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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nowhere do I or any other PPs say "all kids are getting a better education". Of course that would be ridiculous, because there are charter schools that are not doing well and there are still plenty of failing DCPS schools. No one said ALL kids, not here, not anywhere that I've seen on DCUM. So you can move on from that part of your argument.

Re: your bolded statement, are you saying that the kids now in charters that are performing well or excellently would be doing just as well in DCPS? How can you get around the fact that with the #s of students enrolled in Tier 1 and Tier 2 charters, THEY are getting a better education than their neighborhood schools? And yes, the PP who keeps talking about how charters have led to disinvestment of parents in their neighborhood DCPS schools, as if somehow that would have happened if not for charters, has talked about the negative effect of charters. So yes, someone has said they're bad, even if they're still trying to get their kids in because it's the only "rickety lifeboat" they have.

So, again, the question still remains for those who damn the existence of charters (and yes, that is exactly the bottom line of PPs), what should have/could have happened at the time the charter movement really got going, that would have served the numbers of underserved kids who are now getting a better education at charter schools? Do you know how many low income kids are enrolled in adequately-to-well performing charters now? If you damn charters, you are saying that either it doesn't matter that a signficant number of underserved kids are better off or that the generations of those kids who would have had crappy outcomes was worth sacrificing in order for ___________ to happen instead. (____________ being whatever it is you think would have happened to actually improve DCPS, and we're all still waiting on what that is).

I'm not the "rickety boats" poster, but there's no doubt that charters have led to disinvestment of parents in their neighborhood DCPS schools. It is a FACT that high-SES families in Brookland, N. Michigan Park and Woodridge send their kids to a) charter or b) Catholic schools. And a not-insignificant number homeschool. Yes, some students are getting better educations at charters than they would at their IB schools, but the whole point of IB schools is to have a school of right where you are guaranteed a spot. The charter school does not yet fill that role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nowhere do I or any other PPs say "all kids are getting a better education". Of course that would be ridiculous, because there are charter schools that are not doing well and there are still plenty of failing DCPS schools. No one said ALL kids, not here, not anywhere that I've seen on DCUM. So you can move on from that part of your argument.

Re: your bolded statement, are you saying that the kids now in charters that are performing well or excellently would be doing just as well in DCPS? How can you get around the fact that with the #s of students enrolled in Tier 1 and Tier 2 charters, THEY are getting a better education than their neighborhood schools? And yes, the PP who keeps talking about how charters have led to disinvestment of parents in their neighborhood DCPS schools, as if somehow that would have happened if not for charters, has talked about the negative effect of charters. So yes, someone has said they're bad, even if they're still trying to get their kids in because it's the only "rickety lifeboat" they have.

So, again, the question still remains for those who damn the existence of charters (and yes, that is exactly the bottom line of PPs), what should have/could have happened at the time the charter movement really got going, that would have served the numbers of underserved kids who are now getting a better education at charter schools? Do you know how many low income kids are enrolled in adequately-to-well performing charters now? If you damn charters, you are saying that either it doesn't matter that a signficant number of underserved kids are better off or that the generations of those kids who would have had crappy outcomes was worth sacrificing in order for ___________ to happen instead. (____________ being whatever it is you think would have happened to actually improve DCPS, and we're all still waiting on what that is).

I'm not the "rickety boats" poster, but there's no doubt that charters have led to disinvestment of parents in their neighborhood DCPS schools. It is a FACT that high-SES families in Brookland, N. Michigan Park and Woodridge send their kids to a) charter or b) Catholic schools. And a not-insignificant number homeschool. Yes, some students are getting better educations at charters than they would at their IB schools, but the whole point of IB schools is to have a school of right where you are guaranteed a spot. The charter school does not yet fill that role.

And nowhere that I've posted on this topic (either in this thread or others) have I ever said that that's not true. It is absolutely true that charters have led some parents who, absent charter school choice would be looking much more seriously at what they can do with their neighborhood school. There are still many parents in various stages of "school takeovers" happening in DC, but I have never and would never deny that charters have taken parents away who would have invested in neighborhood schools instead.

