Abbott elementary takes on the Charter School Movement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago, an EOTR DCPS elementary school was taken over by a charter--not just that the DCPS was closed and a charter used the building, but a regular school that had to take all in-bound kids was operated by a charter. The charter gave up. They weren't getting the test scores they wanted, and their model wasn't working with the kids they were getting and the churn throughout the year.

Charters have the opportunity to have a student body where all the kids have a grownup that planned seven months ahead and filled out the lottery forms and enrollment paperwork. They can kick out kids who come late, miss school, misbehave, or show up without uniforms and materials. DCPS schools do not have that opportunity.

Honestly this is the main point, and most of the time the charters *still* don't outperform DCPS w/r/t test scores. But so many charter supporters ignore it entirely, or make these specious arguments about how "they take some IEPs too!" as if there's anything approaching an apples to apples comparison to be made. But the truth is they just want to avoid at risk kids, and if their avoidance also drains money from the schools left behind to take care of those kids: so what?

Charters are full of at-risk kids, Latino kids, and Black kids. And I don’t think it’s true that charters in DC kick kids out like that. Stats, please? Also, arguably, it’s a feature not a bug that kids with severe behavior issues can be removed. DCPS should make greater use of alternative schools as well.

They don't kick kids out! And also, I'm glad they kick kids out, it's why I ranked them so high!

Here’s the actual data showing suspension and expulsion rates - very low.

https://dcpcsb.egnyte.com/dl/rc5LdC1UK6

And yes, I think both DCPS and charters should have the ability to engage in effective discipline.

More than 5% is very low? Or you believe that all the "mid year withdrawals" moved out of town?

Compare to the most recent DCPS data that google provides, showing that literally no kids were expelled in 2019. (https://dcschoolreportcard.org/leas/1-0000/school-safety-discipline?lang=en) So yes, the schools that "counsel out" the 5% of their student body they don't want to deal with, *after* starting from the premise that all these kids come from homes with involved parents, should be outperforming public schools. They rarely do, though.

Did you look at the link? the charter expulsion rate was 0.1% in 2021.

And, I have no issues with kids being counseled out of charters that offer advanced academics as part of their model.

Did you look at the link? The expulsion rate was 0.1% and the Mid-Year Withdrawal rate was 5.3%. They are counseling out (that's charter for "expelling") roughly 5% of their students. I know you have no issues with them doing it, which is why I laughed at your assertion that they don't do it, and also, good for them for doing it. Now that you've admitted twice that they do get rid of kids they don't want to deal with, what is the point of continuing to argue that they don't?

Is it a reasonable assumption that the mid-year withdrawal rate is people counseled out? That seems like a big leap to me. DC is a hugely transient city. Plus, with charters, you have a guaranteed spot at your local IB, so your kid might be doing fine, but you might be struggling with the commute or realize that honestly, it's not what you were hoping for or not better than you IB, and so you leave. Assuming that all (or even most) of that 5.3% is kids who were counseled out seems like a huge leap to me.

Basis for example has lower numbers for withdrawal rates - would be surprising if this was driven by kids counseled out (since Basis has such a rep for being demanding) but makes sense if it's driven by people moving, as you might be more likely to get families who are more settled.

Where do you think those kids go who are “counseled out” of charters?

I have no idea. The question here seems to be how much (if at all) that even happens. And I'm not convinced by the withdrawal rate that it does.

I have an idea! Back to their IBs, which is incredibly disruptive for multiple reasons. Also the fact that IBs can't perfectly plan class sizes and have to take all IB comers at all times is also a way in which they are very different than charters. Lots of charters don't even back fill! So when they still have worse test scores, it's actually impressive.

Please name these “lots” of charters that don’t backfill.

[Anonymous]

A good listen: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/startup/v4he75

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago, an EOTR DCPS elementary school was taken over by a charter--not just that the DCPS was closed and a charter used the building, but a regular school that had to take all in-bound kids was operated by a charter. The charter gave up. They weren't getting the test scores they wanted, and their model wasn't working with the kids they were getting and the churn throughout the year.

