Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Charters are super integrated. Even the fancy ones -- BASIS, DCI and Latin fit the actual definition of integrated (no one race more than 70 percent of the population).

Other charters are not integrated but at serving their low-income populations better than the DCPS schools (like DC Prep getting everyone into college).

DCPS schools in gentrifying neighborhoods are sometimes integrated and there is an opportunity here to be a model. Like I feel Garrison actually serves all demographics well.

Other DCPS schools are not integrated because the housing is segregated. Do people really want to run busses between Ward 3 and EOTR or something? This sounds like a mess.

BASIS might meet the letter of the law definition of integration, but I don't think a school with 6% of students at risk in a city with a public student population that's 45% at risk is actually what anybody is talking about when they say integration.

That's because these integrationist don't actually want integration -- they want white kids to go to majority-minority schools. That's what they explicitly say on the "Integrated Schools" website, for example.

Then the coopt the word integration, which has an actual meaning, because they know it's a value our society is aiming for.

Then when you point out schools that actually are racially integrated, they said "I don't think that's what anybody is talking about when they say integration."

Say what you really mean. Words matter.

Neighborhood schools should better match the racial and socioeconomic demographics of the students who live in the neighborhood. Citywide schools should better match the racial and socioeconomic demographics of the students in the city.

I think it's weird that I said "at risk" and you countered with "white".

The easiest way to get both of those is push college grads out of DCPS and out of DC. Would that count as "integrated" to you? Because if so, hey, fascinating. But if not, that's not what you mean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Charters are super integrated. Even the fancy ones -- BASIS, DCI and Latin fit the actual definition of integrated (no one race more than 70 percent of the population).

Other charters are not integrated but at serving their low-income populations better than the DCPS schools (like DC Prep getting everyone into college).

DCPS schools in gentrifying neighborhoods are sometimes integrated and there is an opportunity here to be a model. Like I feel Garrison actually serves all demographics well.

Other DCPS schools are not integrated because the housing is segregated. Do people really want to run busses between Ward 3 and EOTR or something? This sounds like a mess.

BASIS might meet the letter of the law definition of integration, but I don't think a school with 6% of students at risk in a city with a public student population that's 45% at risk is actually what anybody is talking about when they say integration.

That's because these integrationist don't actually want integration -- they want white kids to go to majority-minority schools. That's what they explicitly say on the "Integrated Schools" website, for example.

Then the coopt the word integration, which has an actual meaning, because they know it's a value our society is aiming for.

Then when you point out schools that actually are racially integrated, they said "I don't think that's what anybody is talking about when they say integration."

Say what you really mean. Words matter.

Neighborhood schools should better match the racial and socioeconomic demographics of the students who live in the neighborhood. Citywide schools should better match the racial and socioeconomic demographics of the students in the city.

I think it's weird that I said "at risk" and you countered with "white".

NP. Performative SJW has entered the chat! You didn't find the aha moment you think you did. Data is what data is. In DC white make up only about 1% of the at risk students. It isn't racist or offensive to equate at risk with non-white, it is statistically sound.

Or is math also racist now too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Charters are super integrated. Even the fancy ones -- BASIS, DCI and Latin fit the actual definition of integrated (no one race more than 70 percent of the population).

Other charters are not integrated but at serving their low-income populations better than the DCPS schools (like DC Prep getting everyone into college).

DCPS schools in gentrifying neighborhoods are sometimes integrated and there is an opportunity here to be a model. Like I feel Garrison actually serves all demographics well.

Other DCPS schools are not integrated because the housing is segregated. Do people really want to run busses between Ward 3 and EOTR or something? This sounds like a mess.

BASIS might meet the letter of the law definition of integration, but I don't think a school with 6% of students at risk in a city with a public student population that's 45% at risk is actually what anybody is talking about when they say integration.

It’s what I’m talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm watching the DC Council Hearing on the education related agencies (UDC, DME-Deputy Mayor for Education, State Board of Education, DC PCSB, etc). The testimony from the EmpowerEd group is that the DME must be focused on school integration as a priority and push the necessary school boundary changes that lead to integration goals even if there is pushback.

What are your thoughts? I have lots of priorities for education like more gifted programs, improved middle school options, better curriculum, support to keep teachers in the profession, etc but changing school boundaries for the purposes of integration isn't high on the list.

