Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi PP - listen. I'm the 'stressed' poster and it's true that I AM stressed over this. I'm also tired. Maybe that is why I'm having a struggle reading your posts and following. I've had a long week. I really don't get everything you're saying and I'm not trying to be a dick. I think we might agree on more than we disagree on. So since you tried to really explain yourself well i just want to tell you why I'm not trying to refute every point you're making. I can't really tell where we disagree except on whether or not there should be an effort made to provide flexibility for families who don't enter at PS3 or PK4. That is all I want. I am not advocating a hard restart at K. I don't think that's fair to the kids who already dealt with this shit. PP who was advocating for that, however, has some interesting ideas. Maybe it is possible that current families could be grandfathered in.

My loose idea was simply some kind of system where there was some diversity in an entry points. Yes, a new charter could be opened up that starts at K, but this doesn't really do it. As you say, there aren't really that many parents who WANT to start at K. Maybe you could lottery for K a few years ahead, but I accept that this means you still have to pretty much try and guess what school system your child will fit into, which is rough at three (especially when you're dealing with magnet type schools and not something that would probably work for most kids).

I think what I keep responding to is perhaps another poster, who keeps saying that it's not fair to disadvantage the at risk kids by changing the system. I just don't embrace that changing the system disadvantages these kids. Even if the majority of students in DCPS and charters are low income kids, that doesn't mean that every low income kid gets the spot he needs. My challenge to you is to tell me how this system is serving the kids across the river? My position is that the charter school "out" is doing the opposite. When you provide kids of a higher SES multiple options for schools, they will not choose the school that could benefit from their enrollment. And yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't want to force kids into underperforming schools, but you're still forcing the poor kids into underperforming schools. AND, you then make it an "other people's problem" kind of thing, because the happy parents in OOB schools or lotteried into top charters are no longer (generally speaking, there are exceptions) fighting with the same energy they might have otherwise put into fixing the in-bounds. It reduces the city-wide appetite to improve all schools.

Really, what I'm "anti" here is not parents who have already lotteried in. Not at all. I see them as having to play the same system. It works really well for some of them, and they lucked out. But I don't think its fundamentally more FAIR to make me start my kid at 3, any more than I think it is fundamentally FAIR to make someone lottery twice. Both are unfair and should be rejected. But just because one is unfair does not make the other fair by default. Life does not exist in neat rows of point and counterpoint. IMO, both options would be unfair. So it's time to start thinking of something else.

With all of the great thinkers on these boards, I bet we could come up with ways that the system work afford more flexibility while protecting those kids whose parents have already endured the grueling aspect of the lotteries.

I was going to try an analogy to simplify this conversation but if you don't understand my previous post to you laying it out, I doubt understanding is going to happen. At least we tried...

PP, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your posts are rambling and hard to follow. I'm too tired to correct your grammatical mistakes. You keep asking everyone to produce numbers. Do you have numbers for your claims?

You're rude, and you won't do your "side" any favors by continuing this fight because you don't know how to lay out a compelling argument.

Carry on though.

Wow, after I laid it out step by step you still can't follow? That isn't you tired or you confused. That means you don't have an out, you can't figure out a way to continue to make your point that somehow reserving slots for K only lottery doesn't only benefit advantaged families so you're claiming "I can't follow". And re: you thinking I'm rude, I'm ok with that. I think you are clueless and selfish for not being able to see or admit that this whole conversation about how the needs of families who want to keep their kids home up to K somehow is not just about advantaged families who make up a less than majority of the public school system. I think trying to frame it as a win-win is disingenous and obnoxious. So we all have our feelings.

As for numbers, assuming you somehow missed this from my prior posts, I got my numbers from the schools themselves in conversation. It is part of something I had to do for my job, and no I did not write up what they told me and post it to an internet website for the purpose of this conversation, no. But ironically I just left a mtg (work-related, not personal) where the shift in students from Ward 8 going to schools all over the district was brought up because it's causing agencies who work primarily with families in wards 7 and 8 to rethink where they provide services to kids. Because... wait for it... those kids are going to school all over the city in INCREASING numebrs, not DEcreasing numbers. It never even occurred to me that people who know DC schools would not know that the student enrollment is still majority FARMS, including most of the charters (and yes, including most of the popular charters).

