If Fenty Loses ...

[Anonymous]

Well the testing/blaming/firing is stasis, because we've been doing it now for years.

So what is the next fix?

[Anonymous]

That's the whole point. Anything to get middle class parents into DCPS. That means expanding PS/PK, facilities upgrades, and gentrification.

That's all there is. In 10-15 years, DCPS will have higher overall quality than MCPS.

[Anonymous]

In 10-15 years, DCPS will have higher overall quality than MCPS.

What have you been smoking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's the whole point. Anything to get middle class parents into DCPS. That means expanding PS/PK, facilities upgrades, and gentrification.

That's all there is. In 10-15 years, DCPS will have higher overall quality than MCPS.

higher overall quality of what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 10-15 years, DCPS will have higher overall quality than MCPS.

What have you been smoking?

I'm sure there were folks in the '50s who couldn't imagine the impending collapse of the city. Few ever see major demographic shifts coming. Putting aside changing tastes, with the growth in regional population over the coming 10 or 15 years, commuting from suburb-to-suburb, or even to and from the city will become a Hell on Earth. We won't even talk about the coming rise in oil prices, or the well-documented accelerating trend towards the suburbanization of poverty.

[Anonymous]

So let's assume that these demographic changes occur. All you're talking about is having schools with richer, smarter students. That doesn't address the quality of what schools provide. Don't you have any aspirations for what our schools could be offering in the way of educational opportunities?

[Anonymous]

The single most important factor in school quality is parental income; the second most important factor is teacher quality.

Nothing can be done about the first, aside from the inexorable process of gentrification. At least Rhee is attempting to address the second. The anti-Rhee/WTU position seems to be that there are no bad teachers--only bad students.

That doesn't really get us that far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let's assume that these demographic changes occur. All you're talking about is having schools with richer, smarter students. That doesn't address the quality of what schools provide. Don't you have any aspirations for what our schools could be offering in the way of educational opportunities?

Richer smarter students; more educated, involved parents. A greater emphasis on middle-class schools and education at the political level...

[Anonymous]

Sorry "middle-class issues" at the political level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's assume that these demographic changes occur. All you're talking about is having schools with richer, smarter students. That doesn't address the quality of what schools provide. Don't you have any aspirations for what our schools could be offering in the way of educational opportunities?

Richer smarter students; more educated, involved parents. A greater emphasis on middle-class schools and education at the political level...

What does this mean? Middle-class issues and education at the political level?

What about curriculum? You don't think this can be better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And this is different than the past 40 years, how?

Because we can at least acknowledge that the last 40 years were a failure. The "new & improved!" DCPS makes the cover of Time magazine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The single most important factor in school quality is parental income; the second most important factor is teacher quality.

Nothing can be done about the first, aside from the inexorable process of gentrification. At least Rhee is attempting to address the second. The anti-Rhee/WTU position seems to be that there are no bad teachers--only bad students.

That doesn't really get us that far.

No, actually it's the mother's level of education. Admittedly parental income is often a good proxy but it is not quite the same. The single most important factor in driving a child's level of educational success is the mother's level of education attainment.

[Anonymous]

So let's assume that these demographic changes occur. All you're talking about is having schools with richer, smarter students

When you have an electorate the majority of whom are poor and uneducated , the services that are emphasized are the services that poor people care about. So "Summer Jobs For Youth" becomes one of the top priorities in the city; and plowing snow takes a back seat. The top priority of something like the DMV becomes providing jobs for DC residents; but if lines are unbearably long, and the bureaucracy becomes unnavigable, oh, well--that just means we can create more jobs.

As DC transitions from a overwhelmingly-poor electorate to an electorate where the income distribution follows a normal profile, middle-class issues become the primary concern. Suddenly the streets get plowed in a timely manner, and things like bike lanes start popping up everywhere. Suddenly you can renew your registration or driver's license over the internet rather than waiting in line for 8 hours. We still have the Summer Jobs program, but it's not the reason the DC government exists. In other words, the public services start looking like those in any other well-functioning municipality. And the poor folks benefit from having short DMV lines as much as the rich.

The same thing will happen at the schools level--obviously the curriculum will change as the demographics change. What you're proposing (or at least implying with your question) is that, if tomorrow, the entire population of DC were replaced with 700,000 upper middle-class residents of McLean, VA, that the schools would be exactly the same only "with richer, smarter students."

Obviously that wouldn't be the case. You can make a lot of changes to the curriculum assuming an 80% literacy/numeracy rate. At 50%, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The same thing will happen at the schools level--obviously the curriculum will change as the demographics change. What you're proposing (or at least implying with your question) is that, if tomorrow, the entire population of DC were replaced with 700,000 upper middle-class residents of McLean, VA, that the schools would be exactly the same only "with richer, smarter students."

Obviously that wouldn't be the case. You can make a lot of changes to the curriculum assuming an 80% literacy/numeracy rate. At 50%, not so much.

Actually, it's not obvious at all that the curriculum will change. The curriculum in Montgomery County isn't much better than in DC.
And yes, if all you care about is test scores, then the demographic changes will not substantially improve the schools, except that they will be filled with richer, easier to educate children.

I don't see any reason why the curriculum can't be improved regardless of the literacy/numeracy rates.

On the other hand, I don't see the curriculum changing at all if nobody discusses it or demands it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The single most important factor in school quality is parental income; the second most important factor is teacher quality.

Wrong. School quality depends on what the school provides. Student achievement is determined mainly by parental income/educational level