Moving from DCPS to Charter but commute is terrible

[Anonymous]

The way to solve this would be to have 12-15 test in schools so that pretty much any kid that scores above a threshold lotteries into one of the schools. Singapore does this more or less with the PSLE- if your score in 5th grade or so isn’t good enough, you can’t place into the school.

DC just has too many test in schools, that should almost be the default. That would also release pressure on Banneker, McKinley, and Walls

[Anonymous]

Too few test in schools, not too many

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way to solve this would be to have 12-15 test in schools so that pretty much any kid that scores above a threshold lotteries into one of the schools. Singapore does this more or less with the PSLE- if your score in 5th grade or so isn’t good enough, you can’t place into the school.

DC just has too many test in schools, that should almost be the default. That would also release pressure on Banneker, McKinley, and Walls

LOL! You must be new to DC. There is no testing because of equity. DCPS took away the testing for Walls you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity goals can’t inconvenience people. It’s that simple.

It would crater the tax base and the schools would suffer for your made uo equity goal.

Pfft. Half the kids in this city already participate in a school lottery. There's nothing magical about the other half.

Except that other half has chosen not to participate.

You wanted choice, you got choice. Now you want to deny everyone else choice by forcing your choice on them. Lovely.

The city imposes a de facto wealth test on those who want to go to school in Ward 3. That's what this would address. If you think we should be auctioning off seats in some schools to the highest bidders, you should just say so.

The entire landscape is entirely unfair, but your solution would not bring about the intended result because folks won’t play along. And so you’ll have imposed a logistical nightmare on the city with nothing to show for it. San Fran tried it and it was a disaster.

Why is the landscape unfair? The schools in Ward 3 are not “good” inherently. They’re good because a high percent of kids there are academically on grade level and of higher SES.

I mean it’s “cosmically ” unfair that SES and academic outcomes are so intractably intertwined, not in the sense that Ward 3 families are somehow unjustly hoarding resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity goals can’t inconvenience people. It’s that simple.

It would crater the tax base and the schools would suffer for your made uo equity goal.

Pfft. Half the kids in this city already participate in a school lottery. There's nothing magical about the other half.

Except that other half has chosen not to participate.

You wanted choice, you got choice. Now you want to deny everyone else choice by forcing your choice on them. Lovely.

The city imposes a de facto wealth test on those who want to go to school in Ward 3. That's what this would address. If you think we should be auctioning off seats in some schools to the highest bidders, you should just say so.

The entire landscape is entirely unfair, but your solution would not bring about the intended result because folks won’t play along. And so you’ll have imposed a logistical nightmare on the city with nothing to show for it. San Fran tried it and it was a disaster.

+1. Those with options will flee the city to the burbs. People just don’t get it.

Is this like how if we raise taxes on the rich by even a dollar, they'll all move away?

The rich can pay taxes but their lives don't really change, they just find it annoying.

But people who have options and want the best for their kids will not compromise on their kids futures and send them to failing schools. They just won't do it.

No, because there little evidence that taxation cause large scale “moving” by the rich, while there is plenty of evidence that people of means (including mere middle class folks) will move (or exit public schools) to avoid intolerable school situations.

So move. Your house will sell immediately, and lots of people would be glad to have Ethan's or Lily's spot at school. The DC government has more money than it knows what to do with, and it can raise taxes forever and all the good Democrats here will never ever complain, so nobody cares if you take your tax dollars to Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way to solve this would be to have 12-15 test in schools so that pretty much any kid that scores above a threshold lotteries into one of the schools. Singapore does this more or less with the PSLE- if your score in 5th grade or so isn’t good enough, you can’t place into the school.

DC just has too many test in schools, that should almost be the default. That would also release pressure on Banneker, McKinley, and Walls

You need to elect very different people if you want test-in schools. People like Janeese Lewis George would gouge their eyes out. They are in the business of lowering academic standards. It's the only way they know how to erase racial disparities in academic achievement. It's dumb but it's the government we've chosen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity goals can’t inconvenience people. It’s that simple.

It would crater the tax base and the schools would suffer for your made uo equity goal.

Pfft. Half the kids in this city already participate in a school lottery. There's nothing magical about the other half.

Except that other half has chosen not to participate.

