JKLM residents are killing elementaries in lower NW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Which is why JKLM should stay out of EOTP DCPS. Go charters all you want, but don't duck into our schools just to abandon them when you reach K. No matter how involved you were when you were there, we are better off without you and your spawn.

So people who (i) pay the same taxes as you do, but (ii) live in areas without PS3 programs shouldn't take advantage of the PS3 programs in your neighborhood? Sorry, no.

I don't think you are responding to a serious post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

we bought in Upper NW five years ago, when we were priced out of Mt. Pleasant, the desirable parts of the Hill, U Street and Shaw

Where could this be? ^^^

Why do you need to know? Do you think I'm lying? There obviously weren't too many such opportunities available back then either, but they did exist during that phase after the 2008 crisis. Point being, you cannot generalize that anyone who owns a home and has small kids must have paid over 800K and be rich. There are small homes WOTP, some in crappy condition, and people on budgets equivalent to those of people EOTP have bought here. And even some of the people who did pay that much may be house poor, and it's not for anyone to judge whether or not they should have put themselves into that situation, and whether they must now suck up private preschool as well.

+1. We bought a fixer upper at the bottom of the market and have slowly been fixing ever since. Not everything in Ward 3 is above 800K. But like someone else wisely said, we do not need to explain ourselves. It is called PUBLIC school for a reason. All DC residents have access to it if they so wish. We all pay taxes. IB kids have preference, what do you care where I send my kids to school? If I drive from Palisades to Columbia Heights every morning is my problem.

I care because you are displacing student(s) and family(s) who could be making a long-term commitment to that school, which is the only way schools EOTP will improve. We need to minimize churn and school-hopping.

Just give it a rest. It's been explained to you over and over again why this complaint is neither valid nor actionable in any defensible way.

np here (well, I posted much eariler in this thread). I, along with others, do think it is a valid and defensible complaint. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Long-term impact on a neighborhood school is one of the things you should consider before you enroll yoru child for a year or two at a school. Our voices have also spoken out "over and over" in this thread too. You can't claim consensus. I did send my kid to private prek when I lived wotp.

I'm an EOTP parent at an EOTP DCPS, and my problem with this thread is the assumption that EOTP parents aren't doing this too. I know so many people who play the lottery and move after a year or two at their neighborhood school. The problem for neighborhood schools is not WOTP parents--it is that in an era of school choice, where it is relatively easy to move from one school to another, especially if you play the lottery year after year, people who are pretty happy with a school get into another by luck and go to that other school. That means that people who would be really committed to a neighborhood school are leaving because they get into a demonstrably better school.

I don't have any problem with people enrolling at our school from other parts of the city, even if they know it is just for a year or two, but I do wish that those people would be active in the PTA and in the school. I do feel like, because they know they are short-timers, they don't commit to our school in the way they will to their inbounds school.

The difference is that many EOTP parents who enroll his/her child WOULD stay if the experience was good enough (or as good as any JKLM school). They do school shop and hop around BECAUSE the experience isn't that good. That is not true for your wotp pk3 and pk4ers. They will not stay even if the school they OB into is fantastic because they have a fantastic school with a neighbrohood community (something our eotp school won't ever be able to offer them) beginning at K. I do think this is a moral issue. Not big case Moral, but lower case moral. I wouldn't do it.

There was also a JKLM poster on here who had lotteried into Lamb at pk3 two years ago and were wondering if they should stay for K or move back to their fantastic neighborhood school. They liked Lamb a lot, no problems there. To me that is also a moral issue. You shoudln't have lotteried for Lamb unelss you imtended to stay since Lamb can't fill a spot after pk4.

You are fooling yourself if you think that the majority of EOTP parents who lottery into a school that isn't their first choice for PK3 are going in with an open mind, and not with the intention to play the lottery again the following year to see if they can get into a more desirable school. A great PK3 experience is not going to trump their concern with long-term educational offerings and test scores. So they will keep trying if they can do better. There isn't anything substantially different about that approach than that of WOTP parents who plan to join their IB school for K. The fact that you think so just shows that your "moral compass" on this is really just rooted in your resentment for people who are guaranteed a great option for K.

But I've seen it on this forum. People got into their "not great" IB school as their only option and then decided they liked it and are not playing the lottery and still there. parents report this in this forum. It is a possibility, but not for jklmers. Nobody is taking away choice of jklm parents, just asking them to consider the ramifications of their choices on others before they send their kids to a school that they 100% won't stay at past pk4.

