Hypothetical consequences of a lottery change

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP had good intentions. rich families WOTP take spots at these schools just to get up and leave when K starts.

Maybe they would leave these spots for parents who want to go to these schools -- and stay there -- if the rich parents were forced to stay (meaning they wouldnt take the spot).

Yes you do see that, but IMO experience, these families do not become active in the PTO or make efforts to change anything at the school. They know they are leaving after PK and only care about the experience in the PK classroom, and don't really involve themselves in anything else at the school.

The parents OP is talking about are generally actually invested in the school and want to stay, get involved in the PTO because they care, and then leave if it is just not working out.

You can judge or get mad at these parents, but I think it's misplaced anger. You are upset because they are leaving YOUR school. You feel hurt and perhaps a little insecure about having stayed. That's understandable.

But you need to remember that families are making decisions for individual kids. We fully intended to stay at our Title I school through 5th. We agonized over leaving but out kid had some needs that just could not be met at the school. We finally pulled the trigger when we got a spot at another neighborhood school that seemed like a better fit for 3rd.

On our last day of 2nd, I was thanking/saying goodbye to her 2nd grade teacher, and she told me that she was glad to hear we were moving and that she thought the new school would be a better fit for our daughter. She'd been a wonderful teacher who had expressed concern throughout the year about our child's social experience and whether she was enjoying school. I was so grateful to her for all her efforts and it was also really valuable to hear someone who knew our kid well validate our decision. It was not a referendum on her or the school at all. It was something we did for our kid because she was struggling.

Try to remember that the next time you hear about a family leaving your school and your instinct is to assume they've done it for shallow, classist reasons. You really don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP had good intentions. rich families WOTP take spots at these schools just to get up and leave when K starts.

Maybe they would leave these spots for parents who want to go to these schools -- and stay there -- if the rich parents were forced to stay (meaning they wouldnt take the spot).

Yes you do see that, but IMO experience, these families do not become active in the PTO or make efforts to change anything at the school. They know they are leaving after PK and only care about the experience in the PK classroom, and don't really involve themselves in anything else at the school.

The parents OP is talking about are generally actually invested in the school and want to stay, get involved in the PTO because they care, and then leave if it is just not working out.

You can judge or get mad at these parents, but I think it's misplaced anger. You are upset because they are leaving YOUR school. You feel hurt and perhaps a little insecure about having stayed. That's understandable.

But you need to remember that families are making decisions for individual kids. We fully intended to stay at our Title I school through 5th. We agonized over leaving but out kid had some needs that just could not be met at the school. We finally pulled the trigger when we got a spot at another neighborhood school that seemed like a better fit for 3rd.

On our last day of 2nd, I was thanking/saying goodbye to her 2nd grade teacher, and she told me that she was glad to hear we were moving and that she thought the new school would be a better fit for our daughter. She'd been a wonderful teacher who had expressed concern throughout the year about our child's social experience and whether she was enjoying school. I was so grateful to her for all her efforts and it was also really valuable to hear someone who knew our kid well validate our decision. It was not a referendum on her or the school at all. It was something we did for our kid because she was struggling.

Try to remember that the next time you hear about a family leaving your school and your instinct is to assume they've done it for shallow, classist reasons. You really don't know.

My experience with that has been mixed. Some families do invest even though they plan to leave, because they enjoy participating or their kid does. And some will give discreetly but substantially or will provide things for the kids through their employer (matching gifts, law firm tix for the auction, a tour of their workplace which might be something neat). Some families don't invest yet stay a while, too. Our school had many families who were shut out of their IB preschool, so it's not like they were telling everyone they would stay and then suddenly leaving.

OP, you have to understand the way this works for your school budget. There are simply not enough people who commit to staying to fill up PK3 and PK4s. So you can have empty seats, and not get paid as much in the city budget, and struggle to fill up your K classes because you don't have a good PK4 class moving up. You can be a small school and lose a lot of efficiencies of scale. Or you can have these people even though it's annoying, and you get what they're willing to give, which for some is nothing but for some is significant. So when I was recruiting, I did try harder for people I thought would stay, but every kid gets you at least $10K from the city just for a having butt in a seat. It's worth it.

[Anonymous]

I am a previous poster who wants to add, that yes, it is somewhat problematic when you have a PTO whose entire reason for being is to gentrify a school, especially if they aren't listening to/reaching out to the staff and especially the families who represent the majority of the school. (i.e. low-income families of color).

But that's not my PTO, or I would bet, most PTOs in DC. We want to create or expand a parent community, raise money for school activities and teacher supplies/appreciation. Lots of schools need a PTO to be able to even apply for certain grants that can go to a 501c3 but not a public institution.

Most parents get involved because they plan to stay at a school and want to support the staff, their children's classmates with stuff like coat drives or raising money for scholarships for a soccer club, or just to meet other families and make mom/dad friends.

The stereotype of the gentrifier PTO is real, but it's not true of every Title I school. Or even most of them.

