Time to Stop Counting on Charters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, somebody gets in, because there are tons of people with kids in charter schools, including me. I understand your frustration, and yes, the odds are low but just like the Powerball somebody's number is going to come up. It just sucks when it isn't yours. The fact that lots of people don't get in doesn't mean that charters are a waste of time. We all play the hand we're dealt. If I hadn't gotten a slot, we simply would have left our child in daycare until K and then enrolled him at a Catholic school.

Yeah! 2 extra years of daycare - because you know, everyone can just pay for that.

You know, if you have children and two working parents this actually should be an expectation. The fact that DC public schools (traditional and charter) have full day ps3 and pk4 is unusual. It is great that the years are available in DC but it is not an entitlement, particularly if you are not the head start target market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50% FARMS... A naive person might ask, "How is it that a city with so many high-income, high powered opportunities, where the brightest and most talented people from all over the country, and for that matter come from all over the world to work, has so many low-income families?"

I'll tell the truth that nobody wants to hear - it's the co-dependent clinging. Low-income residents stay because of the overly generous social safety net to keep them here, and DC politicians cling to that infrastructure and keep it in place because they know they can control and manipulate those votes.

Everyone knows it, but nobody wants to admit it.

This is such a ridiculous myth that people who haven't lived in poverty love to believe. How much do you know about the safety net? Most people who throw this tired argument out have little knowledge of how the safety net actually works, and couldnt explain the difference between TANF and SNAP if they needed to actually stand behind the claim with a well thought out argument. What do you want people to do? Move to a state that provides fewer benefits so that they are even further in poverty, but pehaps they can be homeless, too, and with even less of a chance of escaping poverty.

You try living in poverty for a year and then decide if that's the luxurious lifestyle keeping people in DC.

Oh, it's no myth. Why else cling to DC? It's because the benefits for the poor are far better in DC than in the surrounding area. Wake up, folks. Nobody's buying the BS anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50% FARMS... A naive person might ask, "How is it that a city with so many high-income, high powered opportunities, where the brightest and most talented people from all over the country, and for that matter come from all over the world to work, has so many low-income families?"

I'll tell the truth that nobody wants to hear - it's the co-dependent clinging. Low-income residents stay because of the overly generous social safety net to keep them here, and DC politicians cling to that infrastructure and keep it in place because they know they can control and manipulate those votes.

Everyone knows it, but nobody wants to admit it.

This is such a ridiculous myth that people who haven't lived in poverty love to believe. How much do you know about the safety net? Most people who throw this tired argument out have little knowledge of how the safety net actually works, and couldnt explain the difference between TANF and SNAP if they needed to actually stand behind the claim with a well thought out argument. What do you want people to do? Move to a state that provides fewer benefits so that they are even further in poverty, but pehaps they can be homeless, too, and with even less of a chance of escaping poverty.

You try living in poverty for a year and then decide if that's the luxurious lifestyle keeping people in DC.

Oh, it's no myth. Why else cling to DC? It's because the benefits for the poor are far better in DC than in the surrounding area. Wake up, folks. Nobody's buying the BS anymore.

Why cling to DC? Have you ever tried to move when you have no savings, hardly any credit (if any), and rely on sharing rent/food/childcare with family in order to make it? Maybe you've never been so poor that you don't know what it means to not be able to afford a security deposit.

And even if a poor person could find a way to move, why do you expect them to move somewhere with fewer benefits? So that you can have less poor people in your city? Making people move won't suddenly make them more employable if there are no jobs for them, and they don't have access to job training.

A culture of blaming poor people - instead of insufficient wages, among other things - for the problems associated with poverty is why it's so hard for our country to even make a dent in widespread poverty. Living on government assistance often doesn't even get people TO the poverty line, and the poverty line is certainly not considered desirable and many don't even consider it truly livable. If you think all of that is "BS" you really need to educate yourself about the causes of poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A culture of blaming poor people - instead of insufficient wages, among other things - for the problems associated with poverty is why it's so hard for our country to even make a dent in widespread poverty. Living on government assistance often doesn't even get people TO the poverty line, and the poverty line is certainly not considered desirable and many don't even consider it truly livable. If you think all of that is "BS" you really need to educate yourself about the causes of poverty.

