Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP you're slamming. I like posts that present the unvarnished truth about schools that have become heavily UMC quickly, however inconvenient and non PC the sentiments expressed might be.

There's no denying that poor kids are doing a lot better collectively in KIPP type charters than in traditional public schools. This issue isn't race, it's class in a city with vast income disparities.

Unless DCPS is willing to get more adults in the buildings and to pay for extended day and year options for poor kids in traditional public schools with support from the teachers union (not happening) these problems, and solutions, are real. You can pretend they aren't real to suit your politics, PP, without anybody benefiting.

You seem confused and to be presenting a false dichotomy.

Kids don't do better in heavily segregated schools where everyone is poor. Research is clear on that. What the PP that I was responding to was arguing against however, was not that.


PP was concern trolling that poor kids will be overwhelmed and socially outcast going to good schools with wealthy students ("...at-risk kids pretty clearly belong in schools set up to serve needy kids, vs. schools serving hundreds of UMC students". This is an explicit call for segregation, and presents as undisputed fact a fringe assertion that's 100% disproved by all evidence over the past 60 years.

This exact argument was made in the 50s as a reason not to de-segregate schools, and it was widely recognized as what it is: paternalistic and racist (in that it assumes poor kids can't handle going to wealthy, high achieving schools). Since that time, mountains of evidence have shown that going to integrated, well functioning schools is the single best thing for poor kids from segregated schools. Integrating local schools and also busing -- which racists succeeded in branding as a failure -- worked, absolutely and indisputably in terms of improving outcomes for black kids and communities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/23/forced-busing-didnt-fail-desegregation-is-the-best-way-to-improve-our-schools
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/07/01/busing-for-school-integration-succeed-work-research/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing-louisville_n_5d2ceff0e4b0bca60364197f

So DCs policy is to flood poor kids to the struggling to succeed middle class schools. It shouldn’t just be about what is best for those poor kids that disputes all that fiddling will still mostly fail. You act like is the middle class would just lend a hand the poor kids will jump to success. Maybe a percentage point or two but what cost for still amount to mostly failure.

Yes hunger people do better when people hand them sandwiches, but when the sandwiches stop most of them will still be hungry.

I don't "act like" anything. The data shows that integrating schools is the single most effective intervention for narrowing the achievement gap. I get that you don't like this, but re-framing what the data shows as if it were my opinion, and then arguing for your opinion is not useful. Read the data. Present alternate data. Argue using facts in the real world, not opinions and what you want to be true.

The data also shows that high SES students/whites aren't hurt by integrated classrooms. Not buying it. Two or three of the half dozen public housing project denizens in my kid's 3rd grade classroom EotP were a real problem this past school year, sucking up a great deal of the classroom teacher's time, focus and energy.

You will appreciate how I am arguing using facts in the real world when I state that she was hurt by having these kids in her class, particularly on the day when one of them slugged her in the mouth and cussed her out. The kid wasn't punished or even removed from the class on that day - he was simply made to apologize.

My child was bored in her reading group, and not particularly challenged in math, even as the poor teacher battled to get, and keep the several disruptive and academically disastrous SES kids on track emotionally and academically. We're planning to give DCPS one more year. If things don't improve, we're gone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So DCs policy is to flood poor kids to the struggling to succeed middle class schools. It shouldn’t just be about what is best for those poor kids that disputes all that fiddling will still mostly fail. You act like is the middle class would just lend a hand the poor kids will jump to success. Maybe a percentage point or two but what cost for still amount to mostly failure.

Yes hunger people do better when people hand them sandwiches, but when the sandwiches stop most of them will still be hungry.

Hmmm.... so attending safe and effective schools is your kid's right, but for those brown people it's a handout ("handing them sandwiches")? I think there's a word for that way of thinking.

endless victimhood? when who just stated that poor people are brown? also what is the point of money is every human deserves the same thing? I get it life isn't fair I just fail to see how you plan on ending that, sounds like you really just want to redefine it so you are on the better side.

I'm not the person you've been arguing with.

Every human being deserves to have access to good quality education. You don't deserve better quality because you have more money. You can simply afford to buy better quality. Your money does not make you more deserving. It just gives you options that people with less money do not have.

Life is unfair in a variety of ways. Start with residential segregation, which in a city like DC where schools are assigned by address is directly responsible for segregation in schools. One solution to school segregation has been forced integration. You can argue that property values exist independently of race, but that's historically not been true and research will prove it to you.

