An intrinsic problem to the DC charter system - admin becoming unresponsive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a feature, not a bug. If you want true autonomy for the school leadership then you give up accountability.

I think poster raises a good point. Charters are essentially set up to be their own fiefdoms paid for with taxpayer dollars. I am at MV and while my kids have had generally good experiences so far, I am starting to find it disconcerting that if I ever have a problem there is essentially no where to go since school leadership is pretty useless. I am considering moving to the suburbs to be part of a functional school system.

Exactly. There is nowhere to go, if your neighborhood school is egregiously underperforming. It may be fine for early grades, but what is a 5th grader or middle schooler to do? Sacrifice the whole educational pathway through high school, to express discontent that will be ignored anyway? Leaving is not a viable strategy to make change, if they can easily replace you. Parents need some way to at least force the charter board to take an interest. A hearing with public testimony could compel the board to answer parent questions, at least. Nobody likes to bring bad publicity on their school, but I'm running out of other ideas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a feature, not a bug. If you want true autonomy for the school leadership then you give up accountability.

I think poster raises a good point. Charters are essentially set up to be their own fiefdoms paid for with taxpayer dollars. I am at MV and while my kids have had generally good experiences so far, I am starting to find it disconcerting that if I ever have a problem there is essentially no where to go since school leadership is pretty useless. I am considering moving to the suburbs to be part of a functional school system.

Exactly. There is nowhere to go, if your neighborhood school is egregiously underperforming. It may be fine for early grades, but what is a 5th grader or middle schooler to do? Sacrifice the whole educational pathway through high school, to express discontent that will be ignored anyway? Leaving is not a viable strategy to make change, if they can easily replace you. Parents need some way to at least force the charter board to take an interest. A hearing with public testimony could compel the board to answer parent questions, at least. Nobody likes to bring bad publicity on their school, but I'm running out of other ideas.

In my opinion: we should focus our resources on good by right middle schools. There are many reasons I'm not optimistic that would happen, but I think it would truly benefit us the most. More so than another charter school.

At high school there are at least a good number of test in spots for magnet schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a feature, not a bug. If you want true autonomy for the school leadership then you give up accountability.

I think poster raises a good point. Charters are essentially set up to be their own fiefdoms paid for with taxpayer dollars. I am at MV and while my kids have had generally good experiences so far, I am starting to find it disconcerting that if I ever have a problem there is essentially no where to go since school leadership is pretty useless. I am considering moving to the suburbs to be part of a functional school system.

Exactly. There is nowhere to go, if your neighborhood school is egregiously underperforming. It may be fine for early grades, but what is a 5th grader or middle schooler to do? Sacrifice the whole educational pathway through high school, to express discontent that will be ignored anyway? Leaving is not a viable strategy to make change, if they can easily replace you. Parents need some way to at least force the charter board to take an interest. A hearing with public testimony could compel the board to answer parent questions, at least. Nobody likes to bring bad publicity on their school, but I'm running out of other ideas.

In my opinion: we should focus our resources on good by right middle schools. There are many reasons I'm not optimistic that would happen, but I think it would truly benefit us the most. More so than another charter school.

At high school there are at least a good number of test in spots for magnet schools.

Totally agree. Middle school is the missing piece in both the neighborhood and charter landscapes. I am slightly more optimistic, I do know people enrolling at Stuart-Hobson and Eliot-Hine. Not sure of what's going on at Jefferson and Cardozo. But at least the first two seem to be making progress such that people are willing to enroll for 6th grade at least. Maybe there's a tipping point? Between those two schools there's a lot of seats-- I know Eliot-Hine has room in its building to expand significantly as needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a feature, not a bug. If you want true autonomy for the school leadership then you give up accountability.

I think poster raises a good point. Charters are essentially set up to be their own fiefdoms paid for with taxpayer dollars. I am at MV and while my kids have had generally good experiences so far, I am starting to find it disconcerting that if I ever have a problem there is essentially no where to go since school leadership is pretty useless. I am considering moving to the suburbs to be part of a functional school system.

