Anonymous wrote:Latin for sure. I heard at least for a middle school they have done excellent job. Some kids leave after 8th grade and where they have been accepted is amazing to say the least. It is a school with solid record. Basis could be a great school, but again who knows. What works in AR might not work in DC. Latin it is!

Anonymous wrote:
I agree - gentrification is better for the lower-income people who stay, but not all of them can stay. Be definition, the most of them must go -- somewhere -- in order for the gentrifiers to be in the majority.

Their life could get better, perhaps, if specific efforts were made to help them -- with or without gentrification. But such efforts have not been made. wishing it doesn't make it so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But by enlarge they're all trying to be everything to everybody (just look at the Basis' marketing for example). We only need to look around us to see where that's headed, namely for all of them to be average. For analogies, think about your phone company, internet service providers, cable TV, your grocery stores, your department store, your online suppliers etc.
With few exceptions, the only way they can claim to do better is by "adverse selection"; in plain terms, by helping those somehow performing better self-select out of the rest of the lot. So be it, you may say. But there is actually no added benefit to the individual child, it's just a statistical artifact. In other words, one and the same kid may not do any better here or there, they just sort themselves out into different pockets, which we then equate with "better school".

No, by and large, they are specializing their programs and succeeding beyond what DCPS can do. You have this completely ass-backwards.

Sounds like someone hit a nerve. There is some truth to this if you look beyond the facade and beyond the realm of specials. Completely anecdotal and randomly picking out an example from your list: My child brings home the same math worksheets from the neighborhood school as the neighbor who goes to Two Rivers with an emphasis on "expeditionary learning". So maybe when we unpack what's happening in classrooms on core subjects, it's really not all that different. Just more options of the same thing, with few laudable exceptions.

Lets try that again with the correct formatting:

I don't know anything about expeditionary learning, but it sounds like all that means is that they're using the same math curriculum, probably Everyday Math (KIPP uses Singapore Math, btw which is far superior, but you won't find that in DCPS). In any event that hardly covers the rest of the program, unless all your child does is math worksheets.

Mine brings home Chinese books, btw. I'm relatively confident that's not available at our neighborhood DCPS.

In the past five months, my fifth grader has started Latin, learned about world geography and distant cultures, read contemporary fiction, begun the study of drama, learned some physics and is now moving on to biology, and studied seventh grade math using Saxon. I think that very little of this material would have been available to her at our DCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But by enlarge they're all trying to be everything to everybody (just look at the Basis' marketing for example). We only need to look around us to see where that's headed, namely for all of them to be average. For analogies, think about your phone company, internet service providers, cable TV, your grocery stores, your department store, your online suppliers etc.
With few exceptions, the only way they can claim to do better is by "adverse selection"; in plain terms, by helping those somehow performing better self-select out of the rest of the lot. So be it, you may say. But there is actually no added benefit to the individual child, it's just a statistical artifact. In other words, one and the same kid may not do any better here or there, they just sort themselves out into different pockets, which we then equate with "better school".

No, by and large, they are specializing their programs and succeeding beyond what DCPS can do. You have this completely ass-backwards.

Sounds like someone hit a nerve. There is some truth to this if you look beyond the facade and beyond the realm of specials. Completely anecdotal and randomly picking out an example from your list: My child brings home the same math worksheets from the neighborhood school as the neighbor who goes to Two Rivers with an emphasis on "expeditionary learning". So maybe when we unpack what's happening in classrooms on core subjects, it's really not all that different. Just more options of the same thing, with few laudable exceptions.

Lets try that again with the correct formatting:

I don't know anything about expeditionary learning, but it sounds like all that means is that they're using the same math curriculum, probably Everyday Math (KIPP uses Singapore Math, btw which is far superior, but you won't find that in DCPS). In any event that hardly covers the rest of the program, unless all your child does is math worksheets.

Mine brings home Chinese books, btw. I'm relatively confident that's not available at our neighborhood DCPS.

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious: if we were talking about a return of black middle-class professionals to these neighborhoods, would we hear even a peep of protest? No. There's very little evidence that gentrification makes things worse, and some evidence that it makes things better for folks who remain. What seems to upset some people is that gentrification does not fix every existing social ill.

Many people assume that poor people "naturally" live in poor neighborhoods, and that anti-poverty programs — like emergency food banks, job training centers, and affordable housing — should be concentrated there as well. But in fact, the vast majority of the Washington region's poor people live in non-poor neighborhoods. They may need information and assistance finding the support services they need, especially if they live in car-dependent suburban communities or if they don't understand English well. But poor families generally benefit from living in well-off neighborhoods where streets and parks are safe, grocery stores sell healthy, affordable food, and the public schools perform well.
High-poverty neighborhoods — like those east of the Anacostia River in D.C. — didn't occur "naturally" nor do they reflect the "choices" of poor families about where to live. Instead, these places represent the legacy of decades of racial discrimination, legally sanctioned segregation, and public housing policies. And our map shows just how stubborn this legacy is; despite dramatic demographic and economic changes sweeping the Washington region over the past two decades, poor black families have remained highly concentrated in D.C. neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River.
Tackling poverty in the Washington region poses multiple challenges for area policymakers. It's not just a city problem; suburban communities need to deliver support and opportunity too. It's not just a neighborhood revitalization problem, although overcoming the legacy of segregation in the District's poorest neighborhoods is critical. It's not just an English-speaking problem; communities across the region have to reach out to a growing population of immigrants, many of whom speak little English. And it's not somebody else's problem; explore our map and you'll likely see that poor people are among your neighbors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: -- and the involuntary displacement has been going on for as long as there have been people struggling to make their rent. --

Right -- and this is not what could be called "a rising tide lifts all boats."

Go out and gentrify, but don't try to turn it into a benefit for the people who don't fit and can't afford the new lifestyle.

Don't romanticize the idea that concentrations of poverty are acceptable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But by enlarge they're all trying to be everything to everybody (just look at the Basis' marketing for example). We only need to look around us to see where that's headed, namely for all of them to be average. For analogies, think about your phone company, internet service providers, cable TV, your grocery stores, your department store, your online suppliers etc.
With few exceptions, the only way they can claim to do better is by "adverse selection"; in plain terms, by helping those somehow performing better self-select out of the rest of the lot. So be it, you may say. But there is actually no added benefit to the individual child, it's just a statistical artifact. In other words, one and the same kid may not do any better here or there, they just sort themselves out into different pockets, which we then equate with "better school".

No, by and large, they are specializing their programs and succeeding beyond what DCPS can do. You have this completely ass-backwards.

Sounds like someone hit a nerve. There is some truth to this if you look beyond the facade and beyond the realm of specials. Completely anecdotal and randomly picking out an example from your list: My child brings home the same math worksheets from the neighborhood school as the neighbor who goes to Two Rivers with an emphasis on "expeditionary learning". So maybe when we unpack what's happening in classrooms on core subjects, it's really not all that different. Just more options of the same thing, with few laudable exceptions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But by enlarge they're all trying to be everything to everybody (just look at the Basis' marketing for example). We only need to look around us to see where that's headed, namely for all of them to be average. For analogies, think about your phone company, internet service providers, cable TV, your grocery stores, your department store, your online suppliers etc.
With few exceptions, the only way they can claim to do better is by "adverse selection"; in plain terms, by helping those somehow performing better self-select out of the rest of the lot. So be it, you may say. But there is actually no added benefit to the individual child, it's just a statistical artifact. In other words, one and the same kid may not do any better here or there, they just sort themselves out into different pockets, which we then equate with "better school".

No, by and large, they are specializing their programs and succeeding beyond what DCPS can do. You have this completely ass-backwards.