Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there are many instances when white people will choose segregation over a better school.

When certain suburbs and schools become too asian, white people move out:

https://psmag.com/news/ghosts-of-white-people-past-witnessing-white-flight-from-an-asian-ethnoburb

Many of the "highly regarded" charter schools east-of-the-park are objectively worse than the DCPS schools in the same neighborhoods, but are (or were) whiter. White parents move their kids there to be with other white kids.


I think it's reasonable to question why white parents don't encourage their kids to apply to Bannaker...

which charter schools? I can’t think of any that meet that description.

I’ll play. How about creative minds charter school. It had buzz a few years ago, but Burroughs in the same neighborhood outperformed it. The stars system that was put in place a couple years ago makes it easier to compare schools, but that wasn’t available until recently.

oh, interesting. yeah, I can see DCUM having a role in creating an echo chamber like that. Like Paybe has test scores just as good as TRY but Payne is still somewhat suspect on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the full paper, but its conclusions don't seem very controversial as they're in line with other research, as the authors themselves have noted. Jeff may take issue with some of the methodology or research ethics, but it's been shown in other work that when white parents have a choice, they tend to choose schools with more white students. This of course won't apply to *every* white family; we're talking about general trends in the data. I've certainly seen this myself as a black parent IB for Shepherd, but anecdata aside, it's been found in other research even when adjusting for other factors.

For example, anyone recall this "revealed preferences" Mathematica study of the DC lottery a few years ago?


"The researchers tested a broad range of factors that could explain why parents choose a school: its proximity to a family’s home, test scores, after-school activities, uniform policies, class size, the crime and income levels of the surrounding neighborhood, and the racial and socio-economic makeup of the school’s student body. Only three of these factors significantly drove parental choice. Parents preferred high test scores, schools closer to home, and schools where their own child would be alongside more peers of his or her same race and class.

Across race and class, a middle-school parent was 12 percent more likely to choose a school where his child’s race made up 20 percent of the study body, compared with a school with similar test scores where his child’s race made up only 10 percent of the study body. White and higher-income applicants had the strongest preferences for their children to remain in-group, while black elementary school parents were essentially “indifferent” to a school’s racial makeup, the researchers found. The findings for Hispanic elementary and middle school parents were not statistically significant.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/07/when-white-parents-have-a-choice-they-choose-segregated-schools.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't sink in here. It never does. I don't see any opinions being changed here. The only way to counteract them is through engaged political action.

Fk that noise. I’m doing what’s best for junior. Keep your social engineering to yourself.

I send my kids to a Title 1 elementary school because it's a good place for them. Make schools appealing to the parents you want to attract and they'll come. Not complicated, and not "engaged political action." There was a thread about ms/hs recently and so many parents would be happy to send their kids to existing dcps middle schools that aren't hardy or deal if they just committed to a curriculum that would be appropriate/challenging.

this. the Brookings paper literally said the only important factor in education policy is addressing disadvantages. with that kind of belief, why in the world do they think they are going to get any sort of buy-in from people to send their kids to struggling schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't sink in here. It never does. I don't see any opinions being changed here. The only way to counteract them is through engaged political action.

Fk that noise. I’m doing what’s best for junior. Keep your social engineering to yourself.

I send my kids to a Title 1 elementary school because it's a good place for them. Make schools appealing to the parents you want to attract and they'll come. Not complicated, and not "engaged political action." There was a thread about ms/hs recently and so many parents would be happy to send their kids to existing dcps middle schools that aren't hardy or deal if they just committed to a curriculum that would be appropriate/challenging.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't sink in here. It never does. I don't see any opinions being changed here. The only way to counteract them is through engaged political action.

Fk that noise. I’m doing what’s best for junior. Keep your social engineering to yourself.

Anonymous wrote:Brookings has gotten SO sloppy. It was a well-respected think tank once upon a time. Not anymore.

Anonymous wrote:It won't sink in here. It never does. I don't see any opinions being changed here. The only way to counteract them is through engaged political action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^sorry, 2012-2015 timeframe.

Please don’t derail this thread. The topic is the article. Where the authors send their kids is relevant. What other books they wrote and why is out of scope here.

Absolutely not.
Science proceeds by reputation all the time.

Peer reviewers cannot catch every error in a paper. And this paper isn’t even peer reviewed, right?

Science relies on reputation. If the authors did good or bad work in the past, that is highly relevant for the quality of their later work.

I will try to go through the DCUM Brookings article in detail later.
Beyond the obvious critique that DCUM is anonymous and so we don’t know if posters are being honest or consistent, are there other flaws?

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry is Jeff an education policy specialist or a social scientist? I thought he just runs a website and makes money off ad links?

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry is Jeff an education policy specialist or a social scientist? I thought he just runs a website and makes money off ad links?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^sorry, 2012-2015 timeframe.

Please don’t derail this thread. The topic is the article. Where the authors send their kids is relevant. What other books they wrote and why is out of scope here.

Absolutely not.
Science proceeds by reputation all the time.

Peer reviewers cannot catch every error in a paper. And this paper isn’t even peer reviewed, right?

Science relies on reputation. If the authors did good or bad work in the past, that is highly relevant for the quality of their later work.

I will try to go through the DCUM Brookings article in detail later.
Beyond the obvious critique that DCUM is anonymous and so we don’t know if posters are being honest or consistent, are there other flaws?

Anonymous wrote:The second author, Jackson Gode, graduated in 2014 from The Seattle Academy, a “top-rated private” high school in Seattle.
Its tuition is $38,000 per year.

https://facebook.com/seattleacademy/posts/2363749686994407

Not sure about Mr. Gode’s parents, or his role in his schooling decisions, but (at least for now) I’m a parent sending my kids to DCPS and putting my money where my mouth is.