Implications of a Trump presidency for DC schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's why he built himself a safehouse (hotel).

Which will be surrounded for four years. With DC's lack of loitering laws, can we park all the homeless outside his hotel?

Also, can we put it out of business by then with zero customers?

^^this - but it might not take any active effort on our part. it's going to do that all by itself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not inconceivable that DC will be forced to implement a much more broad-based school voucher program than it currently has. That could result in a lot more kids leaving DCPS and charters for private schools, and resources being drained from the public sector.

no private schools worth a damn are taking vouchers and the ones that do are not really any more attractive than many public/charter options. The bargain basement privates are parochial and a total mixed bag. School choice already has a firm place in the DC education landscape. This wouldn't change anything.

My bigger question -- how would the Feds administer this when they're supposed to be eliminating the Dept of Ed? I know 99.9% of what passes through his lips is utter BS, but how do you propose programs with no means of actually administering them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not inconceivable that DC will be forced to implement a much more broad-based school voucher program than it currently has. That could result in a lot more kids leaving DCPS and charters for private schools, and resources being drained from the public sector.

no private schools worth a damn are taking vouchers and the ones that do are not really any more attractive than many public/charter options. The bargain basement privates are parochial and a total mixed bag. School choice already has a firm place in the DC education landscape. This wouldn't change anything.

My bigger question -- how would the Feds administer this when they're supposed to be eliminating the Dept of Ed? I know 99.9% of what passes through his lips is utter BS, but how do you propose programs with no means of actually administering them?

I think you are dismissing this too easily. The Department of Education wouldn't have to administer anything. This would be the Feds forcing DC to cut a check to any resident of DC with a child in a private school. You think even high-end private schools would turn down $10K+ in a cash transfer? Highly unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No implications. Seriously, every four years people get stressed out about how schools and real estate are going to change, but they don't. The government jobs, contractors, NGOs, lawyers and lobbyists are all the same regardless.

I think this is different. A Trump administration is going to draw a particular breed. In addition, many Democratic Liberals who work for the government or government contractors - from USAID to EPA to Labor to Justice - are just not going to have the stomach to work for organizations that ultimately report to Donald Trump. I think you're going to see a lot of these people move out of DC. It's nowhere near as appealing to live in DC and be part of the "DC scene" when it's going to be led by a bigoted demagogue. East Coasters are just not going to want to be part of it at all. I already hear people talking about leaving; some aren't serious and won't, but MANY 20 and 30 somethings without mortgages or kids can easily pick up and move to NY, Boston, Philly, the West Coast, or any other place that isn't "where Donald Trump lives."

If Cruz or Rubio or Jeb won, I wouldn't be saying this. But there is something very tangibly, palpably different about this.

I'm not seeing it. The president has very little contact with the city itself. The Bushes never even went out to dinner in DC. Advisors live in Great Falls and send their kids to private schools. Most of us feds/NGO types plan to just ride it out. The ones with a real liberal conscience are determined to do their best to fight for their agency's mission, and the money grubbers will stick around if the jobs do.

They did, actually. Like twice to Cactus Cantina. I'm hoping every restaurant in the city refuses to serve that monster. I want his four years here to be highly uncomfortable. I want people to shout at his motorcade. I want him to know how much he's hated every time he looks out the white house windows.

You need therapy. I know that phrase gets thrown around a lot on dcum. But you really, really need help. I didn't vote for Trump. I'm disappointed in the election results. However, now that he is going to be our President, I wish him nothing but the best. To do otherwise is like being on an airplane and hoping the pilot screws up. Plus, the anger in your post is concerning. If I knew you, my kids would certainly never be allowed in your home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's why he built himself a safehouse (hotel).

Which will be surrounded for four years. With DC's lack of loitering laws, can we park all the homeless outside his hotel?

Also, can we put it out of business by then with zero customers?

