Would DCPS be Less Segregated Without Charters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Absolutely. I live in a gentrifying area (Brookland) and our IB (Burroughs) definitely does not reflect the diversity of the area. Instead, it's like 95% black and 5% white (which is still an increase from the 1% when I moved here 5 years ago). But that 5% is all in the PK3-4 and K grades. Brookland Middle School is 1% white.

Brookland/Ward 5 is surrounded by really good charter schools, and most UMC families here try to get into them. Burroughs, Noyes and Bunker Hill are a last resort. If the charters weren't an option, the neighborhood schools would likely reflect the population more.

I agree this is especially true in Ward 5 where there are lots of charters. Also affects Langley quite a bit. Langley is not a last resort but there is a lot of flight to nearby charters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Absolutely. I live in a gentrifying area (Brookland) and our IB (Burroughs) definitely does not reflect the diversity of the area. Instead, it's like 95% black and 5% white (which is still an increase from the 1% when I moved here 5 years ago). But that 5% is all in the PK3-4 and K grades. Brookland Middle School is 1% white.

Brookland/Ward 5 is surrounded by really good charter schools, and most UMC families here try to get into them. Burroughs, Noyes and Bunker Hill are a last resort. If the charters weren't an option, the neighborhood schools would likely reflect the population more.

Right. Except that those with means would just move out of the neighborhood so they still wouldn't be represented in the neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

I wish the part of DCUM that "would just move away" would finally "just move away." I want policy for those of us who plan to stay through neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Newsflash: there are many families at these schools that are low income but would never admit it as to not wanting their child to be treated differently. And they are treated differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No here is what cracks me up. If everyone actually went to their neighborhood school DCPS would still be massively segregated because guess what DC is overwhelmingly segregated

There are no real integrated areas just areas that are in various stages of gentrifying

Yep.

I still think at risk preferences would help. Rich people in gentrifying neighborhoods would be less likely to lottery out of their inbound school, and at-risk people in not-gentrified neighborhoods would have more chance to lottery into a better school. This could help with all the constant churn in EOTP schools. Rich people stay because their choices are limited, at-risk people stay because they had access to better choices. The shortfall is you could eventually get completely gentrified schools a la WOTP, but if you implement at risk set asides now (in addition to lottery preferences), maybe you could keep the school diversity.

I don't believe this for a minute. Set asides would simply motivate affluent families to find creative new ways to get around sending their children with lots of low-performing students, e.g. pursuing legal challenges to poorly implemented set asides The set asides would almost certainly become a tool of the AA middle-class to secure spots in desirable schools, without helping the poor much, like so many other government programs designed to help the neediest citizens (e.g. rent control to help the poor but mainly benefiting the middle class). A municipality is much better off using carrots to promote integration than sticks, e.g. school-within-a-school GT and language immersion programs. I attended a GT program in a low-income neighborhood as a child. The program successfully lured many UMC families of different races to a Title1 school they would have avoided otherwise. Although our academic classes were segregated by ability, our electives and specials (PE, art, music) were not, and all the kids mingled on the playground, in the cafeteria etc. Much better than total segregation if not ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to have this one out mostly to challenge my own biases. It’s my believe based on my experience that DCPS is desegregating, though slowly, as residential patterns change. But I worry about whether the option of choosing charters as a way out of your neighborhood schools is slowing this desegregation. Or not. In my opinion it does lead to at least to some ability-based sorting - “creaming” by choice or whatever you want to call it, and that this retards fuller integration. I’d like to have others’ opinions and see if my biases are off. And whether there are actual choices out there or trends coming in the future.

Have you considered researching this instead of thinking you're the first snowflake to wonder? Because the data is pretty clear. The only reason middle class families have stayed in DC at all is because of charters. And the only reason DCPS has improved at all is because of charters. So if your local DCPS isn't keeping up LAMB and Latin and Yu Ying? Boo hoo, but it's their own fault. They still have more money and less trust. The only reason they have students at all is because there are some families that have stayed in DC even after losing the lottery.

[Anonymous]

No. I only stayed in DC because of preK-3 charter schools. Many would move to the suburbs if DCPS was the only option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many families would choose the suburbs if it weren't for charters....middle class families are staying in the city more because of charters, even if they can't afford inner Cap Hill or Ward 3.

Right but there are charters where the % low income is way below the overall school age population in DC (YY, LAMB, MV...) -- so how is that helping? In effect these are private schools paid for by taxpayers.

YY 11%, LAMB 24%, MV 28%
my DCPS title 1: 70%

I wasn't aware that very low SES people placed a high value on their children learning Mandarin. And though YY might be "only" 11% Title 1, it is very well integrated, with "whites" making up 31.4% of the student body (vs 34.2% for AA and 19.5% muliracial).