I get my information from the schools themselves on FARMS %. Where are you getting your information? When I have time I'll try to contact some of the folks I work with re: whether there's a site that shows at least school year 11-12 numbers. In the meantime though, do tell, where are

you and the other poster that questioned that getting your numbers? What data have you seen to believe even the charters alone are NOT majority FARMS? Or are you just winging it still trying to justify that a policy (slots for K only lottery saved) still wouuld somehow NOT hurt majority disadvantaged families, even though it would clearly only benefit majority advantaged families?

See the following link from the PSCB -- the FARM % are reported for each school. Please note that MV is 29.3% FARM. This data is from last year. I am parent at the school and the percentage this year is approx. 35%. Not sure who you talked to, but that is the number as reported.

LAMB 31.7%
Cap City 48.1%
Inspired 22.2%

forget link!

http://www.dcpubliccharter.com/PCSB-Publications/PMF-Results.aspx

See: 2012 DC Charter School Performance Reports

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi PP - listen. I'm the 'stressed' poster and it's true that I AM stressed over this. I'm also tired. Maybe that is why I'm having a struggle reading your posts and following. I've had a long week. I really don't get everything you're saying and I'm not trying to be a dick. I think we might agree on more than we disagree on. So since you tried to really explain yourself well i just want to tell you why I'm not trying to refute every point you're making. I can't really tell where we disagree except on whether or not there should be an effort made to provide flexibility for families who don't enter at PS3 or PK4. That is all I want. I am not advocating a hard restart at K. I don't think that's fair to the kids who already dealt with this shit. PP who was advocating for that, however, has some interesting ideas. Maybe it is possible that current families could be grandfathered in.

My loose idea was simply some kind of system where there was some diversity in an entry points. Yes, a new charter could be opened up that starts at K, but this doesn't really do it. As you say, there aren't really that many parents who WANT to start at K. Maybe you could lottery for K a few years ahead, but I accept that this means you still have to pretty much try and guess what school system your child will fit into, which is rough at three (especially when you're dealing with magnet type schools and not something that would probably work for most kids).

I think what I keep responding to is perhaps another poster, who keeps saying that it's not fair to disadvantage the at risk kids by changing the system. I just don't embrace that changing the system disadvantages these kids. Even if the majority of students in DCPS and charters are low income kids, that doesn't mean that every low income kid gets the spot he needs. My challenge to you is to tell me how this system is serving the kids across the river? My position is that the charter school "out" is doing the opposite. When you provide kids of a higher SES multiple options for schools, they will not choose the school that could benefit from their enrollment. And yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't want to force kids into underperforming schools, but you're still forcing the poor kids into underperforming schools. AND, you then make it an "other people's problem" kind of thing, because the happy parents in OOB schools or lotteried into top charters are no longer (generally speaking, there are exceptions) fighting with the same energy they might have otherwise put into fixing the in-bounds. It reduces the city-wide appetite to improve all schools.

Really, what I'm "anti" here is not parents who have already lotteried in. Not at all. I see them as having to play the same system. It works really well for some of them, and they lucked out. But I don't think its fundamentally more FAIR to make me start my kid at 3, any more than I think it is fundamentally FAIR to make someone lottery twice. Both are unfair and should be rejected. But just because one is unfair does not make the other fair by default. Life does not exist in neat rows of point and counterpoint. IMO, both options would be unfair. So it's time to start thinking of something else.

With all of the great thinkers on these boards, I bet we could come up with ways that the system work afford more flexibility while protecting those kids whose parents have already endured the grueling aspect of the lotteries.

I was going to try an analogy to simplify this conversation but if you don't understand my previous post to you laying it out, I doubt understanding is going to happen. At least we tried...

PP, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your posts are rambling and hard to follow. I'm too tired to correct your grammatical mistakes. You keep asking everyone to produce numbers. Do you have numbers for your claims?

You're rude, and you won't do your "side" any favors by continuing this fight because you don't know how to lay out a compelling argument.

