"DC really has School Chance, not School Choice"

[Anonymous]

Excellent excellent article. Something for everyone waiting to lottery results to read to at least get a broader picture of what you already knew: this process is damn stressful!

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/what-applying-to-charter-schools-showed-me-about-inequality/284530/

[Anonymous]

Agreed!!!

[Anonymous]

The thing that struck me about this article is when it talks about how parents enter the lottery at PK3 even though they may not necessarily want to just to secure a seat or have multiple tries at the lottery. It struck a chord with me because that is precisely what I'm doing. I'm actually quite happy with my current care situation and not quite convinced that DS is ready for school yet. But the odds of getting in get smaller and smaller with every passing year.

[Anonymous]

Exactly - it defeats the purpose of charter schools with a special purpose

[Anonymous]

The author seems enamored with Mr. Chastain, a leading advocate for controlled choice. I was confused about the author's statement about avoiding lotteries for Capitol Hill charters. I assume the reference is to Appletree, which is part of the common lottery.

[Anonymous]

I guess the big question in my mind is about the author's assumption that a change in a school's demographics DOESN'T equal a change in a school's "quality". Is a charter that has 30% FARMS one year going to be as good if it has 60% FARMS the next year. The leadership and teachers would remain the same, but will the school experience? (I would guess that test scores would at least initially go down.) And that's the million dollar question for me about controlled choice. It seems like most people on DCUM assume that school quality will suffer with such a change in demographics.

[Anonymous]

Lots of school choice, not much school guarantee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The author seems enamored with Mr. Chastain, a leading advocate for controlled choice. I was confused about the author's statement about avoiding lotteries for Capitol Hill charters. I assume the reference is to Appletree, which is part of the common lottery.

Wait, what was confusing? Doesn't he say that when talking about how most families don't/won't apply where the commute would be a nightmare, which he says it would be a 1 hr commute for him? What was confusing about that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess the big question in my mind is about the author's assumption that a change in a school's demographics DOESN'T equal a change in a school's "quality". Is a charter that has 30% FARMS one year going to be as good if it has 60% FARMS the next year. The leadership and teachers would remain the same, but will the school experience? (I would guess that test scores would at least initially go down.) And that's the million dollar question for me about controlled choice. It seems like most people on DCUM assume that school quality will suffer with such a change in demographics.

The point is, no one has found what the "tipping point" is. With the direction DC is going with gentrification, most successful current charters already are and will increasingly be in middle and upper class neighborhoods. Without some intervention or tinkering with admissions, the class balance of these schools will keep trending way over to higher SES.

No one knows what % of FARMS students aligns with bigger struggles in maintaining the quality of instruction and school environment. But some schools currently have 17% FARMS, not 60%, and are trending even further down.

I don't see anyone making assumptions that economic diversity doesn't affect the quality of the classroom (although I thoroughly agree with the author that economoic and ethnic diversity IMPROVES the quality of education, as compared with a lack of economic and ethnic diversity - in BOTH directions (i.e. I wouldn't want my kid in a private super high SES school any more than I'd want him in a totally under-resourced, underperforming public school). I also see no asusmptions that if you dramatically increase the % of students at higher risk for educational challenges, you don't need to increase/change your staffing and what supports are available at the school. I don't see anyone saying that, so not sure where you're getting that from. All the author says is that some diversity is really important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly - it defeats the purpose of charter schools with a special purpose

What defeats it? The main defeater of it is the lack of spots at good schools. So people take whichever good school they get into even if it's not their first choice of "special purposes". But it's not the fact that admissions are random lottery that ruins it, it's the lack of enough great options so people aren't desperate to take what they get that ruins it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The author seems enamored with Mr. Chastain, a leading advocate for controlled choice. I was confused about the author's statement about avoiding lotteries for Capitol Hill charters. I assume the reference is to Appletree, which is part of the common lottery.

Wait, what was confusing? Doesn't he say that when talking about how most families don't/won't apply where the commute would be a nightmare, which he says it would be a 1 hr commute for him? What was confusing about that?

The use of the plural term "lotteries" suggests there is more than one Capitol Hill charter, as well as a separate
Ottery for each, when neither is the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the big question in my mind is about the author's assumption that a change in a school's demographics DOESN'T equal a change in a school's "quality". Is a charter that has 30% FARMS one year going to be as good if it has 60% FARMS the next year. The leadership and teachers would remain the same, but will the school experience? (I would guess that test scores would at least initially go down.) And that's the million dollar question for me about controlled choice. It seems like most people on DCUM assume that school quality will suffer with such a change in demographics.

The point is, no one has found what the "tipping point" is. With the direction DC is going with gentrification, most successful current charters already are and will increasingly be in middle and upper class neighborhoods. Without some intervention or tinkering with admissions, the class balance of these schools will keep trending way over to higher SES.

No one knows what % of FARMS students aligns with bigger struggles in maintaining the quality of instruction and school environment. But some schools currently have 17% FARMS, not 60%, and are trending even further down.

I don't see anyone making assumptions that economic diversity doesn't affect the quality of the classroom (although I thoroughly agree with the author that economoic and ethnic diversity IMPROVES the quality of education, as compared with a lack of economic and ethnic diversity - in BOTH directions (i.e. I wouldn't want my kid in a private super high SES school any more than I'd want him in a totally under-resourced, underperforming public school). I also see no asusmptions that if you dramatically increase the % of students at higher risk for educational challenges, you don't need to increase/change your staffing and what supports are available at the school. I don't see anyone saying that, so not sure where you're getting that from. All the author says is that some diversity is really important.

