Is Charter Neighborhood Preference a good idea?

[Anonymous]

I would love to hear the pro/con on why a neighborhood preference for a charter is a good thing. Or a bad thing.

My initial thought is that Ward 5 and northeastern Ward 4 have a ton of charters that are there because there were declining numbers of students in the public schools that then closed. So establishing a neighborhood preference for schools like Stokes or Capital City would overserve the locals and underserve citywide demand. On that basis I would oppose a neighborhood preference as long as charter facility growth keeps following DCPS declining enrollment and school closures, rather than being directed toward true areas of growth in the City, e.g., Ward 1, southern Ward 4, and a few other areas. For example, if Shaed closed because of underenrollment, would a local preference for a school that locates there be a good citywide initiative?

What do you think?

[Anonymous]

There is one key concept: It doesn't have to be done exactly the way DCPS in-boundary is done.

Let me repeat: It doesn't have to be done exactly the way DCPS in-boundary is done.

Neighborhood preference is obviously a good idea. One of the many inanities of our current public school system is that something like 50,000 kids go to public schools outside of their neighborhoods. This means that our transportation system has to somehow absorb 100,000 extra trips per day. It weakens neighborhoods and weakens school communities.

Now, when I say it doesn't have to be done exactly the way DCPS in-boundary is done, here's what I have in mind: make a preference, not a right. What I mean by that is if there are more in-boundary applicants than slots, you have a lottery, you don't crowd as DCPS does. And make it a relative preference, not an absolute preference. Set a certain number of slots for in-boundary and out-of-boundary, and have separate lotteries. Even if a school is popular there would be some chance for OOB families to get in.

The most important thing would be to allow each school to set its own policy, have that policy be set by the PCSB as part of the chartering process, and make the school stick to that policy unless it wants to go back before the board for a charter revision. So specialized schools could be chartered with city-wide enrollment, while schools that want to serve a particular neighborhood could be chartered with 50% or 75% of their seats reserved for neighborhood residents.

Hopefully the PCSB would be smart enough to see that specialized schools (language immersion, special-ed, arts) have to be city-wide, and neighborhood schools have to be generalized.

[Anonymous]

I think Open For All via lottery is the only conscionable avenue.

That said, I think the current system will change overnight when councilmembers recognize they get zero credit and probably blowback for charter schools in their Ward that don't serve local students.

[Anonymous]

I think it depends where you stand.

If I am a Ward 5 parent and I don't want to use the local schools, but don't want to drive across town, yes it would be helpful, thus that Ward's rep, David Grosso suggesting it. If I am a Ward 7 parent seeking an option that does not reflect the SES of my neighborhood, no, not so useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is one key concept: It doesn't have to be done exactly the way DCPS in-boundary is done.

Let me repeat: It doesn't have to be done exactly the way DCPS in-boundary is done.

Neighborhood preference is obviously a good idea. One of the many inanities of our current public school system is that something like 50,000 kids go to public schools outside of their neighborhoods. This means that our transportation system has to somehow absorb 100,000 extra trips per day. It weakens neighborhoods and weakens school communities.

Now, when I say it doesn't have to be done exactly the way DCPS in-boundary is done, here's what I have in mind: make a preference, not a right. What I mean by that is if there are more in-boundary applicants than slots, you have a lottery, you don't crowd as DCPS does. And make it a relative preference, not an absolute preference. Set a certain number of slots for in-boundary and out-of-boundary, and have separate lotteries. Even if a school is popular there would be some chance for OOB families to get in.

The most important thing would be to allow each school to set its own policy, have that policy be set by the PCSB as part of the chartering process, and make the school stick to that policy unless it wants to go back before the board for a charter revision. So specialized schools could be chartered with city-wide enrollment, while schools that want to serve a particular neighborhood could be chartered with 50% or 75% of their seats reserved for neighborhood residents.

Hopefully the PCSB would be smart enough to see that specialized schools (language immersion, special-ed, arts) have to be city-wide, and neighborhood schools have to be generalized.

It's not obvious to me, at all. Why shodul some kid who lives in Ward 4 have a better chance of getting into a charter school that a kid who lives in Ward 8?

[Anonymous]

It's a great idea if you live within view of a great charter like I do (yes, it feel frustrating to literally see the school from my porch and knwo that my child was 300+ on the waitlist). However, it's a terrible idea if you live in Ward 8 and are faced with losing access to all the decent charters and forced to the back of the line. I understand that it would be great for the city at large if we all weren't driving all over the city each morning to get our kids to school. Walking to school is great. However, I personally feel the need to keep the schools open to all DC children without providing special access (beyond sibling preference) is the right thing to do. Besides, charters continue to move quite a bit so the neighborhood preference idea doesn't seem ripe for implementing. Instead of limiting access, the lottery needs to be reformed to require families to rank their preferences so that families have a better shot at getting a spot at a charter they REALLY want (for for whatever reason--immersion, logistics, long-term solution--whatever are the priorities for that family). Please note that I am NOT saying we should limit the number of schools a family can apply to--just that there should be some ranking involved so that a family will get a little more weight for wanting one shrter the most and basically not extra widhgt for applying to a charter you don't care anything about and is 8 miles away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love to hear the pro/con on why a neighborhood preference for a charter is a good thing. Or a bad thing.