Carry on though.

Wow, after I laid it out step by step you still can't follow? That isn't you tired or you confused. That means you don't have an out, you can't figure out a way to continue to make your point that somehow reserving slots for K only lottery doesn't only benefit advantaged families so you're claiming "I can't follow". And re: you thinking I'm rude, I'm ok with that. I think you are clueless and selfish for not being able to see or admit that this whole conversation about how the needs of families who want to keep their kids home up to K somehow is not just about advantaged families who make up a less than majority of the public school system. I think trying to frame it as a win-win is disingenous and obnoxious. So we all have our feelings.

As for numbers, assuming you somehow missed this from my prior posts, I got my numbers from the schools themselves in conversation. It is part of something I had to do for my job, and no I did not write up what they told me and post it to an internet website for the purpose of this conversation, no. But ironically I just left a mtg (work-related, not personal) where the shift in students from Ward 8 going to schools all over the district was brought up because it's causing agencies who work primarily with families in wards 7 and 8 to rethink where they provide services to kids. Because... wait for it... those kids are going to school all over the city in INCREASING numebrs, not DEcreasing numbers. It never even occurred to me that people who know DC schools would not know that the student enrollment is still majority FARMS, including most of the charters (and yes, including most of the popular charters).

I get my information from the schools themselves on FARMS %. Where are you getting your information? When I have time I'll try to contact some of the folks I work with re: whether there's a site that shows at least school year 11-12 numbers. In the meantime though, do tell, where are

you and the other poster that questioned that getting your numbers? What data have you seen to believe even the charters alone are NOT majority FARMS? Or are you just winging it still trying to justify that a policy (slots for K only lottery saved) still wouuld somehow NOT hurt majority disadvantaged families, even though it would clearly only benefit majority advantaged families?

See the following link from the PSCB -- the FARM % are reported for each school. Please note that MV is 29.3% FARM. This data is from last year. I am parent at the school and the percentage this year is approx. 35%. Not sure who you talked to, but that is the number as reported.

LAMB 31.7%
Cap City 48.1%
Inspired 22.2%

To PP quoted in bold. Your messages average 8000 words long and 3/4 of it is nonsense wrapped in run on sentences. The rest seems to be rambling ranty shit you pull out of your bum. I'm not tired anymore, and I still can't follow. Take a writing class.

[Anonymous]

Exchange contact info so you people can hash this out in person. Close this tedious thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exchange contact info so you people can hash this out in person. Close this tedious thread.

Because it is so hard to just not open it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi PP - listen. I'm the 'stressed' poster and it's true that I AM stressed over this. I'm also tired. Maybe that is why I'm having a struggle reading your posts and following. I've had a long week. I really don't get everything you're saying and I'm not trying to be a dick. I think we might agree on more than we disagree on. So since you tried to really explain yourself well i just want to tell you why I'm not trying to refute every point you're making. I can't really tell where we disagree except on whether or not there should be an effort made to provide flexibility for families who don't enter at PS3 or PK4. That is all I want. I am not advocating a hard restart at K. I don't think that's fair to the kids who already dealt with this shit. PP who was advocating for that, however, has some interesting ideas. Maybe it is possible that current families could be grandfathered in.

My loose idea was simply some kind of system where there was some diversity in an entry points. Yes, a new charter could be opened up that starts at K, but this doesn't really do it. As you say, there aren't really that many parents who WANT to start at K. Maybe you could lottery for K a few years ahead, but I accept that this means you still have to pretty much try and guess what school system your child will fit into, which is rough at three (especially when you're dealing with magnet type schools and not something that would probably work for most kids).

I think what I keep responding to is perhaps another poster, who keeps saying that it's not fair to disadvantage the at risk kids by changing the system. I just don't embrace that changing the system disadvantages these kids. Even if the majority of students in DCPS and charters are low income kids, that doesn't mean that every low income kid gets the spot he needs. My challenge to you is to tell me how this system is serving the kids across the river? My position is that the charter school "out" is doing the opposite. When you provide kids of a higher SES multiple options for schools, they will not choose the school that could benefit from their enrollment. And yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't want to force kids into underperforming schools, but you're still forcing the poor kids into underperforming schools. AND, you then make it an "other people's problem" kind of thing, because the happy parents in OOB schools or lotteried into top charters are no longer (generally speaking, there are exceptions) fighting with the same energy they might have otherwise put into fixing the in-bounds. It reduces the city-wide appetite to improve all schools.

