s/o of We Need More HRCSs

[Anonymous]

I say we don't need more HRCSs.

What we actually need is fewer of them, because the proliferation of charters means that fewer and fewer will have good options for a good-to-excellent by-right school. But it's too hard and not fair to backtrack now, and I see how we got here. Still I think it is the wrong direction. I don't claim to have solutions, just sharing my thoughts.

I should also note that I mean "we" as a city. Not "we" as a frustrated NW or up-and-coming NE parent with one or two cars, stable jobs, and a so/so in-boundary.

[Anonymous]

Really, what is the point of this other than to stir the pot?

[Anonymous]

We as a city need good seats for our children. That could be a highly successful charter school program or a wonderful neighborhood school. The great thing is that we have strong and positive advocates working for both.

What hurts this city is people like the OP working in the negative.

[Anonymous]

I think charters have done a good job of putting DCPS on notice and I think DCPS has responded fairly well.

I also think we've got about what we need now - except possibly for charters in wards 7 and 8, specifically focused on at risk kids (like KIPP, etc). I'd like to see charters stabilize a bit and DCPS continue to step it up.

Ultimatley I'd like to see a more rational system where people could get into schools because of the programs, not just to get OUT of bad DCPS options. I'd like the whole system to be less reliant on luck. Perhaps the only way to do that is offer too many options, and then weed out those that can't compete. But that seems like an unstable way to proceed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think charters have done a good job of putting DCPS on notice and I think DCPS has responded fairly well.

I also think we've got about what we need now - except possibly for charters in wards 7 and 8, specifically focused on at risk kids (like KIPP, etc). I'd like to see charters stabilize a bit and DCPS continue to step it up.

Ultimatley I'd like to see a more rational system where people could get into schools because of the programs, not just to get OUT of bad DCPS options. I'd like the whole system to be less reliant on luck. Perhaps the only way to do that is offer too many options, and then weed out those that can't compete. But that seems like an unstable way to proceed.

Ever heard of "choice sets"? Abby Smith and the Ed Reformers tried to ram those down our throats last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I say we don't need more HRCSs.

What we actually need is fewer of them, because the proliferation of charters means that fewer and fewer will have good options for a good-to-excellent by-right school. But it's too hard and not fair to backtrack now, and I see how we got here. Still I think it is the wrong direction. I don't claim to have solutions, just sharing my thoughts.

I should also note that I mean "we" as a city. Not "we" as a frustrated NW or up-and-coming NE parent with one or two cars, stable jobs, and a so/so in-boundary.

I don't agree. Long before HRCS, DC had very few good-to-excellent by-right schools. Most of the improvement we've seen in DCPS, especially the dramatic turn arounds in schools like Deal, Brent, Maury, Powell etc . . . has happened over the past 10 year, after charter schools began to come onto the scene.

Given that, it's hard for me to see how charter schools are causing a reduction in good local public schools.

Can you name a school that was good before charters and now isn't?

[Anonymous]

Charters have poached the best middle school students, creating a spiral of failures.

These are the good students with engaged, aware parents, i.e. the ones I'd hope my kid would still have in his class.

How do they do this? by opening two decent MS's at 5th instead of 6th. These leads more of us figure out a way into Deal, to go private, or leave the system.

Charters clearly don't care. It's all market share to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charters have poached the best middle school students, creating a spiral of failures.

These are the good students with engaged, aware parents, i.e. the ones I'd hope my kid would still have in his class.

How do they do this? by opening two decent MS's at 5th instead of 6th. These leads more of us figure out a way into Deal, to go private, or leave the system.

Charters clearly don't care. It's all market share to them.

Which middle schools have gone downhill

Before charters, every middle school kid I knew with engaged, aware parents, pre charter, moved to the suburbs, went to private, or figured out how to get to Deal or Hardy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charters have poached the best middle school students, creating a spiral of failures.

These are the good students with engaged, aware parents, i.e. the ones I'd hope my kid would still have in his class.

How do they do this? by opening two decent MS's at 5th instead of 6th. These leads more of us figure out a way into Deal, to go private, or leave the system.

Charters clearly don't care. It's all market share to them.

I don't understand. If kids were staying at your school through fifth grade, you would....? Not try to go to Deal? Not go private? What middle school are you zoned for that is being hurt by Latin and Basis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters have poached the best middle school students, creating a spiral of failures.

These are the good students with engaged, aware parents, i.e. the ones I'd hope my kid would still have in his class.

How do they do this? by opening two decent MS's at 5th instead of 6th. These leads more of us figure out a way into Deal, to go private, or leave the system.

Charters clearly don't care. It's all market share to them.

Which middle schools have gone downhill

Before charters, every middle school kid I knew with engaged, aware parents, pre charter, moved to the suburbs, went to private, or figured out how to get to Deal or Hardy.

Jefferson

[Anonymous]

I totally understand what OP is trying to say. By having more charters we leave the people without the luck or ability to drive to a charter in the schools. The schools suffer as the cream is skimmed off to the charters. I get it and I sort of agree.

I think the charters should be only reserved for "alternative type" schools- language immersion, Montessori, special Ed, etc. I don't think that charter schools should just be billed as "better" traditional schools, if that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters have poached the best middle school students, creating a spiral of failures.

These are the good students with engaged, aware parents, i.e. the ones I'd hope my kid would still have in his class.

How do they do this? by opening two decent MS's at 5th instead of 6th. These leads more of us figure out a way into Deal, to go private, or leave the system.

Charters clearly don't care. It's all market share to them.

Which middle schools have gone downhill

Before charters, every middle school kid I knew with engaged, aware parents, pre charter, moved to the suburbs, went to private, or figured out how to get to Deal or Hardy.

Seriously, this story of charters creating a DCPS spiral of failures requires an historical understanding of DC that starts in 2009 and does not look before that one day. Which is nonsensical, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters have poached the best middle school students, creating a spiral of failures.

These are the good students with engaged, aware parents, i.e. the ones I'd hope my kid would still have in his class.

How do they do this? by opening two decent MS's at 5th instead of 6th. These leads more of us figure out a way into Deal, to go private, or leave the system.

Charters clearly don't care. It's all market share to them.

Which middle schools have gone downhill

Before charters, every middle school kid I knew with engaged, aware parents, pre charter, moved to the suburbs, went to private, or figured out how to get to Deal or Hardy.

Jefferson

Jefferson had a unique history, if I recall, where the principal actively recruited top kids from around the city. The end of that model was the end of the appeal of Jefferson for Brent families. Latin and Basis just filled that void.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters have poached the best middle school students, creating a spiral of failures.

These are the good students with engaged, aware parents, i.e. the ones I'd hope my kid would still have in his class.

How do they do this? by opening two decent MS's at 5th instead of 6th. These leads more of us figure out a way into Deal, to go private, or leave the system.

Charters clearly don't care. It's all market share to them.

Which middle schools have gone downhill

Before charters, every middle school kid I knew with engaged, aware parents, pre charter, moved to the suburbs, went to private, or figured out how to get to Deal or Hardy.

Jefferson

I would think the charter middles have made it harder to turn Hardy around

[Anonymous]

If it wasn't for my charter, I would be in private. I am not being skimmed off.

I wouldn't be in public school no matter what. Only part of this is due to the fact my IB school is terrible. As a college teacher I believe the traditional education system cententerd on the teacher and focused summative evaluation is harmful to students. Honor students from good high schools are the worst. My one student for SWW was a dream - and not because he was prepared and had mastered the content, but because he was invested in learning and not godl stars.

thank god for charter schools offereing a progressive education so I don't have to pay tuition money we don't have for my kid to get teh kind of educational experience I want her to have.