What does “more” integration even mean in DC. It’s one of the most integrated districts in the country

They didn't define what it meant. The specific testimony was "And when we do boundary studies with the knowledge that school
segregation is still a profound problem and integration is a powerful tool for improvement- we need courage from the DME to actually make courageous decisions (even if there is pushback) to work towards real school integration."

Real integration has never been tried, apparently

DP: Defining the terms matters a lot, especially in DC where the public school system is minority white. Without a definition, you have no idea what the goal of your policy actually is. What is "real integration"? That is the starting point of any meaningful discussion.

I have seen advocacy reports that define the goal of integration as policy choices aimed making sure minority students are not attending schools where 80% of the school population is minority (non-white) That's the minimum; more diverse is better. But white students in DCPS account for only 18% of the DCPS population. See https://dcps.dc.gov/page/dcps-glance-enrollment

Once you have a definition of "integration," the follow up questions are about how to achievine it. Even with bussing, are there enough white students in the public system to make that definition of integration happen in every school? And even if the numbers worked, how practical is it to take the small number of white students in DCPS and spread them across the city just to achieve an artifical integration number that ultimaltey creates fewer schools with diversity. That's not good policy and likely would have the opposite of its intended afftect. DC knows this; the VA and MD suburbs are too close and accessible.

My understanding of DCPS's policy and efforts on integration over the last few decades, because of those numbers, is to retain white families in sufficient numbers so that more schools naturally get to the 20% non-minority number. The retenion policy is one part, the other part is giving as much flexibilty and choice to families as practical so that people voluntarily move around within the system instead of leaving the system (lottery, charter, and application schools), hoping for more students to end up at integrated (minimum <80% minority) schools. A third part is addressing housing policy so the population itself moves around (but stays in DC -- this is key).

If you look at DCPS over the past several decades, you can see the effectiveness of these policies, as both the number of white families retained has increased (from 3.5% in 1982, to 12% in 2015, to 18% in 2025), as has the number of DCPS schools that meet this <80% minority definition. Many charter schools and most private schools in DC also meet this definition of integrated.

Note that by 2011, DC's overall population was no longer majority black. However, in 2024, the stat for children under 18 living in DC was still only 22% white, so DCPS's 18% white statistic is pretty darn good considering.
https://datacenter.aecf.org/data/tables/8874-race-ethnicity-of-child-population-by-ward#detailed/3/any/false/1096,2545,1095,2048,574,1729,37,871,870,573/3498,2161,2159,2157,2663,3499,3307,2160|838/17761,17762

So the first question in their policy debate needs to be, what does a more integrated DCPS look like? What is the goal in numbers, and where is DC now against that goal? Does that <80% definition work for DC? Does it work at all in 2026 given population changes? Maybe the definitoin should be about more than white/non-white in today's world? Maybe the goal should be fluid based on overall population? But without a definition, you can't measure success or set, let alone sell, the policies.

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this feels like a place where we should be lifting up Black and Latino voices, not white voices (which is the majority of DCUM). My answer is some mix of I don't know and it depends.

I am white - I do want my kids to go to a diverse school. For me, that means a school that has a good percentage of Black and Latino students, and at least enough white students that my kid doesn't stick out like a sore thumb - I think sending a kid to a school, in America, where there are only a single digit number of kids of their race in the whole school, no matter what race that kid is, is asking a lot of someone really young. Everyone has different priorities, but for me, Garrison and John Lewis are the kinds of schools I want my kid to attend (and we're attempting to lottery to both of them this year).

As to whether DC Prep should try to diversify, or whether schools EOTR should try to diversify, that's a question for the Black community, not a question for me.

It does seem to me like the place where integration is a reasonable goal is places where inbound participation is very low for particular races. There are plenty of white families inbounds for Cleveland, for HD Cooke, for Tubman - why aren't they attending? That's a worthwhile question to ponder. And if there are schools, for example, WOTP that are 70% white and aren't seeing inbound participation from families of color, that's worth digging in to as well. So I do tend to agree with a previous poster that inbound buy in is valuable, and broadly considered to be valuable (even by people like me who are opting out of our IB) and often in DC increases school integration.

Why are you opting out of your IB?

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this feels like a place where we should be lifting up Black and Latino voices, not white voices (which is the majority of DCUM). My answer is some mix of I don't know and it depends.