^^this - but it might not take any active effort on our part. it's going to do that all by itself

+1, was already happening before the election.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/trumps-d-c-hotel-shows-as-poll-sink-so-does-his-brand.html

Of course, this does not account for the potential uptick in business attributable to the stream of Trump voters who may now view the place as a pilgrimage destination on their monument-viewing summer vacation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No implications. Seriously, every four years people get stressed out about how schools and real estate are going to change, but they don't. The government jobs, contractors, NGOs, lawyers and lobbyists are all the same regardless.

I think this is different. A Trump administration is going to draw a particular breed. In addition, many Democratic Liberals who work for the government or government contractors - from USAID to EPA to Labor to Justice - are just not going to have the stomach to work for organizations that ultimately report to Donald Trump. I think you're going to see a lot of these people move out of DC. It's nowhere near as appealing to live in DC and be part of the "DC scene" when it's going to be led by a bigoted demagogue. East Coasters are just not going to want to be part of it at all. I already hear people talking about leaving; some aren't serious and won't, but MANY 20 and 30 somethings without mortgages or kids can easily pick up and move to NY, Boston, Philly, the West Coast, or any other place that isn't "where Donald Trump lives."

If Cruz or Rubio or Jeb won, I wouldn't be saying this. But there is something very tangibly, palpably different about this.

I'm not seeing it. The president has very little contact with the city itself. The Bushes never even went out to dinner in DC. Advisors live in Great Falls and send their kids to private schools. Most of us feds/NGO types plan to just ride it out. The ones with a real liberal conscience are determined to do their best to fight for their agency's mission, and the money grubbers will stick around if the jobs do.

I'm the PP you quoted. I dearly hope you're right.

[Anonymous]

well I can tell you as someone who works in real estate we are expecting a slow down. I would imagine that most folks working in the Trump Admin wont live in DC at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No implications. Seriously, every four years people get stressed out about how schools and real estate are going to change, but they don't. The government jobs, contractors, NGOs, lawyers and lobbyists are all the same regardless.

I think this is different. A Trump administration is going to draw a particular breed. In addition, many Democratic Liberals who work for the government or government contractors - from USAID to EPA to Labor to Justice - are just not going to have the stomach to work for organizations that ultimately report to Donald Trump. I think you're going to see a lot of these people move out of DC. It's nowhere near as appealing to live in DC and be part of the "DC scene" when it's going to be led by a bigoted demagogue. East Coasters are just not going to want to be part of it at all. I already hear people talking about leaving; some aren't serious and won't, but MANY 20 and 30 somethings without mortgages or kids can easily pick up and move to NY, Boston, Philly, the West Coast, or any other place that isn't "where Donald Trump lives."

If Cruz or Rubio or Jeb won, I wouldn't be saying this. But there is something very tangibly, palpably different about this.

I'm not seeing it. The president has very little contact with the city itself. The Bushes never even went out to dinner in DC. Advisors live in Great Falls and send their kids to private schools. Most of us feds/NGO types plan to just ride it out. The ones with a real liberal conscience are determined to do their best to fight for their agency's mission, and the money grubbers will stick around if the jobs do.

They did, actually. Like twice to Cactus Cantina. I'm hoping every restaurant in the city refuses to serve that monster. I want his four years here to be highly uncomfortable. I want people to shout at his motorcade. I want him to know how much he's hated every time he looks out the white house windows.

You need therapy. I know that phrase gets thrown around a lot on dcum. But you really, really need help. I didn't vote for Trump. I'm disappointed in the election results. However, now that he is going to be our President, I wish him nothing but the best. To do otherwise is like being on an airplane and hoping the pilot screws up. Plus, the anger in your post is concerning. If I knew you, my kids would certainly never be allowed in your home.