You wanted choice, you got choice. Now you want to deny everyone else choice by forcing your choice on them. Lovely.

The city imposes a de facto wealth test on those who want to go to school in Ward 3. That's what this would address. If you think we should be auctioning off seats in some schools to the highest bidders, you should just say so.

The entire landscape is entirely unfair, but your solution would not bring about the intended result because folks won’t play along. And so you’ll have imposed a logistical nightmare on the city with nothing to show for it. San Fran tried it and it was a disaster.

Why is the landscape unfair? The schools in Ward 3 are not “good” inherently. They’re good because a high percent of kids there are academically on grade level and of higher SES.

I mean it’s “cosmically ” unfair that SES and academic outcomes are so intractably intertwined, not in the sense that Ward 3 families are somehow unjustly hoarding resources.

It’s only unfair if you think SES isn’t at least partially a function of cognitive ability and you don’t think cognitive ability isn’t partly heritable. If you do, I mean it makes sense that the smartest kids live in the richest neighborhoods, they got it from their parents, who got lots of financial returns on their own intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity goals can’t inconvenience people. It’s that simple.

It would crater the tax base and the schools would suffer for your made uo equity goal.

Pfft. Half the kids in this city already participate in a school lottery. There's nothing magical about the other half.

Except that other half has chosen not to participate.

You wanted choice, you got choice. Now you want to deny everyone else choice by forcing your choice on them. Lovely.

The city imposes a de facto wealth test on those who want to go to school in Ward 3. That's what this would address. If you think we should be auctioning off seats in some schools to the highest bidders, you should just say so.

The entire landscape is entirely unfair, but your solution would not bring about the intended result because folks won’t play along. And so you’ll have imposed a logistical nightmare on the city with nothing to show for it. San Fran tried it and it was a disaster.

+1. Those with options will flee the city to the burbs. People just don’t get it.

Is this like how if we raise taxes on the rich by even a dollar, they'll all move away?

The rich can pay taxes but their lives don't really change, they just find it annoying.

But people who have options and want the best for their kids will not compromise on their kids futures and send them to failing schools. They just won't do it.

No, because there little evidence that taxation cause large scale “moving” by the rich, while there is plenty of evidence that people of means (including mere middle class folks) will move (or exit public schools) to avoid intolerable school situations.

So move. Your house will sell immediately, and lots of people would be glad to have Ethan's or Lily's spot at school. The DC government has more money than it knows what to do with, and it can raise taxes forever and all the good Democrats here will never ever complain, so nobody cares if you take your tax dollars to Virginia.

New poster. So naive. Some people will tolerate higher taxes but no one is going to tolerate poor schools for their kids if they have options even democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity goals can’t inconvenience people. It’s that simple.

It would crater the tax base and the schools would suffer for your made uo equity goal.

Pfft. Half the kids in this city already participate in a school lottery. There's nothing magical about the other half.

Except that other half has chosen not to participate.

You wanted choice, you got choice. Now you want to deny everyone else choice by forcing your choice on them. Lovely.

The city imposes a de facto wealth test on those who want to go to school in Ward 3. That's what this would address. If you think we should be auctioning off seats in some schools to the highest bidders, you should just say so.

The entire landscape is entirely unfair, but your solution would not bring about the intended result because folks won’t play along. And so you’ll have imposed a logistical nightmare on the city with nothing to show for it. San Fran tried it and it was a disaster.

+1. Those with options will flee the city to the burbs. People just don’t get it.

Is this like how if we raise taxes on the rich by even a dollar, they'll all move away?

The rich can pay taxes but their lives don't really change, they just find it annoying.

But people who have options and want the best for their kids will not compromise on their kids futures and send them to failing schools. They just won't do it.

No, because there little evidence that taxation cause large scale “moving” by the rich, while there is plenty of evidence that people of means (including mere middle class folks) will move (or exit public schools) to avoid intolerable school situations.

So move. Your house will sell immediately, and lots of people would be glad to have Ethan's or Lily's spot at school. The DC government has more money than it knows what to do with, and it can raise taxes forever and all the good Democrats here will never ever complain, so nobody cares if you take your tax dollars to Virginia.

New poster. So naive. Some people will tolerate higher taxes but no one is going to tolerate poor schools for their kids if they have options even democrats.

