It may be getting even harder to get a spot at a charter
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Looks like they have to vote in favor of this bill to give charter employees a preference in admission--I am writing the council tonight in opposition.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-weighs-new-admissions-preference-for-children-of-charter-school-employees/2014/05/28/122b4e8a-e678-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html |
Anonymous
| I don't see it being a set back to number the number of seats offered. If the teacher lives and pay taxes in DC, I don't have an issue with that. |
Anonymous
| As a teacher at a DC charter I say about time! And it is true what the article said - charters pay less than DCPS. And often have longer hours. And no unions for the teachers. Getting preference for their kids seems like a no-brainer. |
Anonymous
| What is to stop teachers to work at a school for a year, get their children in, and then stop teaching but keep the spot? Terrible policy and also completely unfair vis-a-vis DCPS teachers. |
Anonymous
It's a huge setback to those who aren't teachers at the school and don't have sibling preference. This would significantly cut down on availability for them. An DCPS teachers don't get such a perk. |
Anonymous
This is a good point, except the teachers may actually be more likely to stay at the school with their child I would think. |
Anonymous
Not if they get paid more to work elsewhere, like a nearby DCPS. |
Anonymous
| True true |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
CCPCS offers this. There are children who got in by their parent being on the staff - and the parent left.
There is also the class that was made up of 25% of teacher / staff children. When you hit the point of 25% - it fundamentally impacts the class culture. When 25% of the class have parent's that are teachers - the burden of chaperons / class parent / etc goes to the other families. |
Anonymous
The teacher population isn't that large where it would be an issue. |
Anonymous
| Do you people actually know any teachers? It doesn't sound like it. |
Anonymous
And this matters because...... |
Anonymous
So make them have to teach a minimum number of years to keep their kids in the school, but anything else is unfair and potentially unworkable from a life/work balance if your child is going to school across the city how are you expected to cope? And if you are working hard at your school, why shouldn't your kids benefit? At least for BASIS DC, to get some of the best teachers from AZ to move with their families, their kids absolutely have to be able to attend the school.... And I assume that is true other charter chain schools that are not DC specific. Furthermore, my MIL was a NYC Public School teacher for 30 years, and one of the benefits for her was she made sure that my future husband was at ok schools with colleagues who were friends of hers watching over him, or in schools where she was actually a teacher. There were a few kids of faculty in my DC private school and I assume that they got discounts because how else could they pay the tuition? I assume that must be true of places like Exeter and other boarding schools as well. But if these parents are good teachers, this may be the best way they can assure their own kids a good education, and if they are good teachers, every other child in the school at which they teach benefits. So I do not see a downside except if the benefit is manipulated and misused so that a teacher teaches one year in a charter and gets their kids in there in perpetuity. But at least some of these teachers could be doing something else that would give them the means to send their kids to private school on their own hook. It makes sense to allow them to teach instead. I think it is more than fair, and should apply to teachers period - private, public, charter, and college. If you cannot take care of your child, you may make different decisions about what to do with your life. When my grandfather was a professor at Yale his sons got extremely reduced tuition and his daughters got a discount at Radcliffe because at the time Yale did not accept women. I don't know what the situation is now, but when teachers, especially in private and charter schools, are taking a pay cut to be there as opposed to being in the public school system, they really deserve to have their kids get the benefit of the education they are providing to other children unless their kids are incapable of meeting the academic standards of the schools. Just my opinion, but usually for a parent taking care of your kids is paramount, and providing them with a good education is an essential element of that role. If you create a situation where teachers cannot take care of their own children by essentially guaranteeing (absent some learning disability or emotional problem) that their kids can attend the school to which they are so dedicated, you screw up all the incentives and in fact potentially create a barrier to entry for people who perhaps might be some of the most excellent teachers............ because they are dedicated to their own children first and foremost, which is a value that I absolutely share and understand and respect. |