Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

There are not enough middle class kids to go around. Do you live in this city?

Sorry to say I’m sure she does. This is the way the governing class in DC is now thinking about “equity.” You can look forward to proposals to do away with IB schools and start a city-wide lottery this year.

You don't understand. There are "literally" in the true since of the word not enough middle class kids in the entire city, even with a citywide lottery, to the percentages that dingbat suggested. Nuke all the charters and it would still be so. Spread all the middle class kids around equally and you would still have every school with a vast majority of poor students. I can't believe how ignorant of your city some of you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The *actual* answer is for DCPS to institute robust tracking for kids starting in upper elementary and establish more citywide magnet MS and HS. This will keep the UMC (of ALL races) in DCPS. If we are careful to ensure that all those high-performers in high poverty schools are identified, they will benefit too. Open a magnet for all W7 and 8 kids who get 4s on PARCC. For all the other kids, drop all the nonsense and give them double doses of math and phonics.

Kids who have behavioral issues or don’t want to learn get tracked to alternative schools.


Honestly, this feels right to me too. It needs to be “fluid” tracking, so kids who improve aren’t stuck - the appropriate class for you needs to be re-evaluated every year. And I’d support perks for kids on tracks where they need more support (ex: classes with kids at or above grade level have a max of 25 kids, classes where kids are performing a grade below have a max of 20 kids, classes with kids 2+ grades below have a max of 15).

I don’t really understand why this is so controversial. It seems like if my kid was underperforming, I’d want this too (I don’t want my kid to feel hopelessly behind, be confused about math concepts he’s not ready for, etc).

It almost feels like the resistance is about optics - yes, in DC, the below-grade level classes are going to be majority black and the above grade level classes will have most of the white kids. But that’s the sad reality of where these kids are in education right now. The first step to solving a problem is to identify it. If we’re pretending all kids are equally prepared in 4th grade, how in earth can the kids who need more support get it?

Any teachers/educators want to comment? I’m interested in your thoughts.

This is the rational approach that would serve most kids the best. To that I would add a robust offering of CTE (career/technical) educational offerings. Since No Child Left Behind passed, "success" has been defined by going to college. But getting a degree in "marketing" or "communications" from a third rate college, coupled with significant student loan debt, is not going to benefit a low income kid, especially one from multi-generational poverty and dysfunction. True academic stars may make it to more selective schools, but most kids who get to high school and not on grade level would be much better served by getting a solid footing on the road to a skilled trade certification. If they spent HS learning a trade skill like electrical or plumbing---they can graduate from HS and within two years be making over $50K/year with no debt. THAT is a ticket out of poverty.

This approach used to be more common. It would be good to reinstate it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

this is such a terrible screed. so in your view, white parents have to view themselves as the saviors of poor schools, or we are abandoning poor kids.

+! this screed is well intentioned, but the logic and understanding is lacking

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

this is such a terrible screed. so in your view, white parents have to view themselves as the saviors of poor schools, or we are abandoning poor kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

The *actual* answer is for DCPS to institute robust tracking for kids starting in upper elementary and establish more citywide magnet MS and HS. This will keep the UMC (of ALL races) in DCPS. If we are careful to ensure that all those high-performers in high poverty schools are identified, they will benefit too. Open a magnet for all W7 and 8 kids who get 4s on PARCC. For all the other kids, drop all the nonsense and give them double doses of math and phonics.

Kids who have behavioral issues or don’t want to learn get tracked to alternative schools.

Honestly, this feels right to me too. It needs to be “fluid” tracking, so kids who improve aren’t stuck - the appropriate class for you needs to be re-evaluated every year. And I’d support perks for kids on tracks where they need more support (ex: classes with kids at or above grade level have a max of 25 kids, classes where kids are performing a grade below have a max of 20 kids, classes with kids 2+ grades below have a max of 15).

I don’t really understand why this is so controversial. It seems like if my kid was underperforming, I’d want this too (I don’t want my kid to feel hopelessly behind, be confused about math concepts he’s not ready for, etc).

It almost feels like the resistance is about optics - yes, in DC, the below-grade level classes are going to be majority black and the above grade level classes will have most of the white kids. But that’s the sad reality of where these kids are in education right now. The first step to solving a problem is to identify it. If we’re pretending all kids are equally prepared in 4th grade, how in earth can the kids who need more support get it?

Any teachers/educators want to comment? I’m interested in your thoughts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

There are not enough middle class kids to go around. Do you live in this city?

Sorry to say I’m sure she does. This is the way the governing class in DC is now thinking about “equity.” You can look forward to proposals to do away with IB schools and start a city-wide lottery this year.

jsteele wrote:FYI, it is not called the "DC City Council". Its name is the "DC Council".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The *actual* answer is for DCPS to institute robust tracking for kids starting in upper elementary and establish more citywide magnet MS and HS. This will keep the UMC (of ALL races) in DCPS. If we are careful to ensure that all those high-performers in high poverty schools are identified, they will benefit too. Open a magnet for all W7 and 8 kids who get 4s on PARCC. For all the other kids, drop all the nonsense and give them double doses of math and phonics.

Kids who have behavioral issues or don’t want to learn get tracked to alternative schools.


Honestly, this feels right to me too. It needs to be “fluid” tracking, so kids who improve aren’t stuck - the appropriate class for you needs to be re-evaluated every year. And I’d support perks for kids on tracks where they need more support (ex: classes with kids at or above grade level have a max of 25 kids, classes where kids are performing a grade below have a max of 20 kids, classes with kids 2+ grades below have a max of 15).