Your reading comprehension skills are poor. Also, do the math. There aren't very many kids in Ward 3. Only a small fraction of them would have such bad lottery numbers that they'd end up in a school they consider intolerable. Some of them will suck it up, some of them will switch to private and some of them will move. But their numbers are too small to matter. No one cares if 12 kids in Spring Valley move to McLean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity goals can’t inconvenience people. It’s that simple.

It would crater the tax base and the schools would suffer for your made uo equity goal.

Pfft. Half the kids in this city already participate in a school lottery. There's nothing magical about the other half.

Except that other half has chosen not to participate.

You wanted choice, you got choice. Now you want to deny everyone else choice by forcing your choice on them. Lovely.

The city imposes a de facto wealth test on those who want to go to school in Ward 3. That's what this would address. If you think we should be auctioning off seats in some schools to the highest bidders, you should just say so.

The entire landscape is entirely unfair, but your solution would not bring about the intended result because folks won’t play along. And so you’ll have imposed a logistical nightmare on the city with nothing to show for it. San Fran tried it and it was a disaster.

Why is the landscape unfair? The schools in Ward 3 are not “good” inherently. They’re good because a high percent of kids there are academically on grade level and of higher SES.

True. "Good" is really judging the quality of kids, not the quality of the teachers/facilities. But keep in mind that Latin and Basis are "good" via lottery and Banneker and Walls are "good" via the opaque selection process. Either of those methods are more fair than parents having to buy into a certain neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

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:Equity goals can’t inconvenience people. It’s that simple.

It would crater the tax base and the schools would suffer for your made uo equity goal.

Pfft. Half the kids in this city already participate in a school lottery. There's nothing magical about the other half.

Except that other half has chosen not to participate.

You wanted choice, you got choice. Now you want to deny everyone else choice by forcing your choice on them. Lovely.

The city imposes a de facto wealth test on those who want to go to school in Ward 3. That's what this would address. If you think we should be auctioning off seats in some schools to the highest bidders, you should just say so.

The entire landscape is entirely unfair, but your solution would not bring about the intended result because folks won’t play along. And so you’ll have imposed a logistical nightmare on the city with nothing to show for it. San Fran tried it and it was a disaster.

+1. Those with options will flee the city to the burbs. People just don’t get it.

Is this like how if we raise taxes on the rich by even a dollar, they'll all move away?

The rich can pay taxes but their lives don't really change, they just find it annoying.

But people who have options and want the best for their kids will not compromise on their kids futures and send them to failing schools. They just won't do it.

No, because there little evidence that taxation cause large scale “moving” by the rich, while there is plenty of evidence that people of means (including mere middle class folks) will move (or exit public schools) to avoid intolerable school situations.

So move. Your house will sell immediately, and lots of people would be glad to have Ethan's or Lily's spot at school. The DC government has more money than it knows what to do with, and it can raise taxes forever and all the good Democrats here will never ever complain, so nobody cares if you take your tax dollars to Virginia.

New poster. So naive. Some people will tolerate higher taxes but no one is going to tolerate poor schools for their kids if they have options even democrats.

Your reading comprehension skills are poor. Also, do the math. There aren't very many kids in Ward 3. Only a small fraction of them would have such bad lottery numbers that they'd end up in a school they consider intolerable. Some of them will suck it up, some of them will switch to private and some of them will move. But their numbers are too small to matter. No one cares if 12 kids in Spring Valley move to McLean.

Honestly, if we did all lotto for middle and high school, then Deal and Wilson would still be as popular as Latin or Basis. You just wouldn't get a guaranteed spot. Maybe more Ward 3 families move a mile across Western Ave, but hard to see this causing a real drop in real estate or income tax revenue. It might even make the chances of getting into a "good" school better EOTP and help retain more of those families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity goals can’t inconvenience people. It’s that simple.

It would crater the tax base and the schools would suffer for your made uo equity goal.

Pfft. Half the kids in this city already participate in a school lottery. There's nothing magical about the other half.

Except that other half has chosen not to participate.

You wanted choice, you got choice. Now you want to deny everyone else choice by forcing your choice on them. Lovely.

The city imposes a de facto wealth test on those who want to go to school in Ward 3. That's what this would address. If you think we should be auctioning off seats in some schools to the highest bidders, you should just say so.