Charters have the opportunity to have a student body where all the kids have a grownup that planned seven months ahead and filled out the lottery forms and enrollment paperwork. They can kick out kids who come late, miss school, misbehave, or show up without uniforms and materials. DCPS schools do not have that opportunity.

Honestly this is the main point, and most of the time the charters *still* don't outperform DCPS w/r/t test scores. But so many charter supporters ignore it entirely, or make these specious arguments about how "they take some IEPs too!" as if there's anything approaching an apples to apples comparison to be made. But the truth is they just want to avoid at risk kids, and if their avoidance also drains money from the schools left behind to take care of those kids: so what?

Charters are full of at-risk kids, Latino kids, and Black kids. And I don’t think it’s true that charters in DC kick kids out like that. Stats, please? Also, arguably, it’s a feature not a bug that kids with severe behavior issues can be removed. DCPS should make greater use of alternative schools as well.

They don't kick kids out! And also, I'm glad they kick kids out, it's why I ranked them so high!

Here’s the actual data showing suspension and expulsion rates - very low.

https://dcpcsb.egnyte.com/dl/rc5LdC1UK6

And yes, I think both DCPS and charters should have the ability to engage in effective discipline.

More than 5% is very low? Or you believe that all the "mid year withdrawals" moved out of town?

Compare to the most recent DCPS data that google provides, showing that literally no kids were expelled in 2019. (https://dcschoolreportcard.org/leas/1-0000/school-safety-discipline?lang=en) So yes, the schools that "counsel out" the 5% of their student body they don't want to deal with, *after* starting from the premise that all these kids come from homes with involved parents, should be outperforming public schools. They rarely do, though.

Did you look at the link? the charter expulsion rate was 0.1% in 2021.

And, I have no issues with kids being counseled out of charters that offer advanced academics as part of their model.

Did you look at the link? The expulsion rate was 0.1% and the Mid-Year Withdrawal rate was 5.3%. They are counseling out (that's charter for "expelling") roughly 5% of their students. I know you have no issues with them doing it, which is why I laughed at your assertion that they don't do it, and also, good for them for doing it. Now that you've admitted twice that they do get rid of kids they don't want to deal with, what is the point of continuing to argue that they don't?

Is it a reasonable assumption that the mid-year withdrawal rate is people counseled out? That seems like a big leap to me. DC is a hugely transient city. Plus, with charters, you have a guaranteed spot at your local IB, so your kid might be doing fine, but you might be struggling with the commute or realize that honestly, it's not what you were hoping for or not better than you IB, and so you leave. Assuming that all (or even most) of that 5.3% is kids who were counseled out seems like a huge leap to me.

Basis for example has lower numbers for withdrawal rates - would be surprising if this was driven by kids counseled out (since Basis has such a rep for being demanding) but makes sense if it's driven by people moving, as you might be more likely to get families who are more settled.

Where do you think those kids go who are “counseled out” of charters?

I have no idea. The question here seems to be how much (if at all) that even happens. And I'm not convinced by the withdrawal rate that it does.

I have an idea! Back to their IBs, which is incredibly disruptive for multiple reasons. Also the fact that IBs can't perfectly plan class sizes and have to take all IB comers at all times is also a way in which they are very different than charters. Lots of charters don't even back fill! So when they still have worse test scores, it's actually impressive.

Please name these “lots” of charters that don’t backfill.

BASIS is the only one I can think of that truly doesn't backfill. I think it's ridiculous they are allowed to do this.

Some of the Montessori charters (LAMB for sure) don't necessarily backfill at the same grade level of attrition, but the reason for this is that they have multi-grade classrooms and a preference for backfilling at the youngest grade for the classroom (so attrition at K will be backfilled at the PK level often). It's a different model and I can understand wanting new children to be starting with their grouped cohort. But they DO backfill.