Um, around 75% out of wedlock birthrate for AAs in DC and nation-wide, and 3% for Asian Americans. Nobody puts a gun to one's head and forces one to reproduce without a stable family structure in the mix. No problem in Sweden, where the state provides the necessary childrearing inputs. Big problem in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A culture of blaming poor people - instead of insufficient wages, among other things - for the problems associated with poverty is why it's so hard for our country to even make a dent in widespread poverty. Living on government assistance often doesn't even get people TO the poverty line, and the poverty line is certainly not considered desirable and many don't even consider it truly livable. If you think all of that is "BS" you really need to educate yourself about the causes of poverty.

Um, around 75% out of wedlock birthrate for AAs in DC and nation-wide, and 3% for Asian Americans. Nobody puts a gun to one's head and forces one to reproduce without a stable family structure in the mix. No problem in Sweden, where the state provides the necessary childrearing inputs. Big problem in DC.

The largest number of people in poverty in the US are white Americans. Moreover, in the last three decades of the 20th century, the unmarried birth rate among African American women decreased, but increased among white women. The problem is simply more complex than you think it is, and has to do with a number of issues including: generational poverty, lack of opportunity, lack of access to birth control, and a criminal justice system that locks disproportionate number of black men (thus separating families, making it harder for those men to get a job and build a future). And, yes, Sweden is much different than the United States, but I would say the biggest difference is not the number of people who have children outside of marriage, but the genuine desire for a semblance of equality (including income) and a willingness to make sacrifices so that they can have that equality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50% FARMS... A naive person might ask, "How is it that a city with so many high-income, high powered opportunities, where the brightest and most talented people from all over the country, and for that matter come from all over the world to work, has so many low-income families?"

I'll tell the truth that nobody wants to hear - it's the co-dependent clinging. Low-income residents stay because of the overly generous social safety net to keep them here, and DC politicians cling to that infrastructure and keep it in place because they know they can control and manipulate those votes.

Everyone knows it, but nobody wants to admit it.

I will completely agree with you on an anonymous board...lol
There is little motivation to get out of the low-income bracket to middle....where you get no help at all and are thrown to the wolves...might as well stay low SES where you are safe and sound, sometimes insurance, housing costs and childcare makes me wonder why we work so hard to be in the low middle

I guess my two sisters and I would kindly disagree. We grew up in DC. With the assistance of Food stamps, Medicaid and perhaps assistance we survived. As adults, not one of us has utilized those services. We all worked hard to become a part of the middle income. One is lower middle and the other is middle-middle. I would consider my HI of 240k upper middle. But I know on DCUM that is considered barely surviving.

You guys really need to check your biases and prejudices, for you no not what you type. There is no safety in poverty. Only a fool would believe that. And before you say my story is anecdotal, it is not. I no many former classmates that have similar experiences.

As the PP here - we are lower middle and your HHI is 4xs ours. We are fine, in the real world outside of DC I would even consider us upper middle and we have no trouble paying our bills, but we do struggle to buy new clothes for the kids when they grow out of their old ones and my kids know that we don't buy anything at the super market that isn't on sale - honestly I wouldn't live differently if we did have more money. I know that people can get out of SNAP, section 8 housing, medicaid and vouchers for childcare - but then once you're out of the net there is nothing and no gradual changes dependent on income. There needs to be assistance to grow up instead of just a strict cutoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A culture of blaming poor people - instead of insufficient wages, among other things - for the problems associated with poverty is why it's so hard for our country to even make a dent in widespread poverty. Living on government assistance often doesn't even get people TO the poverty line, and the poverty line is certainly not considered desirable and many don't even consider it truly livable. If you think all of that is "BS" you really need to educate yourself about the causes of poverty.

Um, around 75% out of wedlock birthrate for AAs in DC and nation-wide, and 3% for Asian Americans. Nobody puts a gun to one's head and forces one to reproduce without a stable family structure in the mix. No problem in Sweden, where the state provides the necessary childrearing inputs. Big problem in DC.

