Anonymous wrote:"I think your argument that charters offer more exclusion is bogus since our charter is very diverse despite offering a very rigorous curricula."

See, this is liberal delusion at its best. The charters that white people in D.C. use may have more dark skinned kids, but they still lack economic diversity. Parents living on the edge and working several minimum wage jobs just aren't going to have computer and broadband access to research and apply for many of the better charters, and then drive their kids across town to get them there.

baloney! Many of the schools have info sessions all over town and are more than happy to walk folks through the process as well as librarians since most schools now use myschooldc site for enrollment. Plus now the buses and metro are free for students. What more do you want? Neighborhood schools only with less diversity???

"I think your argument that charters offer more exclusion is bogus since our charter is very diverse despite offering a very rigorous curricula."

See, this is liberal delusion at its best. The charters that white people in D.C. use may have more dark skinned kids, but they still lack economic diversity. Parents living on the edge and working several minimum wage jobs just aren't going to have computer and broadband access to research and apply for many of the better charters, and then drive their kids across town to get them there.

Higher SES parents are often choosing charters because the administration and faculty of the charters has an educational pedigree that more closely mirrors their own. That is a point that many of these articles fail to note. It would be interesting, for example, to compare the educational pedigrees of the admin and faculty at Hardy to that of Basis or Latin.

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think this is a very good article. I thought it was going to be about real ways to make our public schools more equitable. Instead it's a silly pro-charter article. In my (almost totally gentrified) neighborhood, the local school is still all poor and all black with kids from father east enrolled. All the well off (mostly white) people go to the three charters nearby (or those farther away). They certainly aren't going for the diversity. Rather, they are trying to avoid it. I don't live in the same DC as this writer. Rich people welcome the charters because they offer more opportunities for exclusion. Very silly argument is all I have to say.

I think it's less about promoting charters and more about promoting what charters have achieved, in large part because they're more inclusive and SES-integrated.

I read the comments here before I read the article and thought it probably would be silly. But I actually agree with the writer. Witness the scores of pages in this forum devoted to residency cheating, "flipping" schools, the number of IB families that will attend, the amount of money going to schools with higher numbers of black kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think this is a very good article. I thought it was going to be about real ways to make our public schools more equitable. Instead it's a silly pro-charter article. In my (almost totally gentrified) neighborhood, the local school is still all poor and all black with kids from father east enrolled. All the well off (mostly white) people go to the three charters nearby (or those farther away). They certainly aren't going for the diversity. Rather, they are trying to avoid it. I don't live in the same DC as this writer. Rich people welcome the charters because they offer more opportunities for exclusion. Very silly argument is all I have to say.

The equity reports comparing DCPS and DC PCS say otherwise - there is actually more diversity in charters than there is in DCPS.

"Diversity" doesn't mean the same thing when talking about public education as it does in ordinary English. "Diverse" means poor and minority. Charters might have kids from a wider variety of backgrounds, but DCPS is more "diverse."

Everyone knows that when anyone within this forum cites their school choice is based on "diversity" that it means "choosing a school with more white kids". The lies these <strike>liberals</strike> racists tell themselves to justify would be laughable if they weren't so terrifying. The amount of racism in this city is absolutely horrifying. Nothing has driven this point home more strongly for me than conversations I've had related to enrolling my child in school this year. It's unbelievable. The schools do not make we want to leave DC at all, but the blatantly racist people who purport themselves as liberals definitely do.

Great. You want to antagonize liberals who generally support civil rights and social safety nets that benefit many minorities and also whites. It is not racist to not want to be an only at a school. It is simply evolutionary. I wager black parents would prefer their kids not be onlys too.It is also not racist to want a school that offers a rigorous education and a safe environment for your kids. It is just good parenting.

What exactly is your point???

This reads like: how dare you question me? I have your best interests at heart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think this is a very good article. I thought it was going to be about real ways to make our public schools more equitable. Instead it's a silly pro-charter article. In my (almost totally gentrified) neighborhood, the local school is still all poor and all black with kids from father east enrolled. All the well off (mostly white) people go to the three charters nearby (or those farther away). They certainly aren't going for the diversity. Rather, they are trying to avoid it. I don't live in the same DC as this writer. Rich people welcome the charters because they offer more opportunities for exclusion. Very silly argument is all I have to say.

The equity reports comparing DCPS and DC PCS say otherwise - there is actually more diversity in charters than there is in DCPS.

