Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that DC’s SJWs really want to have non-neighborhood schools and forced bussing (except, this being DC, there will be no busses). Paging Camela Harris - the Seventies are calling!

I like the PP above on the Christian outlook.

Would Jesus have moved to an all-white conservative suburb? Or would he be staying in DC with his family and be fighting to improve the schools?

Pretty clear the Bible says Jesus would be staying in low-income areas, protesting against Republican billionaires, and fighting to improve the lives of all around him.

That’s what I want too. Does that make me a SJW? Or just a good Christian? I would say I’m just being a good Christian. I want a good education for all kids — including my own.

Embrace diversity. Fight to help others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this may shock you but there's not a single "SJW agenda." Different people had different priorities.

In my opinion, if we had more integrated neighborhoods, neighborhood schools would be more equitable. Since we don't, and since DCPS wouldn't be able to affect neighborhood integration, school boundary and assignment processes have to reflect the city as it actually is, not as we wish it would be. That means giving an at-risk preference for OOB seats. I also support ending OOB feeder rights since I think they hurt schools with less desirable feeder patterns by encouraging families to look elsewhere even if they are currently happy with their IB school. I also think they're unfair to kids who move to DC after the early grades.

Totally unworkable where DCPS programs are over capacity. Where are these OOB seats? There are hardly any left in a dozen schools. Maintaining OOB seats in overcrowded schools just fuels resentment on the part of IB parents. Our EotP school was built for 325 but has nearly 500 students (85% in-boundary) and really no room for trailers on a tiny campus.

If DC didn't want a by-right schools system, they should have ditched the arrangement a long time ago, like San Fran and Boston did in the 70s. It's not DC middle-class parents fault that a by-right school system survived forced busing in other cities.

It's not unworkable. If your school is offering too many OOB seats that's a separate problem from who the offered seats go to. Even if there are just a tiny number of seats offered at some schools (Deal and its feeders did made some OOB offers this year) I have no problem with them going first to at-risk kids. Same with schools like Stuart-Hobson, Seaton, Garrison, Marie Reed, SWW@F-S, Ludlow-Taylor, or Watkins (all majority OOB but growing in popularity). At many of the schools in DCPS an at-risk preference is not going to cause any problem because nearly all the kids who lottery in are at-risk or because there are enough OOB seats to accommodate anyone who applies in the lottery.

Come on, enough pie in the sky, PP in a city where seats in high-performing schools are scarce. The two problems can't be separated and at-risk kids pretty clearly belong in schools set up to serve needy kids, vs. schools serving hundreds of UMC students. The at-risk kids in my children's classes at a school with an at-risk rate in the single digits are mostly in-boundary students whose school situation doesn't look all that great to me. They suck up teachers energy and attention in a program poorly set up to meet their needs, creating resentment on the part of parents and, frankly, upper grades classmates. The upper grades at-risk kids tend to be so far behind most other students, who commonly work above grade level, that their school days can't be smooth sailing. Sadly, they are objects of derision. They attend school with kids with expensive uniforms, bikes, backpacks and so forth who take fancy vacations and attend pricey summer camps needy kids don't have access to, which can't be easy for them. It looks to me like they'd be better off in a program offering extended day, full-year schooling, more serious and appropriate counseling supports, wrap-around services for their families etc. etc. A group of at-risk OOB students who don't even live nearby would be even worse off.

Wow, this post manages to marry concern trolling with an explicit call for segregation. Gross.

Anonymous wrote:I think that DC’s SJWs really want to have non-neighborhood schools and forced bussing (except, this being DC, there will be no busses). Paging Camela Harris - the Seventies are calling!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there we go again, don't you get tired of these threads with random endless speculations.

Try being an EOTP DCPS parent for a minute.

That is your fault

Yeah. You thought you were so cool getting a greet deal on a house in transitional Hipsterdale, walkable to a sustainable craft bourbon bar. Now you have kids and find out that the reason why you got that great house bargain is that the neighborhood schools suck on par with the ‘hood. Life’s a bitch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there we go again, don't you get tired of these threads with random endless speculations.

Try being an EOTP DCPS parent for a minute.

That is your fault

Yeah. You thought you were so cool getting a greet deal on a house in transitional Hipsterdale, walkable to a sustainable craft bourbon bar. Now you have kids and find out that the reason why you got that great house bargain is that the neighborhood schools suck on par with the ‘hood. Life’s a bitch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if we didn’t buy your privilege we can’t make things work for us and your status quo is a property right? How American of you.

Self electing to opt out of what you knowingly entered into and shifting the burden of your decisions to the people who made better decisions isn’t noble. It is classic having your cake and eat it too. You live over there, go to school over there. Is the privilege you speak of not having to go to school with your neighbors? You don’t get credit for living on the edgy side of town when you opt out of it every chance you get.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there we go again, don't you get tired of these threads with random endless speculations.

Try being an EOTP DCPS parent for a minute.

That is your fault

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if we didn’t buy your privilege we can’t make things work for us and your status quo is a property right? How American of you.

