential peer group full of entitled rich kids... You really can't win in this society where the socioeconomic divide is that extreme.

Anonymous wrote:It is really easy to find the closing price of any property in DC via the Dept of Taxation's online real property database. All you need is an exact street address.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can think of 8 families off the top of my head in Lafayette bounds who bought @ $350K. I can think of a dozen more who bought < or = $500K.

I can also think of a number of families who attend LEJ OOB and: bought a $700K-$2.5m homes in the last 5 years who live EOTP, .....

Now you had to go and make this all creepy.

Huh? If you bought through 1999 you paid ~$350K, if you bought by 2002 you paid ~$500K. It's not a secret. I said that because I saw $350K being thrown around up-thread, and while I didn't see the thread this is referring to, I'm reminding folks that not everyone bought in at $1m. Heck, we got priced out of Janney in 2000. I think a lot of people in the neighborhood did, so many people *sacrificed* in their own way.

Re the OOB, I follow RE and the boards here and know what home prices are in Shepherd Park, Crestwood, 16th Street, and Capitol Hill. Add in Petworth and more for $500K. I've had several friends move back, declare our house "too suburban," and buy $1m homes in Capitol Hill who now send kids WOTP OOB. Apologies for the $2.5m, as that is in Forest Hills, so the limo is only going so far.
.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the implication of some comments seems to be that people EOTP are willing to directly share public resources and mix within schools with those who are poor and low-achieving, mostly black, sometimes Latino, while those WOTP are only OK if their group is a substantial cohort within a certain neighborhood/school. Well there are also certain charters, where probably the majority of EOTP upper class families have their kids, that are places where families of similar background cohort together rather than end up tiny minorities in schools full of poor students. So it's more complex than EOTP good, WOTP racist.

It's not racist to want your kids to be at a school where there is a strong cohort of others from a similar background. Studies have shown that nobody benefits when the low-achieving cohort is too strong.

So you're saying background amounts to just skin color? This drives me crazy. A black kid can't have same background as a white kid? What if their parents income is the same? What if the white kid is Irish-American? What if the white kid comes from Atheist family? What defines background?

Don't let yourself be driven crazy by something I didn't say. Where did I talk about skin color? "Similar background" usually refers to SES, and that's what I meant, because that is what primarily determines achievement, which is what I explicitly talked about. Now of course in DC SES and race are closely correlated, which is why people of higher SES who seek schools with a student population of higher (and in my case that means upper middle class) SES are often cast as racist, because they appear to prefer "white" schools. That this is not the case was the point of my post.

It's hard to ignore the racial implication when you could have said "It's not unreasonable...."

I could have, but I was directly responding to the PP's comment who had cited the often-made allegation that WOTP are racist. My point was that the desire to segregate to a certain degree is NOT about race. Which you completely missed by erroneously inferring that I was talking about skin color.

I'm the first PP you quoted but not the 2nd, so clearly I wasn't the only one who read it that way. You seem pretty smart, enough to mean what you say and say what you mean....but you missed it on that one and are now backpedaling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the implication of some comments seems to be that people EOTP are willing to directly share public resources and mix within schools with those who are poor and low-achieving, mostly black, sometimes Latino, while those WOTP are only OK if their group is a substantial cohort within a certain neighborhood/school. Well there are also certain charters, where probably the majority of EOTP upper class families have their kids, that are places where families of similar background cohort together rather than end up tiny minorities in schools full of poor students. So it's more complex than EOTP good, WOTP racist.

It's not racist to want your kids to be at a school where there is a strong cohort of others from a similar background. Studies have shown that nobody benefits when the low-achieving cohort is too strong.

So you're saying background amounts to just skin color? This drives me crazy. A black kid can't have same background as a white kid? What if their parents income is the same? What if the white kid is Irish-American? What if the white kid comes from Atheist family? What defines background?

Don't let yourself be driven crazy by something I didn't say. Where did I talk about skin color? "Similar background" usually refers to SES, and that's what I meant, because that is what primarily determines achievement, which is what I explicitly talked about. Now of course in DC SES and race are closely correlated, which is why people of higher SES who seek schools with a student population of higher (and in my case that means upper middle class) SES are often cast as racist, because they appear to prefer "white" schools. That this is not the case was the point of my post.

It's hard to ignore the racial implication when you could have said "It's not unreasonable...."

I could have, but I was directly responding to the PP's comment who had cited the often-made allegation that WOTP are racist. My point was that the desire to segregate to a certain degree is NOT about race. Which you completely missed by erroneously inferring that I was talking about skin color.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the implication of some comments seems to be that people EOTP are willing to directly share public resources and mix within schools with those who are poor and low-achieving, mostly black, sometimes Latino, while those WOTP are only OK if their group is a substantial cohort within a certain neighborhood/school. Well there are also certain charters, where probably the majority of EOTP upper class families have their kids, that are places where families of similar background cohort together rather than end up tiny minorities in schools full of poor students. So it's more complex than EOTP good, WOTP racist.

It's not racist to want your kids to be at a school where there is a strong cohort of others from a similar background. Studies have shown that nobody benefits when the low-achieving cohort is too strong.

So you're saying background amounts to just skin color? This drives me crazy. A black kid can't have same background as a white kid? What if their parents income is the same? What if the white kid is Irish-American? What if the white kid comes from Atheist family? What defines background?

Don't let yourself be driven crazy by something I didn't say. Where did I talk about skin color? "Similar background" usually refers to SES, and that's what I meant, because that is what primarily determines achievement, which is what I explicitly talked about. Now of course in DC SES and race are closely correlated, which is why people of higher SES who seek schools with a student population of higher (and in my case that means upper middle class) SES are often cast as racist, because they appear to prefer "white" schools. That this is not the case was the point of my post.

It's hard to ignore the racial implication when you could have said "It's not unreasonable...."