Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry but I just can’t with this thread.

Until someone can give me a solid reason white folks in DC don’t flock to Banneker, I will not just swallow that we all want what is best for our children even if it happens to mean keeping our children segregated in schools that are 5% black.

1.) The most recent narrative that Banneker is just too precious of a school for the black community for white folks to mess up a good thing is bulls$&@. 20 years ago, Walls was 13% white and 73% black. Today it’s 50% white and 25% black. White folk had zero problems gentrifying Walls but won’t touch Banneker with a 10 foot pole.

2.) The other BS excuse that Banneker SAT scores are merely right above average don’t take into account that Banneker is an all black school. So its 1120 SAT scores should be measured against national averages for black students (946). Let’s not even get into income inequality. Did you know the average white student with family below poverty scores 130 points higher than the average black student? Anyone that has even the most basic understanding of statistics knows not to measure the SATs at Banneker to nationwide but they continue to site this as an excuse of not being interested in Banneker.

Banneker is top 100 high schools in the nation and is is tied for first in the nation for Math and Reading Performance Rank (How aggregated scores on state assessments compare to U.S. News' expectations given the proportions of students who are black, Hispanic and from low-income households). Imagine how your brilliant white student can excel there.

3.) Banneker is just too hard of a school - See Basis, TJ

4.) I plan to “look” at Banneker when my 1st grader is old enough - yeah we’ve heard that before.

5.) I don’t want my child to be an only - what did white patents 20 years ago think when they gentrified Walls, Deal, Wilson and are doing now on the Hill and at Shepherd?

6.) My child wants to play X sport - recent Banneker grad played football (and maybe track) at Roosevelt and was a super star gaining admissions to various Ivy League schools

Sure, Banneker is not for everyone. But certainly it’s a good fit for more than the 2 white kids that attend every year.

Supporting arguments: see Creative Minds popularity vs nearby Whittier, Barnard, Truesdell etc.

I would love for my kids to go there. It's a peer group I'd be thrilled to put my kids in. I don't know why this isn't a more popular viewpoint. Maybe people are willing to be an only when they don't have other options, and by the time you make it through middle school and to high school, you have other options.

I will file you under excuse #4. Not sure I buy your second part of having other options for high school being as though there are kids that don’t get into Walls and settle for Wilson (and not because they’re athletes).

Next?!

I don't know anyone who thinks Wilson is settling.

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that white parents should be seen and not heard. If you are WOTP, give up your IB preference and go EOTP to a DCPS. Don't join the PTA, but write large checks. Mouths shut, wallets open.

If you are EOTP, go to your IB. No charters. Mouths shut, wallets open.

Charters should for BIPOC children only.
Language immersion for BIPOC only.
TAG programming for BIPOC only.

Celebrate BIPOC excellence.
Acknowledge white mediocrity.
Coach your children to accept their own mediocrity and acknowledge BIPOC excellence.

If you play the lottery, you are a racist and segregationist.

If you go to school OOB to go to school WOTP, you are a racist and a segregationist.

If you allow your child to go to an IB WOTP school, and your child is white, you are a racist and a segregationist.

If you go private, you are a racist and a segregationist.

If you move to MoCo or NoVa, obvi racist and segregationist.

If you go to a majority BIPOC school. and advocate for TAG, immersion, special programming - you are a racist and a segregationist.

If you go to a majority BIPOC school and do not adhere to "mouths shut, wallets open" you are a racist and segregationist.

If you encourage others to attend high-performing schools dominated by BIPOC children, you are resource hoarding, because you are racist.

If you use the phrase "hidden gems," you are racist and encourage resource hoarding.

If any of this seems unfair - your white fragility is a fatal condition.

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that white parents should be seen and not heard. If you are WOTP, give up your IB preference and go EOTP to a DCPS. Don't join the PTA, but write large checks. Mouths shut, wallets open.

If you are EOTP, go to your IB. No charters. Mouths shut, wallets open.

Charters should for BIPOC children only.
Language immersion for BIPOC only.
TAG programming for BIPOC only.

Celebrate BIPOC excellence.
Acknowledge white mediocrity.
Coach your children to accept their own mediocrity and acknowledge BIPOC excellence.

If you play the lottery, you are a racist and segregationist.

If you go to school OOB to go to school WOTP, you are a racist and a segregationist.

If you allow your child to go to an IB WOTP school, and your child is white, you are a racist and a segregationist.

If you go private, you are a racist and a segregationist.

If you move to MoCo or NoVa, obvi racist and segregationist.

If you go to a majority BIPOC school. and advocate for TAG, immersion, special programming - you are a racist and a segregationist.

If you go to a majority BIPOC school and do not adhere to "mouths shut, wallets open" you are a racist and segregationist.

If you encourage others to attend high-performing schools dominated by BIPOC children, you are resource hoarding, because you are racist.

If you use the phrase "hidden gems," you are racist and encourage resource hoarding.

If any of this seems unfair - your white fragility is a fatal condition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Nice White Parents podcast is helpful on paradigm setting.

Yes, go to your local schools.

