Question for those who are doing the DCPS lotteries-- why did you choose to live where you live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: If it wasn't for our charter, we would have moved or sent DC to private school.

The ability to stay in the city and send your child to a charter is what has fueled the demographic shift in DC the last ten years. With viable, diverse, exciting, publicly funded options for school, the "need" to live in Ward 3 was wiped out. Keep 'em coming, charter board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If it wasn't for our charter, we would have moved or sent DC to private school.

The ability to stay in the city and send your child to a charter is what has fueled the demographic shift in DC the last ten years. With viable, diverse, exciting, publicly funded options for school, the "need" to live in Ward 3 was wiped out. Keep 'em coming, charter board.

Exactly. Charter schools are the only reason I can afford to live in DC. It's the great equalizer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:sheesh....I feel sorry for all the kids. So much stress all around.

Lighten up DC parents.

In DC, parenting requires body armor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sheesh....I feel sorry for all the kids. So much stress all around.

Lighten up DC parents.

I know. That's what I hate about dcum. So many discussions are polluted by stupid fights. This one about trilingual kids is just plain dumm. I feel sorry for these people.

No, monolingual is the new stupid, haven't you heard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If it wasn't for our charter, we would have moved or sent DC to private school.

The ability to stay in the city and send your child to a charter is what has fueled the demographic shift in DC the last ten years. With viable, diverse, exciting, publicly funded options for school, the "need" to live in Ward 3 was wiped out. Keep 'em coming, charter board.

Indeed, this was the original point: that for many, living where they live IS a choice. Had you not gotten into the charter schools, you had the means to afford private school or move out of the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If it wasn't for our charter, we would have moved or sent DC to private school.

The ability to stay in the city and send your child to a charter is what has fueled the demographic shift in DC the last ten years. With viable, diverse, exciting, publicly funded options for school, the "need" to live in Ward 3 was wiped out. Keep 'em coming, charter board.

Indeed, this was the original point: that for many, living where they live IS a choice. Had you not gotten into the charter schools, you had the means to afford private school or move out of the neighborhood.

So then this is an all-around win, isn't it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No doubt the dc system is insanely dysfunctional. The system is full of sinking ships, and the charters are rickety lifeboats, indeed. Look at the kids at the school. Will they grow up to be stellar kids? Maybe - but doubt it is due to the school. What's sad is how a city full of vital, intelligent, and go-getting parents are sitting back and lapping up the spoiled milk they're trying to feed us. Charters were the Republican dream answer to failing public schools. You take resources away from the public schools, in the form of funding as well (and more importantly) parent led change. What you do with charters is you take the power that in-bounds could harness (the better in the better-or-for-worse involved with gentrification) and you fritter it away piecemeal across the city. There is no concentration of like-minded parents behind the in-bounds school. Instead, you're left with the parents who either don't give a damn or can't give a damn. Many of the parents are struggling for survival, not strugling to thrive like the rest of us. Every single parent among the list of parents we put together initially interested in getting behind our local in-bounds went the charter route. Every single one. And we're not talking about the worst of the worst school by any stretch.

Let's face it, the charters have done what they are supposed to have done. The nail in the coffin of public education.

R.I.P.

I understand the sentiment, but what were public schools doing before charters came on the scene? You say this like they were on the way to success and big bad charters came and broke them. Weren't public schools failing for quite some time? It's not like there are no alternatives to parent-led change. Parents have fled the city or went private for years before charters were launched. What makes you think that dynamic was about to change?

[Anonymous]

I rent an apartment around the corner from Murch, but they don't have PS3 and PS4 isn't guaranteed. We're doing the lottery because we barely get by on one income and the timing between coming off a daycare waitlist and finding a job hasn't worked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If it wasn't for our charter, we would have moved or sent DC to private school.

The ability to stay in the city and send your child to a charter is what has fueled the demographic shift in DC the last ten years. With viable, diverse, exciting, publicly funded options for school, the "need" to live in Ward 3 was wiped out. Keep 'em coming, charter board.

Not true. Look what happened in Capitol Hill with a group of parents? They wanted to stay in the city so they met in someone's living room, put their muscle behind the local PUBLIC school, and made it work. Fast forward some years and try to repeat the experiment, factoring the charters that have opened up. Which came first, the chicken (parents who wanted to stay in the city) or the egg (better schools they demanded?)