+1

Nobody put a gun to the head of DC's poor and forced them to make bad decisions for themselves. They did it entirely on their own. AA girls aren't holding guns to AA boys' heads and forcing them to have sex. And, "so many AA men are incarcerated, separating families" - boo frickin hoo. If incarceration's so horrible to AA families then don't do the damn crimes in the first place, then. And incarcerated with a kid to look after? In that case you were DEFINITELY supposed to be looking after the kid, not out screwing around, let alone committing crimes.

Choices. Make the right choices. And stop pretending you have none to make.

[Anonymous]

Its simply amazing how just about any topic on this site turns to race, class and a lot of assumptions about people with whom you'd never interact on more than a cursory level...


Can we get back to a discussion about the lack of true 'choice' in this process?

[Anonymous]

The poster is right that wait lists are much longer at schools like Mundo Verde and IT than they were 2 years ago when those schools were brand new. Back then, we were lamenting how hard it was to get into the more established charters. But two years ago, Creative Minds didn't exist. Sela didn't exist. Two years from now, people will be complaining about how long the wait lists are at these newer schools, but hopefully even newer ones will come on board by then. It isn't ideal, but schools with strong established reputations will always be in demand. Hopefully the supply of good schools -- either charters or traditional DCPS schools -- will continue to grow.

[Anonymous]

Sadly, the WL at CM is already over 400 for PS3 and PK4 and it is only in its 2nd year...

[Anonymous]

But the WLs are only a mile long because DCPC doesn't force families to limit and rank order choices, with names dropping off WLs for lower ranked choices when applicant are admitted to higher ranked choices, like DCPS does. Would it be so unreasonable to streamline and regularize the system? It's much too hard to navigate, poor families can't compete.

[Anonymous]

People freak out when they see WL numbers because, in March, it all tends to seem worse than it is.

Last year, we got into Inpsired Teaching for PreK4 in late September with a number in the 200s. What a tough situation for charter teachers, to have kids coming and going like crazy throughout the first month of school.

But OP is right, counting on charters is increasingly risky business. You might be better off buying for an IB school from the get go, even if you have to go with a fixer, or a small place, and work with other IB parents for a few years to develop the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50% FARMS... A naive person might ask, "How is it that a city with so many high-income, high powered opportunities, where the brightest and most talented people from all over the country, and for that matter come from all over the world to work, has so many low-income families?"

I'll tell the truth that nobody wants to hear - it's the co-dependent clinging. Low-income residents stay because of the overly generous social safety net to keep them here, and DC politicians cling to that infrastructure and keep it in place because they know they can control and manipulate those votes.

Everyone knows it, but nobody wants to admit it.

I will completely agree with you on an anonymous board...lol
There is little motivation to get out of the low-income bracket to middle....where you get no help at all and are thrown to the wolves...might as well stay low SES where you are safe and sound, sometimes insurance, housing costs and childcare makes me wonder why we work so hard to be in the low middle

I guess my two sisters and I would kindly disagree. We grew up in DC. With the assistance of Food stamps, Medicaid and perhaps assistance we survived. As adults, not one of us has utilized those services. We all worked hard to become a part of the middle income. One is lower middle and the other is middle-middle. I would consider my HI of 240k upper middle. But I know on DCUM that is considered barely surviving.

You guys really need to check your biases and prejudices, for you no not what you type. There is no safety in poverty. Only a fool would believe that. And before you say my story is anecdotal, it is not. I no many former classmates that have similar experiences.

As the PP here - we are lower middle and your HHI is 4xs ours. We are fine, in the real world outside of DC I would even consider us upper middle and we have no trouble paying our bills, but we do struggle to buy new clothes for the kids when they grow out of their old ones and my kids know that we don't buy anything at the super market that isn't on sale - honestly I wouldn't live differently if we did have more money. I know that people can get out of SNAP, section 8 housing, medicaid and vouchers for childcare - but then once you're out of the net there is nothing and no gradual changes dependent on income. There needs to be assistance to grow up instead of just a strict cutoff.

You contradict yourself. First, you don't live in DC, so how would you know what the poor people of DC think and feel. Second, in your first post ou said there was no incentive or motivation to leave the low-income status and move to middle income. Yet you turn around and state that you know that there are people who get out of poverty. Do you argue just to argue?