Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities (within city limits) are nice for young adults, but no place to raise a family in. You move to the suburbs when you have kids for safety, stricter police forces, good schools, green space and being around more independent folks. Cities contain highly dependent populations.

Only in a society with failing cities. In countries that embrace cities, they are places full of stimulation for growing minds. Children in London and Paris have wonderful opportunities. The problem really is that DC was never much of a city to begin with and has proven harder to reclaim from the forces of chaos and inertia than it looked like it would be ca. 2000.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are out of school now, but I had three go through. I can’t pinpoint the year, but there was a switch to when ever communication or school meeting with parents, the primary subject was closing the achievement gap. It took about two months from hearing it emphasized the first time to realize, “oh, I see how they plan to do that.”

This happened during Vince Gray's tenure as mayor. Linda Cropp made a statement about how DC is no longer trying to attract middle class families with kids because they take too many resources away from DC 's "real" families in city spending and remove the focus from DC's "real" students in the schools. She said there was an ever-replenishing supply of childless high earners and it was in DC'S best interest to take their money while they're here and encourage them to move to the suburbs once they had kids. It all happened after the transition from Fenty to Gray.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. I can't believe that the idea of a city-wide lottery is STILL being floated. This was floated over 10 years ago prior to the last boundary re-adjustment. It tanked in part because the education "professionals" who were pushing this idea were found not to follow it themselves---one of the biggest proponents had moved from Takoma Park because he didn't think the MS was good enough for his kids. You cannot make this stuff up. If you dig down on the backgrounds of the alleged educators who push this stuff, you will generally find that most of them elect to send their own children to schools that are either private, charter with some form of honors/non-honors classes, or public schools in areas with very little poverty.

Yep. Even the sainted Nicole Hannah Jones sought out the “better” school to lottery into in Brooklyn. And by the time high school rolls around, forget about it. But I still believe they will propose a city wide lottery again.

it will never happen, not with the changing demographics in DC. A school wide lottery would destroy the progress that DC has made so far in the last 15 years on schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. I can't believe that the idea of a city-wide lottery is STILL being floated. This was floated over 10 years ago prior to the last boundary re-adjustment. It tanked in part because the education "professionals" who were pushing this idea were found not to follow it themselves---one of the biggest proponents had moved from Takoma Park because he didn't think the MS was good enough for his kids. You cannot make this stuff up. If you dig down on the backgrounds of the alleged educators who push this stuff, you will generally find that most of them elect to send their own children to schools that are either private, charter with some form of honors/non-honors classes, or public schools in areas with very little poverty.

Yep. Even the sainted Nicole Hannah Jones sought out the “better” school to lottery into in Brooklyn. And by the time high school rolls around, forget about it. But I still believe they will propose a city wide lottery again.

Anonymous wrote:My kids are out of school now, but I had three go through. I can’t pinpoint the year, but there was a switch to when ever communication or school meeting with parents, the primary subject was closing the achievement gap. It took about two months from hearing it emphasized the first time to realize, “oh, I see how they plan to do that.”

Anonymous wrote:Cities (within city limits) are nice for young adults, but no place to raise a family in. You move to the suburbs when you have kids for safety, stricter police forces, good schools, green space and being around more independent folks. Cities contain highly dependent populations.

Anonymous wrote:Why are you complaining? Everyone keeps voting for our terrible mayor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you take away the good IB schools in NW and force bussing + random school assignments across the city, the middle class and above will totally abandon the public system. Look at San Francisco, that strategy is a total disaster!

Forced bussing was a failure in SF, OK. But available bussing for all OOB students would greatly reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emisisions and would increase diversity just so across the city, just a litttle more than the current version of school choice alone.

Anonymous wrote:If you take away the good IB schools in NW and force bussing + random school assignments across the city, the middle class and above will totally abandon the public system. Look at San Francisco, that strategy is a total disaster!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think anyone is ignorant of the demographics of DC...the point is that these policies need to be set on a federal level. UMC/wealthy people will always try to separate themselves - any race, any culture, any period through history. They will find workarounds unless it's a clear, strict requirement.

The only other solution floated here - make DC schools attractive to wealthier families so they stick around - is not feasible. To make a school that serves majority poor children attractive would require a huge, huge investment of funds, which no one is lining up to provide.

Amazing that you so casually dictate that a solution that *improves the quality of academics* is totally unfeasible in DC. Many schools show it is feasible - Hardy, Deal, Hill ES and some Hill MS, some “HRCS” as well. Literally all you have to do is demonstrate to the MC/UMC parents (who are NOT all white btw) that the school will be safe and provide and appropriate curriculum, and that all are welcome. That’s it.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think anyone is ignorant of the demographics of DC...the point is that these policies need to be set on a federal level. UMC/wealthy people will always try to separate themselves - any race, any culture, any period through history. They will find workarounds unless it's a clear, strict requirement.

The only other solution floated here - make DC schools attractive to wealthier families so they stick around - is not feasible. To make a school that serves majority poor children attractive would require a huge, huge investment of funds, which no one is lining up to provide.