Precisely. Not taking them away from anybody, but trying to make those with decent IB's consider the consequences for others down the line.

Yes, yes, we get your point. We considered it, and came to the conclusion that your request is unreasonable, both in light of the realities of the generally transient nature of DC schools and with regard to granting equal access to communal resources by all DC tax payers as regulated by the OOB lottery system. You need to come to terms with it and find more effective ways to improve your schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

we bought in Upper NW five years ago, when we were priced out of Mt. Pleasant, the desirable parts of the Hill, U Street and Shaw

Where could this be? ^^^

Why do you need to know? Do you think I'm lying? There obviously weren't too many such opportunities available back then either, but they did exist during that phase after the 2008 crisis. Point being, you cannot generalize that anyone who owns a home and has small kids must have paid over 800K and be rich. There are small homes WOTP, some in crappy condition, and people on budgets equivalent to those of people EOTP have bought here. And even some of the people who did pay that much may be house poor, and it's not for anyone to judge whether or not they should have put themselves into that situation, and whether they must now suck up private preschool as well.

+1. We bought a fixer upper at the bottom of the market and have slowly been fixing ever since. Not everything in Ward 3 is above 800K. But like someone else wisely said, we do not need to explain ourselves. It is called PUBLIC school for a reason. All DC residents have access to it if they so wish. We all pay taxes. IB kids have preference, what do you care where I send my kids to school? If I drive from Palisades to Columbia Heights every morning is my problem.

I care because you are displacing student(s) and family(s) who could be making a long-term commitment to that school, which is the only way schools EOTP will improve. We need to minimize churn and school-hopping.

Just give it a rest. It's been explained to you over and over again why this complaint is neither valid nor actionable in any defensible way.

np here (well, I posted much eariler in this thread). I, along with others, do think it is a valid and defensible complaint. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Long-term impact on a neighborhood school is one of the things you should consider before you enroll yoru child for a year or two at a school. Our voices have also spoken out "over and over" in this thread too. You can't claim consensus. I did send my kid to private prek when I lived wotp.

I'm an EOTP parent at an EOTP DCPS, and my problem with this thread is the assumption that EOTP parents aren't doing this too. I know so many people who play the lottery and move after a year or two at their neighborhood school. The problem for neighborhood schools is not WOTP parents--it is that in an era of school choice, where it is relatively easy to move from one school to another, especially if you play the lottery year after year, people who are pretty happy with a school get into another by luck and go to that other school. That means that people who would be really committed to a neighborhood school are leaving because they get into a demonstrably better school.

I don't have any problem with people enrolling at our school from other parts of the city, even if they know it is just for a year or two, but I do wish that those people would be active in the PTA and in the school. I do feel like, because they know they are short-timers, they don't commit to our school in the way they will to their inbounds school.

The difference is that many EOTP parents who enroll his/her child WOULD stay if the experience was good enough (or as good as any JKLM school). They do school shop and hop around BECAUSE the experience isn't that good. That is not true for your wotp pk3 and pk4ers. They will not stay even if the school they OB into is fantastic because they have a fantastic school with a neighbrohood community (something our eotp school won't ever be able to offer them) beginning at K. I do think this is a moral issue. Not big case Moral, but lower case moral. I wouldn't do it.

There was also a JKLM poster on here who had lotteried into Lamb at pk3 two years ago and were wondering if they should stay for K or move back to their fantastic neighborhood school. They liked Lamb a lot, no problems there. To me that is also a moral issue. You shoudln't have lotteried for Lamb unelss you imtended to stay since Lamb can't fill a spot after pk4.

You are fooling yourself if you think that the majority of EOTP parents who lottery into a school that isn't their first choice for PK3 are going in with an open mind, and not with the intention to play the lottery again the following year to see if they can get into a more desirable school. A great PK3 experience is not going to trump their concern with long-term educational offerings and test scores. So they will keep trying if they can do better. There isn't anything substantially different about that approach than that of WOTP parents who plan to join their IB school for K. The fact that you think so just shows that your "moral compass" on this is really just rooted in your resentment for people who are guaranteed a great option for K.