Finally, in DC, race and poverty are so closely linked as to be proxies for each other in many cases. There are substantial numbers of black and brown children living in poverty. Most of the white children in DC are, at best, middle or upper middle class. That you are going out of your way to be obtuse about that either tells me that you're not a DC resident or that you are a racist who is uncomfortable with being called a racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So DCs policy is to flood poor kids to the struggling to succeed middle class schools. It shouldn’t just be about what is best for those poor kids that disputes all that fiddling will still mostly fail. You act like is the middle class would just lend a hand the poor kids will jump to success. Maybe a percentage point or two but what cost for still amount to mostly failure.

Yes hunger people do better when people hand them sandwiches, but when the sandwiches stop most of them will still be hungry.

Hmmm.... so attending safe and effective schools is your kid's right, but for those brown people it's a handout ("handing them sandwiches")? I think there's a word for that way of thinking.

endless victimhood? when who just stated that poor people are brown? also what is the point of money is every human deserves the same thing? I get it life isn't fair I just fail to see how you plan on ending that, sounds like you really just want to redefine it so you are on the better side.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP you're slamming. I like posts that present the unvarnished truth about schools that have become heavily UMC quickly, however inconvenient and non PC the sentiments expressed might be.

There's no denying that poor kids are doing a lot better collectively in KIPP type charters than in traditional public schools. This issue isn't race, it's class in a city with vast income disparities.

Unless DCPS is willing to get more adults in the buildings and to pay for extended day and year options for poor kids in traditional public schools with support from the teachers union (not happening) these problems, and solutions, are real. You can pretend they aren't real to suit your politics, PP, without anybody benefiting.

You seem confused and to be presenting a false dichotomy.

Kids don't do better in heavily segregated schools where everyone is poor. Research is clear on that. What the PP that I was responding to was arguing against however, was not that.

PP was concern trolling that poor kids will be overwhelmed and socially outcast going to good schools with wealthy students ("...at-risk kids pretty clearly belong in schools set up to serve needy kids, vs. schools serving hundreds of UMC students". This is an explicit call for segregation, and presents as undisputed fact a fringe assertion that's 100% disproved by all evidence over the past 60 years.

This exact argument was made in the 50s as a reason not to de-segregate schools, and it was widely recognized as what it is: paternalistic and racist (in that it assumes poor kids can't handle going to wealthy, high achieving schools). Since that time, mountains of evidence have shown that going to integrated, well functioning schools is the single best thing for poor kids from segregated schools. Integrating local schools and also busing -- which racists succeeded in branding as a failure -- worked, absolutely and indisputably in terms of improving outcomes for black kids and communities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/23/forced-busing-didnt-fail-desegregation-is-the-best-way-to-improve-our-schools
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/07/01/busing-for-school-integration-succeed-work-research/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing-louisville_n_5d2ceff0e4b0bca60364197f

Get a life. In this City, KIPP scores for at-risk kids are higher than scores in traditional public schools.

Comparing aggregate test scores for a cohort of kids who are attending their default public school to aggregate test scores for a cohort of kids whose parents have gone through the lottery and then undertake the effort to get them to a charter school every day is not an apples to apples comparison given that parental achievement/involvement is the #1 predictor of academic success. Ever heard of selection bias? Based on the level of familiarity with data demonstrated so far in this thread, I'm guessing not.

+1. Families who elect to apply to a charter are not the same as those in the general populace. This means the extent to which KIPP is doing something specific to raise test scores--vs. the contribution of particularly motivated & stable families--is unclear.

So, I don't think that's true, because KIPP has a proven track record of doing -- in many different sites, with many different teachers, subject only to random lottery luck -- what almost no other charter schools in DC do: consistently get good tests scores from poor children. Of course there is selection bias in charter v IB/default and there may even be selection bias in KIPP v other charter v better IB, but I doubt the selection bias that exists in that latter case is 100% responsible for the rings KIPP runs around other charters/most IBs. That said, I completely agree w/ the first sentence of your post and that, long-term, integration is the single most successful way to close the achievement gap... I just don't think that in a school system that still has a massive achievement gap, the KIPP success story for the left behinds is purely illusory.

Anonymous wrote:
So DCs policy is to flood poor kids to the struggling to succeed middle class schools. It shouldn’t just be about what is best for those poor kids that disputes all that fiddling will still mostly fail. You act like is the middle class would just lend a hand the poor kids will jump to success. Maybe a percentage point or two but what cost for still amount to mostly failure.

Yes hunger people do better when people hand them sandwiches, but when the sandwiches stop most of them will still be hungry.