"Diversity" doesn't mean the same thing when talking about public education as it does in ordinary English. "Diverse" means poor and minority. Charters might have kids from a wider variety of backgrounds, but DCPS is more "diverse."

Everyone knows that when anyone within this forum cites their school choice is based on "diversity" that it means "choosing a school with more white kids". The lies these <strike>liberals</strike> racists tell themselves to justify would be laughable if they weren't so terrifying. The amount of racism in this city is absolutely horrifying. Nothing has driven this point home more strongly for me than conversations I've had related to enrolling my child in school this year. It's unbelievable. The schools do not make we want to leave DC at all, but the blatantly racist people who purport themselves as liberals definitely do.

Great. You want to antagonize liberals who generally support civil rights and social safety nets that benefit many minorities and also whites. It is not racist to not want to be an only at a school. It is simply evolutionary. I wager black parents would prefer their kids not be onlys too.It is also not racist to want a school that offers a rigorous education and a safe environment for your kids. It is just good parenting.

What exactly is your point???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think this is a very good article. I thought it was going to be about real ways to make our public schools more equitable. Instead it's a silly pro-charter article. In my (almost totally gentrified) neighborhood, the local school is still all poor and all black with kids from father east enrolled. All the well off (mostly white) people go to the three charters nearby (or those farther away). They certainly aren't going for the diversity. Rather, they are trying to avoid it. I don't live in the same DC as this writer. Rich people welcome the charters because they offer more opportunities for exclusion. Very silly argument is all I have to say.

The equity reports comparing DCPS and DC PCS say otherwise - there is actually more diversity in charters than there is in DCPS.

"Diversity" doesn't mean the same thing when talking about public education as it does in ordinary English. "Diverse" means poor and minority. Charters might have kids from a wider variety of backgrounds, but DCPS is more "diverse."

Everyone knows that when anyone within this forum cites their school choice is based on "diversity" that it means "choosing a school with more white kids". The lies these <strike>liberals</strike> racists tell themselves to justify would be laughable if they weren't so terrifying. The amount of racism in this city is absolutely horrifying. Nothing has driven this point home more strongly for me than conversations I've had related to enrolling my child in school this year. It's unbelievable. The schools do not make we want to leave DC at all, but the blatantly racist people who purport themselves as liberals definitely do.

Does picking a school with 10% white kids qualify as liberal or racist? Just curious which I am. What about my peers that pick a school with 30%? What if we picked a school based on something else, and don't care about the percentage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think this is a very good article. I thought it was going to be about real ways to make our public schools more equitable. Instead it's a silly pro-charter article. In my (almost totally gentrified) neighborhood, the local school is still all poor and all black with kids from father east enrolled. All the well off (mostly white) people go to the three charters nearby (or those farther away). They certainly aren't going for the diversity. Rather, they are trying to avoid it. I don't live in the same DC as this writer. Rich people welcome the charters because they offer more opportunities for exclusion. Very silly argument is all I have to say.

The equity reports comparing DCPS and DC PCS say otherwise - there is actually more diversity in charters than there is in DCPS.

"Diversity" doesn't mean the same thing when talking about public education as it does in ordinary English. "Diverse" means poor and minority. Charters might have kids from a wider variety of backgrounds, but DCPS is more "diverse."

Everyone knows that when anyone within this forum cites their school choice is based on "diversity" that it means "choosing a school with more white kids". The lies these <strike>liberals</strike> racists tell themselves to justify would be laughable if they weren't so terrifying. The amount of racism in this city is absolutely horrifying. Nothing has driven this point home more strongly for me than conversations I've had related to enrolling my child in school this year. It's unbelievable. The schools do not make we want to leave DC at all, but the blatantly racist people who purport themselves as liberals definitely do.

This debate has been done so many times on here it is not funny. It is about the families of the kids in a school. How do you ensure a big enough percentage of kids in a school come to school every day ready to learn from a family that has high expectations? One way to do that is by neighborhood another way to do that is by creating a school like a charter where families self select through competing for scarce seats and another is the OOB process where it takes a significant family commitment to get your child across town every day.

I have no opposition to mixed housing created by building affordable housing in neighborhoods with currently successful schools. But the research shows that a school needs to have a certain percentage of prepared kids for all children (high and low SES) to thrive.