Really, what I'm "anti" here is not parents who have already lotteried in. Not at all. I see them as having to play the same system. It works really well for some of them, and they lucked out. But I don't think its fundamentally more FAIR to make me start my kid at 3, any more than I think it is fundamentally FAIR to make someone lottery twice. Both are unfair and should be rejected. But just because one is unfair does not make the other fair by default. Life does not exist in neat rows of point and counterpoint. IMO, both options would be unfair. So it's time to start thinking of something else.

With all of the great thinkers on these boards, I bet we could come up with ways that the system work afford more flexibility while protecting those kids whose parents have already endured the grueling aspect of the lotteries.

I was going to try an analogy to simplify this conversation but if you don't understand my previous post to you laying it out, I doubt understanding is going to happen. At least we tried...

PP, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your posts are rambling and hard to follow. I'm too tired to correct your grammatical mistakes. You keep asking everyone to produce numbers. Do you have numbers for your claims?

You're rude, and you won't do your "side" any favors by continuing this fight because you don't know how to lay out a compelling argument.

Carry on though.

Wow, after I laid it out step by step you still can't follow? That isn't you tired or you confused. That means you don't have an out, you can't figure out a way to continue to make your point that somehow reserving slots for K only lottery doesn't only benefit advantaged families so you're claiming "I can't follow". And re: you thinking I'm rude, I'm ok with that. I think you are clueless and selfish for not being able to see or admit that this whole conversation about how the needs of families who want to keep their kids home up to K somehow is not just about advantaged families who make up a less than majority of the public school system. I think trying to frame it as a win-win is disingenous and obnoxious. So we all have our feelings.

As for numbers, assuming you somehow missed this from my prior posts, I got my numbers from the schools themselves in conversation. It is part of something I had to do for my job, and no I did not write up what they told me and post it to an internet website for the purpose of this conversation, no. But ironically I just left a mtg (work-related, not personal) where the shift in students from Ward 8 going to schools all over the district was brought up because it's causing agencies who work primarily with families in wards 7 and 8 to rethink where they provide services to kids. Because... wait for it... those kids are going to school all over the city in INCREASING numebrs, not DEcreasing numbers. It never even occurred to me that people who know DC schools would not know that the student enrollment is still majority FARMS, including most of the charters (and yes, including most of the popular charters).

I get my information from the schools themselves on FARMS %. Where are you getting your information? When I have time I'll try to contact some of the folks I work with re: whether there's a site that shows at least school year 11-12 numbers. In the meantime though, do tell, where are

you and the other poster that questioned that getting your numbers? What data have you seen to believe even the charters alone are NOT majority FARMS? Or are you just winging it still trying to justify that a policy (slots for K only lottery saved) still wouuld somehow NOT hurt majority disadvantaged families, even though it would clearly only benefit majority advantaged families?

See the following link from the PSCB -- the FARM % are reported for each school. Please note that MV is 29.3% FARM. This data is from last year. I am parent at the school and the percentage this year is approx. 35%. Not sure who you talked to, but that is the number as reported.

LAMB 31.7%
Cap City 48.1%
Inspired 22.2%

I'd have to go back to my notes to see who I talked to as well. Is that number in their materials, since it's not on the link you provided

But re: this conversation, let's not stop there, let's look at the other "most popular schools"...

EL Haynes: 58.7% low income
EW Stokes: 78.6% low income
Appletrees: between 50-76% low income (there are several Appletree schools)
DC Bilingual: 84% low income
Meridian: 81.1% low income
Bridges: 61.2%

And that is just the popular ones - you can imagine how much higher the % go and how high the average % low income across the charter system is if you look at ALL DC charter schools.

