Can those who have posted about “catering to wealthier/whiter parents” being in conflict with well serving the more at risk kids needs elaborate a little more specifically? What specific types of things are we talking about? Can someone give some examples?

I dont doubt that what you’re saying is true but I dont really understand what specifically is problematic. Im a wealthy white parent about to start my kid at a title 1. I want to advocate in a way that doesnt harm others.

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious, what does a typical day as a principal look like at a real DCPS Title I school look like? I don’t want to hear about the experiences at barely Title I schools like Payne, John Lewis, Garrison, Marie Reed, etc. I’m talking about the real Title I schools in DC.

This may be hard to imagine, but you REALLY have to evaluate them school by school. It’s different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that it is really tons easier to administratively do well at a more socioeconomically diverse title 1. You will have kids working at a lot of different ability levels. You will have sometimes difficult parents. You will have behavior issues in upper elementary school.

+1

I think there are difficulties either way. My child attends a Title 1 school that has attracted more UMC families in recent years. The principal has changed their messaging and tone on certain policies recently because some UMC families were overly vocal and demanding.

We are at a similar school mentioned earlier on the thread. The kids who need title 1 funding really need it. But the popular principal talks a lot about being diverse but caters to the loud UMC parents. I liked the school more several years ago. It better served my child and kids who qualified for title 1 resources. I know this because I am floater staff in the school.

This is unfortunately a common issue when a larger population of privileged families joins a school. And many principals listen to those families because they can be very persistent. Luckily our principal seems to have held their ground more. Those families often leave the school because they don’t get what they want.

Is it a school where the IB is reasonably gentrified? Because, honestly, if so, my view is the school should serve those students. The fact that a school historically serves a particular population is not a reason, in a city that uses an IB zone system, not to serve your IB population. Obviously there is nuance and ideally you'd serve both populations, but I think folks being vilified as pushy "NWP" for sending their kids to their IB and wanting the school to serve their child's needs is wrong. IB schools should serve the IB population adequately.

There is a difference between serving all students well and catering to parents whims. My student, and others, were served better before. But now the school is catering more to the desires of some parents without considering what will best serve students. All schools should serve all of their students.

As noted, "ideally you'd serve both populations." Listening to IB parents, isn't "catering to parents whims." And serving IB gentrified students better will sometimes require tradeoffs where others end up getting served less well. Obviously I'm not defending a principal who takes random whims of UMC -- or any -- parents into consideration without considering if they're good for students or anything else. No one would. But the implication of your original post was that the principal was necessarily doing something wrong by listening to new parents/the school supporting your student less and I don't think that's necessarily the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that it is really tons easier to administratively do well at a more socioeconomically diverse title 1. You will have kids working at a lot of different ability levels. You will have sometimes difficult parents. You will have behavior issues in upper elementary school.

+1

I think there are difficulties either way. My child attends a Title 1 school that has attracted more UMC families in recent years. The principal has changed their messaging and tone on certain policies recently because some UMC families were overly vocal and demanding.

We are at a similar school mentioned earlier on the thread. The kids who need title 1 funding really need it. But the popular principal talks a lot about being diverse but caters to the loud UMC parents. I liked the school more several years ago. It better served my child and kids who qualified for title 1 resources. I know this because I am floater staff in the school.

This is unfortunately a common issue when a larger population of privileged families joins a school. And many principals listen to those families because they can be very persistent. Luckily our principal seems to have held their ground more. Those families often leave the school because they don’t get what they want.

Is it a school where the IB is reasonably gentrified? Because, honestly, if so, my view is the school should serve those students. The fact that a school historically serves a particular population is not a reason, in a city that uses an IB zone system, not to serve your IB population. Obviously there is nuance and ideally you'd serve both populations, but I think folks being vilified as pushy "NWP" for sending their kids to their IB and wanting the school to serve their child's needs is wrong. IB schools should serve the IB population adequately.

There is a difference between serving all students well and catering to parents whims. My student, and others, were served better before. But now the school is catering more to the desires of some parents without considering what will best serve students. All schools should serve all of their students.

Perhaps those other parents are right about what will best serve their students? Maybe the school is considering both groups?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that it is really tons easier to administratively do well at a more socioeconomically diverse title 1. You will have kids working at a lot of different ability levels. You will have sometimes difficult parents. You will have behavior issues in upper elementary school.

+1

I think there are difficulties either way. My child attends a Title 1 school that has attracted more UMC families in recent years. The principal has changed their messaging and tone on certain policies recently because some UMC families were overly vocal and demanding.

We are at a similar school mentioned earlier on the thread. The kids who need title 1 funding really need it. But the popular principal talks a lot about being diverse but caters to the loud UMC parents. I liked the school more several years ago. It better served my child and kids who qualified for title 1 resources. I know this because I am floater staff in the school.