I have also seen complaints about charter schools not taking on new kids if space opens up mid-year. A DCPS can't do this -- they have to integrate any IB child who shows up, no matter what part of the year it is or why they are enrolling (move, kicked out of prior school, etc.). I do actually think there should be some rules in place to force charters to pull from their waitlist midyear if spots open up, because there's really no compelling reason that charters should be allowed to do this when a DCPS cannot. Plus, if one of the central goals of the charter and lottery system is to provide more and better options to families at failing IB schools, it's not like that need disappears after count day. If a child strikes out in the lottery and winds up at a school not meeting their needs, and then a spot opens up at a school for which they are waitlisted during the school year, that child should be offered a spot according to their waitlist spot. That seems obvious and I do think the city should change the rules so that this is required by all public programs, whether public or private. Same thing with, for instance, overenrolled PK programs that can't accept all IB kids -- if someone leaves midyear, those spots should be filled off the waitlist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago, an EOTR DCPS elementary school was taken over by a charter--not just that the DCPS was closed and a charter used the building, but a regular school that had to take all in-bound kids was operated by a charter. The charter gave up. They weren't getting the test scores they wanted, and their model wasn't working with the kids they were getting and the churn throughout the year.

Charters have the opportunity to have a student body where all the kids have a grownup that planned seven months ahead and filled out the lottery forms and enrollment paperwork. They can kick out kids who come late, miss school, misbehave, or show up without uniforms and materials. DCPS schools do not have that opportunity.

Honestly this is the main point, and most of the time the charters *still* don't outperform DCPS w/r/t test scores. But so many charter supporters ignore it entirely, or make these specious arguments about how "they take some IEPs too!" as if there's anything approaching an apples to apples comparison to be made. But the truth is they just want to avoid at risk kids, and if their avoidance also drains money from the schools left behind to take care of those kids: so what?

Charters are full of at-risk kids, Latino kids, and Black kids. And I don’t think it’s true that charters in DC kick kids out like that. Stats, please? Also, arguably, it’s a feature not a bug that kids with severe behavior issues can be removed. DCPS should make greater use of alternative schools as well.

They don't kick kids out! And also, I'm glad they kick kids out, it's why I ranked them so high!

Here’s the actual data showing suspension and expulsion rates - very low.

https://dcpcsb.egnyte.com/dl/rc5LdC1UK6

And yes, I think both DCPS and charters should have the ability to engage in effective discipline.

More than 5% is very low? Or you believe that all the "mid year withdrawals" moved out of town?

Compare to the most recent DCPS data that google provides, showing that literally no kids were expelled in 2019. (https://dcschoolreportcard.org/leas/1-0000/school-safety-discipline?lang=en) So yes, the schools that "counsel out" the 5% of their student body they don't want to deal with, *after* starting from the premise that all these kids come from homes with involved parents, should be outperforming public schools. They rarely do, though.

Did you look at the link? the charter expulsion rate was 0.1% in 2021.

And, I have no issues with kids being counseled out of charters that offer advanced academics as part of their model.

Did you look at the link? The expulsion rate was 0.1% and the Mid-Year Withdrawal rate was 5.3%. They are counseling out (that's charter for "expelling") roughly 5% of their students. I know you have no issues with them doing it, which is why I laughed at your assertion that they don't do it, and also, good for them for doing it. Now that you've admitted twice that they do get rid of kids they don't want to deal with, what is the point of continuing to argue that they don't?

Is it a reasonable assumption that the mid-year withdrawal rate is people counseled out? That seems like a big leap to me. DC is a hugely transient city. Plus, with charters, you have a guaranteed spot at your local IB, so your kid might be doing fine, but you might be struggling with the commute or realize that honestly, it's not what you were hoping for or not better than you IB, and so you leave. Assuming that all (or even most) of that 5.3% is kids who were counseled out seems like a huge leap to me.

Basis for example has lower numbers for withdrawal rates - would be surprising if this was driven by kids counseled out (since Basis has such a rep for being demanding) but makes sense if it's driven by people moving, as you might be more likely to get families who are more settled.

Where do you think those kids go who are “counseled out” of charters?

I have no idea. The question here seems to be how much (if at all) that even happens. And I'm not convinced by the withdrawal rate that it does.