And there is no way to know how many of the families in the less sought after charters are there because they applied and did not get into the super popular ones. Whereas people with choices can choose to either keep their kids home or do private until they find a super slot, families that don't have those options obviously go to neighborhood schools, OOB for less popular DCPS schools, or to their inbound school.

Thank you for posting that link. My point is still the same: you hold back K slots for a K-only lottery, or make everyone start over again, even if middle/upper class students are affected as well, simply because a majority of students in charters are low income, you impact majority low income students from getting a shot at a Pre-S, or Pre-K slot and getting to stay in a school they love, should they be so lucky to get that slot. Vast majority advantaged/upper income families benefit from K only lottery or slots held, majority low income is negatively impacted. That has been my point all along, thanks PP with the link for helping me show it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi PP - listen. I'm the 'stressed' poster and it's true that I AM stressed over this. I'm also tired. Maybe that is why I'm having a struggle reading your posts and following. I've had a long week. I really don't get everything you're saying and I'm not trying to be a dick. I think we might agree on more than we disagree on. So since you tried to really explain yourself well i just want to tell you why I'm not trying to refute every point you're making. I can't really tell where we disagree except on whether or not there should be an effort made to provide flexibility for families who don't enter at PS3 or PK4. That is all I want. I am not advocating a hard restart at K. I don't think that's fair to the kids who already dealt with this shit. PP who was advocating for that, however, has some interesting ideas. Maybe it is possible that current families could be grandfathered in.

My loose idea was simply some kind of system where there was some diversity in an entry points. Yes, a new charter could be opened up that starts at K, but this doesn't really do it. As you say, there aren't really that many parents who WANT to start at K. Maybe you could lottery for K a few years ahead, but I accept that this means you still have to pretty much try and guess what school system your child will fit into, which is rough at three (especially when you're dealing with magnet type schools and not something that would probably work for most kids).

I think what I keep responding to is perhaps another poster, who keeps saying that it's not fair to disadvantage the at risk kids by changing the system. I just don't embrace that changing the system disadvantages these kids. Even if the majority of students in DCPS and charters are low income kids, that doesn't mean that every low income kid gets the spot he needs. My challenge to you is to tell me how this system is serving the kids across the river? My position is that the charter school "out" is doing the opposite. When you provide kids of a higher SES multiple options for schools, they will not choose the school that could benefit from their enrollment. And yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't want to force kids into underperforming schools, but you're still forcing the poor kids into underperforming schools. AND, you then make it an "other people's problem" kind of thing, because the happy parents in OOB schools or lotteried into top charters are no longer (generally speaking, there are exceptions) fighting with the same energy they might have otherwise put into fixing the in-bounds. It reduces the city-wide appetite to improve all schools.

Really, what I'm "anti" here is not parents who have already lotteried in. Not at all. I see them as having to play the same system. It works really well for some of them, and they lucked out. But I don't think its fundamentally more FAIR to make me start my kid at 3, any more than I think it is fundamentally FAIR to make someone lottery twice. Both are unfair and should be rejected. But just because one is unfair does not make the other fair by default. Life does not exist in neat rows of point and counterpoint. IMO, both options would be unfair. So it's time to start thinking of something else.

With all of the great thinkers on these boards, I bet we could come up with ways that the system work afford more flexibility while protecting those kids whose parents have already endured the grueling aspect of the lotteries.

I was going to try an analogy to simplify this conversation but if you don't understand my previous post to you laying it out, I doubt understanding is going to happen. At least we tried...

PP, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your posts are rambling and hard to follow. I'm too tired to correct your grammatical mistakes. You keep asking everyone to produce numbers. Do you have numbers for your claims?

You're rude, and you won't do your "side" any favors by continuing this fight because you don't know how to lay out a compelling argument.

Carry on though.

Wow, after I laid it out step by step you still can't follow? That isn't you tired or you confused. That means you don't have an out, you can't figure out a way to continue to make your point that somehow reserving slots for K only lottery doesn't only benefit advantaged families so you're claiming "I can't follow". And re: you thinking I'm rude, I'm ok with that. I think you are clueless and selfish for not being able to see or admit that this whole conversation about how the needs of families who want to keep their kids home up to K somehow is not just about advantaged families who make up a less than majority of the public school system. I think trying to frame it as a win-win is disingenous and obnoxious. So we all have our feelings.

