Charter School Impact on Public & Private School Enrollments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me there's a serious battle afoot. The privates, parochials and public schools all have their crosshairs on charters, because they see their students (and therefore, their funding) going over to charters in ever increasing numbers. That would certainly explain the vitriol and FUD campaign of vague, nonspecific and irrelevant accusations about Latin, BASIS and the others.

This is silly, at least on the private school front. My children are at one of those always-talked-about private schools but we considered switching them to charter school recently for financial reasons. We were pretty open about it with families from school since everyone knew about our job situation at the time, and not one of the families we talked to had even heard of our lottery-pick charter schools, despite tons of press coverage and endless discussions on DCUM. I'm not saying that the charters aren't worth serious consideration, but the private school world is not even paying attention for the most part. I think the exceptions would be some of the less popular religious-based schools or the tiniest independent schools, but most of the latter are in the suburbs anyway. The notion that Sidwell, Georgetown Day, WIS, and the Cathedral schools will lose potential students to charter schools is nonsense. In fact, our children's school (again, rightly or wrongly) has people practically running each other over in an attempt to get in. There's no shortage of rich people in DC.

ITA-- again, Cato is talking about parochial/religious-based schools.

[Anonymous]

Why do we even need parochial/religious-based schools? Sunday school not enough? Not enough churching going on in church? Parents can't be bothered with talking faith and scripture with their kids at home?

Do we really need churching every minute of our lives? I certainly don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why the word "paradox" appears in the title.

It seemed obvious to me that increasing the caliber of public education would attract private schools families back to public schools.

It seemed obvious to me when last year DC charter enrollment increased by 8% but DCPS enrollment barely budged.

In fact, wasn't attracting private school families back part of the plan for improving public schools? If 70% of DC kids are low SES, but no school with more that 30% low SES performs well, don't we have to attract a large number of middle and high SES families back to drive the percentage from 70% down to 30% on average?[/quote]

This isn't a factual statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a.) "up your game" is an idiom in common use, meaning "improve your performance". Get out more.

b.) To understand the paradox, you have to consider the source. Cato Institute is all about free markets and limited government. It's a paradox in that charters initially lessen taxpayer costs on one level by being a more cost-effective alternative on a cost-per-student basis than public schools, but it ends up increasing taxpayer costs because they are so effective that they draw away students from privates, which, while there's still a lower cost per student to the taxpayer, it potentially increases the number of students overall.

I think it is Cato wrestling with the fact that it's market competition in action (something they support), but is still dependent on taxpayer dollars (something they do not support).

Ha ha! Good explanation, and I love the image of Cato with its knickers all in a twist about this.

Cato is of a libertarian bent. Their knickers are definitely not in a twist. You need to get your foundations straight.

[Anonymous]

LOL! Cato wouldn't be in the whole llobbying business if their knickers weren't in a twist. Their entire reason for being is because they have their knickers in a twist over policy. That foundation is definitional.

[Anonymous]

Interesting analysis. Thank you to whoever posted this and to the Cato institute for sponsoring this research and posting it here.

In my familiy's own case, the analysis definitely rings true. Had my child not gotten into Yu Ying, we would have considered Washington International School, but likely rejected it over its tuition (around $30,000/year). We probably would have settled on a privately run Chinese program on Saturdays or Sundays, in addition to public school.

I'm all for giving parents more "choice" in education. I recognize there are different ways of doing this - school vouchers and charter schools being two methods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting analysis. Thank you to whoever posted this and to the Cato institute for sponsoring this research and posting it here.

In my familiy's own case, the analysis definitely rings true. Had my child not gotten into Yu Ying, we would have considered Washington International School, but likely rejected it over its tuition (around $30,000/year). We probably would have settled on a privately run Chinese program on Saturdays or Sundays, in addition to public school.

I'm all for giving parents more "choice" in education. I recognize there are different ways of doing this - school vouchers and charter schools being two methods.

I am stunned that anyone from Cato reads this blog.