Charters opened up and competed with the inbounds. Now lots of new people moving in to say, bloomingdale. What does the local school look like? When the HIll experienced this type of gentrification, the parents didnt get picked off by dozens of options. They had to choose between moving away, private, or invigorating the local schools.

Don't get me wrong, DCPS are screwed. NCLB was a death blow to an already really bad system. But we had the choice to fix or build a bunch of rickety lifeboats. Bottoms up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If it wasn't for our charter, we would have moved or sent DC to private school.

The ability to stay in the city and send your child to a charter is what has fueled the demographic shift in DC the last ten years. With viable, diverse, exciting, publicly funded options for school, the "need" to live in Ward 3 was wiped out. Keep 'em coming, charter board.

Not true. Look what happened in Capitol Hill with a group of parents? They wanted to stay in the city so they met in someone's living room, put their muscle behind the local PUBLIC school, and made it work. Fast forward some years and try to repeat the experiment, factoring the charters that have opened up. Which came first, the chicken (parents who wanted to stay in the city) or the egg (better schools they demanded?)

Charters opened up and competed with the inbounds. Now lots of new people moving in to say, bloomingdale. What does the local school look like? When the HIll experienced this type of gentrification, the parents didnt get picked off by dozens of options. They had to choose between moving away, private, or invigorating the local schools.

Don't get me wrong, DCPS are screwed. NCLB was a death blow to an already really bad system. But we had the choice to fix or build a bunch of rickety lifeboats. Bottoms up!

The Hill parents working to improve Watkins and Brent was more than 10 years ago, if I have my history right. And in the time since charters have strengthened, especially Two Rivers which pulls many Hill kids, and Watkins has declined: how many high SES kids with involved parents stay at Watkins or Brent past 3rd or 4th grade? They've mostly peeled off to charters or privates. This fueled by choice, wonderful choice, in public education. If their upper grades continue to not make the grade, so to speak, we will see the trickle down effect of attrition in the schools and then so much for your decade-old fairy tale of rallying around a Hill neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If it wasn't for our charter, we would have moved or sent DC to private school.

The ability to stay in the city and send your child to a charter is what has fueled the demographic shift in DC the last ten years. With viable, diverse, exciting, publicly funded options for school, the "need" to live in Ward 3 was wiped out. Keep 'em coming, charter board.

Not true. Look what happened in Capitol Hill with a group of parents? They wanted to stay in the city so they met in someone's living room, put their muscle behind the local PUBLIC school, and made it work. Fast forward some years and try to repeat the experiment, factoring the charters that have opened up. Which came first, the chicken (parents who wanted to stay in the city) or the egg (better schools they demanded?)

Charters opened up and competed with the inbounds. Now lots of new people moving in to say, bloomingdale. What does the local school look like? When the HIll experienced this type of gentrification, the parents didnt get picked off by dozens of options. They had to choose between moving away, private, or invigorating the local schools.

Don't get me wrong, DCPS are screwed. NCLB was a death blow to an already really bad system. But we had the choice to fix or build a bunch of rickety lifeboats. Bottoms up!

Thomson tried that, and DCPS put in a horrible principal that scared everyone away. Garrison tried this and DCPS just tried to shut them down. It's not always a neighborhood problem. DCPS does not always help this issue. Also, everyone is still waiting for a decent DCPS middle school option (other than the already overfilled Deal), DCPS is not responding. Don't blame this on the charters or the neighborhoods as most would love to be able to back a neighborhood school, but they meet heavy resistance.

[Anonymous]

Brent's turn around started when, spurred by the fact that Two Rivers provided it, neighbors asked tommy wells and the chancellor at that time to provide prek 3. Prek 3 started at brent October 2005. So the kids in that Pre k 3 group have just hit 5th grade this school year. I believe most in that group stayed at Brent until 5th, where they left for Latin or basis. I'm not sure this exodus at 4th is especially tragic for any one. After prek 3, Pre k 4, k, 1, 2, 3, and 4 all at one school, one can't be surprised that a family is ready for something new. those few kids that remain at Brent for 5th get the advantage of small class size and in flux of new friends from kids whose parents prefer Brent to Latin or basis for 5th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If it wasn't for our charter, we would have moved or sent DC to private school.