As for numbers, assuming you somehow missed this from my prior posts, I got my numbers from the schools themselves in conversation. It is part of something I had to do for my job, and no I did not write up what they told me and post it to an internet website for the purpose of this conversation, no. But ironically I just left a mtg (work-related, not personal) where the shift in students from Ward 8 going to schools all over the district was brought up because it's causing agencies who work primarily with families in wards 7 and 8 to rethink where they provide services to kids. Because... wait for it... those kids are going to school all over the city in INCREASING numebrs, not DEcreasing numbers. It never even occurred to me that people who know DC schools would not know that the student enrollment is still majority FARMS, including most of the charters (and yes, including most of the popular charters).

I get my information from the schools themselves on FARMS %. Where are you getting your information? When I have time I'll try to contact some of the folks I work with re: whether there's a site that shows at least school year 11-12 numbers. In the meantime though, do tell, where are

you and the other poster that questioned that getting your numbers? What data have you seen to believe even the charters alone are NOT majority FARMS? Or are you just winging it still trying to justify that a policy (slots for K only lottery saved) still wouuld somehow NOT hurt majority disadvantaged families, even though it would clearly only benefit majority advantaged families?

See the following link from the PSCB -- the FARM % are reported for each school. Please note that MV is 29.3% FARM. This data is from last year. I am parent at the school and the percentage this year is approx. 35%. Not sure who you talked to, but that is the number as reported.

LAMB 31.7%
Cap City 48.1%
Inspired 22.2%

I'd have to go back to my notes to see who I talked to as well. Is that number in their materials, since it's not on the link you provided

But re: this conversation, let's not stop there, let's look at the other "most popular schools"...

EL Haynes: 58.7% low income
EW Stokes: 78.6% low income
Appletrees: between 50-76% low income (there are several Appletree schools)
DC Bilingual: 84% low income
Meridian: 81.1% low income
Bridges: 61.2%

And that is just the popular ones - you can imagine how much higher the % go and how high the average % low income across the charter system is if you look at ALL DC charter schools.

And there is no way to know how many of the families in the less sought after charters are there because they applied and did not get into the super popular ones. Whereas people with choices can choose to either keep their kids home or do private until they find a super slot, families that don't have those options obviously go to neighborhood schools, OOB for less popular DCPS schools, or to their inbound school.

Thank you for posting that link. My point is still the same: you hold back K slots for a K-only lottery, or make everyone start over again, even if middle/upper class students are affected as well, simply because a majority of students in charters are low income, you impact majority low income students from getting a shot at a Pre-S, or Pre-K slot and getting to stay in a school they love, should they be so lucky to get that slot. Vast majority advantaged/upper income families benefit from K only lottery or slots held, majority low income is negatively impacted. That has been my point all along, thanks PP with the link for helping me show it.

Even looking at other Tier 1 schools that middle class families are increasingly choosing, check out how quickly the low income % get even higher:
Center City Petworth: 78.8% low income
Center City Brightwood: 95.2
Imagine Hope Tolson (where my older kid went for awhile): 81.1% low income

[Anonymous]

Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority.

Fat chance, cuz then your whole goal of reserved K slots at the best charters would never go to you. Unless you had "low income priority slots" (2) and "middle/ upper income priority slots" (20), which would also conveniently wipe out most slots for rising pre-k-ers.

Although, why am I pretty sure you'd be just fine with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority.

Fat chance, cuz then your whole goal of reserved K slots at the best charters would never go to you. Unless you had "low income priority slots" (2) and "middle/ upper income priority slots" (20), which would also conveniently wipe out most slots for rising pre-k-ers.

Although, why am I pretty sure you'd be just fine with that?

Funny how you completely misunderstand my entire goal and the fact that I am not middle or upper income. I wouldn't qualify for low-income at my salary. That's okay with me because I'd prefer to see the program used the way it was intended. For low income kids. If only low income kids could get into the program at the PK / PS level, then they'd reserve remaining spots for people like you and me to duke it out. That sounds okay with me. I don't mind competing fairly with you while leaving a program geared toward REALLY low income kids to serve those kids who need it most instead of wealthy pricks with a "me first" attitude like yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority.