Self electing to opt out of what you knowingly entered into and shifting the burden of your decisions to the people who made better decisions isn’t noble. It is classic having your cake and eat it too. You live over there, go to school over there. Is the privilege you speak of not having to go to school with your neighbors? You don’t get credit for living on the edgy side of town when you opt out of it every chance you get.

Anonymous wrote:So if we didn’t buy your privilege we can’t make things work for us and your status quo is a property right? How American of you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there we go again, don't you get tired of these threads with random endless speculations.

Try being an EOTP DCPS parent for a minute.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this may shock you but there's not a single "SJW agenda." Different people had different priorities.

In my opinion, if we had more integrated neighborhoods, neighborhood schools would be more equitable. Since we don't, and since DCPS wouldn't be able to affect neighborhood integration, school boundary and assignment processes have to reflect the city as it actually is, not as we wish it would be. That means giving an at-risk preference for OOB seats. I also support ending OOB feeder rights since I think they hurt schools with less desirable feeder patterns by encouraging families to look elsewhere even if they are currently happy with their IB school. I also think they're unfair to kids who move to DC after the early grades.

Totally unworkable where DCPS programs are over capacity. Where are these OOB seats? There are hardly any left in a dozen schools. Maintaining OOB seats in overcrowded schools just fuels resentment on the part of IB parents. Our EotP school was built for 325 but has nearly 500 students (85% in-boundary) and really no room for trailers on a tiny campus.

If DC didn't want a by-right schools system, they should have ditched the arrangement a long time ago, like San Fran and Boston did in the 70s. It's not DC middle-class parents fault that a by-right school system survived forced busing in other cities.

It's not unworkable. If your school is offering too many OOB seats that's a separate problem from who the offered seats go to. Even if there are just a tiny number of seats offered at some schools (Deal and its feeders did made some OOB offers this year) I have no problem with them going first to at-risk kids. Same with schools like Stuart-Hobson, Seaton, Garrison, Marie Reed, SWW@F-S, Ludlow-Taylor, or Watkins (all majority OOB but growing in popularity). At many of the schools in DCPS an at-risk preference is not going to cause any problem because nearly all the kids who lottery in are at-risk or because there are enough OOB seats to accommodate anyone who applies in the lottery.

Come on, enough pie in the sky, PP in a city where seats in high-performing schools are scarce. The two problems can't be separated and at-risk kids pretty clearly belong in schools set up to serve needy kids, vs. schools serving hundreds of UMC students. The at-risk kids in my children's classes at a school with an at-risk rate in the single digits are mostly in-boundary students whose school situation doesn't look all that great to me. They suck up teachers energy and attention in a program poorly set up to meet their needs, creating resentment on the part of parents and, frankly, upper grades classmates. The upper grades at-risk kids tend to be so far behind most other students, who commonly work above grade level, that their school days can't be smooth sailing. Sadly, they are objects of derision. They attend school with kids with expensive uniforms, bikes, backpacks and so forth who take fancy vacations and attend pricey summer camps needy kids don't have access to, which can't be easy for them. It looks to me like they'd be better off in a program offering extended day, full-year schooling, more serious and appropriate counseling supports, wrap-around services for their families etc. etc. A group of at-risk OOB students who don't even live nearby would be even worse off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As with many DCUM threads there are two different and unrelated things being argued (plus the regular cabal of fools who post nonsense). One group argues that Deal and Wilson are over-enrolled, that reducing the number of students in attendance would alleviate the problems associated with that overcrowding, and that overcrowding could be addressed by ending OOB feeder rights. A different group argues that ending OOB feeder rights disproportionately hurts economically disadvantaged students, many of whom come from poorer neighborhoods. You can't possibly come to agreement because they aren't mutually exclusive. The issue is one of public policy, and that's the real disagreement and discussion that needs to be had. Scarcity of resources means we can't provide everything to everyone, so as a society we need to figure out what we value more (which I would point out doesn't mean we don't value everything - that's the red herring that gets used on DCUM a whole lot).

But I will call BS on the people who seem afraid to have the public policy argument and fall back on silly and illogical statements.

The SJW need to get their talking points straight

Most of them keep crowing about neighborhood schools
WOTP is getting to the point where it could be almost all neighborhood schools
But that is somehow wrong because there aren't enough at-risk/black/brown kids

So SJW, what social engineering do you want exactly again

I was the person who posted what you're responding to and I have no earthly idea what SJW means or WTH you are talking about. But you are a perfect illustration of the problem with trying to have a reasoned discussion on this topic. I didn't actually express an opinion ; in truth I don't know where I come out because this is complicated stuff without easy answers. The trade-offs are real as are possible negative consequences.

I'd also like to add that you don't understand what social engineering means, although good on you for throwing out incendiary talking points. Almost every public policy debate and choice comes down to competing or conflicting interests and trade-offs. Regressive taxation vs progressive taxation. Housing subsidies. Tax abatements for commercial development. Eminent Domain. Public moneys for stadiums. How and where to deploy school resources (SPED/economically disadvantaged/honors classes). You remind me of those people who held signs against the Affordable Care Act saying "Keep your damn government hands off my Medicare". We get it; government intervention is bad when you are against it but good when you are for it.

Please sit down and let the adults talk now?