But I've seen it on this forum. People got into their "not great" IB school as their only option and then decided they liked it and are not playing the lottery and still there. parents report this in this forum. It is a possibility, but not for jklmers. Nobody is taking away choice of jklm parents, just asking them to consider the ramifications of their choices on others before they send their kids to a school that they 100% won't stay at past pk4.

Precisely. Not taking them away from anybody, but trying to make those with decent IB's consider the consequences for others down the line.

Yes, yes, we get your point. We considered it, and came to the conclusion that your request is unreasonable, both in light of the realities of the generally transient nature of DC schools and with regard to granting equal access to communal resources by all DC tax payers as regulated by the OOB lottery system. You need to come to terms with it and find more effective ways to improve your schools.

I love the consensus "we" used here used as a hammer. You are not talking to one stubborn poster (I know because I am one of the "consider the harm" posters and the above post is not me).

How about, WE have considered your points and came to the conclusion that just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

we bought in Upper NW five years ago, when we were priced out of Mt. Pleasant, the desirable parts of the Hill, U Street and Shaw

Where could this be? ^^^

Why do you need to know? Do you think I'm lying? There obviously weren't too many such opportunities available back then either, but they did exist during that phase after the 2008 crisis. Point being, you cannot generalize that anyone who owns a home and has small kids must have paid over 800K and be rich. There are small homes WOTP, some in crappy condition, and people on budgets equivalent to those of people EOTP have bought here. And even some of the people who did pay that much may be house poor, and it's not for anyone to judge whether or not they should have put themselves into that situation, and whether they must now suck up private preschool as well.

+1. We bought a fixer upper at the bottom of the market and have slowly been fixing ever since. Not everything in Ward 3 is above 800K. But like someone else wisely said, we do not need to explain ourselves. It is called PUBLIC school for a reason. All DC residents have access to it if they so wish. We all pay taxes. IB kids have preference, what do you care where I send my kids to school? If I drive from Palisades to Columbia Heights every morning is my problem.

I care because you are displacing student(s) and family(s) who could be making a long-term commitment to that school, which is the only way schools EOTP will improve. We need to minimize churn and school-hopping.

Just give it a rest. It's been explained to you over and over again why this complaint is neither valid nor actionable in any defensible way.

np here (well, I posted much eariler in this thread). I, along with others, do think it is a valid and defensible complaint. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Long-term impact on a neighborhood school is one of the things you should consider before you enroll yoru child for a year or two at a school. Our voices have also spoken out "over and over" in this thread too. You can't claim consensus. I did send my kid to private prek when I lived wotp.

I'm an EOTP parent at an EOTP DCPS, and my problem with this thread is the assumption that EOTP parents aren't doing this too. I know so many people who play the lottery and move after a year or two at their neighborhood school. The problem for neighborhood schools is not WOTP parents--it is that in an era of school choice, where it is relatively easy to move from one school to another, especially if you play the lottery year after year, people who are pretty happy with a school get into another by luck and go to that other school. That means that people who would be really committed to a neighborhood school are leaving because they get into a demonstrably better school.

I don't have any problem with people enrolling at our school from other parts of the city, even if they know it is just for a year or two, but I do wish that those people would be active in the PTA and in the school. I do feel like, because they know they are short-timers, they don't commit to our school in the way they will to their inbounds school.

The difference is that many EOTP parents who enroll his/her child WOULD stay if the experience was good enough (or as good as any JKLM school). They do school shop and hop around BECAUSE the experience isn't that good. That is not true for your wotp pk3 and pk4ers. They will not stay even if the school they OB into is fantastic because they have a fantastic school with a neighbrohood community (something our eotp school won't ever be able to offer them) beginning at K. I do think this is a moral issue. Not big case Moral, but lower case moral. I wouldn't do it.

There was also a JKLM poster on here who had lotteried into Lamb at pk3 two years ago and were wondering if they should stay for K or move back to their fantastic neighborhood school. They liked Lamb a lot, no problems there. To me that is also a moral issue. You shoudln't have lotteried for Lamb unelss you imtended to stay since Lamb can't fill a spot after pk4.

You are fooling yourself if you think that the majority of EOTP parents who lottery into a school that isn't their first choice for PK3 are going in with an open mind, and not with the intention to play the lottery again the following year to see if they can get into a more desirable school. A great PK3 experience is not going to trump their concern with long-term educational offerings and test scores. So they will keep trying if they can do better. There isn't anything substantially different about that approach than that of WOTP parents who plan to join their IB school for K. The fact that you think so just shows that your "moral compass" on this is really just rooted in your resentment for people who are guaranteed a great option for K.