I have an idea! Back to their IBs, which is incredibly disruptive for multiple reasons. Also the fact that IBs can't perfectly plan class sizes and have to take all IB comers at all times is also a way in which they are very different than charters. Lots of charters don't even back fill! So when they still have worse test scores, it's actually impressive.

Please name these “lots” of charters that don’t backfill.

BASIS is the only one I can think of that truly doesn't backfill. I think it's ridiculous they are allowed to do this.

Some of the Montessori charters (LAMB for sure) don't necessarily backfill at the same grade level of attrition, but the reason for this is that they have multi-grade classrooms and a preference for backfilling at the youngest grade for the classroom (so attrition at K will be backfilled at the PK level often). It's a different model and I can understand wanting new children to be starting with their grouped cohort. But they DO backfill.

I have also seen complaints about charter schools not taking on new kids if space opens up mid-year. A DCPS can't do this -- they have to integrate any IB child who shows up, no matter what part of the year it is or why they are enrolling (move, kicked out of prior school, etc.). I do actually think there should be some rules in place to force charters to pull from their waitlist midyear if spots open up, because there's really no compelling reason that charters should be allowed to do this when a DCPS cannot. Plus, if one of the central goals of the charter and lottery system is to provide more and better options to families at failing IB schools, it's not like that need disappears after count day. If a child strikes out in the lottery and winds up at a school not meeting their needs, and then a spot opens up at a school for which they are waitlisted during the school year, that child should be offered a spot according to their waitlist spot. That seems obvious and I do think the city should change the rules so that this is required by all public programs, whether public or private. Same thing with, for instance, overenrolled PK programs that can't accept all IB kids -- if someone leaves midyear, those spots should be filled off the waitlist.

Basis backfilling would set the newly admitted kids up for failure. It would be miserable to go from a regular DCPS middle school to Basis in 8th and realize that STEM classes are being taught years ahead of your old school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago, an EOTR DCPS elementary school was taken over by a charter--not just that the DCPS was closed and a charter used the building, but a regular school that had to take all in-bound kids was operated by a charter. The charter gave up. They weren't getting the test scores they wanted, and their model wasn't working with the kids they were getting and the churn throughout the year.

Charters have the opportunity to have a student body where all the kids have a grownup that planned seven months ahead and filled out the lottery forms and enrollment paperwork. They can kick out kids who come late, miss school, misbehave, or show up without uniforms and materials. DCPS schools do not have that opportunity.

Honestly this is the main point, and most of the time the charters *still* don't outperform DCPS w/r/t test scores. But so many charter supporters ignore it entirely, or make these specious arguments about how "they take some IEPs too!" as if there's anything approaching an apples to apples comparison to be made. But the truth is they just want to avoid at risk kids, and if their avoidance also drains money from the schools left behind to take care of those kids: so what?

Charters are full of at-risk kids, Latino kids, and Black kids. And I don’t think it’s true that charters in DC kick kids out like that. Stats, please? Also, arguably, it’s a feature not a bug that kids with severe behavior issues can be removed. DCPS should make greater use of alternative schools as well.

They don't kick kids out! And also, I'm glad they kick kids out, it's why I ranked them so high!

Here’s the actual data showing suspension and expulsion rates - very low.

https://dcpcsb.egnyte.com/dl/rc5LdC1UK6

And yes, I think both DCPS and charters should have the ability to engage in effective discipline.

More than 5% is very low? Or you believe that all the "mid year withdrawals" moved out of town?

Compare to the most recent DCPS data that google provides, showing that literally no kids were expelled in 2019. (https://dcschoolreportcard.org/leas/1-0000/school-safety-discipline?lang=en) So yes, the schools that "counsel out" the 5% of their student body they don't want to deal with, *after* starting from the premise that all these kids come from homes with involved parents, should be outperforming public schools. They rarely do, though.

Did you look at the link? the charter expulsion rate was 0.1% in 2021.

And, I have no issues with kids being counseled out of charters that offer advanced academics as part of their model.