Where PPs are wrong or at least are not able to explain why they're "right" is the point made that BECAUSE of charters, some paernt-led reviolution of neighborhood schools that otherwise would have happened did not happen. Read up-thread, that is exactly what one of the most vocal PPs says over and over (and maybe other PPs). That is the point we are discussing:

If that's true, prove it, what was going on at the time charters got off the ground that indicates that all the prior years of drowning DCPS schools and limited parent investment was turning around enough that it was a mistake to focus on starting something new?

And what should have been done with kids at that moment in time when charters got going that would not have sacrificed further generations of awful outcomes that - for the hundreds (more?) now enrolled in good charters, have improved for the better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nowhere do I or any other PPs say "all kids are getting a better education". Of course that would be ridiculous, because there are charter schools that are not doing well and there are still plenty of failing DCPS schools. No one said ALL kids, not here, not anywhere that I've seen on DCUM. So you can move on from that part of your argument.

Re: your bolded statement, are you saying that the kids now in charters that are performing well or excellently would be doing just as well in DCPS? How can you get around the fact that with the #s of students enrolled in Tier 1 and Tier 2 charters, THEY are getting a better education than their neighborhood schools? And yes, the PP who keeps talking about how charters have led to disinvestment of parents in their neighborhood DCPS schools, as if somehow that would have happened if not for charters, has talked about the negative effect of charters. So yes, someone has said they're bad, even if they're still trying to get their kids in because it's the only "rickety lifeboat" they have.

So, again, the question still remains for those who damn the existence of charters (and yes, that is exactly the bottom line of PPs), what should have/could have happened at the time the charter movement really got going, that would have served the numbers of underserved kids who are now getting a better education at charter schools? Do you know how many low income kids are enrolled in adequately-to-well performing charters now? If you damn charters, you are saying that either it doesn't matter that a signficant number of underserved kids are better off or that the generations of those kids who would have had crappy outcomes was worth sacrificing in order for ___________ to happen instead. (____________ being whatever it is you think would have happened to actually improve DCPS, and we're all still waiting on what that is).

I'm not the "rickety boats" poster, but there's no doubt that charters have led to disinvestment of parents in their neighborhood DCPS schools. It is a FACT that high-SES families in Brookland, N. Michigan Park and Woodridge send their kids to a) charter or b) Catholic schools. And a not-insignificant number homeschool. Yes, some students are getting better educations at charters than they would at their IB schools, but the whole point of IB schools is to have a school of right where you are guaranteed a spot. The charter school does not yet fill that role.

And nowhere that I've posted on this topic (either in this thread or others) have I ever said that that's not true. It is absolutely true that charters have led some parents who, absent charter school choice would be looking much more seriously at what they can do with their neighborhood school. There are still many parents in various stages of "school takeovers" happening in DC, but I have never and would never deny that charters have taken parents away who would have invested in neighborhood schools instead.

Where PPs are wrong or at least are not able to explain why they're "right" is the point made that BECAUSE of charters, some paernt-led reviolution of neighborhood schools that otherwise would have happened did not happen. Read up-thread, that is exactly what one of the most vocal PPs says over and over (and maybe other PPs). That is the point we are discussing:

If that's true, prove it, what was going on at the time charters got off the ground that indicates that all the prior years of drowning DCPS schools and limited parent investment was turning around enough that it was a mistake to focus on starting something new?

And what should have been done with kids at that moment in time when charters got going that would not have sacrificed further generations of awful outcomes that - for the hundreds (more?) now enrolled in good charters, have improved for the better?

And by the way, not only do charters not serve the role bolded above, they are not MEANT to serve that role. Charters were the best alternative anyone could come up with for educating students who were getting left behind by a public school system that was unable in some instances, and unwilling in others, to change. They were never meant to be "your friendly neighborhood school, for neighborhood kids". They were meant to be an alternative for kids whose neighborhood schools should have been closed ages ago to get an education.

[Anonymous]

So, to finish the thought above, even though there are not enough charter slots for every kid who has a horrible neighborhood IB school, there are hundreds or more kids who are now enrolled at a school that, while not in their neighborhood, is vastly better than their neighborhood IB school and is giving them the education they otherwise would never have gotten. There are not guaranteed slots for all, but there is a way way better chance of getting a slot at a good school for low income families than there was before charters.