But I've seen it on this forum. People got into their "not great" IB school as their only option and then decided they liked it and are not playing the lottery and still there. parents report this in this forum. It is a possibility, but not for jklmers. Nobody is taking away choice of jklm parents, just asking them to consider the ramifications of their choices on others before they send their kids to a school that they 100% won't stay at past pk4.

Precisely. Not taking them away from anybody, but trying to make those with decent IB's consider the consequences for others down the line.

Yes, yes, we get your point. We considered it, and came to the conclusion that your request is unreasonable, both in light of the realities of the generally transient nature of DC schools and with regard to granting equal access to communal resources by all DC tax payers as regulated by the OOB lottery system. You need to come to terms with it and find more effective ways to improve your schools.

I love the consensus "we" used here used as a hammer. You are not talking to one stubborn poster (I know because I am one of the "consider the harm" posters and the above post is not me).

How about, WE have considered your points and came to the conclusion that just because you can doesn't mean you should.

"You", in the English language, can be both singular and plural, and nobody ever assumed there was just one poster who is trying to limit our choices for the sake of their own benefit. That doesn't change the fact that you all are unreasonable thinking that we have a moral obligation not to play the PreK lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

we bought in Upper NW five years ago, when we were priced out of Mt. Pleasant, the desirable parts of the Hill, U Street and Shaw

Where could this be? ^^^

Why do you need to know? Do you think I'm lying? There obviously weren't too many such opportunities available back then either, but they did exist during that phase after the 2008 crisis. Point being, you cannot generalize that anyone who owns a home and has small kids must have paid over 800K and be rich. There are small homes WOTP, some in crappy condition, and people on budgets equivalent to those of people EOTP have bought here. And even some of the people who did pay that much may be house poor, and it's not for anyone to judge whether or not they should have put themselves into that situation, and whether they must now suck up private preschool as well.

+1. We bought a fixer upper at the bottom of the market and have slowly been fixing ever since. Not everything in Ward 3 is above 800K. But like someone else wisely said, we do not need to explain ourselves. It is called PUBLIC school for a reason. All DC residents have access to it if they so wish. We all pay taxes. IB kids have preference, what do you care where I send my kids to school? If I drive from Palisades to Columbia Heights every morning is my problem.

I care because you are displacing student(s) and family(s) who could be making a long-term commitment to that school, which is the only way schools EOTP will improve. We need to minimize churn and school-hopping.

Just give it a rest. It's been explained to you over and over again why this complaint is neither valid nor actionable in any defensible way.

np here (well, I posted much eariler in this thread). I, along with others, do think it is a valid and defensible complaint. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Long-term impact on a neighborhood school is one of the things you should consider before you enroll yoru child for a year or two at a school. Our voices have also spoken out "over and over" in this thread too. You can't claim consensus. I did send my kid to private prek when I lived wotp.

I'm an EOTP parent at an EOTP DCPS, and my problem with this thread is the assumption that EOTP parents aren't doing this too. I know so many people who play the lottery and move after a year or two at their neighborhood school. The problem for neighborhood schools is not WOTP parents--it is that in an era of school choice, where it is relatively easy to move from one school to another, especially if you play the lottery year after year, people who are pretty happy with a school get into another by luck and go to that other school. That means that people who would be really committed to a neighborhood school are leaving because they get into a demonstrably better school.

I don't have any problem with people enrolling at our school from other parts of the city, even if they know it is just for a year or two, but I do wish that those people would be active in the PTA and in the school. I do feel like, because they know they are short-timers, they don't commit to our school in the way they will to their inbounds school.

The difference is that many EOTP parents who enroll his/her child WOULD stay if the experience was good enough (or as good as any JKLM school). They do school shop and hop around BECAUSE the experience isn't that good. That is not true for your wotp pk3 and pk4ers. They will not stay even if the school they OB into is fantastic because they have a fantastic school with a neighbrohood community (something our eotp school won't ever be able to offer them) beginning at K. I do think this is a moral issue. Not big case Moral, but lower case moral. I wouldn't do it.

