s/o of We Need More HRCSs

[Anonymous]

I think the complaints that DCPS has it so hard are really quite bogus. DCPS schools receive more funding per student than charters do, they have access to better buildings, supports for athletics, arts, et cetera, they have better access to city services and many other things which should give them a huge competetive advantage over charters right out of the chute.

The reason charters are able to compete at all is because of the CURRICULUM. That's the one thing that DCPS still hasn't figured out. When the high achievers are skimmed off, it's typically because they can find course offerings better suited to their needs, whether better college prep, language immersion, et cetera.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say we don't need more HRCSs.

What we actually need is fewer of them, because the proliferation of charters means that fewer and fewer will have good options for a good-to-excellent by-right school. But it's too hard and not fair to backtrack now, and I see how we got here. Still I think it is the wrong direction. I don't claim to have solutions, just sharing my thoughts.

I should also note that I mean "we" as a city. Not "we" as a frustrated NW or up-and-coming NE parent with one or two cars, stable jobs, and a so/so in-boundary.

I don't agree. Long before HRCS, DC had very few good-to-excellent by-right schools. Most of the improvement we've seen in DCPS, especially the dramatic turn arounds in schools like Deal, Brent, Maury, Powell etc . . . has happened over the past 10 year, after charter schools began to come onto the scene.

Given that, it's hard for me to see how charter schools are causing a reduction in good local public schools.

Can you name a school that was good before charters and now isn't?

Correlation doesn't equal causality. Test scores are correlated with income, and more middle and upper income parents are staying in the city, so test scores have risen at the schools you have cited. Now, if you argue that those patents are lured by the (usually forlorn) hope that they will get into a charter, maybe so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters have poached the best middle school students, creating a spiral of failures.

These are the good students with engaged, aware parents, i.e. the ones I'd hope my kid would still have in his class.

How do they do this? by opening two decent MS's at 5th instead of 6th. These leads more of us figure out a way into Deal, to go private, or leave the system.

Charters clearly don't care. It's all market share to them.

Which middle schools have gone downhill

Before charters, every middle school kid I knew with engaged, aware parents, pre charter, moved to the suburbs, went to private, or figured out how to get to Deal or Hardy.

Jefferson

Lord have mercy, let Jefferson die already. And, some parents actually like the idea of charter schools coming to ward 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think charters have done a good job of putting DCPS on notice and I think DCPS has responded fairly well.

I also think we've got about what we need now - except possibly for charters in wards 7 and 8, specifically focused on at risk kids (like KIPP, etc). I'd like to see charters stabilize a bit and DCPS continue to step it up.

Ultimatley I'd like to see a more rational system where people could get into schools because of the programs, not just to get OUT of bad DCPS options. I'd like the whole system to be less reliant on luck. Perhaps the only way to do that is offer too many options, and then weed out those that can't compete. But that seems like an unstable way to proceed.

Ever heard of "choice sets"? Abby Smith and the Ed Reformers tried to ram those down our throats last year.

Ugh, NO, I did not mean choice sets. That's one way to do it, but not exactly what I'd call a rational way!!! UGH. I know some ed reformers who were supportive, but I don't think it would work in DC, and was too limiting.

I actually am more in favor of charters having some (small) level of neighborhood preference (which might get me banned from this site).

But I think more so - and I don't know how - we need a way that you don't go into Chinese, Spanish, or French because of dumb luck. You go into French because you WANT French, and you don't go someplace else because it doesn't offer French. Or whatever.

I'd also like to see charters, as a PP said, be more about different sorts of alternatives, not just a "better" school.

[Anonymous]

What about language preference? I don't think it's fair that my friend who doesn't speak two words of Spanish sends her kids to Mundo Verde, while I am a native speaker and my husband speaks Spanish as well won't get our DC in there this year for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about language preference? I don't think it's fair that my friend who doesn't speak two words of Spanish sends her kids to Mundo Verde, while I am a native speaker and my husband speaks Spanish as well won't get our DC in there this year for sure.

It's time for the School Reform Act to be amended to allow charter schools, at their discretion, to be selective in admissions and to offer preferences to certain classes of students. It's wasteful of scarce public resources to have kids lottery into schools that are not good fits, only to transfer to other schools in subsequent years. Also, the financial incentives for admitting at-risk kids, $2,000 per kid, I think, will encourage the creation of charters to serve that demographic. With 50% of the kids attending public school in DC at-risk, the best strategy is probably to create charters tailored to serving the needs of at-risk kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think charters have done a good job of putting DCPS on notice and I think DCPS has responded fairly well.

I also think we've got about what we need now - except possibly for charters in wards 7 and 8, specifically focused on at risk kids (like KIPP, etc). I'd like to see charters stabilize a bit and DCPS continue to step it up.

Ultimatley I'd like to see a more rational system where people could get into schools because of the programs, not just to get OUT of bad DCPS options. I'd like the whole system to be less reliant on luck. Perhaps the only way to do that is offer too many options, and then weed out those that can't compete. But that seems like an unstable way to proceed.

Ever heard of "choice sets"? Abby Smith and the Ed Reformers tried to ram those down our throats last year.

Ugh, NO, I did not mean choice sets. That's one way to do it, but not exactly what I'd call a rational way!!! UGH. I know some ed reformers who were supportive, but I don't think it would work in DC, and was too limiting.

I actually am more in favor of charters having some (small) level of neighborhood preference (which might get me banned from this site).

But I think more so - and I don't know how - we need a way that you don't go into Chinese, Spanish, or French because of dumb luck. You go into French because you WANT French, and you don't go someplace else because it doesn't offer French. Or whatever.

I'd also like to see charters, as a PP said, be more about different sorts of alternatives, not just a "better" school.

I think the lottery algorithm successfully achieves what you desire. Now, because of the ranking system, absolutely no one is going to go to Yu Ying unless it is their top 1 or 2 choice, because to get into Yu Ying, you need a really good lottery number, and if you have a really good lottery number,you will get into one of you ur top choices. No one is going to randomly end up at a language immersion school that is highly sought after, because if they didn't want language, they would rank something worse higher, such as creative minds, two rivers etc, which are similarly sought after. I am really glad DC did something right in.tems of using this algo.

I am a parent who speaks near zero spanish and my kids go to a Spanish immersion school. We have found it life enriching to learn together as a family. Our school was our second choice, but we have embraced it.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I did not mean to say something "worse" but meant to say something "else." I am really attracted to the educational philosophy of creative minds, which is why it came to mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I say we don't need more HRCSs.

What we actually need is fewer of them, because the proliferation of charters means that fewer and fewer will have good options for a good-to-excellent by-right school. But it's too hard and not fair to backtrack now, and I see how we got here. Still I think it is the wrong direction. I don't claim to have solutions, just sharing my thoughts.

I should also note that I mean "we" as a city. Not "we" as a frustrated NW or up-and-coming NE parent with one or two cars, stable jobs, and a so/so in-boundary.

I disagree with your assertion about charter schools. First, we don't all have the same definition of what constitutes a "good to excellent by-right school," (there are many schools on this board that are lauded by some and lambasted by others, for example), and we don't all want the same thing out of education (personally, I think Montessori is probably not the greatest idea for my child long-term, but others think it's the greatest thing ever, as another example). I think charters give choice. Yes, there are failing schools in DC, and yes they should be improved. But it's silly to blame those schools' failures on increased choice. The worst schools have completely sucked since anyone can remember, whether there was choice or not. At least now there are other options. And I totally agree with the posters who have pointed out that DCPS has started to up its game since charters came on the scene. I would have never considered living in DC with children 15 years ago. Today is a different story, and I think charters get the credit for a big part of that change.