This is unfortunately a common issue when a larger population of privileged families joins a school. And many principals listen to those families because they can be very persistent. Luckily our principal seems to have held their ground more. Those families often leave the school because they don’t get what they want.

Is it a school where the IB is reasonably gentrified? Because, honestly, if so, my view is the school should serve those students. The fact that a school historically serves a particular population is not a reason, in a city that uses an IB zone system, not to serve your IB population. Obviously there is nuance and ideally you'd serve both populations, but I think folks being vilified as pushy "NWP" for sending their kids to their IB and wanting the school to serve their child's needs is wrong. IB schools should serve the IB population adequately.

There is a difference between serving all students well and catering to parents whims. My student, and others, were served better before. But now the school is catering more to the desires of some parents without considering what will best serve students. All schools should serve all of their students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that it is really tons easier to administratively do well at a more socioeconomically diverse title 1. You will have kids working at a lot of different ability levels. You will have sometimes difficult parents. You will have behavior issues in upper elementary school.

+1

I think there are difficulties either way. My child attends a Title 1 school that has attracted more UMC families in recent years. The principal has changed their messaging and tone on certain policies recently because some UMC families were overly vocal and demanding.

We are at a similar school mentioned earlier on the thread. The kids who need title 1 funding really need it. But the popular principal talks a lot about being diverse but caters to the loud UMC parents. I liked the school more several years ago. It better served my child and kids who qualified for title 1 resources. I know this because I am floater staff in the school.

This is unfortunately a common issue when a larger population of privileged families joins a school. And many principals listen to those families because they can be very persistent. Luckily our principal seems to have held their ground more. Those families often leave the school because they don’t get what they want.

Is it a school where the IB is reasonably gentrified? Because, honestly, if so, my view is the school should serve those students. The fact that a school historically serves a particular population is not a reason, in a city that uses an IB zone system, not to serve your IB population. Obviously there is nuance and ideally you'd serve both populations, but I think folks being vilified as pushy "NWP" for sending their kids to their IB and wanting the school to serve their child's needs is wrong. IB schools should serve the IB population adequately.

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious, what does a typical day as a principal look like at a real DCPS Title I school look like? I don’t want to hear about the experiences at barely Title I schools like Payne, John Lewis, Garrison, Marie Reed, etc. I’m talking about the real Title I schools in DC.

I'm assuming by "real Title I schools" you mean high at-risk Title I schools. High at-risk usually comes along with a higher special education population and higher levels of community violence or safe passage issues. So in a "real Title I school", the principal will have all the same responsibilities as in a non-Title I school but will also likely have more IEP meetings, more students with disruptive behaviors, more coordination of special ed aides and co-teacher schedules, and more planning for attendance and truancy interventions along with more community safety coordination.

I shadowed a high at-risk Title I principal and saw all of the above plus some classroom visits and instructional team meetings. That principal's day ended with a student attacked after dismissal (in the neighborhood not at the school) so then they had calls and meetings until late evening with the family, MPD, DC agencies and others to create safe passage plans as the attack was related to some unending neighborhood issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that it is really tons easier to administratively do well at a more socioeconomically diverse title 1. You will have kids working at a lot of different ability levels. You will have sometimes difficult parents. You will have behavior issues in upper elementary school.

+1

I think there are difficulties either way. My child attends a Title 1 school that has attracted more UMC families in recent years. The principal has changed their messaging and tone on certain policies recently because some UMC families were overly vocal and demanding.

We are at a similar school mentioned earlier on the thread. The kids who need title 1 funding really need it. But the popular principal talks a lot about being diverse but caters to the loud UMC parents. I liked the school more several years ago. It better served my child and kids who qualified for title 1 resources. I know this because I am floater staff in the school.

This is unfortunately a common issue when a larger population of privileged families joins a school. And many principals listen to those families because they can be very persistent. Luckily our principal seems to have held their ground more. Those families often leave the school because they don’t get what they want.

Will you share your school? We are very interested!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that it is really tons easier to administratively do well at a more socioeconomically diverse title 1. You will have kids working at a lot of different ability levels. You will have sometimes difficult parents. You will have behavior issues in upper elementary school.

+1

I think there are difficulties either way. My child attends a Title 1 school that has attracted more UMC families in recent years. The principal has changed their messaging and tone on certain policies recently because some UMC families were overly vocal and demanding.

We are at a similar school mentioned earlier on the thread. The kids who need title 1 funding really need it. But the popular principal talks a lot about being diverse but caters to the loud UMC parents. I liked the school more several years ago. It better served my child and kids who qualified for title 1 resources. I know this because I am floater staff in the school.

This is unfortunately a common issue when a larger population of privileged families joins a school. And many principals listen to those families because they can be very persistent. Luckily our principal seems to have held their ground more. Those families often leave the school because they don’t get what they want.