There was also a JKLM poster on here who had lotteried into Lamb at pk3 two years ago and were wondering if they should stay for K or move back to their fantastic neighborhood school. They liked Lamb a lot, no problems there. To me that is also a moral issue. You shoudln't have lotteried for Lamb unelss you imtended to stay since Lamb can't fill a spot after pk4.

You are fooling yourself if you think that the majority of EOTP parents who lottery into a school that isn't their first choice for PK3 are going in with an open mind, and not with the intention to play the lottery again the following year to see if they can get into a more desirable school. A great PK3 experience is not going to trump their concern with long-term educational offerings and test scores. So they will keep trying if they can do better. There isn't anything substantially different about that approach than that of WOTP parents who plan to join their IB school for K. The fact that you think so just shows that your "moral compass" on this is really just rooted in your resentment for people who are guaranteed a great option for K.

But I've seen it on this forum. People got into their "not great" IB school as their only option and then decided they liked it and are not playing the lottery and still there. parents report this in this forum. It is a possibility, but not for jklmers. Nobody is taking away choice of jklm parents, just asking them to consider the ramifications of their choices on others before they send their kids to a school that they 100% won't stay at past pk4.

Precisely. Not taking them away from anybody, but trying to make those with decent IB's consider the consequences for others down the line.

Yes, yes, we get your point. We considered it, and came to the conclusion that your request is unreasonable, both in light of the realities of the generally transient nature of DC schools and with regard to granting equal access to communal resources by all DC tax payers as regulated by the OOB lottery system. You need to come to terms with it and find more effective ways to improve your schools.

I love the consensus "we" used here used as a hammer. You are not talking to one stubborn poster (I know because I am one of the "consider the harm" posters and the above post is not me).

How about, WE have considered your points and came to the conclusion that just because you can doesn't mean you should.

"You", in the English language, can be both singular and plural, and nobody ever assumed there was just one poster who is trying to limit our choices for the sake of their own benefit. That doesn't change the fact that you all are unreasonable thinking that we have a moral obligation not to play the PreK lottery.

What's also unreasonable is the assumption that "harm" is done to EOTP schools by the few WOTP kids who attend PK3/4. This "disruption" is absorbed within the general school hopping culture EOTP parents engage in themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

we bought in Upper NW five years ago, when we were priced out of Mt. Pleasant, the desirable parts of the Hill, U Street and Shaw

Where could this be? ^^^

Why do you need to know? Do you think I'm lying? There obviously weren't too many such opportunities available back then either, but they did exist during that phase after the 2008 crisis. Point being, you cannot generalize that anyone who owns a home and has small kids must have paid over 800K and be rich. There are small homes WOTP, some in crappy condition, and people on budgets equivalent to those of people EOTP have bought here. And even some of the people who did pay that much may be house poor, and it's not for anyone to judge whether or not they should have put themselves into that situation, and whether they must now suck up private preschool as well.

+1. We bought a fixer upper at the bottom of the market and have slowly been fixing ever since. Not everything in Ward 3 is above 800K. But like someone else wisely said, we do not need to explain ourselves. It is called PUBLIC school for a reason. All DC residents have access to it if they so wish. We all pay taxes. IB kids have preference, what do you care where I send my kids to school? If I drive from Palisades to Columbia Heights every morning is my problem.

I care because you are displacing student(s) and family(s) who could be making a long-term commitment to that school, which is the only way schools EOTP will improve. We need to minimize churn and school-hopping.

Just give it a rest. It's been explained to you over and over again why this complaint is neither valid nor actionable in any defensible way.

np here (well, I posted much eariler in this thread). I, along with others, do think it is a valid and defensible complaint. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Long-term impact on a neighborhood school is one of the things you should consider before you enroll yoru child for a year or two at a school. Our voices have also spoken out "over and over" in this thread too. You can't claim consensus. I did send my kid to private prek when I lived wotp.

I'm an EOTP parent at an EOTP DCPS, and my problem with this thread is the assumption that EOTP parents aren't doing this too. I know so many people who play the lottery and move after a year or two at their neighborhood school. The problem for neighborhood schools is not WOTP parents--it is that in an era of school choice, where it is relatively easy to move from one school to another, especially if you play the lottery year after year, people who are pretty happy with a school get into another by luck and go to that other school. That means that people who would be really committed to a neighborhood school are leaving because they get into a demonstrably better school.