Exactly. There is nowhere to go, if your neighborhood school is egregiously underperforming. It may be fine for early grades, but what is a 5th grader or middle schooler to do? Sacrifice the whole educational pathway through high school, to express discontent that will be ignored anyway? Leaving is not a viable strategy to make change, if they can easily replace you. Parents need some way to at least force the charter board to take an interest. A hearing with public testimony could compel the board to answer parent questions, at least. Nobody likes to bring bad publicity on their school, but I'm running out of other ideas.

leaving isn't a viable strategy to create change (I'm sure MV does not care if my family stays or goes) but it could be a viable strategy to get my kids a good education. Unfortunately not everyone has that option and I hate the idea of moving to the burbs but I am slowly getting used to the idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a feature, not a bug. If you want true autonomy for the school leadership then you give up accountability.

I think poster raises a good point. Charters are essentially set up to be their own fiefdoms paid for with taxpayer dollars. I am at MV and while my kids have had generally good experiences so far, I am starting to find it disconcerting that if I ever have a problem there is essentially no where to go since school leadership is pretty useless. I am considering moving to the suburbs to be part of a functional school system.

Exactly. There is nowhere to go, if your neighborhood school is egregiously underperforming. It may be fine for early grades, but what is a 5th grader or middle schooler to do? Sacrifice the whole educational pathway through high school, to express discontent that will be ignored anyway? Leaving is not a viable strategy to make change, if they can easily replace you. Parents need some way to at least force the charter board to take an interest. A hearing with public testimony could compel the board to answer parent questions, at least. Nobody likes to bring bad publicity on their school, but I'm running out of other ideas.

leaving isn't a viable strategy to create change (I'm sure MV does not care if my family stays or goes) but it could be a viable strategy to get my kids a good education. Unfortunately not everyone has that option and I hate the idea of moving to the burbs but I am slowly getting used to the idea.

Student retention is an important metric in the charter tier ratings. Schools that lose significant students (>10%) can easily fall to Tier 2. A Tier 2 ratinghas consequences.

[Anonymous]

Schools like MV that are DCI feeders often have higher retention than they deserve because people who live in areas with bad middle schools will stay just to have a DCI feeder. I think a lot of people don;t have problems with the school until 2nd grade or later and then they feel like they should stick it out for DCI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools like MV that are DCI feeders often have higher retention than they deserve because people who live in areas with bad middle schools will stay just to have a DCI feeder. I think a lot of people don;t have problems with the school until 2nd grade or later and then they feel like they should stick it out for DCI.

I'm curious to see how things change after DCI is no longer a guarantee. I figure after sibling preference, chances of a non-sibling getting into DCI are really not that great after the expansion kicks in. So there's a lot less reason to put up with MV, Stokes EE commute, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a feature, not a bug. If you want true autonomy for the school leadership then you give up accountability.

I think poster raises a good point. Charters are essentially set up to be their own fiefdoms paid for with taxpayer dollars. I am at MV and while my kids have had generally good experiences so far, I am starting to find it disconcerting that if I ever have a problem there is essentially no where to go since school leadership is pretty useless. I am considering moving to the suburbs to be part of a functional school system.

Exactly. There is nowhere to go, if your neighborhood school is egregiously underperforming. It may be fine for early grades, but what is a 5th grader or middle schooler to do? Sacrifice the whole educational pathway through high school, to express discontent that will be ignored anyway? Leaving is not a viable strategy to make change, if they can easily replace you. Parents need some way to at least force the charter board to take an interest. A hearing with public testimony could compel the board to answer parent questions, at least. Nobody likes to bring bad publicity on their school, but I'm running out of other ideas.

There is literally no dcps I would consider. I’m inbounds for one of the “good ones” but there is no way I’m switching to being controlled by the central office . They’re corrupt and useless in my opinion. I wish there were some controls on charters but otherwise I’ll stick to the devil I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools like MV that are DCI feeders often have higher retention than they deserve because people who live in areas with bad middle schools will stay just to have a DCI feeder. I think a lot of people don;t have problems with the school until 2nd grade or later and then they feel like they should stick it out for DCI.

