Would DCPS be Less Segregated Without Charters?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Together those 3 schools educate 1,875 children, or 4% of all charter students. Yes they should all do more to recruit diverse students, both economically and racially. But sending those students back to their neighborhood schools, given that those students live all over the city, isn't going to change the diversity very much. If you look at both sectors, as of 2018, 48% of charter students were at-risk, compared to 44% of DCPS students (charters also enroll far more adult students, but those are excluded when looking at 'at risk' students. DCPS does serve more ELL students: 7.8% charters, 14.6% DCPS. The sectors are almost dead even when it comes to the percentage of total students with disabilities, but charters serve a higher percentage of students with Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 IEPs, and the sectors are equal for Level 4 (most need). https://www.dcpcsb.org/blog/at-risk-special-ed-students |
Anonymous
And those charters are very racially diverse. Much more so than your typical DCPS school. |
Anonymous
I think the rate at which people would choose to remain in the city would have been much slower without charter schools. We went charter for our oldest, and would have moved to the suburbs or gone private if the choices were that or DCPS in our old neighborhood. That DCPS is now more popular with parents with younger kids than when we made that choice for our oldest. Now that more families are trying to find a way to stay, I do think that charters are preventing some DCPS schools from improving. But I'm not saying that we shouldn't have charters, just that there's an effect there. They still serve a need, but we need much stronger charter oversight. In many EOTP neighborhoods, schools would be radically improved if residents sent their children to the DCPS instead of charters. But you can't force them to stay and try it, and who wants to be the first to send their kid to a not-yet-good school. But some parents are willing to try it as the DCPS elementaries gentrify. In a way, charters helped to keep families in the city long enough for both DCPS and charters to be an option. |
Anonymous
I still think at risk preferences would help. Rich people in gentrifying neighborhoods would be less likely to lottery out of their inbound school, and at-risk people in not-gentrified neighborhoods would have more chance to lottery into a better school. This could help with all the constant churn in EOTP schools. Rich people stay because their choices are limited, at-risk people stay because they had access to better choices. The shortfall is you could eventually get completely gentrified schools a la WOTP, but if you implement at risk set asides now (in addition to lottery preferences), maybe you could keep the school diversity. |
Anonymous
How do you figure? The families that attend these schools pay their fair share of taxes. |
Anonymous
|
So arguments for charters are:
* we help promote neighborhood integration even when people don't like their zoned school. * our schools are integrated, mixed populations (even if very disproportionately UMC compared to the neighborhood) * everybody chooses, stop pretending a school of right isn't a school of choice, especially as residential segregation drives who attends. |
Anonymous
You are chasing something that doesn't exist. As areas gentrify people increasingly choose to embrace the in-bound school until eventually there are no more OOB spots and you still get overcrowding ala WOTP If you gave preference for someone EOTR now into a "good" school EOTP within 5-10 years there would be no more OOB slots for the EOTP school period You are chasing a moving target of "good schools" with OOB spots |
Anonymous
The thing is, rich people's choices are NOT limited. They can move, or they can go private. Diverse charter schools (diverse does not mean reflective of the city's demographic mix. It means more diverse than the city and more diverse than WOTP and EOTR) have been the best way so far to keep the rich kids and the poor kids together in the same public (charter) school. |
Anonymous
+1000. Eventually, traditional DC neighborhood public schools in gentrifying neighborhoods will start to reflect the race and socio-economics of neighboring homeowners. IMO, the charters are helping because some families who wouldn't consider DCPS moved into neighborhoods and started in charters. As their neighborhoods gentrify, these families are now more likely to take a chance on their neighborhood DCPS school. Plus, there are charters within blocks of each other that have wildly different demographics. In general, the older charters that were much more focused on providing an alternative for low-income students in lower performing schools, continue to reflect a higher at-risk, and 95% plus African American population. While newer schools that started out more diverse and offer some type of specialty program (language immersion, Montessori) are much lower at-risk and more racially integrated. There are exceptions to this of course but only a few. |
Anonymous
| The private schools are in certain neighborhoods and so are the private school students. If you don't live there, you may not see them. |
Anonymous
+1. And there are families who send kids to private for just a few of the 12-14 years they are in school. My older DC is a senior and has been in charters all the way through. My younger DC in 8th began in a private this year and will likely be there through at least 10th. My best friend's child went to private just for middle school, then came back to a DCPS application school. If you know families of teens, you will know it's often fluid and that many do spend at least some of their school years in private. |
Anonymous
Have heard very similar concerns from middle and UMC black families- it's a big reason Catholic schools in DC have always attracted a large number of black families (most of whom I assume are not Catholic). In particular these concerns are often concentrated on their sons, for obvious reasons. These stories are from Loudoun County but takes an interesting look at how these families responded to these issues. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900952.html?tid=a_inl_manual https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/club-2012-black-parents-who-made-sure-their-sons-succeeded-in-school/2012/06/14/gJQAnEdZcV_story.html?utm_term=.b2c6695beb49 |
Anonymous
Actually I think the huge changes in schools with No Child Left Behind + Charters that began the massive changes in DC public schools that has fueled a lot of gentrification. Before the schools started to improve, couples with resources to leave did so as soon as they were expecting children. Without reasonable school options, it's not likely gentrification would have extended beyond the close-in neighbhorhoods attracting young/single residents. |
Anonymous
| I do worry sometimes about the point re: no integration, just gentrification. I worry especially if my Hispanic renter neighbors will be able to stay in the neighborhood or if they'll disappear in a few years, out to Hyattsville or Langley Park or wherever. |
Anonymous
|
Yes. Absolutely. I live in a gentrifying area (Brookland) and our IB (Burroughs) definitely does not reflect the diversity of the area. Instead, it's like 95% black and 5% white (which is still an increase from the 1% when I moved here 5 years ago). But that 5% is all in the PK3-4 and K grades. Brookland Middle School is 1% white.
Brookland/Ward 5 is surrounded by really good charter schools, and most UMC families here try to get into them. Burroughs, Noyes and Bunker Hill are a last resort. If the charters weren't an option, the neighborhood schools would likely reflect the population more. |