[Anonymous]

I'll also add - the Catholic school system get established in the 1800's at a time when Catholics were blatently discriminated against in schools, and most public schools included Protestant texts and King James Bible reading in their core curriculum. As more Catholic immigrants arrived, Catholic schools adapted themselves to the needs of their diverse students quicker than public schools did.

Fast forward to today. The conditions that led to the creation and growth of Catholic schools simply do not exist anymore. Public school children do not read from the Bible as a core textbook, and Catholics as a group are not feared or discriminated against.

It goes to figure that Catholic schools would either find a new "niche" or close -- as is happening now. Charter schools aren't directly leading to Catholic schools closing -- they are just another factor in a larger trend away from Catholic schools that has been going on for the past 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me there's a serious battle afoot. The privates, parochials and public schools all have their crosshairs on charters, because they see their students (and therefore, their funding) going over to charters in ever increasing numbers. That would certainly explain the vitriol and FUD campaign of vague, nonspecific and irrelevant accusations about Latin, BASIS and the others.

This is silly, at least on the private school front. My children are at one of those always-talked-about private schools but we considered switching them to charter school recently for financial reasons. We were pretty open about it with families from school since everyone knew about our job situation at the time, and not one of the families we talked to had even heard of our lottery-pick charter schools, despite tons of press coverage and endless discussions on DCUM. I'm not saying that the charters aren't worth serious consideration, but the private school world is not even paying attention for the most part. I think the exceptions would be some of the less popular religious-based schools or the tiniest independent schools, but most of the latter are in the suburbs anyway. The notion that Sidwell, Georgetown Day, WIS, and the Cathedral schools will lose potential students to charter schools is nonsense. In fact, our children's school (again, rightly or wrongly) has people practically running each other over in an attempt to get in. There's no shortage of rich people in DC.

They lost my kids. We value living in a more urban/mixed use area of the city and as a result our neighborhood public school is not an option. If we had not gotten into a well-regarded charter we would have gone private. In fact, our social circle is almost entirely made up of families that can easily afford private school and are (for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to valuing racial and SES diversity in our children's schools and ease of commute) choosing charters instead.

[Anonymous]

It probably would not hurt you to poke your head up from under the rock..where have you been?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, it's competition. Privates, charters, and publics all need to up their game if they hope to stay afloat.

Trying to drag other schools like Latin or Basis down with negativity isn't the way to do it, the way to do it is to improve those other schools.

when did "up" become a verb?

I think it's a back-formation from "up the ante".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a.) "up your game" is an idiom in common use, meaning "improve your performance". Get out more.

b.) To understand the paradox, you have to consider the source. Cato Institute is all about free markets and limited government. It's a paradox in that charters initially lessen taxpayer costs on one level by being a more cost-effective alternative on a cost-per-student basis than public schools, but it ends up increasing taxpayer costs because they are so effective that they draw away students from privates, which, while there's still a lower cost per student to the taxpayer, it potentially increases the number of students overall.

I think it is Cato wrestling with the fact that it's market competition in action (something they support), but is still dependent on taxpayer dollars (something they do not support).

Ha ha! Good explanation, and I love the image of Cato with its knickers all in a twist about this.

Cato is of a libertarian bent. Their knickers are definitely not in a twist. You need to get your foundations straight.

Ha ha, you don't get it. Let me try to explain. Cato likes the idea of choice and it also likes the idea that charters are efficient, i.e. charters lower the tax burden (on a per-student basis) for educating public school kids. Here's the paradox: by creating attractive options, charters are drawing kids out of private schools and back into the public system, thereby increasing total costs to the government (i.e., greater number of students multiplied by cost per student).

[Anonymous]

Sure, they like the idea of choice, but given the choice between any kind of taxpayer funded option or other government option vs. no taxpayer dollars and all-private, they would take the latter in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me there's a serious battle afoot. The privates, parochials and public schools all have their crosshairs on charters, because they see their students (and therefore, their funding) going over to charters in ever increasing numbers. That would certainly explain the vitriol and FUD campaign of vague, nonspecific and irrelevant accusations about Latin, BASIS and the others.