Did you look at the link? The expulsion rate was 0.1% and the Mid-Year Withdrawal rate was 5.3%. They are counseling out (that's charter for "expelling") roughly 5% of their students. I know you have no issues with them doing it, which is why I laughed at your assertion that they don't do it, and also, good for them for doing it. Now that you've admitted twice that they do get rid of kids they don't want to deal with, what is the point of continuing to argue that they don't?

Is it a reasonable assumption that the mid-year withdrawal rate is people counseled out? That seems like a big leap to me. DC is a hugely transient city. Plus, with charters, you have a guaranteed spot at your local IB, so your kid might be doing fine, but you might be struggling with the commute or realize that honestly, it's not what you were hoping for or not better than you IB, and so you leave. Assuming that all (or even most) of that 5.3% is kids who were counseled out seems like a huge leap to me.

Basis for example has lower numbers for withdrawal rates - would be surprising if this was driven by kids counseled out (since Basis has such a rep for being demanding) but makes sense if it's driven by people moving, as you might be more likely to get families who are more settled.

Where do you think those kids go who are “counseled out” of charters?

I have no idea. The question here seems to be how much (if at all) that even happens. And I'm not convinced by the withdrawal rate that it does.

I have an idea! Back to their IBs, which is incredibly disruptive for multiple reasons. Also the fact that IBs can't perfectly plan class sizes and have to take all IB comers at all times is also a way in which they are very different than charters. Lots of charters don't even back fill! So when they still have worse test scores, it's actually impressive.

Please name these “lots” of charters that don’t backfill.

BASIS is the only one I can think of that truly doesn't backfill. I think it's ridiculous they are allowed to do this.

Some of the Montessori charters (LAMB for sure) don't necessarily backfill at the same grade level of attrition, but the reason for this is that they have multi-grade classrooms and a preference for backfilling at the youngest grade for the classroom (so attrition at K will be backfilled at the PK level often). It's a different model and I can understand wanting new children to be starting with their grouped cohort. But they DO backfill.

I have also seen complaints about charter schools not taking on new kids if space opens up mid-year. A DCPS can't do this -- they have to integrate any IB child who shows up, no matter what part of the year it is or why they are enrolling (move, kicked out of prior school, etc.). I do actually think there should be some rules in place to force charters to pull from their waitlist midyear if spots open up, because there's really no compelling reason that charters should be allowed to do this when a DCPS cannot. Plus, if one of the central goals of the charter and lottery system is to provide more and better options to families at failing IB schools, it's not like that need disappears after count day. If a child strikes out in the lottery and winds up at a school not meeting their needs, and then a spot opens up at a school for which they are waitlisted during the school year, that child should be offered a spot according to their waitlist spot. That seems obvious and I do think the city should change the rules so that this is required by all public programs, whether public or private. Same thing with, for instance, overenrolled PK programs that can't accept all IB kids -- if someone leaves midyear, those spots should be filled off the waitlist.

Basis backfilling would set the newly admitted kids up for failure. It would be miserable to go from a regular DCPS middle school to Basis in 8th and realize that STEM classes are being taught years ahead of your old school

+1000

A school like BASIS could backfill if it was pulling from a strong school system - like FCPS, maybe. But it would be a disaster in DC, where DCPS is literally a race to the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I loved the episode and for those who don't think that the same problems are happening in DC are just blind. Charters regularly take a select population of students and kick out those who require more resources, leaving DCPS with more students who have more needs. At the same time, the charters erode neighborhood schools leaving them with too small of a population to provide robust offerings.

There has been a lot of research focused on this "cream skimming" hypothesis. None of it paints this black and white, clear picture you're suggesting it does. If you want to engage in real policy conversation, it's good to be grounded in evidence and thoughtful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved the episode and for those who don't think that the same problems are happening in DC are just blind. Charters regularly take a select population of students and kick out those who require more resources, leaving DCPS with more students who have more needs. At the same time, the charters erode neighborhood schools leaving them with too small of a population to provide robust offerings.