Hmmm.... so attending safe and effective schools is your kid's right, but for those brown people it's a handout ("handing them sandwiches")? I think there's a word for that way of thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP you're slamming. I like posts that present the unvarnished truth about schools that have become heavily UMC quickly, however inconvenient and non PC the sentiments expressed might be.

There's no denying that poor kids are doing a lot better collectively in KIPP type charters than in traditional public schools. This issue isn't race, it's class in a city with vast income disparities.

Unless DCPS is willing to get more adults in the buildings and to pay for extended day and year options for poor kids in traditional public schools with support from the teachers union (not happening) these problems, and solutions, are real. You can pretend they aren't real to suit your politics, PP, without anybody benefiting.

You seem confused and to be presenting a false dichotomy.

Kids don't do better in heavily segregated schools where everyone is poor. Research is clear on that. What the PP that I was responding to was arguing against however, was not that.

PP was concern trolling that poor kids will be overwhelmed and socially outcast going to good schools with wealthy students ("...at-risk kids pretty clearly belong in schools set up to serve needy kids, vs. schools serving hundreds of UMC students". This is an explicit call for segregation, and presents as undisputed fact a fringe assertion that's 100% disproved by all evidence over the past 60 years.

This exact argument was made in the 50s as a reason not to de-segregate schools, and it was widely recognized as what it is: paternalistic and racist (in that it assumes poor kids can't handle going to wealthy, high achieving schools). Since that time, mountains of evidence have shown that going to integrated, well functioning schools is the single best thing for poor kids from segregated schools. Integrating local schools and also busing -- which racists succeeded in branding as a failure -- worked, absolutely and indisputably in terms of improving outcomes for black kids and communities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/23/forced-busing-didnt-fail-desegregation-is-the-best-way-to-improve-our-schools
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/07/01/busing-for-school-integration-succeed-work-research/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing-louisville_n_5d2ceff0e4b0bca60364197f

Get a life. In this City, KIPP scores for at-risk kids are higher than scores in traditional public schools.

Comparing aggregate test scores for a cohort of kids who are attending their default public school to aggregate test scores for a cohort of kids whose parents have gone through the lottery and then undertake the effort to get them to a charter school every day is not an apples to apples comparison given that parental achievement/involvement is the #1 predictor of academic success. Ever heard of selection bias? Based on the level of familiarity with data demonstrated so far in this thread, I'm guessing not.

+1. Families who elect to apply to a charter are not the same as those in the general populace. This means the extent to which KIPP is doing something specific to raise test scores--vs. the contribution of particularly motivated & stable families--is unclear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP you're slamming. I like posts that present the unvarnished truth about schools that have become heavily UMC quickly, however inconvenient and non PC the sentiments expressed might be.

There's no denying that poor kids are doing a lot better collectively in KIPP type charters than in traditional public schools. This issue isn't race, it's class in a city with vast income disparities.

Unless DCPS is willing to get more adults in the buildings and to pay for extended day and year options for poor kids in traditional public schools with support from the teachers union (not happening) these problems, and solutions, are real. You can pretend they aren't real to suit your politics, PP, without anybody benefiting.

You seem confused and to be presenting a false dichotomy.

Kids don't do better in heavily segregated schools where everyone is poor. Research is clear on that. What the PP that I was responding to was arguing against however, was not that.

PP was concern trolling that poor kids will be overwhelmed and socially outcast going to good schools with wealthy students ("...at-risk kids pretty clearly belong in schools set up to serve needy kids, vs. schools serving hundreds of UMC students". This is an explicit call for segregation, and presents as undisputed fact a fringe assertion that's 100% disproved by all evidence over the past 60 years.

This exact argument was made in the 50s as a reason not to de-segregate schools, and it was widely recognized as what it is: paternalistic and racist (in that it assumes poor kids can't handle going to wealthy, high achieving schools). Since that time, mountains of evidence have shown that going to integrated, well functioning schools is the single best thing for poor kids from segregated schools. Integrating local schools and also busing -- which racists succeeded in branding as a failure -- worked, absolutely and indisputably in terms of improving outcomes for black kids and communities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/23/forced-busing-didnt-fail-desegregation-is-the-best-way-to-improve-our-schools
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/07/01/busing-for-school-integration-succeed-work-research/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing-louisville_n_5d2ceff0e4b0bca60364197f

Get a life. In this City, KIPP scores for at-risk kids are higher than scores in traditional public schools.

Comparing aggregate test scores for a cohort of kids who are attending their default public school to aggregate test scores for a cohort of kids whose parents have gone through the lottery and then undertake the effort to get them to a charter school every day is not an apples to apples comparison given that parental achievement/involvement is the #1 predictor of academic success. Ever heard of selection bias? Based on the level of familiarity with data demonstrated so far in this thread, I'm guessing not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP you're slamming. I like posts that present the unvarnished truth about schools that have become heavily UMC quickly, however inconvenient and non PC the sentiments expressed might be.