I am white - I do want my kids to go to a diverse school. For me, that means a school that has a good percentage of Black and Latino students, and at least enough white students that my kid doesn't stick out like a sore thumb - I think sending a kid to a school, in America, where there are only a single digit number of kids of their race in the whole school, no matter what race that kid is, is asking a lot of someone really young. Everyone has different priorities, but for me, Garrison and John Lewis are the kinds of schools I want my kid to attend (and we're attempting to lottery to both of them this year).

As to whether DC Prep should try to diversify, or whether schools EOTR should try to diversify, that's a question for the Black community, not a question for me.

It does seem to me like the place where integration is a reasonable goal is places where inbound participation is very low for particular races. There are plenty of white families inbounds for Cleveland, for HD Cooke, for Tubman - why aren't they attending? That's a worthwhile question to ponder. And if there are schools, for example, WOTP that are 70% white and aren't seeing inbound participation from families of color, that's worth digging in to as well. So I do tend to agree with a previous poster that inbound buy in is valuable, and broadly considered to be valuable (even by people like me who are opting out of our IB) and often in DC increases school integration.

Either integration is good or it doesn't really matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Charters are super integrated. Even the fancy ones -- BASIS, DCI and Latin fit the actual definition of integrated (no one race more than 70 percent of the population).

Other charters are not integrated but at serving their low-income populations better than the DCPS schools (like DC Prep getting everyone into college).

DCPS schools in gentrifying neighborhoods are sometimes integrated and there is an opportunity here to be a model. Like I feel Garrison actually serves all demographics well.

Other DCPS schools are not integrated because the housing is segregated. Do people really want to run busses between Ward 3 and EOTR or something? This sounds like a mess.

BASIS might meet the letter of the law definition of integration, but I don't think a school with 6% of students at risk in a city with a public student population that's 45% at risk is actually what anybody is talking about when they say integration.

That's because these integrationist don't actually want integration -- they want white kids to go to majority-minority schools. That's what they explicitly say on the "Integrated Schools" website, for example.

Then the coopt the word integration, which has an actual meaning, because they know it's a value our society is aiming for.

Then when you point out schools that actually are racially integrated, they said "I don't think that's what anybody is talking about when they say integration."

Say what you really mean. Words matter.

Neighborhood schools should better match the racial and socioeconomic demographics of the students who live in the neighborhood. Citywide schools should better match the racial and socioeconomic demographics of the students in the city.

I think it's weird that I said "at risk" and you countered with "white".

Honestly, this feels like a place where we should be lifting up Black and Latino voices, not white voices (which is the majority of DCUM). My answer is some mix of I don't know and it depends.

I am white - I do want my kids to go to a diverse school. For me, that means a school that has a good percentage of Black and Latino students, and at least enough white students that my kid doesn't stick out like a sore thumb - I think sending a kid to a school, in America, where there are only a single digit number of kids of their race in the whole school, no matter what race that kid is, is asking a lot of someone really young. Everyone has different priorities, but for me, Garrison and John Lewis are the kinds of schools I want my kid to attend (and we're attempting to lottery to both of them this year).

As to whether DC Prep should try to diversify, or whether schools EOTR should try to diversify, that's a question for the Black community, not a question for me.

It does seem to me like the place where integration is a reasonable goal is places where inbound participation is very low for particular races. There are plenty of white families inbounds for Cleveland, for HD Cooke, for Tubman - why aren't they attending? That's a worthwhile question to ponder. And if there are schools, for example, WOTP that are 70% white and aren't seeing inbound participation from families of color, that's worth digging in to as well. So I do tend to agree with a previous poster that inbound buy in is valuable, and broadly considered to be valuable (even by people like me who are opting out of our IB) and often in DC increases school integration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm watching the DC Council Hearing on the education related agencies (UDC, DME-Deputy Mayor for Education, State Board of Education, DC PCSB, etc). The testimony from the EmpowerEd group is that the DME must be focused on school integration as a priority and push the necessary school boundary changes that lead to integration goals even if there is pushback.

What are your thoughts? I have lots of priorities for education like more gifted programs, improved middle school options, better curriculum, support to keep teachers in the profession, etc but changing school boundaries for the purposes of integration isn't high on the list.

What does “more” integration even mean in DC. It’s one of the most integrated districts in the country

They didn't define what it meant. The specific testimony was "And when we do boundary studies with the knowledge that school
segregation is still a profound problem and integration is a powerful tool for improvement- we need courage from the DME to actually make courageous decisions (even if there is pushback) to work towards real school integration."

