It may be getting even harder to get a spot at a charter

[Anonymous]

I think charter teachers should get preference for the many reasons already listed.

But what about setting a maximum percentage of sibling and teacher set asides - no more than 30% of each class? That would ensure spots remain open for others in the city.

[Anonymous]

I just read this in the article...

"The new provision would limit each school’s enrollment of employees’ children to 10 percent of the total student body. "

Problem solved. I'm all for it and will write a letter as well... but in support of it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think charter teachers should get preference for the many reasons already listed.

But what about setting a maximum percentage of sibling and teacher set asides - no more than 30% of each class? That would ensure spots remain open for others in the city.

30% of each class pkus sibs means that there will be zero slots for others. No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This would make charters more and more like entities that only benefit those who are already there and not the overall city and its taxpayers. It would also make the odds of admissions so dismal that many people would be discouraged and likely move to the suburbs. For individuals who are unlucky enough to be entering the lottery when there are not promising new charters starting, they will always be competing against both siblings and teachers, making it almost impossible to get in.

Completely agree with everything in this post.

I agree as well. The only people who should get preference are Founders, and only founders present when the school is founded!

This would also give teachers an incentive NOT to teach at charters that serve more challenged populations. If I'm thinking about what job I'm going to pursue/accept and one of the considerations is my kid having preference in that school, how likely will I be to teach at a Kipp or another less popular charter instead of all the usual over-applied-to suspects?

All that said (and I will be contacting my Council folks to oppose this), at a minimum if it does pass, there should be a requirement that the teacher has to have taught at the school for 2 or 3 years before they can get preference. That will at least cut down on those who choose to teach there just for admission advantage. And yes, all you saying "Who would do that? That wouldn't happen" are living in La La Land. There are much more outrageous stories out there of people trying to get their kids in schools than that. It is absolutely a likely dynamic that will crop up or be taken advantage of, so requiring 3 years of teaching before preference is allowed seems totally and absolutely fair. That teacher will have already made a real commitment to the school by then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think charter teachers should get preference for the many reasons already listed.

But what about setting a maximum percentage of sibling and teacher set asides - no more than 30% of each class? That would ensure spots remain open for others in the city.

This makes no sense. Sibling preference is already written into charter and DCPS law/policy as a preference with no limits. Some of the most popular charters see their incoming classes taken up 50% or 60% with sibs right off the bat, or even closer to 90% at some schools. Then when you add the sibs of newly admitted students (on the off chance someone with no prior connection to the school gets an open slot), there's nothing left. Add in kids of teachers and you have zero new slots at the most popular schools. No good, no good at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This would make charters more and more like entities that only benefit those who are already there and not the overall city and its taxpayers. It would also make the odds of admissions so dismal that many people would be discouraged and likely move to the suburbs. For individuals who are unlucky enough to be entering the lottery when there are not promising new charters starting, they will always be competing against both siblings and teachers, making it almost impossible to get in.

This x 1000. What was the purpose of charter schools in the first place? They seem to be turning into publicly funded private schools, everything that the critics warned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This would make charters more and more like entities that only benefit those who are already there and not the overall city and its taxpayers. It would also make the odds of admissions so dismal that many people would be discouraged and likely move to the suburbs. For individuals who are unlucky enough to be entering the lottery when there are not promising new charters starting, they will always be competing against both siblings and teachers, making it almost impossible to get in.

Completely agree with everything in this post.

I agree as well. The only people who should get preference are Founders, and only founders present when the school is founded!

This would also give teachers an incentive NOT to teach at charters that serve more challenged populations. If I'm thinking about what job I'm going to pursue/accept and one of the considerations is my kid having preference in that school, how likely will I be to teach at a Kipp or another less popular charter instead of all the usual over-applied-to suspects?

All that said (and I will be contacting my Council folks to oppose this), at a minimum if it does pass, there should be a requirement that the teacher has to have taught at the school for 2 or 3 years before they can get preference. That will at least cut down on those who choose to teach there just for admission advantage. And yes, all you saying "Who would do that? That wouldn't happen" are living in La La Land. There are much more outrageous stories out there of people trying to get their kids in schools than that. It is absolutely a likely dynamic that will crop up or be taken advantage of, so requiring 3 years of teaching before preference is allowed seems totally and absolutely fair. That teacher will have already made a real commitment to the school by then.

You are stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This would make charters more and more like entities that only benefit those who are already there and not the overall city and its taxpayers. It would also make the odds of admissions so dismal that many people would be discouraged and likely move to the suburbs. For individuals who are unlucky enough to be entering the lottery when there are not promising new charters starting, they will always be competing against both siblings and teachers, making it almost impossible to get in.

Completely agree with everything in this post.