I will not apologize for prioritizing my children's educational. Nobody should have to. We have some chicken/egg problems to solve but they certainly won't be solved by pretending you can force parents to sacrifice their children's education for the greater good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think this is a very good article. I thought it was going to be about real ways to make our public schools more equitable. Instead it's a silly pro-charter article. In my (almost totally gentrified) neighborhood, the local school is still all poor and all black with kids from father east enrolled. All the well off (mostly white) people go to the three charters nearby (or those farther away). They certainly aren't going for the diversity. Rather, they are trying to avoid it. I don't live in the same DC as this writer. Rich people welcome the charters because they offer more opportunities for exclusion. Very silly argument is all I have to say.

The equity reports comparing DCPS and DC PCS say otherwise - there is actually more diversity in charters than there is in DCPS.

"Diversity" doesn't mean the same thing when talking about public education as it does in ordinary English. "Diverse" means poor and minority. Charters might have kids from a wider variety of backgrounds, but DCPS is more "diverse."

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think this is a very good article. I thought it was going to be about real ways to make our public schools more equitable. Instead it's a silly pro-charter article. In my (almost totally gentrified) neighborhood, the local school is still all poor and all black with kids from father east enrolled. All the well off (mostly white) people go to the three charters nearby (or those farther away). They certainly aren't going for the diversity. Rather, they are trying to avoid it. I don't live in the same DC as this writer. Rich people welcome the charters because they offer more opportunities for exclusion. Very silly argument is all I have to say.

Do you think by using silly multiple times it will sway people to your POV? Do you have facts to back up your statements or just silly, random anecdotal statements?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Push these "liberals" on other options for integrating their neighborhoods’ schools by race and class and you'll find stone walls. They gently explain that zoning to make housing more affordable in their wealthy enclaves wouldn't suit “the neighborhood's ecology." They'll explain that busing or flexible enrollment boundaries would "change the character" of their wealthy neighborhood schools.

https://www.the74million.org/article/opinion-liberals-push-to-correct-inequality-just-not-if-it-involves-opening-up-our-neighborhood-schools

So I take it, OP, that you oppose basing school enrollment on neighborhood because it ends up with class-segregated schools? Or you think neighborhoods should be desegregated by using inclusive zoning and affordable house? Good for you!

I am not opposed to affordable housing per se, but if DC is going to provide affordable housing, then they should not leave out the huge swath of people making more than $100,000 to about $150,000 or so who are priced out of many neighborhoods. If they don't this large swath in the middle, then I am opposed.

"Affordable housing" isn't about making housing broadly more affordable. Think about it. What does "more affordable" mean? Less valuable. For a substantial portion of Americans, the equity in their home represents their only investment. You're going to take that away by depressing housing prices? Good luck with that.

The only affordable housing that is politically palatable is giving people too poor to ever own a home subsidies on their rent so that their landlords can charge more.

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think this is a very good article. I thought it was going to be about real ways to make our public schools more equitable. Instead it's a silly pro-charter article. In my (almost totally gentrified) neighborhood, the local school is still all poor and all black with kids from father east enrolled. All the well off (mostly white) people go to the three charters nearby (or those farther away). They certainly aren't going for the diversity. Rather, they are trying to avoid it. I don't live in the same DC as this writer. Rich people welcome the charters because they offer more opportunities for exclusion. Very silly argument is all I have to say.

The equity reports comparing DCPS and DC PCS say otherwise - there is actually more diversity in charters than there is in DCPS.

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think this is a very good article. I thought it was going to be about real ways to make our public schools more equitable. Instead it's a silly pro-charter article. In my (almost totally gentrified) neighborhood, the local school is still all poor and all black with kids from father east enrolled. All the well off (mostly white) people go to the three charters nearby (or those farther away). They certainly aren't going for the diversity. Rather, they are trying to avoid it. I don't live in the same DC as this writer. Rich people welcome the charters because they offer more opportunities for exclusion. Very silly argument is all I have to say.

I think your argument that charters offer more exclusion is bogus since our charter is very diverse despite offering a very rigorous curricula.

I just don't think this is a very good article. I thought it was going to be about real ways to make our public schools more equitable. Instead it's a silly pro-charter article. In my (almost totally gentrified) neighborhood, the local school is still all poor and all black with kids from father east enrolled. All the well off (mostly white) people go to the three charters nearby (or those farther away). They certainly aren't going for the diversity. Rather, they are trying to avoid it. I don't live in the same DC as this writer. Rich people welcome the charters because they offer more opportunities for exclusion. Very silly argument is all I have to say.