There's no denying that poor kids are doing a lot better collectively in KIPP type charters than in traditional public schools. This issue isn't race, it's class in a city with vast income disparities.

Unless DCPS is willing to get more adults in the buildings and to pay for extended day and year options for poor kids in traditional public schools with support from the teachers union (not happening) these problems, and solutions, are real. You can pretend they aren't real to suit your politics, PP, without anybody benefiting.

You seem confused and to be presenting a false dichotomy.

Kids don't do better in heavily segregated schools where everyone is poor. Research is clear on that. What the PP that I was responding to was arguing against however, was not that.


PP was concern trolling that poor kids will be overwhelmed and socially outcast going to good schools with wealthy students ("...at-risk kids pretty clearly belong in schools set up to serve needy kids, vs. schools serving hundreds of UMC students". This is an explicit call for segregation, and presents as undisputed fact a fringe assertion that's 100% disproved by all evidence over the past 60 years.

This exact argument was made in the 50s as a reason not to de-segregate schools, and it was widely recognized as what it is: paternalistic and racist (in that it assumes poor kids can't handle going to wealthy, high achieving schools). Since that time, mountains of evidence have shown that going to integrated, well functioning schools is the single best thing for poor kids from segregated schools. Integrating local schools and also busing -- which racists succeeded in branding as a failure -- worked, absolutely and indisputably in terms of improving outcomes for black kids and communities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/23/forced-busing-didnt-fail-desegregation-is-the-best-way-to-improve-our-schools
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/07/01/busing-for-school-integration-succeed-work-research/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing-louisville_n_5d2ceff0e4b0bca60364197f

So DCs policy is to flood poor kids to the struggling to succeed middle class schools. It shouldn’t just be about what is best for those poor kids that disputes all that fiddling will still mostly fail. You act like is the middle class would just lend a hand the poor kids will jump to success. Maybe a percentage point or two but what cost for still amount to mostly failure.

Yes hunger people do better when people hand them sandwiches, but when the sandwiches stop most of them will still be hungry.

I don't "act like" anything. The data shows that integrating schools is the single most effective intervention for narrowing the achievement gap. I get that you don't like this, but re-framing what the data shows as if it were my opinion, and then arguing for your opinion is not useful. Read the data. Present alternate data. Argue using facts in the real world, not opinions and what you want to be true.

Anonymous wrote:Want to end racial and socioeconomic segregation in our city schools? Don't fuss about OOB feeder rights. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Work tirelessly to redress the income inequality that supports the segregation for the same reasons it loomed large during the CRM.

Can you elaborate on that? I don't know the background...

Want to end racial and socioeconomic segregation in our city schools? Don't fuss about OOB feeder rights. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Work tirelessly to redress the income inequality that supports the segregation for the same reasons it loomed large during the CRM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP you're slamming. I like posts that present the unvarnished truth about schools that have become heavily UMC quickly, however inconvenient and non PC the sentiments expressed might be.

There's no denying that poor kids are doing a lot better collectively in KIPP type charters than in traditional public schools. This issue isn't race, it's class in a city with vast income disparities.

Unless DCPS is willing to get more adults in the buildings and to pay for extended day and year options for poor kids in traditional public schools with support from the teachers union (not happening) these problems, and solutions, are real. You can pretend they aren't real to suit your politics, PP, without anybody benefiting.

You seem confused and to be presenting a false dichotomy.

Kids don't do better in heavily segregated schools where everyone is poor. Research is clear on that. What the PP that I was responding to was arguing against however, was not that.

PP was concern trolling that poor kids will be overwhelmed and socially outcast going to good schools with wealthy students ("...at-risk kids pretty clearly belong in schools set up to serve needy kids, vs. schools serving hundreds of UMC students". This is an explicit call for segregation, and presents as undisputed fact a fringe assertion that's 100% disproved by all evidence over the past 60 years.

This exact argument was made in the 50s as a reason not to de-segregate schools, and it was widely recognized as what it is: paternalistic and racist (in that it assumes poor kids can't handle going to wealthy, high achieving schools). Since that time, mountains of evidence have shown that going to integrated, well functioning schools is the single best thing for poor kids from segregated schools. Integrating local schools and also busing -- which racists succeeded in branding as a failure -- worked, absolutely and indisputably in terms of improving outcomes for black kids and communities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/23/forced-busing-didnt-fail-desegregation-is-the-best-way-to-improve-our-schools
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/07/01/busing-for-school-integration-succeed-work-research/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing-louisville_n_5d2ceff0e4b0bca60364197f

Get a life. In this City, KIPP scores for at-risk kids are higher than scores in traditional public schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP you're slamming. I like posts that present the unvarnished truth about schools that have become heavily UMC quickly, however inconvenient and non PC the sentiments expressed might be.