NP here. Oh please, give me a break. That person needs therapy? If Donald had lost, his supporters would be out rioting, marching, calling to have HRC locked up, creating all kinds of civil disturbance online through violent and misogynist trolling. It would be unreal. So a little anger TWO DAYS after the election is very, very normal. I will be joining you, PP, in shouting at his motorcade. Let's put this in perspective. We just elected a complete clown who assaults women, threatens to ban muslims from entering, wants to punish women for having abortions - I could go on and on.

[Anonymous]

In terms of education, Republicans generally push for block grants. They want less federal oversight and more power for the states. In some respects, this could be a good thing, as too much Fed interference can negatively impact states (this happened under Obama). But a swing in the other direction will essentially result in a blank check to states. Meaning, the hurdles required for states/state governors to receive fed funding will be diminished to the point where they will not held accountable for performance.

As with most things, a healthy balance is whats needed. However Trump does not seem like a balanced person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No implications. Seriously, every four years people get stressed out about how schools and real estate are going to change, but they don't. The government jobs, contractors, NGOs, lawyers and lobbyists are all the same regardless.

I think this is different. A Trump administration is going to draw a particular breed. In addition, many Democratic Liberals who work for the government or government contractors - from USAID to EPA to Labor to Justice - are just not going to have the stomach to work for organizations that ultimately report to Donald Trump. I think you're going to see a lot of these people move out of DC. It's nowhere near as appealing to live in DC and be part of the "DC scene" when it's going to be led by a bigoted demagogue. East Coasters are just not going to want to be part of it at all. I already hear people talking about leaving; some aren't serious and won't, but MANY 20 and 30 somethings without mortgages or kids can easily pick up and move to NY, Boston, Philly, the West Coast, or any other place that isn't "where Donald Trump lives."

If Cruz or Rubio or Jeb won, I wouldn't be saying this. But there is something very tangibly, palpably different about this.

I'm not seeing it. The president has very little contact with the city itself. The Bushes never even went out to dinner in DC. Advisors live in Great Falls and send their kids to private schools. Most of us feds/NGO types plan to just ride it out. The ones with a real liberal conscience are determined to do their best to fight for their agency's mission, and the money grubbers will stick around if the jobs do.

I'm the PP you quoted. I dearly hope you're right.

OP here. This is what I'm worried about. I certainly hope most people ride it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not inconceivable that DC will be forced to implement a much more broad-based school voucher program than it currently has. That could result in a lot more kids leaving DCPS and charters for private schools, and resources being drained from the public sector.

no private schools worth a damn are taking vouchers and the ones that do are not really any more attractive than many public/charter options. The bargain basement privates are parochial and a total mixed bag. School choice already has a firm place in the DC education landscape. This wouldn't change anything.

My bigger question -- how would the Feds administer this when they're supposed to be eliminating the Dept of Ed? I know 99.9% of what passes through his lips is utter BS, but how do you propose programs with no means of actually administering them?

I think you are dismissing this too easily. The Department of Education wouldn't have to administer anything. This would be the Feds forcing DC to cut a check to any resident of DC with a child in a private school. You think even high-end private schools would turn down $10K+ in a cash transfer? Highly unlikely.

And the other thing is, the private schools won't be admitting new kids with vouchers, but they will happily take a voucher on behalf of a kid who was already there without the benefit of a voucher (i.e., a kid who didn't need a voucher to get that education in the first place). No, this changes nothing. The 90,000+ children in DCPS/PCS will not suddenly find an open seat at St. Albans or Sidwell or Blessed Sacrament. But you will find more Walmart PCSs and "Unschool-your-child-on-line for 10K a year" private schools popping up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not inconceivable that DC will be forced to implement a much more broad-based school voucher program than it currently has. That could result in a lot more kids leaving DCPS and charters for private schools, and resources being drained from the public sector.

no private schools worth a damn are taking vouchers and the ones that do are not really any more attractive than many public/charter options. The bargain basement privates are parochial and a total mixed bag. School choice already has a firm place in the DC education landscape. This wouldn't change anything.