My initial thought is that Ward 5 and northeastern Ward 4 have a ton of charters that are there because there were declining numbers of students in the public schools that then closed. So establishing a neighborhood preference for schools like Stokes or Capital City would overserve the locals and underserve citywide demand. On that basis I would oppose a neighborhood preference as long as charter facility growth keeps following DCPS declining enrollment and school closures, rather than being directed toward true areas of growth in the City, e.g., Ward 1, southern Ward 4, and a few other areas. For example, if Shaed closed because of underenrollment, would a local preference for a school that locates there be a good citywide initiative?

What do you think?

As more and more kids get into charters, I agree there's a growing need for a more rational system to reduce crazy transportation needs and to increase parent involvement. So, some kind of neighborhood preference may make sense. Having said that, this has to be done in a way that doesn't destroy the nature of the charter.

What about maintaining one single lottery, but giving 2 "tickets" instead of one to kids within the school's Ward or some kind of boundary? That provides a relative preference, but not any absolute right.

[Anonymous]

I get the arguments for neighborhood preference, but it still favors the privileged, as they can move close to desirable charters. Unless you want to have neighborhood preference for low-SES families? I could get behind that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get the arguments for neighborhood preference, but it still favors the privileged, as they can move close to desirable charters. Unless you want to have neighborhood preference for low-SES families? I could get behind that.

I would like to think one of the jobs of the charter school board is to make sure schools are put where they are needed.

It's a bit of a broad brush to say that only privileged people have the ability to make informed choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get the arguments for neighborhood preference, but it still favors the privileged, as they can move close to desirable charters. Unless you want to have neighborhood preference for low-SES families? I could get behind that.

I would like to think one of the jobs of the charter school board is to make sure schools are put where they are needed.

It's a bit of a broad brush to say that only privileged people have the ability to make informed choices.

The charter board doesn't have a lot of control of where the available space is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to hear the pro/con on why a neighborhood preference for a charter is a good thing. Or a bad thing.

My initial thought is that Ward 5 and northeastern Ward 4 have a ton of charters that are there because there were declining numbers of students in the public schools that then closed. So establishing a neighborhood preference for schools like Stokes or Capital City would overserve the locals and underserve citywide demand. On that basis I would oppose a neighborhood preference as long as charter facility growth keeps following DCPS declining enrollment and school closures, rather than being directed toward true areas of growth in the City, e.g., Ward 1, southern Ward 4, and a few other areas. For example, if Shaed closed because of underenrollment, would a local preference for a school that locates there be a good citywide initiative?

What do you think?

As more and more kids get into charters, I agree there's a growing need for a more rational system to reduce crazy transportation needs and to increase parent involvement. So, some kind of neighborhood preference may make sense. Having said that, this has to be done in a way that doesn't destroy the nature of the charter.

What about maintaining one single lottery, but giving 2 "tickets" instead of one to kids within the school's Ward or some kind of boundary? That provides a relative preference, but not any absolute right.

I'm the PP who advocates for applying rankings to the charter lottery that would give families a bit more weight for the schools they most desire for their child (for whatever reasons). I think your "ticket" idea has some merit and deserves to be fleshed out a bit. I hope the charter board is doing these same sort of brainstorming, "no idea is stupid" exercises...or at least monitoring this board.

[Anonymous]

things to think about:

* it's convenient for kids to live near their classmates and to have shorter commutes to schools. But is there also a value to kids having classmates from other neighborhoods?

* a family might have good reason to like living in one area and prefer a school located in another--should they be penalized?

* what do you do when the charter moves?

* would this lead to charters trying harder to locate in/move to different areas than they're currently clustered in?

* could putting a popular charter in the neighborhood lead to increased property values, and what are the pros and cons of that?

* will specialized schools like Yu Ying or Bridges be as successful if people get in not because they really love the school's specialty but because it's popular and located nearby?

I am not 100% decided on this issue but am leaning towards not liking neighborhood preference. I'm sure I'd be in favor of it if I lived really close to a great charter though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a great idea if you live within view of a great charter like I do (yes, it feel frustrating to literally see the school from my porch and knwo that my child was 300+ on the waitlist). However, it's a terrible idea if you live in Ward 8 and are faced with losing access to all the decent charters and forced to the back of the line. I understand that it would be great for the city at large if we all weren't driving all over the city each morning to get our kids to school. Walking to school is great. However, I personally feel the need to keep the schools open to all DC children without providing special access (beyond sibling preference) is the right thing to do. Besides, charters continue to move quite a bit so the neighborhood preference idea doesn't seem ripe for implementing. Instead of limiting access, the lottery needs to be reformed to require families to rank their preferences so that families have a better shot at getting a spot at a charter they REALLY want (for for whatever reason--immersion, logistics, long-term solution--whatever are the priorities for that family). Please note that I am NOT saying we should limit the number of schools a family can apply to--just that there should be some ranking involved so that a family will get a little more weight for wanting one shrter the most and basically not extra widhgt for applying to a charter you don't care anything about and is 8 miles away.

These are my exact thoughts. Also, charters move 2-3 times before finding a permanent home.

[Anonymous]

It's chaos waiting to happen, along with this common lottery idea they're floating.

[Anonymous]

The point of charter schools is different from neighborhood schools. You choose (in theory) a charter school because you like the concept. You want an IPC, immersion, Montessori etc.

Having preference wouldn't match the right kid with the right school.