I don’t really understand why this is so controversial. It seems like if my kid was underperforming, I’d want this too (I don’t want my kid to feel hopelessly behind, be confused about math concepts he’s not ready for, etc).

It almost feels like the resistance is about optics - yes, in DC, the below-grade level classes are going to be majority black and the above grade level classes will have most of the white kids. But that’s the sad reality of where these kids are in education right now. The first step to solving a problem is to identify it. If we’re pretending all kids are equally prepared in 4th grade, how in earth can the kids who need more support get it?

Any teachers/educators want to comment? I’m interested in your thoughts.

This is the rational approach that would serve most kids the best. To that I would add a robust offering of CTE (career/technical) educational offerings. Since No Child Left Behind passed, "success" has been defined by going to college. But getting a degree in "marketing" or "communications" from a third rate college, coupled with significant student loan debt, is not going to benefit a low income kid, especially one from multi-generational poverty and dysfunction. True academic stars may make it to more selective schools, but most kids who get to high school and not on grade level would be much better served by getting a solid footing on the road to a skilled trade certification. If they spent HS learning a trade skill like electrical or plumbing---they can graduate from HS and within two years be making over $50K/year with no debt. THAT is a ticket out of poverty.

Anonymous wrote:


The *actual* answer is for DCPS to institute robust tracking for kids starting in upper elementary and establish more citywide magnet MS and HS. This will keep the UMC (of ALL races) in DCPS. If we are careful to ensure that all those high-performers in high poverty schools are identified, they will benefit too. Open a magnet for all W7 and 8 kids who get 4s on PARCC. For all the other kids, drop all the nonsense and give them double doses of math and phonics.

Kids who have behavioral issues or don’t want to learn get tracked to alternative schools.


Honestly, this feels right to me too. It needs to be “fluid” tracking, so kids who improve aren’t stuck - the appropriate class for you needs to be re-evaluated every year. And I’d support perks for kids on tracks where they need more support (ex: classes with kids at or above grade level have a max of 25 kids, classes where kids are performing a grade below have a max of 20 kids, classes with kids 2+ grades below have a max of 15).

I don’t really understand why this is so controversial. It seems like if my kid was underperforming, I’d want this too (I don’t want my kid to feel hopelessly behind, be confused about math concepts he’s not ready for, etc).

It almost feels like the resistance is about optics - yes, in DC, the below-grade level classes are going to be majority black and the above grade level classes will have most of the white kids. But that’s the sad reality of where these kids are in education right now. The first step to solving a problem is to identify it. If we’re pretending all kids are equally prepared in 4th grade, how in earth can the kids who need more support get it?

Any teachers/educators want to comment? I’m interested in your thoughts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

There are not enough middle class kids to go around. Do you live in this city?

Sorry to say I’m sure she does. This is the way the governing class in DC is now thinking about “equity.” You can look forward to proposals to do away with IB schools and start a city-wide lottery this year.

IOW - their goal will be to break up the “good” schools in NW and W6.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

There are not enough middle class kids to go around. Do you live in this city?

Sorry to say I’m sure she does. This is the way the governing class in DC is now thinking about “equity.” You can look forward to proposals to do away with IB schools and start a city-wide lottery this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

There are not enough middle class kids to go around. Do you live in this city?

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: do you all really not understand that this has little to do with politicians and everything to do with the DCUM demographic refusing to send their kids to school with poor kids? Or is this more like willful ignorance to avoid facing your complicity?

This is the most obvious thing in the world. Think of your child's school. Wherever it may be. Imagine another child coming into the classroom that comes from poverty, deep trauma, parents in jail, parents abuse drugs or alcohol, parents abuse the child, or maybe there aren't any parents at all.

How would even the most amazing suburban school address that child's needs? What resources would they need to invest to make sure that little girl or boy gets a good education, does not disrupt others learning? How much effort will it take to change that kid's life path to ensure that they don't end up carjacking you in 10 years time?

Now, imagine putting two of those kids in your child's classroom. 5, 10, 15, 20. To make it work, you would need experienced, excellent teachers, counselors/social workers, multiple aides (in many cases, children need their own aide to keep them and classmates safe).

Have DC schools EVER gotten anywhere near the amount of resources that would be needed to adequately serve the population of poor, traumatized children? The system is set up to fail. There is no way for any politician, administrator, or teacher to serve these schools that cluster all the difficult kids together so your Larla doesn't have to ever have one of them in her classroom.

You have three choices here:

(1) Advocate for schools to be truly mixed. Legal maximum of 15%-20% poor kids in a school - schools can handle this percentage without falling apart.

(2) Keep the schools as they are, but advocate for you to pay higher taxes and have all that money go to bring in top teachers and many more aides and counselors to the schools with concentrations of poor kids. This is still not as good as #1 because there are no privileged parents acting as a check on administrators and ensuring that kids get a good education. Poor parents (even involved ones) don't have the time and skills to do that, which is why bringing in upper middle class parents (despite the downsides of them "taking over") works.

(3) Admit that you are ok to doom someone else's children to poverty (at best) and cycle of trauma, abuse, crime, drugs, etc. (at worst). Assert that it's not your problem - though, the rising crime that you're so upset about is a direct result of y'all screwing over so many children because you only care about yourselves.

The *actual* answer is for DCPS to institute robust tracking for kids starting in upper elementary and establish more citywide magnet MS and HS. This will keep the UMC (of ALL races) in DCPS. If we are careful to ensure that all those high-performers in high poverty schools are identified, they will benefit too. Open a magnet for all W7 and 8 kids who get 4s on PARCC. For all the other kids, drop all the nonsense and give them double doses of math and phonics.

Kids who have behavioral issues or don’t want to learn get tracked to alternative schools.