I don't have any problem with people enrolling at our school from other parts of the city, even if they know it is just for a year or two, but I do wish that those people would be active in the PTA and in the school. I do feel like, because they know they are short-timers, they don't commit to our school in the way they will to their inbounds school.

The difference is that many EOTP parents who enroll his/her child WOULD stay if the experience was good enough (or as good as any JKLM school). They do school shop and hop around BECAUSE the experience isn't that good. That is not true for your wotp pk3 and pk4ers. They will not stay even if the school they OB into is fantastic because they have a fantastic school with a neighbrohood community (something our eotp school won't ever be able to offer them) beginning at K. I do think this is a moral issue. Not big case Moral, but lower case moral. I wouldn't do it.

There was also a JKLM poster on here who had lotteried into Lamb at pk3 two years ago and were wondering if they should stay for K or move back to their fantastic neighborhood school. They liked Lamb a lot, no problems there. To me that is also a moral issue. You shoudln't have lotteried for Lamb unelss you imtended to stay since Lamb can't fill a spot after pk4.

You are fooling yourself if you think that the majority of EOTP parents who lottery into a school that isn't their first choice for PK3 are going in with an open mind, and not with the intention to play the lottery again the following year to see if they can get into a more desirable school. A great PK3 experience is not going to trump their concern with long-term educational offerings and test scores. So they will keep trying if they can do better. There isn't anything substantially different about that approach than that of WOTP parents who plan to join their IB school for K. The fact that you think so just shows that your "moral compass" on this is really just rooted in your resentment for people who are guaranteed a great option for K.

But I've seen it on this forum. People got into their "not great" IB school as their only option and then decided they liked it and are not playing the lottery and still there. parents report this in this forum. It is a possibility, but not for jklmers. Nobody is taking away choice of jklm parents, just asking them to consider the ramifications of their choices on others before they send their kids to a school that they 100% won't stay at past pk4.

Precisely. Not taking them away from anybody, but trying to make those with decent IB's consider the consequences for others down the line.

Yes, yes, we get your point. We considered it, and came to the conclusion that your request is unreasonable, both in light of the realities of the generally transient nature of DC schools and with regard to granting equal access to communal resources by all DC tax payers as regulated by the OOB lottery system. You need to come to terms with it and find more effective ways to improve your schools.

I love the consensus "we" used here used as a hammer. You are not talking to one stubborn poster (I know because I am one of the "consider the harm" posters and the above post is not me).

How about, WE have considered your points and came to the conclusion that just because you can doesn't mean you should.

And I (not we, not we but I) do not give a fuck what you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

we bought in Upper NW five years ago, when we were priced out of Mt. Pleasant, the desirable parts of the Hill, U Street and Shaw

Where could this be? ^^^

Why do you need to know? Do you think I'm lying? There obviously weren't too many such opportunities available back then either, but they did exist during that phase after the 2008 crisis. Point being, you cannot generalize that anyone who owns a home and has small kids must have paid over 800K and be rich. There are small homes WOTP, some in crappy condition, and people on budgets equivalent to those of people EOTP have bought here. And even some of the people who did pay that much may be house poor, and it's not for anyone to judge whether or not they should have put themselves into that situation, and whether they must now suck up private preschool as well.

+1. We bought a fixer upper at the bottom of the market and have slowly been fixing ever since. Not everything in Ward 3 is above 800K. But like someone else wisely said, we do not need to explain ourselves. It is called PUBLIC school for a reason. All DC residents have access to it if they so wish. We all pay taxes. IB kids have preference, what do you care where I send my kids to school? If I drive from Palisades to Columbia Heights every morning is my problem.

I care because you are displacing student(s) and family(s) who could be making a long-term commitment to that school, which is the only way schools EOTP will improve. We need to minimize churn and school-hopping.

Just give it a rest. It's been explained to you over and over again why this complaint is neither valid nor actionable in any defensible way.

np here (well, I posted much eariler in this thread). I, along with others, do think it is a valid and defensible complaint. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Long-term impact on a neighborhood school is one of the things you should consider before you enroll yoru child for a year or two at a school. Our voices have also spoken out "over and over" in this thread too. You can't claim consensus. I did send my kid to private prek when I lived wotp.