There's no denying that poor kids are doing a lot better collectively in KIPP type charters than in traditional public schools. This issue isn't race, it's class in a city with vast income disparities.

Unless DCPS is willing to get more adults in the buildings and to pay for extended day and year options for poor kids in traditional public schools with support from the teachers union (not happening) these problems, and solutions, are real. You can pretend they aren't real to suit your politics, PP, without anybody benefiting.

You seem confused and to be presenting a false dichotomy.

Kids don't do better in heavily segregated schools where everyone is poor. Research is clear on that. What the PP that I was responding to was arguing against however, was not that.


PP was concern trolling that poor kids will be overwhelmed and socially outcast going to good schools with wealthy students ("...at-risk kids pretty clearly belong in schools set up to serve needy kids, vs. schools serving hundreds of UMC students". This is an explicit call for segregation, and presents as undisputed fact a fringe assertion that's 100% disproved by all evidence over the past 60 years.

This exact argument was made in the 50s as a reason not to de-segregate schools, and it was widely recognized as what it is: paternalistic and racist (in that it assumes poor kids can't handle going to wealthy, high achieving schools). Since that time, mountains of evidence have shown that going to integrated, well functioning schools is the single best thing for poor kids from segregated schools. Integrating local schools and also busing -- which racists succeeded in branding as a failure -- worked, absolutely and indisputably in terms of improving outcomes for black kids and communities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/23/forced-busing-didnt-fail-desegregation-is-the-best-way-to-improve-our-schools
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/07/01/busing-for-school-integration-succeed-work-research/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing-louisville_n_5d2ceff0e4b0bca60364197f

So DCs policy is to flood poor kids to the struggling to succeed middle class schools. It shouldn’t just be about what is best for those poor kids that disputes all that fiddling will still mostly fail. You act like is the middle class would just lend a hand the poor kids will jump to success. Maybe a percentage point or two but what cost for still amount to mostly failure.

Yes hunger people do better when people hand them sandwiches, but when the sandwiches stop most of them will still be hungry.

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP you're slamming. I like posts that present the unvarnished truth about schools that have become heavily UMC quickly, however inconvenient and non PC the sentiments expressed might be.

There's no denying that poor kids are doing a lot better collectively in KIPP type charters than in traditional public schools. This issue isn't race, it's class in a city with vast income disparities.

Unless DCPS is willing to get more adults in the buildings and to pay for extended day and year options for poor kids in traditional public schools with support from the teachers union (not happening) these problems, and solutions, are real. You can pretend they aren't real to suit your politics, PP, without anybody benefiting.

You seem confused and to be presenting a false dichotomy.

Kids don't do better in heavily segregated schools where everyone is poor. Research is clear on that. What the PP that I was responding to was arguing against however, was not that.

PP was concern trolling that poor kids will be overwhelmed and socially outcast going to good schools with wealthy students ("...at-risk kids pretty clearly belong in schools set up to serve needy kids, vs. schools serving hundreds of UMC students". This is an explicit call for segregation, and presents as undisputed fact a fringe assertion that's 100% disproved by all evidence over the past 60 years.

This exact argument was made in the 50s as a reason not to de-segregate schools, and it was widely recognized as what it is: paternalistic and racist (in that it assumes poor kids can't handle going to wealthy, high achieving schools). Since that time, mountains of evidence have shown that going to integrated, well functioning schools is the single best thing for poor kids from segregated schools. Integrating local schools and also busing -- which racists succeeded in branding as a failure -- worked, absolutely and indisputably in terms of improving outcomes for black kids and communities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/23/forced-busing-didnt-fail-desegregation-is-the-best-way-to-improve-our-schools
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/07/01/busing-for-school-integration-succeed-work-research/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing-louisville_n_5d2ceff0e4b0bca60364197f

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Tell me about the 400k house you bought in 2006 or 2007 WOTP with a double non profit hhi of 150k. I'll wait.

You chose square footage over school quality. That was your (bad) decision. Now you get to own it. Many nonprofit families renting in small places on Connecticut Avenue or bought in McClean Gardens in order to have access to better schools. It can be done.

So separate but better? (sarcasm)