The entire landscape is entirely unfair, but your solution would not bring about the intended result because folks won’t play along. And so you’ll have imposed a logistical nightmare on the city with nothing to show for it. San Fran tried it and it was a disaster.

Why is the landscape unfair? The schools in Ward 3 are not “good” inherently. They’re good because a high percent of kids there are academically on grade level and of higher SES.

I mean it’s “cosmically ” unfair that SES and academic outcomes are so intractably intertwined, not in the sense that Ward 3 families are somehow unjustly hoarding resources.

It’s only unfair if you think SES isn’t at least partially a function of cognitive ability and you don’t think cognitive ability isn’t partly heritable. If you do, I mean it makes sense that the smartest kids live in the richest neighborhoods, they got it from their parents, who got lots of financial returns on their own intelligence.

Hence the modifier “cosmically.” Part of intelligence is inference and reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity goals can’t inconvenience people. It’s that simple.

It would crater the tax base and the schools would suffer for your made uo equity goal.

Pfft. Half the kids in this city already participate in a school lottery. There's nothing magical about the other half.

Except that other half has chosen not to participate.

You wanted choice, you got choice. Now you want to deny everyone else choice by forcing your choice on them. Lovely.

The city imposes a de facto wealth test on those who want to go to school in Ward 3. That's what this would address. If you think we should be auctioning off seats in some schools to the highest bidders, you should just say so.

The entire landscape is entirely unfair, but your solution would not bring about the intended result because folks won’t play along. And so you’ll have imposed a logistical nightmare on the city with nothing to show for it. San Fran tried it and it was a disaster.

Why is the landscape unfair? The schools in Ward 3 are not “good” inherently. They’re good because a high percent of kids there are academically on grade level and of higher SES.

True. "Good" is really judging the quality of kids, not the quality of the teachers/facilities. But keep in mind that Latin and Basis are "good" via lottery and Banneker and Walls are "good" via the opaque selection process. Either of those methods are more fair than parents having to buy into a certain neighborhood.

Latin and BASIS aren't "good" because of demographics. They are good because theire curriculums are really challenging and they force kids to work hard to keep up. There is some self-selection into schools like this so the demographics match the standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity goals can’t inconvenience people. It’s that simple.

It would crater the tax base and the schools would suffer for your made uo equity goal.

Pfft. Half the kids in this city already participate in a school lottery. There's nothing magical about the other half.

Except that other half has chosen not to participate.

You wanted choice, you got choice. Now you want to deny everyone else choice by forcing your choice on them. Lovely.

The city imposes a de facto wealth test on those who want to go to school in Ward 3. That's what this would address. If you think we should be auctioning off seats in some schools to the highest bidders, you should just say so.

The entire landscape is entirely unfair, but your solution would not bring about the intended result because folks won’t play along. And so you’ll have imposed a logistical nightmare on the city with nothing to show for it. San Fran tried it and it was a disaster.

Why is the landscape unfair? The schools in Ward 3 are not “good” inherently. They’re good because a high percent of kids there are academically on grade level and of higher SES.

True. "Good" is really judging the quality of kids, not the quality of the teachers/facilities. But keep in mind that Latin and Basis are "good" via lottery and Banneker and Walls are "good" via the opaque selection process. Either of those methods are more fair than parents having to buy into a certain neighborhood.

Latin and BASIS aren't "good" because of demographics. They are good because theire curriculums are really challenging and they force kids to work hard to keep up. There is some self-selection into schools like this so the demographics match the standards.

Latin and BASIS are good because, unlike DCPS, they have high standards. They will give your kid F's all day long and not think twice about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you be willing to do an electric-assist cargo bike commute? Some people prefer that to driving (and some people think it's insane). Then as kids get older, they get their own bikes, and you commute together (if it's feasible/there are bike paths).

I know that Yu Ying and Cooper are working on getting bike lane access to their schools.

If you are willing to carpool, you'll want a car that seats at least four kids (chances are, you'll be carpooling with another set of siblings).

She thinks the commute is too long already. Now you want them biking in the rain. How does this address her issue at all?

Becasue shlepping your kids around on an expensive cargo bike signals to others that you're a well-off progressive who works a very flexible schedule from home. That's important for others to know.