We've all listened to Nice White Parents and but not all of us are re-enacting it in our schools. In fact, we are trying to do the exact opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, rather than thinking "How can the system try to coerce people to attend a school they are unhappy with", you should think "How can the school improve performance and parent satisfaction?" Because that's the real problem here. And as your child gets older and you have more experiences, you too will have experiences that make you want to leave, or feel that you must leave because the down side of staying is too much.

Stop thinking about critical mass and demographics so much. Those things are not enough. As evidenced by CMI and Two Rivers. This idea wouldn't solve your problem anyway. Even if everyone did stay, it will still be a low performance school if the teaching isn't high quality.

NP and I agree with your sentiment but do think charters are different than DCPS in terms of ability to attract high quality teachers if the school gets families to stay longer. DCPS teachers are more likely to transfer schools within the system because of pay and pension benefits. So if a school could get more community buy in, it will attract teachers of higher quality. Charters don’t have the same pull.

Well yes, you can have some impact on teacher quality (which isn't the same thing as retention and is sometimes the opposite of retention).

Charters have other kinds of pull for teachers. If DCPS were really that much a better deal, charters would have no good teachers at all, because DCPS would hire them. Some teachers really like the flexibility, the specific model of their school, or things like a fixed class size and not having to take new kids mid-year. Some teachers aren't fully licensed so DCPS won't take them. There Re lots of reasons.

The pull for some charters is that behavior is better. But if you offered most charter teachers positions at top DCPS schools, they’d take them.

[Anonymous]

It can be hard to predict who will stay. It depends on people's lottery luck, but also their jobs, their family needs (like, aging parents), their finances, and how things go for their specific child. I've seen the most invested become disillusioned, and I've seen skeptics won over-- it goes both ways. If you only want people who can and are willing to make a very firm commitment, well, that's not actually enough people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, rather than thinking "How can the system try to coerce people to attend a school they are unhappy with", you should think "How can the school improve performance and parent satisfaction?" Because that's the real problem here. And as your child gets older and you have more experiences, you too will have experiences that make you want to leave, or feel that you must leave because the down side of staying is too much.

Stop thinking about critical mass and demographics so much. Those things are not enough. As evidenced by CMI and Two Rivers. This idea wouldn't solve your problem anyway. Even if everyone did stay, it will still be a low performance school if the teaching isn't high quality.

NP and I agree with your sentiment but do think charters are different than DCPS in terms of ability to attract high quality teachers if the school gets families to stay longer. DCPS teachers are more likely to transfer schools within the system because of pay and pension benefits. So if a school could get more community buy in, it will attract teachers of higher quality. Charters don’t have the same pull.

Well yes, you can have some impact on teacher quality (which isn't the same thing as retention and is sometimes the opposite of retention).

Charters have other kinds of pull for teachers. If DCPS were really that much a better deal, charters would have no good teachers at all, because DCPS would hire them. Some teachers really like the flexibility, the specific model of their school, or things like a fixed class size and not having to take new kids mid-year. Some teachers aren't fully licensed so DCPS won't take them. There Re lots of reasons.

The pull for some charters is that behavior is better. But if you offered most charter teachers positions at top DCPS schools, they’d take them.

But can they get those positions? Most likely not. The pull for some charters is that they'll hire unlicensed teachers, people with just a BA, and rookies. Not that DCPS never hires rookies, but it strongly prefers a master's degree and some experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have two children at a Title 1 school.

The more posts on DCUM I read about 2nd grade onward always makes me nervous.

I really want to stay at this school until 5th, and we probably will. But the idea that my kid(s) friends may all leave by the time 3rd grade rolls around really stinks.

Ask around and see what happens at your kids' school, but that just wasn't our experience. Yes, some kids left, but the ones who were planning on lotterying for Latin/BASIS stuck around through fourth, probably because they didn't want to change schools twice.

The parents we have come close with say they will stay.. so that does give me hope. But I tend to think they wont for a "winning" lottery ticket. They do the lottery "for fun" each year type thing tells me for the right win- they will bounce.

And I am not saying I blame them! I just have not thought about the lottery for years and it has been much less anxiety haha

At our school I find some of the most vocal parents are the ones playing the lottery every year. Like making comments about other families who leave but trying to leave themselves. I generally don't put much weight into families who say they are staying. Most won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, rather than thinking "How can the system try to coerce people to attend a school they are unhappy with", you should think "How can the school improve performance and parent satisfaction?" Because that's the real problem here. And as your child gets older and you have more experiences, you too will have experiences that make you want to leave, or feel that you must leave because the down side of staying is too much.

Stop thinking about critical mass and demographics so much. Those things are not enough. As evidenced by CMI and Two Rivers. This idea wouldn't solve your problem anyway. Even if everyone did stay, it will still be a low performance school if the teaching isn't high quality.

NP and I agree with your sentiment but do think charters are different than DCPS in terms of ability to attract high quality teachers if the school gets families to stay longer. DCPS teachers are more likely to transfer schools within the system because of pay and pension benefits. So if a school could get more community buy in, it will attract teachers of higher quality. Charters don’t have the same pull.