There has been a lot of research focused on this "cream skimming" hypothesis. None of it paints this black and white, clear picture you're suggesting it does. If you want to engage in real policy conversation, it's good to be grounded in evidence and thoughtful.

You can't argue with a straight face that it doesn't exist in DC. How often is the advice lottery and move if you don't get good results?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago, an EOTR DCPS elementary school was taken over by a charter--not just that the DCPS was closed and a charter used the building, but a regular school that had to take all in-bound kids was operated by a charter. The charter gave up. They weren't getting the test scores they wanted, and their model wasn't working with the kids they were getting and the churn throughout the year.

Charters have the opportunity to have a student body where all the kids have a grownup that planned seven months ahead and filled out the lottery forms and enrollment paperwork. They can kick out kids who come late, miss school, misbehave, or show up without uniforms and materials. DCPS schools do not have that opportunity.

Honestly this is the main point, and most of the time the charters *still* don't outperform DCPS w/r/t test scores. But so many charter supporters ignore it entirely, or make these specious arguments about how "they take some IEPs too!" as if there's anything approaching an apples to apples comparison to be made. But the truth is they just want to avoid at risk kids, and if their avoidance also drains money from the schools left behind to take care of those kids: so what?

Charters are full of at-risk kids, Latino kids, and Black kids. And I don’t think it’s true that charters in DC kick kids out like that. Stats, please? Also, arguably, it’s a feature not a bug that kids with severe behavior issues can be removed. DCPS should make greater use of alternative schools as well.

I think you have probably not looked very closely at DC wide mobility rates and movement in and out of DCPS schools mid-year. It is sad but the rates of mobility, including in and out of the public school system, are extremely high in DC across sectors.

It's okay to have concerns. But you need to consider data too or else everyone just dismisses you as someone yelling at the clouds.

They don't kick kids out! And also, I'm glad they kick kids out, it's why I ranked them so high!

Here’s the actual data showing suspension and expulsion rates - very low.

https://dcpcsb.egnyte.com/dl/rc5LdC1UK6

And yes, I think both DCPS and charters should have the ability to engage in effective discipline.

More than 5% is very low? Or you believe that all the "mid year withdrawals" moved out of town?

Compare to the most recent DCPS data that google provides, showing that literally no kids were expelled in 2019. (https://dcschoolreportcard.org/leas/1-0000/school-safety-discipline?lang=en) So yes, the schools that "counsel out" the 5% of their student body they don't want to deal with, *after* starting from the premise that all these kids come from homes with involved parents, should be outperforming public schools. They rarely do, though.

Did you look at the link? the charter expulsion rate was 0.1% in 2021.

And, I have no issues with kids being counseled out of charters that offer advanced academics as part of their model.

Did you look at the link? The expulsion rate was 0.1% and the Mid-Year Withdrawal rate was 5.3%. They are counseling out (that's charter for "expelling") roughly 5% of their students. I know you have no issues with them doing it, which is why I laughed at your assertion that they don't do it, and also, good for them for doing it. Now that you've admitted twice that they do get rid of kids they don't want to deal with, what is the point of continuing to argue that they don't?

[Anonymous]

Did you look at the link? The expulsion rate was 0.1% and the Mid-Year Withdrawal rate was 5.3%. They are counseling out (that's charter for "expelling") roughly 5% of their students. I know you have no issues with them doing it, which is why I laughed at your assertion that they don't do it, and also, good for them for doing it. Now that you've admitted twice that they do get rid of kids they don't want to deal with, what is the point of continuing to argue that they don't?

Student mobility rates are EXTREMELY high in DC. Mid-year withdrawals ACROSS SECTORS are very high. This includes movement across schools and into and out of the district. The data for DCPS are similar to charters. It's fine to have a bone to pick but if you don't ground it in actual evidence, what's the point of conversation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved the episode and for those who don't think that the same problems are happening in DC are just blind. Charters regularly take a select population of students and kick out those who require more resources, leaving DCPS with more students who have more needs. At the same time, the charters erode neighborhood schools leaving them with too small of a population to provide robust offerings.