I'm an EOTP parent at an EOTP DCPS, and my problem with this thread is the assumption that EOTP parents aren't doing this too. I know so many people who play the lottery and move after a year or two at their neighborhood school. The problem for neighborhood schools is not WOTP parents--it is that in an era of school choice, where it is relatively easy to move from one school to another, especially if you play the lottery year after year, people who are pretty happy with a school get into another by luck and go to that other school. That means that people who would be really committed to a neighborhood school are leaving because they get into a demonstrably better school.

I don't have any problem with people enrolling at our school from other parts of the city, even if they know it is just for a year or two, but I do wish that those people would be active in the PTA and in the school. I do feel like, because they know they are short-timers, they don't commit to our school in the way they will to their inbounds school.

The difference is that many EOTP parents who enroll his/her child WOULD stay if the experience was good enough (or as good as any JKLM school). They do school shop and hop around BECAUSE the experience isn't that good. That is not true for your wotp pk3 and pk4ers. They will not stay even if the school they OB into is fantastic because they have a fantastic school with a neighbrohood community (something our eotp school won't ever be able to offer them) beginning at K. I do think this is a moral issue. Not big case Moral, but lower case moral. I wouldn't do it.

There was also a JKLM poster on here who had lotteried into Lamb at pk3 two years ago and were wondering if they should stay for K or move back to their fantastic neighborhood school. They liked Lamb a lot, no problems there. To me that is also a moral issue. You shoudln't have lotteried for Lamb unelss you imtended to stay since Lamb can't fill a spot after pk4.

You are fooling yourself if you think that the majority of EOTP parents who lottery into a school that isn't their first choice for PK3 are going in with an open mind, and not with the intention to play the lottery again the following year to see if they can get into a more desirable school. A great PK3 experience is not going to trump their concern with long-term educational offerings and test scores. So they will keep trying if they can do better. There isn't anything substantially different about that approach than that of WOTP parents who plan to join their IB school for K. The fact that you think so just shows that your "moral compass" on this is really just rooted in your resentment for people who are guaranteed a great option for K.

But I've seen it on this forum. People got into their "not great" IB school as their only option and then decided they liked it and are not playing the lottery and still there. parents report this in this forum. It is a possibility, but not for jklmers. Nobody is taking away choice of jklm parents, just asking them to consider the ramifications of their choices on others before they send their kids to a school that they 100% won't stay at past pk4.

Precisely. Not taking them away from anybody, but trying to make those with decent IB's consider the consequences for others down the line.

Yes, yes, we get your point. We considered it, and came to the conclusion that your request is unreasonable, both in light of the realities of the generally transient nature of DC schools and with regard to granting equal access to communal resources by all DC tax payers as regulated by the OOB lottery system. You need to come to terms with it and find more effective ways to improve your schools.

I love the consensus "we" used here used as a hammer. You are not talking to one stubborn poster (I know because I am one of the "consider the harm" posters and the above post is not me).

How about, WE have considered your points and came to the conclusion that just because you can doesn't mean you should.

And I (not we, not we but I) do not give a fuck what you think.

This self-important dismissive attitude kinda proves OP's point, don't you think?

[Anonymous]

If you must keep this drivel going, can you please not reply and quote the entire thread!!! I guess the same people who use DCUM don't know how to use BCC and always hit "Reply All". At the risk of cross-posting from another thread, maybe there's an iReady video that can help educate DCUM...

[Anonymous]

I agree. A thread with only two pages of real content can go twenty pages because every PP quotes the entire thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you must keep this drivel going, can you please not reply and quote the entire thread!!! I guess the same people who use DCUM don't know how to use BCC and always hit "Reply All". At the risk of cross-posting from another thread, maybe there's an iReady video that can help educate DCUM...

I agree that this thread should die, but I actually like when posters quote the conversation to which they are replying (as you know very well, it is never the entire thread). When I pop into a long thread like that, I can catch up on an ongoing conversation without searching for its origin. And if I have been following a thread continuously, I don't mind scrolling over something I have already read - at least I see at a glance what the poster is replying to. So I don't think it's a matter of "not knowing" how to delete part of a quote (thanks for the condescension), but different preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you must keep this drivel going, can you please not reply and quote the entire thread!!! I guess the same people who use DCUM don't know how to use BCC and always hit "Reply All". At the risk of cross-posting from another thread, maybe there's an iReady video that can help educate DCUM...