Is that "too white"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many families would choose the suburbs if it weren't for charters....middle class families are staying in the city more because of charters, even if they can't afford inner Cap Hill or Ward 3.

Right but there are charters where the % low income is way below the overall school age population in DC (YY, LAMB, MV...) -- so how is that helping? In effect these are private schools paid for by taxpayers.

YY 11%, LAMB 24%, MV 28%
my DCPS title 1: 70%

I wasn't aware that very low SES people placed a high value on their children learning Mandarin. And though YY might be "only" 11% Title 1, it is very well integrated, with "whites" making up 31.4% of the student body (vs 34.2% for AA and 19.5% muliracial).

Is that "too white"?

Not too white, just too ridiculous. All this racial integration doesn't result in the kids learning to speak Mandarin. Hint: for that you need actual Chinese speaking kids in the program, lots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many families would choose the suburbs if it weren't for charters....middle class families are staying in the city more because of charters, even if they can't afford inner Cap Hill or Ward 3.

Right but there are charters where the % low income is way below the overall school age population in DC (YY, LAMB, MV...) -- so how is that helping? In effect these are private schools paid for by taxpayers.

YY 11%, LAMB 24%, MV 28%
my DCPS title 1: 70%

I wasn't aware that very low SES people placed a high value on their children learning Mandarin. And though YY might be "only" 11% Title 1, it is very well integrated, with "whites" making up 31.4% of the student body (vs 34.2% for AA and 19.5% muliracial).

Is that "too white"?

A charter school in Ward 8 with nearly 80% at-risk kids just added Mandarin at the request of the kids and families. I don't know if all very low SES people place a high value on learning Mandarin but I doubt that the reverse is true -- that all high SES people place a high value on their children learning Mandarin.

All too often low SES families have fewer options. Perhaps too many people are assuming a lack of interest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to have this one out mostly to challenge my own biases. It’s my believe based on my experience that DCPS is desegregating, though slowly, as residential patterns change. But I worry about whether the option of choosing charters as a way out of your neighborhood schools is slowing this desegregation. Or not. In my opinion it does lead to at least to some ability-based sorting - “creaming” by choice or whatever you want to call it, and that this retards fuller integration. I’d like to have others’ opinions and see if my biases are off. And whether there are actual choices out there or trends coming in the future.

Have you considered researching this instead of thinking you're the first snowflake to wonder? Because the data is pretty clear. The only reason middle class families have stayed in DC at all is because of charters. And the only reason DCPS has improved at all is because of charters. So if your local DCPS isn't keeping up LAMB and Latin and Yu Ying? Boo hoo, but it's their own fault. They still have more money and less trust. The only reason they have students at all is because there are some families that have stayed in DC even after losing the lottery.

That's not true. DCPS schools are working too. Garrison, Brent, Cooke, Seaton, Ross, Marie Reed, Cleveland, Francis-Stevens, etc are all doing a great job keeping inbounds middle class families in DC. Pre-K in DCPS has done a lot to keep young families in DC.

Charters help keep families in the District. Pre-K helps keep families in the District. Rising elementary schools with great principals and great teachers help keep families in the District. It's like the New Deal - lots of factors help so it's ok to try them simultaneously.

[Anonymous]

I'm not anti charter, but I can see that charter growth has come at the expense of a number of neighborhood schools improving in my Capitol HIll neighborhood. When I arrived 15 years ago, the only charter around was Two Rivers and Brent and Maury had begun to attract large cohorts of neighborhood families. Without the crazy proliferation of charters further up in NE, Hill schools like Payne, Tyler, (Traditional program), JO Wilson and Miner would surely have turned by now. They haven't and may never.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many families would choose the suburbs if it weren't for charters....middle class families are staying in the city more because of charters, even if they can't afford inner Cap Hill or Ward 3.

Right but there are charters where the % low income is way below the overall school age population in DC (YY, LAMB, MV...) -- so how is that helping? In effect these are private schools paid for by taxpayers.

YY 11%, LAMB 24%, MV 28%
my DCPS title 1: 70%

I wasn't aware that very low SES people placed a high value on their children learning Mandarin. And though YY might be "only" 11% Title 1, it is very well integrated, with "whites" making up 31.4% of the student body (vs 34.2% for AA and 19.5% muliracial).

Is that "too white"?

Not too white, just too ridiculous. All this racial integration doesn't result in the kids learning to speak Mandarin. Hint: for that you need actual Chinese speaking kids in the program, lots.

Yup.

And Mandarin speakers know better than going there.

[Anonymous]

+100. There are a small number of Mandarin speaking adults in the YY parent community these days, but not even a dozen bilingual Chinese-speaking kids.

[Anonymous]

is a small number