I don't understand this reference to the need to "tinker" with charter admission to prevent schools from becoming all high SES. if anything , it seems to me that the current lottery system is the one that guarantee the highest number of lower income students. in DCPS kids from wealthy areas are IB for great schools, while kids from disadvantaged areas need to apply as OOB. as the best public schools are becoming overcrowded, the ability to be admitted as OOB is disappearing (see Deal). for charters, it's a lottery and the rich kid from AU park has the same chance than the poor kid from Ward 8. charters are not in rich areas of town, none of them is in Ward 3 as far as I know. most are EOTP or in Capitol Hill. if less poor kids are admitted maybe is because less poor kids want to go to a certain charter and are playing the lottery. we should make sure that information about the existence of charters is sufficiently advertised so all parents know about them. I wonder if poor kids could also get some kind of help with the commute. but other than that, it seems to me that the lottery is the most fair system to chose kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the big question in my mind is about the author's assumption that a change in a school's demographics DOESN'T equal a change in a school's "quality". Is a charter that has 30% FARMS one year going to be as good if it has 60% FARMS the next year. The leadership and teachers would remain the same, but will the school experience? (I would guess that test scores would at least initially go down.) And that's the million dollar question for me about controlled choice. It seems like most people on DCUM assume that school quality will suffer with such a change in demographics.

The point is, no one has found what the "tipping point" is. With the direction DC is going with gentrification, most successful current charters already are and will increasingly be in middle and upper class neighborhoods. Without some intervention or tinkering with admissions, the class balance of these schools will keep trending way over to higher SES.

No one knows what % of FARMS students aligns with bigger struggles in maintaining the quality of instruction and school environment. But some schools currently have 17% FARMS, not 60%, and are trending even further down.

I don't see anyone making assumptions that economic diversity doesn't affect the quality of the classroom (although I thoroughly agree with the author that economoic and ethnic diversity IMPROVES the quality of education, as compared with a lack of economic and ethnic diversity - in BOTH directions (i.e. I wouldn't want my kid in a private super high SES school any more than I'd want him in a totally under-resourced, underperforming public school). I also see no asusmptions that if you dramatically increase the % of students at higher risk for educational challenges, you don't need to increase/change your staffing and what supports are available at the school. I don't see anyone saying that, so not sure where you're getting that from. All the author says is that some diversity is really important.

PP, these statements seem somewhat contradictory, although I suppose a lot rests on your personal definition of "diversity". Is a school diverse if it is 50/50 Caucasian/African American with no Latinos? Is diversity a spectrum of SES levels? Does a kid who is Asian bring "diversity" to a school? Does a kid whose parents are from a different country bring "diversity" to a school? All that I do know is that I think it is utter BS to tell me that a policy that may change my kid's school from 30% low SES to 60% SES is going to improve her quality of education. That's a terrible thing to say (write), and it doesn't mean that we would pull out of the public education system and not work to make things better. It just means that I think the folks advocating for these changes are not being completely honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the big question in my mind is about the author's assumption that a change in a school's demographics DOESN'T equal a change in a school's "quality". Is a charter that has 30% FARMS one year going to be as good if it has 60% FARMS the next year. The leadership and teachers would remain the same, but will the school experience? (I would guess that test scores would at least initially go down.) And that's the million dollar question for me about controlled choice. It seems like most people on DCUM assume that school quality will suffer with such a change in demographics.

The point is, no one has found what the "tipping point" is. With the direction DC is going with gentrification, most successful current charters already are and will increasingly be in middle and upper class neighborhoods. Without some intervention or tinkering with admissions, the class balance of these schools will keep trending way over to higher SES.

No one knows what % of FARMS students aligns with bigger struggles in maintaining the quality of instruction and school environment. But some schools currently have 17% FARMS, not 60%, and are trending even further down.

I don't see anyone making assumptions that economic diversity doesn't affect the quality of the classroom (although I thoroughly agree with the author that economoic and ethnic diversity IMPROVES the quality of education, as compared with a lack of economic and ethnic diversity - in BOTH directions (i.e. I wouldn't want my kid in a private super high SES school any more than I'd want him in a totally under-resourced, underperforming public school). I also see no asusmptions that if you dramatically increase the % of students at higher risk for educational challenges, you don't need to increase/change your staffing and what supports are available at the school. I don't see anyone saying that, so not sure where you're getting that from. All the author says is that some diversity is really important.

PP, these statements seem somewhat contradictory, although I suppose a lot rests on your personal definition of "diversity". Is a school diverse if it is 50/50 Caucasian/African American with no Latinos? Is diversity a spectrum of SES levels? Does a kid who is Asian bring "diversity" to a school? Does a kid whose parents are from a different country bring "diversity" to a school? All that I do know is that I think it is utter BS to tell me that a policy that may change my kid's school from 30% low SES to 60% SES is going to improve her quality of education. That's a terrible thing to say (write), and it doesn't mean that we would pull out of the public education system and not work to make things better. It just means that I think the folks advocating for these changes are not being completely honest.

Truthiness = economic and ethnic diversity improves the quality of education. And last I checked, DC and the Feds lavish additional funding on Title I schools so that there are better educational opportunities and outcomes. Adding staffing and supports doesn't seem to have done very much in terms of closing the achievement gap and overcoming the anchors of poverty, low expectations and not valuing education.

[Anonymous]

He writes: "In Washington, D.C., great neighborhood schools exist—but they are inaccessible to the middle class."

That's an overly broad generalization. I'm IB for a JKLM school and while there are rich kids at the school, there are also families that are scraping by. There are cheap (but dreary) rental apartments nearby, and there are a significant number of families who decide that's the best choice for their family.