Public education: competing interests, philosophical divide

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm in favor of equality of opportunity. I think that means increased integration AND differentiation for kids who need it. We need to move toward a place where differentiation by ability is not so tightly tied to socio-economic status (aka the achievement gap).

The more time I spend thinking and reading and working on this question, the more I'm convinced that what we have is a housing problem, not an education problem. I don't think we can have socioeconomically integrated educational systems when we have such chronically segregated neighborhoods.

Sure this sounds good in theory but often what integrated housing means is set asides for low SES in neighborhoods that only high SES can afford leaving the middle SES out of luck. So in a city like DC, if they are going to offer low income housing in rich areas then they should also offer middle income housing as well. If they exclude the middle class then forget it IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why everyone is making this so complicated

People should just stay in their neighborhood schools and quit trying to game the system

At each school you would have a high medium and low track.

Capitol Hill is the classic case of overcompliaction. If everyone would just go to their zoned school things would be fine

Says another individual who either didn't live here, or didn't have school aged children in the 90s.

If you didn't experience what it was like here before school choice - you can't really comment.

Let those of us who fought for the charter movement and kicked and screaming and clawed to get the OOB lottery what is tell you a bit about when everyone went to their IB school.

Pull up a chair youngster.

Nope sorry I don't want to reward people who chose to live in a crappy area because they are too cheap or can't afford to buy in a good school district. Neighborhood schools are the only fair option. You should have sent your kids to private, or moved to a decent district like everyone else did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why everyone is making this so complicated

People should just stay in their neighborhood schools and quit trying to game the system

At each school you would have a high medium and low track.

Capitol Hill is the classic case of overcompliaction. If everyone would just go to their zoned school things would be fine

Says another individual who either didn't live here, or didn't have school aged children in the 90s.

If you didn't experience what it was like here before school choice - you can't really comment.

Let those of us who fought for the charter movement and kicked and screaming and clawed to get the OOB lottery what is tell you a bit about when everyone went to their IB school.

Pull up a chair youngster.

Nope sorry I don't want to reward people who chose to live in a crappy area because they are too cheap or can't afford to buy in a good school district. Neighborhood schools are the only fair option. You should have sent your kids to private, or moved to a decent district like everyone else did.

Nope. Sorry, but charters now serve 40% of public school students in DC.

You obviously don't like it, but you have to deal with it anyway. Suck it up, and then behave like an adult.

[Anonymous]

I never said I was against Charters

Here is the real problem

Most of the children in the DC area are extremely low performing

In that scenario you need to protect the few productive members of society with neighborhood schools in high SES areas

Yes I am for charters the past what 30-50 years have a been a failure. Its time to try something else for the 80% mostly black kids in DC who come into school very unprepared

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never said I was against Charters

Here is the real problem

Most of the children in the DC area are extremely low performing

In that scenario you need to protect the few productive members of society with neighborhood schools in high SES areas

Yes I am for charters the past what 30-50 years have a been a failure. Its time to try something else for the 80% mostly black kids in DC who come into school very unprepared

So far, the thing that's working for those children is charters. DCPS certainly didn't serve them and it's now been proven that charters do better. Unless you want to advocate for them all to get public-paid tuition for private schools, the best solution (to date) has been identified. This is why charters have very strong advocates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In some ways, yes, they are at odds. It is pretty difficult to run a classroom and teach kids who vary widely in their academics. Differentiating by +/- one year in grade level is possible, but not much more than that (absent a much larger teaching staff than what is economically feasible for a public school system). I don't believe that it is feasible to teach a class of 7th graders from all SES levels when some are reading at the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th grade levels and others are reading at the 3rd grade level.

We do it every day at the elementary level using guided math and guided reading. Online programs, such as i-Ready and Lexia are tailored to the individual learner. Other subjects, such as social studies and science, are taught at grade level. It helps to have a large classroom library with text levels ranging from primary to high school. Reading aloud while students follow along an above-level text is another strategy for challenging high achievers while building vocabulary and background knowledge of students who are below level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why everyone is making this so complicated

People should just stay in their neighborhood schools and quit trying to game the system

At each school you would have a high medium and low track.

Capitol Hill is the classic case of overcompliaction. If everyone would just go to their zoned school things would be fine

Says another individual who either didn't live here, or didn't have school aged children in the 90s.

If you didn't experience what it was like here before school choice - you can't really comment.

Let those of us who fought for the charter movement and kicked and screaming and clawed to get the OOB lottery what is tell you a bit about when everyone went to their IB school.

Pull up a chair youngster.

Nope sorry I don't want to reward people who chose to live in a crappy area because they are too cheap or can't afford to buy in a good school district. Neighborhood schools are the only fair option. You should have sent your kids to private, or moved to a decent district like everyone else did.

I assume this is sarcasm otherwise this list serve is truly hitting new lows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some ways, yes, they are at odds. It is pretty difficult to run a classroom and teach kids who vary widely in their academics. Differentiating by +/- one year in grade level is possible, but not much more than that (absent a much larger teaching staff than what is economically feasible for a public school system). I don't believe that it is feasible to teach a class of 7th graders from all SES levels when some are reading at the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th grade levels and others are reading at the 3rd grade level.