My bigger question -- how would the Feds administer this when they're supposed to be eliminating the Dept of Ed? I know 99.9% of what passes through his lips is utter BS, but how do you propose programs with no means of actually administering them?

I think you are dismissing this too easily. The Department of Education wouldn't have to administer anything. This would be the Feds forcing DC to cut a check to any resident of DC with a child in a private school. You think even high-end private schools would turn down $10K+ in a cash transfer? Highly unlikely.

And the other thing is, the private schools won't be admitting new kids with vouchers, but they will happily take a voucher on behalf of a kid who was already there without the benefit of a voucher (i.e., a kid who didn't need a voucher to get that education in the first place). No, this changes nothing. The 90,000+ children in DCPS/PCS will not suddenly find an open seat at St. Albans or Sidwell or Blessed Sacrament. But you will find more Walmart PCSs and "Unschool-your-child-on-line for 10K a year" private schools popping up.

+1 you can give out all the vouchers you want, but there currently aren't enough private slots in total to take all the kids in failing schools, much less OPEN slots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am thinking all that crime in and around the metro will stop -- either the city will take it seriously, or he'll send the Feds to fix it.

You're dead wrong. First of all it's not the Fed's responsibility to police most of DC. I think you'll see crime increase as policies exacerbate economic disparities and existing opportunity gaps.

Instead of the selfish DC-centric perspective, I'm more concerned about the impact on women and ethnic/racial minorities/disabled in red states where a large parts of the population have normalized offensive attitudes and behavior

Policing is not Fed's responsibility. Prosecuting, sending to jail and keeping in jail criminals, yes .

Read here for instance, about the failures, among others, of the CSOSA (the federal agency charged with watching D.C. offenders released from prison), which did not request a warrant for the arrest of a serial criminal after losing contact with him for 2 weeks after he cut off the GPS monitoring bracelet. The man eventually ended up raping a woman inside her Capitol Hill house.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/off-the-grid-how-a-violent-offender-slipped-through-the-dc-justice-system/2016/05/13/ba4ca96c-ebba-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html

+1.

And prosecution is key in a city where half the local politicos are corrupt -- they must be scared to death now.

Great news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not inconceivable that DC will be forced to implement a much more broad-based school voucher program than it currently has. That could result in a lot more kids leaving DCPS and charters for private schools, and resources being drained from the public sector.

no private schools worth a damn are taking vouchers and the ones that do are not really any more attractive than many public/charter options. The bargain basement privates are parochial and a total mixed bag. School choice already has a firm place in the DC education landscape. This wouldn't change anything.

My bigger question -- how would the Feds administer this when they're supposed to be eliminating the Dept of Ed? I know 99.9% of what passes through his lips is utter BS, but how do you propose programs with no means of actually administering them?

I think you are dismissing this too easily. The Department of Education wouldn't have to administer anything. This would be the Feds forcing DC to cut a check to any resident of DC with a child in a private school. You think even high-end private schools would turn down $10K+ in a cash transfer? Highly unlikely.

the feds don't have that authority and they wouldn't be able to get it. Even in the unlikely event of block grants, this isn't some S Corp or LLC -- you don't just "cut a check". That's pure fantasy. And are we also suggesting that Title I funding goes away. I'm sure lots of red state residents will feel great about starving children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's why he built himself a safehouse (hotel).

Which will be surrounded for four years. With DC's lack of loitering laws, can we park all the homeless outside his hotel?

Also, can we put it out of business by then with zero customers?

^^this - but it might not take any active effort on our part. it's going to do that all by itself

+1, was already happening before the election.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/trumps-d-c-hotel-shows-as-poll-sink-so-does-his-brand.html

Of course, this does not account for the potential uptick in business attributable to the stream of Trump voters who may now view the place as a pilgrimage destination on their monument-viewing summer vacation.

the entire business plan was premised on $700/night room rates at close to full capactiy. this venture was DOA before he iceberged his brand.