Other than that, will someone please answer PP's 2 questions so s/he won't have to keep asking them again and again? (I agree with the questions, just wish someone would answer because I'm tired of reading them!)

[Anonymous]

It's from a few years ago, but the City Paper did an interesting story on the turnaround in Ward 6 and what it might mean for other wards.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/41381/dc-neighborhood-schooled/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And by the way, not only do charters not serve the role bolded above, they are not MEANT to serve that role. Charters were the best alternative anyone could come up with for educating students who were getting left behind by a public school system that was unable in some instances, and unwilling in others, to change. They were never meant to be "your friendly neighborhood school, for neighborhood kids". They were meant to be an alternative for kids whose neighborhood schools should have been closed ages ago to get an education.

If charters were meant to serve the students who were left behind by a public school system, or whose IB schools should have been closed ages ago, then they should only be open to students assigned to IB schools performing under a certain standard.

I am not, by the way, in favor of this or anything else, I am just pointing out that for your argument to work, charters must specifically exclude kids assigned to good IB schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And by the way, not only do charters not serve the role bolded above, they are not MEANT to serve that role. Charters were the best alternative anyone could come up with for educating students who were getting left behind by a public school system that was unable in some instances, and unwilling in others, to change. They were never meant to be "your friendly neighborhood school, for neighborhood kids". They were meant to be an alternative for kids whose neighborhood schools should have been closed ages ago to get an education.

If charters were meant to serve the students who were left behind by a public school system, or whose IB schools should have been closed ages ago, then they should only be open to students assigned to IB schools performing under a certain standard.

I am not, by the way, in favor of this or anything else, I am just pointing out that for your argument to work, charters must specifically exclude kids assigned to good IB schools.

No, actually, they don't only need to be open to the kids with awful IB schools. If I were designing the system, yes, I'd probably ave a minimum % low income the schools would need to be, which I realize would affect outcomes somewhat for schools like Yu Ying. But in fact, the 30 ish % lw income kids who do get into Yu Ying are getting an education that almost no low income kids in the US are getting right now. And schools like Cap City, Stokes and EL Haynes that are majority low income, those kids are also getting excellent educations they didn't have a prayer at before.

I've never heard/read the real charter innovators (I.e. the founders of the successful DC Charters or members of DCPCS Board) say charters were the answer for 100% of under served kids. But if DCPS was going to piss away most of the money anyway and get rotten outcomes, would it really have been better to allow that indefinitely? No one is stopping DCPS from getting its act together, not even today. But why is it a bad thing that more than a thousand DC low income kids now get way better than they would have gotten?

[Anonymous]

It's not a bad thing. It's a good thing. I don't have a dog in this fight. I am just pointing out that if you want the argument of "charters are meant to educate students left behind by the public schools", then they do in fact need a process to educate these students, and not kids from good IB schools whose parents just happen to want something else. It's an exercise in logic, nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's from a few years ago, but the City Paper did an interesting story on the turnaround in Ward 6 and what it might mean for other wards.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/41381/dc-neighborhood-schooled/

Interesting article. Anyone know if Wells was still working full time when she did this? Says she worked for the Feds but not whether she did while she did all this organizing. It's a very different picture if she was staying home at the time and had daycare or a nanny, than if she was working full time or had zero help with her kids.

Interesting, but even the article itself poses differences between Wells and Capital Hill, and Black middle class parents in wards 5, 7 & 8. And no real solutions to those dynamics other than basically "these parents need to get over their loyalties and apathy and do what Wells did!" But if you acknowledge differences (and the author never mentions just how different the poverty and crime differences are too, even Capital Hill at its worse was not as bad as parts of Ward 7 & 8 then or today), what do you propose will overcome those differences? That is key and was not addressed.

[Anonymous]

Aaah, I see our "rickety lifeboat" PP is also posting her "charters ruined parent-led revolution in DCPS" position in the "Why did you chose where you live?" thread. Well at least she now knows there are many others not buying the "If not for charters, parents would have fixed DCPS and gentrification as we know it today would still have occurred" position, not just those of us posting here. (No, not actual quotes from that PP but certainly accurate distillations of her many posts here.)