No, don’t act like you are a “pioneer” or own or direct them just because you are part of the class with money, ability to donate or fundraise, etc.

Act like you’re joining a group project that needs effort but NOT a new boss! Be helpful not screamy. Don’t show up and then try to create a new magic cohort for your child on day 2. Join, reach out, etc.

Why would I choose to do this exactly?

Anonymous wrote:The Nice White Parents podcast is helpful on paradigm setting.

Yes, go to your local schools.

No, don’t act like you are a “pioneer” or own or direct them just because you are part of the class with money, ability to donate or fundraise, etc.

Act like you’re joining a group project that needs effort but NOT a new boss! Be helpful not screamy. Don’t show up and then try to create a new magic cohort for your child on day 2. Join, reach out, etc.

Anonymous wrote:The Nice White Parents podcast is helpful on paradigm setting.

Yes, go to your local schools.

No, don’t act like you are a “pioneer” or own or direct them just because you are part of the class with money, ability to donate or fundraise, etc.

Act like you’re joining a group project that needs effort but NOT a new boss! Be helpful not screamy. Don’t show up and then try to create a new magic cohort for your child on day 2. Join, reach out, etc.

Anonymous wrote:In the context of the discussion here, what does "resource hoarding" mean? We are talking about white parents potentially sending kids to majority-minority schools in order to "integrate" those schools. How is that resource hoarding?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:brookings should be embarrassed to have its name on this. studying what anonymous people say on a web site is a really lazy form of scholarship.

This is absolutely false. A lot of research is being done using open forums. Studying the words and themes used by subcultures and socioeconomic groups is pretty common. Sociolinguistic studies of online “clubs” is a great way to analyze the values and recurring themes within various groups of people. Consider it the anthropology of the 21st century.

Sure, but well-respected, good research on open forums is not done using word frequency analysis without semantic controls. That's basically about the level of a freshman HS science report.

I also just think their conclusions are wrong. How can they make conclusions about DCUM parents choosing segregation, when they don’t actually know what we chose? I’ve said this before, but I absolutely believe DCUM has a role in persuading parents to choose integrated schools.

My guess is that "less segregationist but still resource hoarding" isn't what the author would consider "integrationist."

DCUM is a forum for rich white people. Maybe it's less segregationist than other spaces dominated by rich white people but it sure ain't integrated.

Change the space, change the outcomes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:brookings should be embarrassed to have its name on this. studying what anonymous people say on a web site is a really lazy form of scholarship.

This is absolutely false. A lot of research is being done using open forums. Studying the words and themes used by subcultures and socioeconomic groups is pretty common. Sociolinguistic studies of online “clubs” is a great way to analyze the values and recurring themes within various groups of people. Consider it the anthropology of the 21st century.

Sure, but well-respected, good research on open forums is not done using word frequency analysis without semantic controls. That's basically about the level of a freshman HS science report.

I also just think their conclusions are wrong. How can they make conclusions about DCUM parents choosing segregation, when they don’t actually know what we chose? I’ve said this before, but I absolutely believe DCUM has a role in persuading parents to choose integrated schools.

My guess is that "less segregationist but still resource hoarding" isn't what the author would consider "integrationist."

DCUM is a forum for rich white people. Maybe it's less segregationist than other spaces dominated by rich white people but it sure ain't integrated.

Change the space, change the outcomes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:brookings should be embarrassed to have its name on this. studying what anonymous people say on a web site is a really lazy form of scholarship.

This is absolutely false. A lot of research is being done using open forums. Studying the words and themes used by subcultures and socioeconomic groups is pretty common. Sociolinguistic studies of online “clubs” is a great way to analyze the values and recurring themes within various groups of people. Consider it the anthropology of the 21st century.

Sure, but well-respected, good research on open forums is not done using word frequency analysis without semantic controls. That's basically about the level of a freshman HS science report.

I also just think their conclusions are wrong. How can they make conclusions about DCUM parents choosing segregation, when they don’t actually know what we chose? I’ve said this before, but I absolutely believe DCUM has a role in persuading parents to choose integrated schools.

My guess is that "less segregationist but still resource hoarding" isn't what the author would consider "integrationist."

DCUM is a forum for rich white people. Maybe it's less segregationist than other spaces dominated by rich white people but it sure ain't integrated.

Change the space, change the outcomes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:brookings should be embarrassed to have its name on this. studying what anonymous people say on a web site is a really lazy form of scholarship.

This is absolutely false. A lot of research is being done using open forums. Studying the words and themes used by subcultures and socioeconomic groups is pretty common. Sociolinguistic studies of online “clubs” is a great way to analyze the values and recurring themes within various groups of people. Consider it the anthropology of the 21st century.

Sure, but well-respected, good research on open forums is not done using word frequency analysis without semantic controls. That's basically about the level of a freshman HS science report.

I also just think their conclusions are wrong. How can they make conclusions about DCUM parents choosing segregation, when they don’t actually know what we chose? I’ve said this before, but I absolutely believe DCUM has a role in persuading parents to choose integrated schools.