Time for a citywide traditional elementary school in each ward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capital Hill Montessori isn't good? That's a DCPS.

It is not good, sorry. I guess some people find it acceptable but not me.

I mean, it's good if your alternatives are Miner or Payne or Tyler English Language or Amidon-Bowen... but there's no doubt it's not good for those schools. I know of 3 kids in my DD's private preschool class who are IB for Miner and lottery-ed into CHML (one knew she would b/c she is a sibling). All 3 families would have used Miner otherwise. All 3 are very education-focused families who would have been valuable members of the Miner community, but are instead off to CHML. I don't blame them at all, in their position I would have done exactly the same thing. But there is not question that citywide schools in wards hurt the worse-performing IB schools in that Ward. It's one thing when it's a charter w/ a specific mission offering a different kind of choice. But purposely placing "standard curriculum" citywides in each ward? Why would that be in DCPS' interest? What purpose would that serve other than a few lucky winners getting to opt-out of worse-performing IBs?

That's the whole premise of school choice . . . i.e., school chance

Yawn.

The "premise" of school choice is exactly what it sounds like. Getting to choose between schools, perhaps something better than the low quality offerings your union-vote-beholden "betters" are foistin on you.

Nobody was outraged when Obama opted out of the neighborhood schools for his children. Choice shouldn't be merely the prerogative of the wealthy.

You may be fine with whatever you're offered, but some of us are not. I demand better for my children, and I will get it via one path or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Put a citywide school in overcrowded Ward 3. Maybe a magnet STEM school.

Do you even understand the purpose of "magnet" in "magnet schools"? No. Ward 3 doesn't need a magnet, because it already is a magnet. Put the magnet in Ward 7 or 8.

Duh.

[Anonymous]

Right, because closing the achievement gap is the overarching goal of the school system. The cheapest and most effective way to get there is to keep the high SES from reaching their full potential in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capital Hill Montessori isn't good? That's a DCPS.

It is not good, sorry. I guess some people find it acceptable but not me.

I mean, it's good if your alternatives are Miner or Payne or Tyler English Language or Amidon-Bowen... but there's no doubt it's not good for those schools. I know of 3 kids in my DD's private preschool class who are IB for Miner and lottery-ed into CHML (one knew she would b/c she is a sibling). All 3 families would have used Miner otherwise. All 3 are very education-focused families who would have been valuable members of the Miner community, but are instead off to CHML. I don't blame them at all, in their position I would have done exactly the same thing. But there is not question that citywide schools in wards hurt the worse-performing IB schools in that Ward. It's one thing when it's a charter w/ a specific mission offering a different kind of choice. But purposely placing "standard curriculum" citywides in each ward? Why would that be in DCPS' interest? What purpose would that serve other than a few lucky winners getting to opt-out of worse-performing IBs?

That's the whole premise of school choice . . . i.e., school chance

Yawn.

The "premise" of school choice is exactly what it sounds like. Getting to choose between schools, perhaps something better than the low quality offerings your union-vote-beholden "betters" are foistin on you.

Nobody was outraged when Obama opted out of the neighborhood schools for his children. Choice shouldn't be merely the prerogative of the wealthy.

You may be fine with whatever you're offered, but some of us are not. I demand better for my children, and I will get it via one path or another.

First, that is not true; the usual suspects put forth the usual outrage, voiced every time a POTUS has school-aged kids. Second, using a First Kid scenario to talk about school choice is a lame straw man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capital Hill Montessori isn't good? That's a DCPS.

It is not good, sorry. I guess some people find it acceptable but not me.

I mean, it's good if your alternatives are Miner or Payne or Tyler English Language or Amidon-Bowen... but there's no doubt it's not good for those schools. I know of 3 kids in my DD's private preschool class who are IB for Miner and lottery-ed into CHML (one knew she would b/c she is a sibling). All 3 families would have used Miner otherwise. All 3 are very education-focused families who would have been valuable members of the Miner community, but are instead off to CHML. I don't blame them at all, in their position I would have done exactly the same thing. But there is not question that citywide schools in wards hurt the worse-performing IB schools in that Ward. It's one thing when it's a charter w/ a specific mission offering a different kind of choice. But purposely placing "standard curriculum" citywides in each ward? Why would that be in DCPS' interest? What purpose would that serve other than a few lucky winners getting to opt-out of worse-performing IBs?

That's the whole premise of school choice . . . i.e., school chance

Yawn.

The "premise" of school choice is exactly what it sounds like. Getting to choose between schools, perhaps something better than the low quality offerings your union-vote-beholden "betters" are foistin on you.

Nobody was outraged when Obama opted out of the neighborhood schools for his children. Choice shouldn't be merely the prerogative of the wealthy.

You may be fine with whatever you're offered, but some of us are not. I demand better for my children, and I will get it via one path or another.

I feel the same way and am seriously considering homeschooling, creating a micro-school, or sending my children to boarding school. I would try for privates around here, but most aren't that great either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Citywide schools do not = charter. Charters are wholly separate from city administration. I would like to see more experimentation within the DCPS structure, like magnet schools. STEM focused schools, gifted and talented programs etc. Locate these programs in schools that are under enrolled and offer to in bound families as well as OOB. To some degree this is already being done wth language immersion and a couple of Montessori programs, but I’d like a more diverse offerings.

Yes but the Montessori dcps schools are terrible. The only reason the immersion ones are semi successful (emphasis on semi) has to do with motivated parents. There is not one immersion dcps I’d consider.

Not Oyster?