Real integration has never been tried, apparently

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's really such a high priority then maybe DME shouldn't have botched the Maury-Miner presentation. Failing to notify the Miner PTO was the cherry on top-- they only found out because the supposedly awful Maury parents told them.

100 percent. I think they floated that plan to give lip service to caring about integration. If they actually cared, they would have done more to create the conditions for it to be successful - like made a real attempt at community and teacher buy-in. It may not have worked, but they didn't even seem to try.

Seriously. They couldn't answer the most basic and reasonable questions, like would it cause Miner to lose Title I status and funding. The whole thing was sad.

I do think Miner is doing better lately, seems like maybe their change in leadership helped?

It was hilarious watching the ed consultants who live in Bethesda call the Maury parents racist while ignoring that colossal fukkup

Not just Maury!

"But if more Brent parents were to give Jefferson a chance, it might do wonders for the community at large, says Richard Kahlenberg. He’s a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, where he studies inequality in schools.

“I think it’s problematic when middle-class people pull out of traditional public schools,” Kahlenberg [who lives in Bethesda and sent his kids to school there] says."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Charters are super integrated. Even the fancy ones -- BASIS, DCI and Latin fit the actual definition of integrated (no one race more than 70 percent of the population).

Other charters are not integrated but at serving their low-income populations better than the DCPS schools (like DC Prep getting everyone into college).

DCPS schools in gentrifying neighborhoods are sometimes integrated and there is an opportunity here to be a model. Like I feel Garrison actually serves all demographics well.

Other DCPS schools are not integrated because the housing is segregated. Do people really want to run busses between Ward 3 and EOTR or something? This sounds like a mess.

BASIS might meet the letter of the law definition of integration, but I don't think a school with 6% of students at risk in a city with a public student population that's 45% at risk is actually what anybody is talking about when they say integration.

Pffft.

At least it's possible for very poor children to attend BASIS.

Jackson-Reid, Janney, Murch, Deal, etc. all impose de facto wealth tests on their students. If your parents can't afford a house in Ward 3, sorry you have to go somewhere else!

Ward 3 i sexpensive, but it has public housing and many subsidized apartments. You don't have to buy a house.

Good to hear they reserved one quarter of one percent of the seats for kids who don't live in 3 million dollar houses. Charters don't care where you live or how much money you have. Latin has so many kids from Anacostia it sends a bus there every day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's really such a high priority then maybe DME shouldn't have botched the Maury-Miner presentation. Failing to notify the Miner PTO was the cherry on top-- they only found out because the supposedly awful Maury parents told them.

100 percent. I think they floated that plan to give lip service to caring about integration. If they actually cared, they would have done more to create the conditions for it to be successful - like made a real attempt at community and teacher buy-in. It may not have worked, but they didn't even seem to try.

Seriously. They couldn't answer the most basic and reasonable questions, like would it cause Miner to lose Title I status and funding. The whole thing was sad.

I do think Miner is doing better lately, seems like maybe their change in leadership helped?

It was hilarious watching the ed consultants who live in Bethesda call the Maury parents racist while ignoring that colossal fukkup

Integration can't be achieved by bureaucrats or consultants. Heck, it's not even something they can measure unless they're somehow tracking and classifying tens of thousands of individual friend groups

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's really such a high priority then maybe DME shouldn't have botched the Maury-Miner presentation. Failing to notify the Miner PTO was the cherry on top-- they only found out because the supposedly awful Maury parents told them.

100 percent. I think they floated that plan to give lip service to caring about integration. If they actually cared, they would have done more to create the conditions for it to be successful - like made a real attempt at community and teacher buy-in. It may not have worked, but they didn't even seem to try.

Seriously. They couldn't answer the most basic and reasonable questions, like would it cause Miner to lose Title I status and funding. The whole thing was sad.

I do think Miner is doing better lately, seems like maybe their change in leadership helped?

Anonymous wrote:If it's really such a high priority then maybe DME shouldn't have botched the Maury-Miner presentation. Failing to notify the Miner PTO was the cherry on top-- they only found out because the supposedly awful Maury parents told them.

100 percent. I think they floated that plan to give lip service to caring about integration. If they actually cared, they would have done more to create the conditions for it to be successful - like made a real attempt at community and teacher buy-in. It may not have worked, but they didn't even seem to try.