I agree that this thread should die, but I actually like when posters quote the conversation to which they are replying (as you know very well, it is never the entire thread). When I pop into a long thread like that, I can catch up on an ongoing conversation without searching for its origin. And if I have been following a thread continuously, I don't mind scrolling over something I have already read - at least I see at a glance what the poster is replying to. So I don't think it's a matter of "not knowing" how to delete part of a quote (thanks for the condescension), but different preferences.

I bet one poster is EOTP and the other WOTP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you must keep this drivel going, can you please not reply and quote the entire thread!!! I guess the same people who use DCUM don't know how to use BCC and always hit "Reply All". At the risk of cross-posting from another thread, maybe there's an iReady video that can help educate DCUM...

I agree that this thread should die, but I actually like when posters quote the conversation to which they are replying (as you know very well, it is never the entire thread). When I pop into a long thread like that, I can catch up on an ongoing conversation without searching for its origin. And if I have been following a thread continuously, I don't mind scrolling over something I have already read - at least I see at a glance what the poster is replying to. So I don't think it's a matter of "not knowing" how to delete part of a quote (thanks for the condescension), but different preferences.

I bet one poster is EOTP and the other WOTP

Ok... What clichés are at play here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you must keep this drivel going, can you please not reply and quote the entire thread!!! I guess the same people who use DCUM don't know how to use BCC and always hit "Reply All". At the risk of cross-posting from another thread, maybe there's an iReady video that can help educate DCUM...

I agree that this thread should die, but I actually like when posters quote the conversation to which they are replying (as you know very well, it is never the entire thread). When I pop into a long thread like that, I can catch up on an ongoing conversation without searching for its origin. And if I have been following a thread continuously, I don't mind scrolling over something I have already read - at least I see at a glance what the poster is replying to. So I don't think it's a matter of "not knowing" how to delete part of a quote (thanks for the condescension), but different preferences.

I bet one poster is EOTP and the other WOTP

Ok... What clichés are at play here?

there was one eotp poster who was like "sure, send your snowflakes to my school for two years and then take off, no problem" and I while I am NOW EOTP, I am just newly so. I was IB for Eaton for years and don't think jkmlers should use OB pk programs unless there is a chance they'd stay for K and beyond (indeed, I didn't lottery for pk3 when I was wotp). I am in a charter that is rather inconveniently located and so doesn't have and wotp squatters, so this doesn't affect me at all now.

So, no, having an opinion on this doesn't necessarily out your geographic location or your self-interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you must keep this drivel going, can you please not reply and quote the entire thread!!! I guess the same people who use DCUM don't know how to use BCC and always hit "Reply All". At the risk of cross-posting from another thread, maybe there's an iReady video that can help educate DCUM...

I agree that this thread should die, but I actually like when posters quote the conversation to which they are replying (as you know very well, it is never the entire thread). When I pop into a long thread like that, I can catch up on an ongoing conversation without searching for its origin. And if I have been following a thread continuously, I don't mind scrolling over something I have already read - at least I see at a glance what the poster is replying to. So I don't think it's a matter of "not knowing" how to delete part of a quote (thanks for the condescension), but different preferences.

So the posters feel they need to quote 19 prior posts to make their point? They can't, say, selectively include the part to which they reply or on which they comment. perhaps even bolding the relevant portion for ease of use? If that's the case then my condescension was misplaced; it should have reflected outright derision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you must keep this drivel going, can you please not reply and quote the entire thread!!! I guess the same people who use DCUM don't know how to use BCC and always hit "Reply All". At the risk of cross-posting from another thread, maybe there's an iReady video that can help educate DCUM...

I agree that this thread should die, but I actually like when posters quote the conversation to which they are replying (as you know very well, it is never the entire thread). When I pop into a long thread like that, I can catch up on an ongoing conversation without searching for its origin. And if I have been following a thread continuously, I don't mind scrolling over something I have already read - at least I see at a glance what the poster is replying to. So I don't think it's a matter of "not knowing" how to delete part of a quote (thanks for the condescension), but different preferences.

So the posters feel they need to quote 19 prior posts to make their point? They can't, say, selectively include the part to which they reply or on which they comment. perhaps even bolding the relevant portion for ease of use? If that's the case then my condescension was misplaced; it should have reflected outright derision.

You missed my point. Often happens to people full of intellectual hubris.