Oyster.... Its semi success (it's not perfect) is due to some unique circumstances - fancy neighborhood, original renovated building was shiny and pretty for the time and generated a LOT of buzz and love. Some diverse, talented faculty and cool 'feel' to the original immersion model (which was featured in and fed by much early bilingual research). It really did not get much input/support/understanding from central admin. If anything they could be obstructivist. Not much budget love. Very motivated parents contributed a lot, but could also be obstreperous and divisive/destructive. Oyster is pretty unique in our city's history. I would call it one of the original magnet schools and say it does not owe anything to city administration for its success or failures at times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capital Hill Montessori isn't good? That's a DCPS.

It is not good, sorry. I guess some people find it acceptable but not me.

I mean, it's good if your alternatives are Miner or Payne or Tyler English Language or Amidon-Bowen... but there's no doubt it's not good for those schools. I know of 3 kids in my DD's private preschool class who are IB for Miner and lottery-ed into CHML (one knew she would b/c she is a sibling). All 3 families would have used Miner otherwise. All 3 are very education-focused families who would have been valuable members of the Miner community, but are instead off to CHML. I don't blame them at all, in their position I would have done exactly the same thing. But there is not question that citywide schools in wards hurt the worse-performing IB schools in that Ward. It's one thing when it's a charter w/ a specific mission offering a different kind of choice. But purposely placing "standard curriculum" citywides in each ward? Why would that be in DCPS' interest? What purpose would that serve other than a few lucky winners getting to opt-out of worse-performing IBs?

That's the whole premise of school choice . . . i.e., school chance

Yawn.

The "premise" of school choice is exactly what it sounds like. Getting to choose between schools, perhaps something better than the low quality offerings your union-vote-beholden "betters" are foistin on you.

Nobody was outraged when Obama opted out of the neighborhood schools for his children. Choice shouldn't be merely the prerogative of the wealthy.

You may be fine with whatever you're offered, but some of us are not. I demand better for my children, and I will get it via one path or another.

Why should anyone have Ben outraged? Obama and the first missus made the best possible choice for their daughters. The reality is that for all of their soap box posturing, very few public school advocates would turn down Sidwell if their kids got in and the parents could afford the education.

[Anonymous]

And the Secret Service had a say, I expect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the Secret Service had a say, I expect.

True. Private schools don’t need metal detectors run by DC’s poor imitation of the TSA!

[Anonymous]

You could do that today. Eaton and Hearst in Ward 3 still have very large OOB enrollments. DCPS could say, “No - stop! We are not going to lose these schools, not going to let them flip to IB. They will never become like Janney. They must remain jewels accessible on the basis of equality and inclusion to the entire community of DC!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You could do that today. Eaton and Hearst in Ward 3 still have very large OOB enrollments. DCPS could say, “No - stop! We are not going to lose these schools, not going to let them flip to IB. They will never become like Janney. They must remain jewels accessible on the basis of equality and inclusion to the entire community of DC!”

Same with Maury and Van Ness in capitol hill which are going to be all white and high SES within the next 5-10 years most likely

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could do that today. Eaton and Hearst in Ward 3 still have very large OOB enrollments. DCPS could say, “No - stop! We are not going to lose these schools, not going to let them flip to IB. They will never become like Janney. They must remain jewels accessible on the basis of equality and inclusion to the entire community of DC!”

Same with Maury and Van Ness in capitol hill which are going to be all white and high SES within the next 5-10 years most likely

Maury is basically all white now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could do that today. Eaton and Hearst in Ward 3 still have very large OOB enrollments. DCPS could say, “No - stop! We are not going to lose these schools, not going to let them flip to IB. They will never become like Janney. They must remain jewels accessible on the basis of equality and inclusion to the entire community of DC!”

Same with Maury and Van Ness in capitol hill which are going to be all white and high SES within the next 5-10 years most likely

The Van Ness boosters on this site are out of control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put a citywide school in overcrowded Ward 3. Maybe a magnet STEM school.

Do you even understand the purpose of "magnet" in "magnet schools"? No. Ward 3 doesn't need a magnet, because it already is a magnet. Put the magnet in Ward 7 or 8.

Duh.

It's funny. The point of a magnet is to concentrate the good students to attract more good students. Of course academic performance is highly correlated with socioeconomic status, so what you're really talking about is concentrating the better-off kids to attract more better off kids. At the same time there's another very active thread on this forum with 25+ pages of responses about how the at-risk kids in DCPS are too concentrated and that DCPS needs to do a better job of dispersing at-risk kids into the schools where the well-off kids are concentrated.

So I'm confused: Is the solution for DCPS concentrating the well-off kids, or diluting them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put a citywide school in overcrowded Ward 3. Maybe a magnet STEM school.

Do you even understand the purpose of "magnet" in "magnet schools"? No. Ward 3 doesn't need a magnet, because it already is a magnet. Put the magnet in Ward 7 or 8.

Duh.

It's funny. The point of a magnet is to concentrate the good students to attract more good students. Of course academic performance is highly correlated with socioeconomic status, so what you're really talking about is concentrating the better-off kids to attract more better off kids. At the same time there's another very active thread on this forum with 25+ pages of responses about how the at-risk kids in DCPS are too concentrated and that DCPS needs to do a better job of dispersing at-risk kids into the schools where the well-off kids are concentrated.

So I'm confused: Is the solution for DCPS concentrating the well-off kids, or diluting them?

Ha! The point is to disperse those “white, wealthy” students in Ward 3 and Capitol Hill and concentrate better-off kids in other wards. It’s the logic of resentment and schadenfreude.