We do it every day at the elementary level using guided math and guided reading. Online programs, such as i-Ready and Lexia are tailored to the individual learner. Other subjects, such as social studies and science, are taught at grade level. It helps to have a large classroom library with text levels ranging from primary to high school. Reading aloud while students follow along an above-level text is another strategy for challenging high achievers while building vocabulary and background knowledge of students who are below level.

And once you hit middle school or high school?

[Anonymous]

Either fix the housing market (build way more units than we currently do, at all levels, to increase affordability for young families), or decouple housing from education (ie, no boundaries). Everything else is incrementalism (charters) or window dressing.

[Anonymous]

We do it every day at the elementary level using guided math and guided reading. Online programs, such as i-Ready and Lexia are tailored to the individual learner. Other subjects, such as social studies and science, are taught at grade level. It helps to have a large classroom library with text levels ranging from primary to high school. Reading aloud while students follow along an above-level text is another strategy for challenging high achievers while building vocabulary and background knowledge of students who are below level.

I see this a lot (the bolded) and, in fact, it's the same line I hear every year from my son's elementary school teachers -- at one of the most competitive-entry DC independent schools, no less.

Here's the problem, though -- out of the 7+ hour school day x 5 days a week, only a limited percentage of time is spent doing those leveled worksheets that are easily tailored to the individual learner. Same for the leveled reading (which ends at Z / 70 anyway, as you know).

But that leaves so many hours of the week ostensibly in "grade level." And that where things fall apart, in our direct experience. The vocabulary used, the level of critical thinking expected, and, especially, the texts and multi-media sources used for science/history/social science/literature in later grades ... these are all targeted to the mean. And when the mean ability is pulled down by understandably struggling students, the higher ability (***not profoundly gifted, just high ability***) learners are short-changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Either fix the housing market (build way more units than we currently do, at all levels, to increase affordability for young families), or decouple housing from education (ie, no boundaries). Everything else is incrementalism (charters) or window dressing.

I agree with the accuracy of this assessment and solution. I selfishly hope this solution never occurs in the District of Columbia, as a homeowner with unvested interest in keeping my home price high and as a District resident who needs to travel via car and public transit across the city during "school commute hours."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either fix the housing market (build way more units than we currently do, at all levels, to increase affordability for young families), or decouple housing from education (ie, no boundaries). Everything else is incrementalism (charters) or window dressing.

I agree with the accuracy of this assessment and solution. I selfishly hope this solution never occurs in the District of Columbia, as a homeowner with unvested interest in keeping my home price high and as a District resident who needs to travel via car and public transit across the city during "school commute hours."

You're not alone. Either solution is laughably unrealistic. I just wish people on this board would admit that everything they are advocating for that isn't one of those two solutions is self-interested and won't fix the larger problem. Nothing wrong with looking after yourself, and democracy is, in part, based on that approach, but we need to keep things in perspective.

[Anonymous]

Ok let's walk through what would occur

No boundaries

1. All the high SES people would be pissed for overpaying for their homes
2. All the high SES people would leave and DCPS would see an even greater drop in scores
3. The charters would continue to help low income students

Adding more Housing Stock

I don't see how this changes the current situation of some wealthy enclaves with great neighborhood schools with the majority of schools being bad and charters helping to filll the gap
Adding more housing stock might get you more middle income families but.... aren't these the people that fled DC orginially and went to the suburbs.... for better schools..... why would they come back to DC now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok let's walk through what would occur

No boundaries

1. All the high SES people would be pissed for overpaying for their homes
2. All the high SES people would leave and DCPS would see an even greater drop in scores
3. The charters would continue to help low income students

Adding more Housing Stock

I don't see how this changes the current situation of some wealthy enclaves with great neighborhood schools with the majority of schools being bad and charters helping to filll the gap
Adding more housing stock might get you more middle income families but.... aren't these the people that fled DC orginially and went to the suburbs.... for better schools..... why would they come back to DC now?

WRT no boundaries, sure tons of high SES people would move, but many wouldn't. Either way, all those folks bailing for the suburbs would be replaced by younger families who would suddenly find good housing stock in the city more affordable. I'm not sure anyone would even miss the high SES folks bailing to the suburbs.

WRT more Housing Stock, you solve a couple problems. First, you build tons of affordable housing in the wards with the best schools. Second, you build way more market-rate housing in gentrifying neighborhoods to make DC affordable for young families. That partially solves for both of the folks that the current system is working for: young families priced out of DC, and low SES families who only have poor neighborhood schools and charters to choose from.

In both cases, little upside for high SES folks, which is why it would never happen. But please consider whether your rebuttal is "this wouldn't be good for me" (which I agree with, that's the whole point), or "this would be bad for everyone" (which I'm not sure about, but hey, make your case).

[Anonymous]

Who is supposed to be doing this building? How is that supposed to happen?

Sure, some developers massively contributed to Mayor Bowwow's campaign, but that doesn't mean they can come into the city, invent some undeveloped greenspace and then build a few hundred thousand units.