Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of us don't make much distinction between charter and public schools. They're all just schools.

Well, it does change the vibe of the neighborhood when lots of neighbors go to school together -- the kids can walk to each others houses for playdates, etc.

The kids in our area all go to different schools. No one cares. They all play together.

This. Big mistake if you prioritize poor neighborhood schools over better schools. You will realize this sooner than later in upper elementary and upper. Kids don’t choose friends based on where they live. It’s not an issue when they can also take metro and get around by themselves. My DS started going on metro by himself to school in 6th.

No one is doing that. Most of the schools on the list the PP posted above with very high IB participation rates are the best schools in the city (Janney, Mann, etc).

The DCPS schools that are not that great don't have very high IB participation, so kids don't get that "walk to and from school with friends and go freely from house to house" thing.

Some circling logic here--the only reason these schools are "great" is they have a self-selected cohort of students from very well-off families that can pay to segregate themselves in specific neighborhoods to take advantage of geographic boundary preferences. Theses school would not be "great" for long if they didn't offer an in-boundary preference.

Not really. One of the biggest determinants of how well kids do is what the kids around them are doing. If they're in a class full of children working hard, they will likely work hard too. If they're in a class full of children who aren't working hard, they probably won't either. Peer pressure is powerful thing among children, and that can be bad and it can be good.

How is that different. If it is the cohort of kids and the resulting peer pressure that makes them perform better, then the school is not actually "great"-- teacher quality and curricula don't factor in much. The neighborhood is "great" not the school.

+1
Just look at the test scores for kids who are lower income at some of these schools. The scores are pretty bad considering the resources the school has to put into a relatively low percent of disadvantaged kids.

Fortunately (or not) those kids only matter to my children and I when they compose a majority of the class. At that point, it’s not the teachers’ fault at all but there will be no learning going on in those classrooms.

I don’t think there’s realistically anything the teachers can do for those kids except raise the floor but you get enough of those kids and the teachers can’t teach at the appropriate level. There’s nothing a teacher can do if the kids and the families are disruptive.

I think it’s a bit disturbing how many times you wrote “there’s nothing a teacher can do” to support lower income students. It’s also troubling that you only characterize then as disruptive. I think you should reevaluate your biases. And hold your schools to higher expectations to support these students.

It’s just where the evidence is in all research. Good teachers can only be good when they have kids and families that care. Family environment and cultural standards strongly limit the extent to which teachers can help kids. And DC is chock full of kids whose families do not value school, teachers, or education at all.

Again you assume low income = families don’t care about education. Those are not equivalent statements and it’s not surprising but really sad that you think they are the same. DC is full of hypocrites.

The results make it very clear that, regardless of income, plenty of families do not value education and it is not hypocritical to want your own kids to be far away from the schools of such students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of us don't make much distinction between charter and public schools. They're all just schools.

Well, it does change the vibe of the neighborhood when lots of neighbors go to school together -- the kids can walk to each others houses for playdates, etc.

The kids in our area all go to different schools. No one cares. They all play together.

This. Big mistake if you prioritize poor neighborhood schools over better schools. You will realize this sooner than later in upper elementary and upper. Kids don’t choose friends based on where they live. It’s not an issue when they can also take metro and get around by themselves. My DS started going on metro by himself to school in 6th.

No one is doing that. Most of the schools on the list the PP posted above with very high IB participation rates are the best schools in the city (Janney, Mann, etc).

The DCPS schools that are not that great don't have very high IB participation, so kids don't get that "walk to and from school with friends and go freely from house to house" thing.

Some circling logic here--the only reason these schools are "great" is they have a self-selected cohort of students from very well-off families that can pay to segregate themselves in specific neighborhoods to take advantage of geographic boundary preferences. Theses school would not be "great" for long if they didn't offer an in-boundary preference.