The ability to stay in the city and send your child to a charter is what has fueled the demographic shift in DC the last ten years. With viable, diverse, exciting, publicly funded options for school, the "need" to live in Ward 3 was wiped out. Keep 'em coming, charter board.

Not true. Look what happened in Capitol Hill with a group of parents? They wanted to stay in the city so they met in someone's living room, put their muscle behind the local PUBLIC school, and made it work. Fast forward some years and try to repeat the experiment, factoring the charters that have opened up. Which came first, the chicken (parents who wanted to stay in the city) or the egg (better schools they demanded?)

Charters opened up and competed with the inbounds. Now lots of new people moving in to say, bloomingdale. What does the local school look like? When the HIll experienced this type of gentrification, the parents didnt get picked off by dozens of options. They had to choose between moving away, private, or invigorating the local schools.

Don't get me wrong, DCPS are screwed. NCLB was a death blow to an already really bad system. But we had the choice to fix or build a bunch of rickety lifeboats. Bottoms up!

The Hill parents working to improve Watkins and Brent was more than 10 years ago, if I have my history right. And in the time since charters have strengthened, especially Two Rivers which pulls many Hill kids, and Watkins has declined: how many high SES kids with involved parents stay at Watkins or Brent past 3rd or 4th grade? They've mostly peeled off to charters or privates. This fueled by choice, wonderful choice, in public education. If their upper grades continue to not make the grade, so to speak, we will see the trickle down effect of attrition in the schools and then so much for your decade-old fairy tale of rallying around a Hill neighborhood school.

Bloomingdale HAS no local school. It is one of the closed down by Michelle Rhee. The ANC Commissioner then ran a campaign that ensured no school could ever locate there by having the school building torn down. It's a lovely park now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If it wasn't for our charter, we would have moved or sent DC to private school.

The ability to stay in the city and send your child to a charter is what has fueled the demographic shift in DC the last ten years. With viable, diverse, exciting, publicly funded options for school, the "need" to live in Ward 3 was wiped out. Keep 'em coming, charter board.

Not true. Look what happened in Capitol Hill with a group of parents? They wanted to stay in the city so they met in someone's living room, put their muscle behind the local PUBLIC school, and made it work. Fast forward some years and try to repeat the experiment, factoring the charters that have opened up. Which came first, the chicken (parents who wanted to stay in the city) or the egg (better schools they demanded?)

Charters opened up and competed with the inbounds. Now lots of new people moving in to say, bloomingdale. What does the local school look like? When the HIll experienced this type of gentrification, the parents didnt get picked off by dozens of options. They had to choose between moving away, private, or invigorating the local schools.

Don't get me wrong, DCPS are screwed. NCLB was a death blow to an already really bad system. But we had the choice to fix or build a bunch of rickety lifeboats. Bottoms up!

The Hill parents working to improve Watkins and Brent was more than 10 years ago, if I have my history right. And in the time since charters have strengthened, especially Two Rivers which pulls many Hill kids, and Watkins has declined: how many high SES kids with involved parents stay at Watkins or Brent past 3rd or 4th grade? They've mostly peeled off to charters or privates. This fueled by choice, wonderful choice, in public education. If their upper grades continue to not make the grade, so to speak, we will see the trickle down effect of attrition in the schools and then so much for your decade-old fairy tale of rallying around a Hill neighborhood school.

Bloomingdale HAS no local school. It is one of the closed down by Michelle Rhee. The ANC Commissioner then ran a campaign that ensured no school could ever locate there by having the school building torn down. It's a lovely park now.

Which school are you talking about? Most folks I know in Bloomingdale are zoned for Langley Elementary.

[Anonymous]

The ANC Commissioner then ran a campaign that ensured no school could ever locate there by having the school building torn down.

Wait. What? That was considered a good thing in the community, to never, ever, ever have a local school in the community?

I feel like I'm missing something. I admit I'm merely curious, I'm not going to move to Bloomingdale but I love local politics of all kinds.