Fat chance, cuz then your whole goal of reserveitd K slots at the best charters would never go to you. Unless you had "low income priority slots" (2) and "middle/ upper income priority slots" (20), which would also conveniently wipe out most slots for rising pre-k-ers.

Although, why am I pretty sure you'd be just fine with that?

Funny how you completely misunderstand my entire goal and the fact that I am not middle or upper income. I wouldn't qualify for low-income at my salary. That's okay with me because I'd prefer to see the program used the way it was intended. For low income kids. If only low income kids could get into the program at the PK / PS level, then they'd reserve remaining spots for people like you and me to duke it out. That sounds okay with me. I don't mind competing fairly with you while leaving a program geared toward REALLY low income kids to serve those kids who need it most instead of wealthy pricks with a "me first" attitude like yours.

Now I get it, because you have some personal view of parenting where you don't apreciate early education for your child, you want DC to eliminate universal preschool/pre-k completely. You are a myopic and extraordinarily selfish, and very short-sighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Now I get it, because you have some personal view of parenting where you don't apreciate early education for your child, you want DC to eliminate universal preschool/pre-k completely. You are a myopic and extraordinarily selfish, and very short-sighted.

Ha, I am not the poster you are responding to, but only on DCUM does someone who suggests turning the program over to the neediest and letting the wealthier folks, INCLUDING HERSELF, compete for fewer slots, get called "extraordinarily selfish." You people amaze me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I get it, because you have some personal view of parenting where you don't apreciate early education for your child, you want DC to eliminate universal preschool/pre-k completely. You are a myopic and extraordinarily selfish, and very short-sighted.

Ha, I am not the poster you are responding to, but only on DCUM does someone who suggests turning the program over to the neediest and letting the wealthier folks, INCLUDING HERSELF, compete for fewer slots, get called "extraordinarily selfish." You people amaze me.

Yes, this is the thing that has amazed me all along. We have posters who are not only defending the fact that the program has been expanded to wealthy families trying to protect it, which is understandable, but actually trying to make the claim that the reason they want to protect it is not their own narrow self interest but rather, the poor at-risk families. When you point out that if you really want to protect the at-risk / poor kids, you turn the program back over to them primarily and make everyone else enter at K, they make the absurd claim that YOU are the selfish one.

So what is it, lady, you either DO or DO NOT care about the at-risk kids? Because let me spell it out for you again. If you take a program that was originally designed to level the playing field for poor children, and extend the free benefits to wealthier kids, and in the process, you don't expand the program to serve ALL children, but only expand it in a way that means there are far more children competing for a very limited amount of spots (there are not enough PS / PK slots to serve every child in DC) you are draining resources away from what they should be doing.

You're lucky that your city will give you access to services intended for the poor. Don't call other people "selfish" for pointing that out.

[Anonymous]

The integration of wealthier families into the system improves the school for the impoverished students. The programs are better and the schools are better, for all students including the most at-risk, now that more middle class families are involved. The universal pre-school/pre-k program has been a great success in revitalizing the system and getting more non-struggling families on board and invested in the system. This was, and continues to be, imperitive to the improvement of the schools individually and the system in general, as it is very difficult for a school - even an excellent school - to serve its population well if it has too high of a percentage of impoverished students.

It is nice that you have woken up, realized that school will be an issue for your child soon but that you don't want to deal with it yet. But, before you decide to actually be involved, send your child, and suggest eliminating huge succewssful programs, you should probably do a bit of research. In fact, while you are at it, you might find that your child could benefit from some formalized early education.

[Anonymous]

Aaaaaand now we're back where we started.

So, OP, to recap, there is no option for you if don't want to get into the melee at age 3. If your kid isn't ready emotionally, too bad. If your kid isn't toilet-trained or cognitively ready, too bad. If you would like your kid to be home with you another year, too bad. DCUM has declared the system to be Good and Right as is. And you are probably a selfish, evil person who doesn't believe in early education and hates poor people if you suggest otherwise.