Not really. One of the biggest determinants of how well kids do is what the kids around them are doing. If they're in a class full of children working hard, they will likely work hard too. If they're in a class full of children who aren't working hard, they probably won't either. Peer pressure is powerful thing among children, and that can be bad and it can be good.

How is that different. If it is the cohort of kids and the resulting peer pressure that makes them perform better, then the school is not actually "great"-- teacher quality and curricula don't factor in much. The neighborhood is "great" not the school.

+1
Just look at the test scores for kids who are lower income at some of these schools. The scores are pretty bad considering the resources the school has to put into a relatively low percent of disadvantaged kids.

Fortunately (or not) those kids only matter to my children and I when they compose a majority of the class. At that point, it’s not the teachers’ fault at all but there will be no learning going on in those classrooms.

I don’t think there’s realistically anything the teachers can do for those kids except raise the floor but you get enough of those kids and the teachers can’t teach at the appropriate level. There’s nothing a teacher can do if the kids and the families are disruptive.

I think it’s a bit disturbing how many times you wrote “there’s nothing a teacher can do” to support lower income students. It’s also troubling that you only characterize then as disruptive. I think you should reevaluate your biases. And hold your schools to higher expectations to support these students.

It’s just where the evidence is in all research. Good teachers can only be good when they have kids and families that care. Family environment and cultural standards strongly limit the extent to which teachers can help kids. And DC is chock full of kids whose families do not value school, teachers, or education at all.

Again you assume low income = families don’t care about education. Those are not equivalent statements and it’s not surprising but really sad that you think they are the same. DC is full of hypocrites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper Caucasia is not a new reference, though it is funny. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/233552/upper-caucasia/

It’s so cool that we can finally publicly mock an entire race of people without fear. #progress

I'd bet that at least 90 percent of the City Paper staffers who came up with Upper Caucasia as a label for upper NW were white. As a white person, I have no problem whatsoever with white people making fun of white people.

I expected this sentence to read “I'd bet that at least 90 percent of the City Paper staffers who came up with Upper Caucasia as a label for upper NW … moved to Ward 3 or the suburbs before their kid reached sixth grade.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of us don't make much distinction between charter and public schools. They're all just schools.

Well, it does change the vibe of the neighborhood when lots of neighbors go to school together -- the kids can walk to each others houses for playdates, etc.

The kids in our area all go to different schools. No one cares. They all play together.

This. Big mistake if you prioritize poor neighborhood schools over better schools. You will realize this sooner than later in upper elementary and upper. Kids don’t choose friends based on where they live. It’s not an issue when they can also take metro and get around by themselves. My DS started going on metro by himself to school in 6th.

No one is doing that. Most of the schools on the list the PP posted above with very high IB participation rates are the best schools in the city (Janney, Mann, etc).

The DCPS schools that are not that great don't have very high IB participation, so kids don't get that "walk to and from school with friends and go freely from house to house" thing.

Some circling logic here--the only reason these schools are "great" is they have a self-selected cohort of students from very well-off families that can pay to segregate themselves in specific neighborhoods to take advantage of geographic boundary preferences. Theses school would not be "great" for long if they didn't offer an in-boundary preference.

Not really. One of the biggest determinants of how well kids do is what the kids around them are doing. If they're in a class full of children working hard, they will likely work hard too. If they're in a class full of children who aren't working hard, they probably won't either. Peer pressure is powerful thing among children, and that can be bad and it can be good.

How is that different. If it is the cohort of kids and the resulting peer pressure that makes them perform better, then the school is not actually "great"-- teacher quality and curricula don't factor in much. The neighborhood is "great" not the school.

+1
Just look at the test scores for kids who are lower income at some of these schools. The scores are pretty bad considering the resources the school has to put into a relatively low percent of disadvantaged kids.

Fortunately (or not) those kids only matter to my children and I when they compose a majority of the class. At that point, it’s not the teachers’ fault at all but there will be no learning going on in those classrooms.

