Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally everyone makes real estate and school decisions based on school test scores and quality of education ever since at least I was a kid.

My parents, immigrants, chose to scrape together enough money for a 2 bedroom apartment in a good school district in the city I grew up so that me and my sibling could have a high quality education. This has been happening ever since forever and in most cities.

So they spent 4 years to tell us what we already know except they threw the race card into it. Everyone knows that deal and Wilson are diverse or “integrated”.

Maybe judging the quality of education mainly on English and Math test scores isn't a good idea? And maybe basing who gets access to high quality schools on who can afford to live in certain places also isn't a good idea?

+1

Anonymous wrote:
Please do, since I'm already seeing this study get trotted out on neighborhood facebook as great scholarship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally everyone makes real estate and school decisions based on school test scores and quality of education ever since at least I was a kid.

My parents, immigrants, chose to scrape together enough money for a 2 bedroom apartment in a good school district in the city I grew up so that me and my sibling could have a high quality education. This has been happening ever since forever and in most cities.

So they spent 4 years to tell us what we already know except they threw the race card into it. Everyone knows that deal and Wilson are diverse or “integrated”.

Maybe judging the quality of education mainly on English and Math test scores isn't a good idea? And maybe basing who gets access to high quality schools on who can afford to live in certain places also isn't a good idea?

jsteele wrote:I am going through the report again and I am continually being flabbergasted. This is piss poor work:

In a paragraph beginning "Many school assignments are deemed unacceptable outcomes to DC Urban Moms participants; it is common to consider opting out of the District's school system entirely..." Then, as an example of this, they link to this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/424099.page

and quote this:

Agree. I would apply I Janney and pay for private if I didn't get in.

But, if you read the thread, the OP is inbounds for Janney, has a child in a private preschool, and is asking about pre-k 4. The recommendation that is quoted is not about leaving DCPS, but about not making changes two years in a row (the OP's child is guaranteed a K spot at Janney). The thread almost entirely contradicts the premise it is being used to support.

jsteele wrote:I am going through the report again and I am continually being flabbergasted. This is piss poor work:

In a paragraph beginning "Many school assignments are deemed unacceptable outcomes to DC Urban Moms participants; it is common to consider opting out of the District's school system entirely..." Then, as an example of this, they link to this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/424099.page

and quote this:

Agree. I would apply I Janney and pay for private if I didn't get in.

But, if you read the thread, the OP is inbounds for Janney, has a child in a private preschool, and is asking about pre-k 4. The recommendation that is quoted is not about leaving DCPS, but about not making changes two years in a row (the OP's child is guaranteed a K spot at Janney). The thread almost entirely contradicts the premise it is being used to support.

Agree. I would apply I Janney and pay for private if I didn't get in.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:There are so many problems with the report's methodology. They have lists of "low attention schools" and "high attention schools". Generally, the "high attention schools" are the schools in the neighborhood in which our users live and the "low attention schools" are in neighborhoods which few of our users live. Two exceptions on the low attention list are Duke Ellington and Banneker. Duke Ellington has about 550 students and is a specialized Arts school. Nobody should be surprised that it is not discussed as often as 1800 student Wilson. Banneker is a more complicated case. It may be true that white families avoid it due to racism or it may be true that white families avoid it due to respect for the black student body which has created a special place. It may be a mixture of both or neither. This report doesn't offer evidence in any case.

The report's word lists are useless in my opinion. There is no context. For example, if "diversity" gets mentioned is it being used as a positive or a negative? If posters are promoting a school due to its diversity, is that supporting segregation or opposing it? "Diversity" gets counted just as often as "no diversity". To the report's authors, none of this is important. It is enough that "diversity" comes up at all in relation to some schools. But, then they use this to form conclusions that I don't think can be supported without necessary context.

You HAVE to write an editorial about this. We can all help!

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, whenever you ask people to take a critical look at themselves- the reaction is defensive.

To ask DCUM users if a critique of DCUM users is accurate is naturally not going to end well. Asking people if they are in privileged bubble is not going to go well. Because if you are in a bubble, by definition you do not know that you are.

In general I have found many on this board to be totally blind to the realities of DC Public Schools and blind to your own motivations behind how you move in this space. Is it segregation- kinda sorta. But mostly in the way that we would all select calm.caring, and safe places for our own children.

I think the rub comes in with it is juxtaposed with the self identification as a liberal community with a strong NIMBY action plan.

What you say is true, but does not rule out that the study is still flawed and unfair. Even you are not completely willing to agree with the report's conclusion.

What this report "reveals" is that a group of largely white, largely affluent posters who primarily live in largely white, largely affluent neighborhoods mostly talk about their local schools which are are largely white, largely affluent. It is true that largely white, largely affluent posters do not spend a lot of time talking about schools in parts of the city in which they do not live and which have poor academic outcomes. Why it took them four years and a word frequency analysis of 10 years worth of posts to figure this out is beyond me.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:There are so many problems with the report's methodology. They have lists of "low attention schools" and "high attention schools". Generally, the "high attention schools" are the schools in the neighborhood in which our users live and the "low attention schools" are in neighborhoods which few of our users live. Two exceptions on the low attention list are Duke Ellington and Banneker. Duke Ellington has about 550 students and is a specialized Arts school. Nobody should be surprised that it is not discussed as often as 1800 student Wilson. Banneker is a more complicated case. It may be true that white families avoid it due to racism or it may be true that white families avoid it due to respect for the black student body which has created a special place. It may be a mixture of both or neither. This report doesn't offer evidence in any case.

The report's word lists are useless in my opinion. There is no context. For example, if "diversity" gets mentioned is it being used as a positive or a negative? If posters are promoting a school due to its diversity, is that supporting segregation or opposing it? "Diversity" gets counted just as often as "no diversity". To the report's authors, none of this is important. It is enough that "diversity" comes up at all in relation to some schools. But, then they use this to form conclusions that I don't think can be supported without necessary context.

You HAVE to write an editorial about this. We can all help!

jsteele wrote:There are so many problems with the report's methodology. They have lists of "low attention schools" and "high attention schools". Generally, the "high attention schools" are the schools in the neighborhood in which our users live and the "low attention schools" are in neighborhoods which few of our users live. Two exceptions on the low attention list are Duke Ellington and Banneker. Duke Ellington has about 550 students and is a specialized Arts school. Nobody should be surprised that it is not discussed as often as 1800 student Wilson. Banneker is a more complicated case. It may be true that white families avoid it due to racism or it may be true that white families avoid it due to respect for the black student body which has created a special place. It may be a mixture of both or neither. This report doesn't offer evidence in any case.

The report's word lists are useless in my opinion. There is no context. For example, if "diversity" gets mentioned is it being used as a positive or a negative? If posters are promoting a school due to its diversity, is that supporting segregation or opposing it? "Diversity" gets counted just as often as "no diversity". To the report's authors, none of this is important. It is enough that "diversity" comes up at all in relation to some schools. But, then they use this to form conclusions that I don't think can be supported without necessary context.

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, who wants to send their kids to failing schools?