How is any school supposed to benefit "the overall city and its taxpayers" in your view? Every school benefits the people who are there. Those who are "already there" are DC residents. They are taxpayers' children. The school serves the entire DC community by educating the children who attend. Every spot they take opens up a spot somewhere else where they would go if they weren't at the first school.

As for fleeing to the suburbs, have you been paying a single lick of attention for the last 10 years? When they haven't liked the available choices, DC parents have invested time and resources in their neighborhood schools or started new charter schools. There are at least half a dozen HRPCS now that didn't even exist when my 2nd grader was entering PK4, and numerous EOTP DCPS schools that I'd consider now but wouldn't have then. Charter schools will be stronger when their teachers are invested in the school because it educates their children. And teachers generally don't have massive broods that fill up all the available spaces.

[Anonymous]

I really don't understand why people are against sibling preference. When I was a kid I had a family with 8 kids. Because of boundary changes, one year we attended six different schools. We got our picture int he local paper because of it. I doubt my parents went to a single PTA meeting at any of the schools.

It just makes sense to have siblings attend the same school. It's environmentally friendly by promoting carpooling, it reduces parents' stress by easing the morning routine, it enables parents to become more invested in the school.

The only argument people make is that the sibling is taking up a space that a non-sibling would otherwise take. But they don't really care about that non-affiliated student, because as soon as the person is admitted they become affiliated and might -- horror! -- also have siblings taking up more spaces. But each student can take no more and no less than one space. They have to take a space somewhere, and nobody else will be able to take that space.

People who complain about sibling preference remind me of children who throw a fit to get a toy from another child, only to toss it aside and throw another fit when the other child picks up a different toy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think charter teachers should get preference for the many reasons already listed.

But what about setting a maximum percentage of sibling and teacher set asides - no more than 30% of each class? That would ensure spots remain open for others in the city.

30% of each class pkus sibs means that there will be zero slots for others. No.

Can any of you explain why you would create a system that promotes children from the same family attending different schools? If you set a maximum percentage, then some kids who would otherwise have preference will have to go somewhere else. A non-affiliated child gets to take one of those slots, but if he has a sibling that sibling can't take advantage of preference because the threshold was taken up for the non-affiliated child to get the spot in the first place. So then for every family who exceeds the maximum set-aside, you not only force them to attend two (or more) different schools, you effectively force the family who gets that spot to do the same. So instead of two families attending one school each, you have two families who each attend two different schools. And this happens for every single person who doesn't get the sibling preference because of the threshold.

Who thinks that's a good idea?

Also, can some math person explain why it's not possible that 70% of entry-year slots can be taken up by siblings every year, forever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This would make charters more and more like entities that only benefit those who are already there and not the overall city and its taxpayers. It would also make the odds of admissions so dismal that many people would be discouraged and likely move to the suburbs. For individuals who are unlucky enough to be entering the lottery when there are not promising new charters starting, they will always be competing against both siblings and teachers, making it almost impossible to get in.

This x 1000. What was the purpose of charter schools in the first place? They seem to be turning into publicly funded private schools, everything that the critics warned.

They already are "publicly funded private schools". At least the ones that are mentioned on this thread. I.e, the one with the expensive aftercare.

[Anonymous]

This also gives an admissions preference to a certain set of largely higher SES students (students with parents working in the schools). These students are not going to be homeless, or be raised by a single parent too disabled to work. They are also largely going to be raised by parents who are very invested in education. These are exactly the type of kids many people want their kids going to school with - so I get why people whose kids are already in a charter school want this proposal to pass. But from an equity perspective, this seems nuts.

Also, for people who think this won't be manipulated, I know a lot of stay at home parents (many are former teachers) who would happily teach or work in a charter school for a few years to gain an admissions preference.

[Anonymous]

Anyone against having preference for teacher's children should also be against sibling preference. If you aren't for both, you just sound bitter.

[Anonymous]

Lack of respect for teachers sure shines through this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Shenanigans. This isn't about free tuition, it's simply preferential consideration for admission, for highly valued staff members. Not at all the same.

Which desirable private schools in the area do you claim do not offer this?

Names or you're lying.

Are you asking which private schools do not offer full tuition remission for faculty members? I know for a fact that Sidwell and Beauvoir do not. Children of faculty have to apply, be accepted and go through the financial aid process just like everybody else. Do they get preference for admissions? Probably not officially, but I'm sure the administrations like having them, it tends to increase SES diversity. And as mentioned before it helps retain talent and reduce turnover. Do they get preference for financial aid? No. All schools that I am aware of contract out for need-based financial aid decisions. There is grant money that the schools use to supplement those numbers, and some of that money may be earmarked for faculty, but it's not a given. And even 70-80% off of $35K+ is no free ride for somebody on a private school teacher's salary.