Dc has been at Private for 6 years. I am one of only a handful of parents at DC's school who live in a ward other than ward 3. 90% of parents at Sidwell, Maret,STA,NCS,GDS et al are from ward 3( Foxhall,Wesley Hghts,Chevy Chase,Spring Valley) NOVA or MOCO, so Charter Schools are not even on their radar. I don't thnk these privates " have the charters in their cross hairs". Though all of these parents would say that their child attends private for the academics, and the "community" or moral compass , small class size etc... guess what: their local public school down the street is great and free and they don't send their kid there. This is not about the classroom.

I think Basis has a great concept, but it will only appeal to those already looking at Charters and that is only a handful of familes at any big private. Certainly not enough for anyone to get paranoid about suspicious neg PR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me there's a serious battle afoot. The privates, parochials and public schools all have their crosshairs on charters, because they see their students (and therefore, their funding) going over to charters in ever increasing numbers. That would certainly explain the vitriol and FUD campaign of vague, nonspecific and irrelevant accusations about Latin, BASIS and the others.

Dc has been at Private for 6 years. I am one of only a handful of parents at DC's school who live in a ward other than ward 3. 90% of parents at Sidwell, Maret,STA,NCS,GDS et al are from ward 3( Foxhall,Wesley Hghts,Chevy Chase,Spring Valley) NOVA or MOCO, so Charter Schools are not even on their radar. I don't thnk these privates " have the charters in their cross hairs". Though all of these parents would say that their child attends private for the academics, and the "community" or moral compass , small class size etc... guess what: their local public school down the street is great and free and they don't send their kid there. This is not about the classroom.

I think Basis has a great concept, but it will only appeal to those already looking at Charters and that is only a handful of familes at any big private. Certainly not enough for anyone to get paranoid about suspicious neg PR.

Few in the richest parts of Ward 3 and Ward 2 care about charters or education outside of the neighborhood school (that drives real-estate values a bit) and where they are paying tuition unless they are political or policy oriented for work or as a hobby. If you added all of these people up, you would have fewer than two thousand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me there's a serious battle afoot. The privates, parochials and public schools all have their crosshairs on charters, because they see their students (and therefore, their funding) going over to charters in ever increasing numbers. That would certainly explain the vitriol and FUD campaign of vague, nonspecific and irrelevant accusations about Latin, BASIS and the others.

This is silly, at least on the private school front. My children are at one of those always-talked-about private schools but we considered switching them to charter school recently for financial reasons. We were pretty open about it with families from school since everyone knew about our job situation at the time, and not one of the families we talked to had even heard of our lottery-pick charter schools, despite tons of press coverage and endless discussions on DCUM. I'm not saying that the charters aren't worth serious consideration, but the private school world is not even paying attention for the most part. I think the exceptions would be some of the less popular religious-based schools or the tiniest independent schools, but most of the latter are in the suburbs anyway. The notion that Sidwell, Georgetown Day, WIS, and the Cathedral schools will lose potential students to charter schools is nonsense. In fact, our children's school (again, rightly or wrongly) has people practically running each other over in an attempt to get in. There's no shortage of rich people in DC.

They lost my kids. We value living in a more urban/mixed use area of the city and as a result our neighborhood public school is not an option. If we had not gotten into a well-regarded charter we would have gone private. In fact, our social circle is almost entirely made up of families that can easily afford private school and are (for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to valuing racial and SES diversity in our children's schools and ease of commute) choosing charters instead.

It is one thing to be able to say that" we have the money to afford private" and another thing to be admitted, have the money and choose not to go or, as this thread postulates: private school parents pulling their kids out of private and going charter. It is like saying that, well, I got into Harvard, Princeton and Yale, but I chose to go to the University of Maryland because, " I wanted more SES diversity" . It doesn't happen.

BTW, lot's of diversity in private schools in Washington; rich people of every color, nationality, political and sexuality persuasion.