I don’t think there’s realistically anything the teachers can do for those kids except raise the floor but you get enough of those kids and the teachers can’t teach at the appropriate level. There’s nothing a teacher can do if the kids and the families are disruptive.

I think it’s a bit disturbing how many times you wrote “there’s nothing a teacher can do” to support lower income students. It’s also troubling that you only characterize then as disruptive. I think you should reevaluate your biases. And hold your schools to higher expectations to support these students.

It’s just where the evidence is in all research. Good teachers can only be good when they have kids and families that care. Family environment and cultural standards strongly limit the extent to which teachers can help kids. And DC is chock full of kids whose families do not value school, teachers, or education at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of us don't make much distinction between charter and public schools. They're all just schools.

Well, it does change the vibe of the neighborhood when lots of neighbors go to school together -- the kids can walk to each others houses for playdates, etc.

The kids in our area all go to different schools. No one cares. They all play together.

This. Big mistake if you prioritize poor neighborhood schools over better schools. You will realize this sooner than later in upper elementary and upper. Kids don’t choose friends based on where they live. It’s not an issue when they can also take metro and get around by themselves. My DS started going on metro by himself to school in 6th.

No one is doing that. Most of the schools on the list the PP posted above with very high IB participation rates are the best schools in the city (Janney, Mann, etc).

The DCPS schools that are not that great don't have very high IB participation, so kids don't get that "walk to and from school with friends and go freely from house to house" thing.

Some circling logic here--the only reason these schools are "great" is they have a self-selected cohort of students from very well-off families that can pay to segregate themselves in specific neighborhoods to take advantage of geographic boundary preferences. Theses school would not be "great" for long if they didn't offer an in-boundary preference.

Not really. One of the biggest determinants of how well kids do is what the kids around them are doing. If they're in a class full of children working hard, they will likely work hard too. If they're in a class full of children who aren't working hard, they probably won't either. Peer pressure is powerful thing among children, and that can be bad and it can be good.

How is that different. If it is the cohort of kids and the resulting peer pressure that makes them perform better, then the school is not actually "great"-- teacher quality and curricula don't factor in much. The neighborhood is "great" not the school.

+1
Just look at the test scores for kids who are lower income at some of these schools. The scores are pretty bad considering the resources the school has to put into a relatively low percent of disadvantaged kids.

Fortunately (or not) those kids only matter to my children and I when they compose a majority of the class. At that point, it’s not the teachers’ fault at all but there will be no learning going on in those classrooms.

I don’t think there’s realistically anything the teachers can do for those kids except raise the floor but you get enough of those kids and the teachers can’t teach at the appropriate level. There’s nothing a teacher can do if the kids and the families are disruptive.

I think it’s a bit disturbing how many times you wrote “there’s nothing a teacher can do” to support lower income students. It’s also troubling that you only characterize then as disruptive. I think you should reevaluate your biases. And hold your schools to higher expectations to support these students.

"Troubling" lmao

At those schools that's all they do. The blatant goal is to close the achievement gap by dragging the top down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper Caucasia is not a new reference, though it is funny. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/233552/upper-caucasia/

It’s so cool that we can finally publicly mock an entire race of people without fear. #progress

I'd bet that at least 90 percent of the City Paper staffers who came up with Upper Caucasia as a label for upper NW were white. As a white person, I have no problem whatsoever with white people making fun of white people.

I expected this sentence to read “I'd bet that at least 90 percent of the City Paper staffers who came up with Upper Caucasia as a label for upper NW … moved to Ward 3 or the suburbs before their kid reached sixth grade.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper Caucasia is not a new reference, though it is funny. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/233552/upper-caucasia/

It’s so cool that we can finally publicly mock an entire race of people without fear. #progress

I'd bet that at least 90 percent of the City Paper staffers who came up with Upper Caucasia as a label for upper NW were white. As a white person, I have no problem whatsoever with white people making fun of white people.