There has been a lot of research focused on this "cream skimming" hypothesis. None of it paints this black and white, clear picture you're suggesting it does. If you want to engage in real policy conversation, it's good to be grounded in evidence and thoughtful.

You can't argue with a straight face that it doesn't exist in DC. How often is the advice lottery and move if you don't get good results?

Oh, but I can argue. With a very straight face. You seem to be constructing your opinions based on feelings and what you've "heard" people talk about. Most people in DC cannot move just because they want a different school. The people that can are a tiny slice of DC and aren't/shouldn't be the focus of policy makers. Urban charters serve more students of color and more low income students than do traditional public schools. That's based on data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charter schools bleed money from the public schools. And, charter schools don't have the same requirements as public schools or any oversite. It's a crap shoot, could be amazing or a total disaster! More often than not, a disaster

New poster. Charters don’t actually take any money from public schools directly. All schools are funded per pupil. If a public school’s enrollment is suffering, I think they should do a better job of figuring out why people don’t want to send their kid there versus blaming the school they opted to send their kids to. I do agree that charters need more oversight and that many of them are absolutely terrible and not actually a better option than the public alternative. That being said, I think it’s clear that parents want something that isn’t necessarily offered in the traditional public school setting. It would be better for districts to offer those options rather than fighting against them.

For the parents that want something different, they should pay to send their children to private school, not use my tax dollars to support charters

[Anonymous]

Charters made DCPS improve. However, DCPCSB is useless. Parents are completely at the mercy of their charter school. Abbott is pretty spot on with urban school issues. I like their charter episode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved the episode and for those who don't think that the same problems are happening in DC are just blind. Charters regularly take a select population of students and kick out those who require more resources, leaving DCPS with more students who have more needs. At the same time, the charters erode neighborhood schools leaving them with too small of a population to provide robust offerings.

There has been a lot of research focused on this "cream skimming" hypothesis. None of it paints this black and white, clear picture you're suggesting it does. If you want to engage in real policy conversation, it's good to be grounded in evidence and thoughtful.

You can't argue with a straight face that it doesn't exist in DC. How often is the advice lottery and move if you don't get good results?

Oh, but I can argue. With a very straight face. You seem to be constructing your opinions based on feelings and what you've "heard" people talk about. Most people in DC cannot move just because they want a different school. The people that can are a tiny slice of DC and aren't/shouldn't be the focus of policy makers. Urban charters serve more students of color and more low income students than do traditional public schools. That's based on data.

That tiny slice is the cream. Those are the people who can afford to underwrite PTAs and whose students are going to do the best

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charter schools bleed money from the public schools. And, charter schools don't have the same requirements as public schools or any oversite. It's a crap shoot, could be amazing or a total disaster! More often than not, a disaster

New poster. Charters don’t actually take any money from public schools directly. All schools are funded per pupil. If a public school’s enrollment is suffering, I think they should do a better job of figuring out why people don’t want to send their kid there versus blaming the school they opted to send their kids to. I do agree that charters need more oversight and that many of them are absolutely terrible and not actually a better option than the public alternative. That being said, I think it’s clear that parents want something that isn’t necessarily offered in the traditional public school setting. It would be better for districts to offer those options rather than fighting against them.

For the parents that want something different, they should pay to send their children to private school, not use my tax dollars to support charters

Here - let me fix that for you. If a caregiver can't afford to live in a wealthy neighborhood with good schools, with by-right school boundaries that are based on historic racism and redlining, they should keep their children in schools that have been underinvested in and underperformed for generations. They shouldn't have a taxpayer funded option for a school with better outcomes where their children are safe and learning. Only people with the means to 1. buy a house in an expensive neighborhood and/or 2. pay for private school should have anyone meaningful choice about which school their child attends.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know of any books about the DC public school system? I find this topic really fascinating, and would love to get a full picture of the evolution of DC public schools, historically up through charters, the common lottery, and free PK. It seems like such an interesting case study. Does this exist?