I'm curious to see how things change after DCI is no longer a guarantee. I figure after sibling preference, chances of a non-sibling getting into DCI are really not that great after the expansion kicks in. So there's a lot less reason to put up with MV, Stokes EE commute, etc.

I honestly don't think there will be a sibling preference offered for 5th graders interested in going to DCI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools like MV that are DCI feeders often have higher retention than they deserve because people who live in areas with bad middle schools will stay just to have a DCI feeder. I think a lot of people don;t have problems with the school until 2nd grade or later and then they feel like they should stick it out for DCI.

I'm curious to see how things change after DCI is no longer a guarantee. I figure after sibling preference, chances of a non-sibling getting into DCI are really not that great after the expansion kicks in. So there's a lot less reason to put up with MV, Stokes EE commute, etc.

I honestly don't think there will be a sibling preference offered for 5th graders interested in going to DCI.

I think they have it now, though. Not all DCI students' siblings go to feeder schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools like MV that are DCI feeders often have higher retention than they deserve because people who live in areas with bad middle schools will stay just to have a DCI feeder. I think a lot of people don;t have problems with the school until 2nd grade or later and then they feel like they should stick it out for DCI.

I'm curious to see how things change after DCI is no longer a guarantee. I figure after sibling preference, chances of a non-sibling getting into DCI are really not that great after the expansion kicks in. So there's a lot less reason to put up with MV, Stokes EE commute, etc.

I honestly don't think there will be a sibling preference offered for 5th graders interested in going to DCI.

Well they have been clear in saying there will be a sibling preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools like MV that are DCI feeders often have higher retention than they deserve because people who live in areas with bad middle schools will stay just to have a DCI feeder. I think a lot of people don;t have problems with the school until 2nd grade or later and then they feel like they should stick it out for DCI.

I'm curious to see how things change after DCI is no longer a guarantee. I figure after sibling preference, chances of a non-sibling getting into DCI are really not that great after the expansion kicks in. So there's a lot less reason to put up with MV, Stokes EE commute, etc.

I honestly don't think there will be a sibling preference offered for 5th graders interested in going to DCI.

Well they have been clear in saying there will be a sibling preference.

Who is they? This is all academic at this point/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools like MV that are DCI feeders often have higher retention than they deserve because people who live in areas with bad middle schools will stay just to have a DCI feeder. I think a lot of people don;t have problems with the school until 2nd grade or later and then they feel like they should stick it out for DCI.

I'm curious to see how things change after DCI is no longer a guarantee. I figure after sibling preference, chances of a non-sibling getting into DCI are really not that great after the expansion kicks in. So there's a lot less reason to put up with MV, Stokes EE commute, etc.

I honestly don't think there will be a sibling preference offered for 5th graders interested in going to DCI.

Well they have been clear in saying there will be a sibling preference.

Who is they? This is all academic at this point/

DCI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a feature, not a bug. If you want true autonomy for the school leadership then you give up accountability.

I think poster raises a good point. Charters are essentially set up to be their own fiefdoms paid for with taxpayer dollars. I am at MV and while my kids have had generally good experiences so far, I am starting to find it disconcerting that if I ever have a problem there is essentially no where to go since school leadership is pretty useless. I am considering moving to the suburbs to be part of a functional school system.

MV is also barely tier 1. They have same rating as Inspired, same test scores too. Same last year. So let’s define HRCS. Is PP saying that only schools in the 80s (basically only LAMB, YY, Prep, and Kipp) should be discused? Or are you at Ricky talking about total waitlist #s?

[Anonymous]

My kids have been in DC charters for the last 13 years. One has significant learning disabilities.

The charter elementary was able extremely flexible and went above and beyond to meet his needs. They contracted with a second SLP with expertise in his disorder just to work with him, and sent a learning specialist to get specific and expensive training over the summer when he didn't make progress in decoding for 6 months.

DCPS, as a large system, could not and would not have been able to provide the same thing. We considered it -- but they were required to use the staff they already had, and the programs they had adopted and were unable or unwilling to change.

I wholeheartedly agree that charter governance could be more responsive and transparent. But being smaller and more nimble has advantages too and wouldn't want to see that baby thrown out with the bathwater.