Well yes, you can have some impact on teacher quality (which isn't the same thing as retention and is sometimes the opposite of retention).

Charters have other kinds of pull for teachers. If DCPS were really that much a better deal, charters would have no good teachers at all, because DCPS would hire them. Some teachers really like the flexibility, the specific model of their school, or things like a fixed class size and not having to take new kids mid-year. Some teachers aren't fully licensed so DCPS won't take them. There Re lots of reasons.

The pull for some charters is that behavior is better. But if you offered most charter teachers positions at top DCPS schools, they’d take them.

But can they get those positions? Most likely not. The pull for some charters is that they'll hire unlicensed teachers, people with just a BA, and rookies. Not that DCPS never hires rookies, but it strongly prefers a master's degree and some experience.

Some grt hired. My comment was in response to the things that charter schools have as a draw for teachers. I just don’t think most would stay if they could teach at a strong DCPS. At least that’s been my experience working at a strong DCPS- lots of charter school teachers apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It can be hard to predict who will stay. It depends on people's lottery luck, but also their jobs, their family needs (like, aging parents), their finances, and how things go for their specific child. I've seen the most invested become disillusioned, and I've seen skeptics won over-- it goes both ways. If you only want people who can and are willing to make a very firm commitment, well, that's not actually enough people.

People also need to be able to move if their child is really having a bad experience. I've seen kids in upper grades in Title 1 DCPS schools suffer from really scary bullying, educational neglect in the classroom -- it's insane to say parents have to keep their kids in that situation because this demographics -obsessed mom is making them sign a contract or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It can be hard to predict who will stay. It depends on people's lottery luck, but also their jobs, their family needs (like, aging parents), their finances, and how things go for their specific child. I've seen the most invested become disillusioned, and I've seen skeptics won over-- it goes both ways. If you only want people who can and are willing to make a very firm commitment, well, that's not actually enough people.

This. PK is honestly too young for parents to evaluate whether a school is a good fit for their kid or their family. Most kids are 2 years old when their parents start looking at schools. Did you know what your kid would need in a school at 2nd, 3rd, or 4th grade when your oldest was 2 years old? I did not.

People do their best. A lot of families won't even consider Title I schools at all, they will move or go private before they enroll their kids in a school with majority at risk kids. Is that preferable to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can be hard to predict who will stay. It depends on people's lottery luck, but also their jobs, their family needs (like, aging parents), their finances, and how things go for their specific child. I've seen the most invested become disillusioned, and I've seen skeptics won over-- it goes both ways. If you only want people who can and are willing to make a very firm commitment, well, that's not actually enough people.

People also need to be able to move if their child is really having a bad experience. I've seen kids in upper grades in Title 1 DCPS schools suffer from really scary bullying, educational neglect in the classroom -- it's insane to say parents have to keep their kids in that situation because this demographics -obsessed mom is making them sign a contract or something.

Thank you. We moved our kid because it felt irresponsible not to. I didn't enjoy doing it and sometimes miss our old school. But the upper grade experience was very different than the PK-2nd experience. I didn't want to look back years later and think "why didn't we just change schools? especially when the lottery was an option? just because we were worried people like OP would judge us?" It's not a good reason.

[Anonymous]

OP is irrelevant. I don’t care what she thinks. I will choose what is best for my kid always. Not what is nest for what other people think, what is best for the school or community.

The end.

[Anonymous]

I like the lottery because you can choose the best fit for your kid. My kids went to 2 different elementary schools, and will probably end up at different high schools because they are very different kids. I would hate to be stuck in the suburbs where there’s a one size fits all approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can be hard to predict who will stay. It depends on people's lottery luck, but also their jobs, their family needs (like, aging parents), their finances, and how things go for their specific child. I've seen the most invested become disillusioned, and I've seen skeptics won over-- it goes both ways. If you only want people who can and are willing to make a very firm commitment, well, that's not actually enough people.

People also need to be able to move if their child is really having a bad experience. I've seen kids in upper grades in Title 1 DCPS schools suffer from really scary bullying, educational neglect in the classroom -- it's insane to say parents have to keep their kids in that situation because this demographics -obsessed mom is making them sign a contract or something.

Thank you. We moved our kid because it felt irresponsible not to. I didn't enjoy doing it and sometimes miss our old school. But the upper grade experience was very different than the PK-2nd experience. I didn't want to look back years later and think "why didn't we just change schools? especially when the lottery was an option? just because we were worried people like OP would judge us?" It's not a good reason.

The judgement of these young parents is fine. They'll get over it and in a few years they will understand.

What OP is suggesting goes beyond using judgement to control peoples actions, and is deranged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP is irrelevant. I don’t care what she thinks. I will choose what is best for my kid always. Not what is nest for what other people think, what is best for the school or community.

The end.

Which is what most people do. So if the lottery was changed, what would you do?