Open house impressions thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Successful charters with huge waitlists should expand. The city should give them the resources to do so. A lottery system is "fair" in the sense that it doesn't favor anyone for getting in... But it is not "fair" to only give a small number of students an opportunity to attend. And the illusionof "choice" is the worst. You don't have a choice to send your kid to the best hrcs for their needs--you have a "choice" of possibly getting into one of them.

I admit being very frustrated with the system right now. We are lucky, because we're zoned for a good middle school, but I don't think it will be the best fit for our xhild. Our child is happy at the school we started at this fall... But I think Latin would be the best fit for middle school, and to get into Latin... We need to apply for next year. I don't know whether to hope for a placement or not, to be honest.

Your bolded is a mistake a lot of people make in thinking all the successful charters need to do is "expand". "Just add more classrooms, get a bigger building, open a second building". Only until you've opened a school or run a school do you understand that something that works on a certain scale does not automatically continue to be manageable or of the same high quality when you "just expand". I've been to a couple of panels of successful charter founders since we have had a school-aged child in DC and I've heard them say the same things: no interest in expanding. It just isn't that simple.

And, all due respect to the struggle (we've been through the insanity of looking for schools and being shut out ourselves), but this scarcity of good spots is a given in DC and I don't understand people talking about "the illusion of choice". Who ever had that illusion that you can "choose" what DC public school your kid will go to?

People need to stop complaining and expecting other people to do all the work for them and do what the founders of the schools you want into so badly now did: START MORE GOOD CHARTER SCHOOLS. OR... GET HEAVILY INVOLVED IN YOUR IB SCHOOL long before your kids are old enough to go and work tirelessly to improve it.

More seats at good schools don't just suddenly appear from the ether. Several someones work hard to create them/improve them. Lamenting about how unfair it is shows that some of you had the privilege of not caring or not paying attention for years before deciding to move to DC with kids or have kids here. But the lack of good seats is historic and this is the best it's been in a long while.

People say this shit all the time on here. You know, go ahead and start your own charter school! No biggie.

As one of the people who was on the group who started one of these charter schools, I don't say that as if it was "no biggie" - but also saying "EXPAND" as if that is no biggie is also a bit annoying to those of us who spent a shitload of time working to get a school started with an end in mind.

Perhaps we don't want a school with 2,000 kids in it - which is exactly why we spent two years out of our lives planning a program exactly like we did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Successful charters with huge waitlists should expand. The city should give them the resources to do so. A lottery system is "fair" in the sense that it doesn't favor anyone for getting in... But it is not "fair" to only give a small number of students an opportunity to attend. And the illusionof "choice" is the worst. You don't have a choice to send your kid to the best hrcs for their needs--you have a "choice" of possibly getting into one of them.

Your bolded is a mistake a lot of people make in thinking all the successful charters need to do is "expand". "Just add more classrooms, get a bigger building, open a second building". Only until you've opened a school or run a school do you understand that something that works on a certain scale does not automatically continue to be manageable or of the same high quality when you "just expand". I've been to a couple of panels of successful charter founders since we have had a school-aged child in DC and I've heard them say the same things: no interest in expanding. It just isn't that simple.

And, all due respect to the struggle (we've been through the insanity of looking for schools and being shut out ourselves), but this scarcity of good spots is a given in DC and I don't understand people talking about "the illusion of choice". Who ever had that illusion that you can "choose" what DC public school your kid will go to?

People need to stop complaining and expecting other people to do all the work for them and do what the founders of the schools you want into so badly now did: START MORE GOOD CHARTER SCHOOLS. OR... GET HEAVILY INVOLVED IN YOUR IB SCHOOL long before your kids are old enough to go and work tirelessly to improve it.

More seats at good schools don't just suddenly appear from the ether. Several someones work hard to create them/improve them. Lamenting about how unfair it is shows that some of you had the privilege of not caring or not paying attention for years before deciding to move to DC with kids or have kids here. But the lack of good seats is historic and this is the best it's been in a long while.

People say this shit all the time on here. You know, go ahead and start your own charter school! No biggie.

As one of the people who was on the group who started one of these charter schools, I don't say that as if it was "no biggie" - but also saying "EXPAND" as if that is no biggie is also a bit annoying to those of us who spent a shitload of time working to get a school started with an end in mind.

Perhaps we don't want a school with 2,000 kids in it - which is exactly why we spent two years out of our lives planning a program exactly like we did.

I don't know which school you were part of starting, but on behalf of all of us in DC who have benefitted from the vision and incredibly hard work of people like you: THANK YOU!!!

It makes me crazy that people feel so entitled to just have quality spots available to them suddenly when their kids are school-aged, but do nothing/invest nothing beforehand in the name of helping those increased number of good spots to become a reality. Not everyone has the time, skills, knowledge or commitment to start a school their way, but EVERYONE has the ability to invest in their IB school or find out who's considering starting a charter school and offering whatever you can offer to assist.

These slots don't create themselves, and people complaining as if it's a new thing that quality slots are hard to come by and "Someone should just DO SOMETHING" are just being entitled. Must be nice not to have to care until you need the spots, then only caring long enough to get spots for your own kids, and then you don't care about creating more spots anymore.

PP thanks for what you did to create better options for kids in DC!

[Anonymous]

I've invested in every school we've attended, thanks. And that's one reason I don't want to bail after a single year. However, I still say, successful charters should expand. I'm not saying you need to add 2000 kids, but a size of about 600-700 seems reasonable. To educate fewer kids than that is inefficient.

And while I applaud the work so many parents have done, starting charters, it is half hearted, because the same investment in local schools might have lifted the tide for more kids. A charter school with one or two classes per grade is barely a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've invested in every school we've attended, thanks. And that's one reason I don't want to bail after a single year. However, I still say, successful charters should expand. I'm not saying you need to add 2000 kids, but a size of about 600-700 seems reasonable. To educate fewer kids than that is inefficient.

And while I applaud the work so many parents have done, starting charters, it is half hearted, because the same investment in local schools might have lifted the tide for more kids. A charter school with one or two classes per grade is barely a school.

Your second paragraph assumes all else is equal. It is not. With a charter, you deal with a small number of individuals on the board. With dcps you are dealing within the monolith of the district. Making change within the second paradigm is extraordinarily difficult. Have you tried it? I have, in Chicago, with a dedicated group of neighbors. It was excruciating and it takes YEARS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've invested in every school we've attended, thanks. And that's one reason I don't want to bail after a single year. However, I still say, successful charters should expand. I'm not saying you need to add 2000 kids, but a size of about 600-700 seems reasonable. To educate fewer kids than that is inefficient.

And while I applaud the work so many parents have done, starting charters, it is half hearted, because the same investment in local schools might have lifted the tide for more kids. A charter school with one or two classes per grade is barely a school.

I'm glad you're not in charge of making mandates with charters. 700 kids is Janney size. No thanks. I fully support similar charters opening but do not support charters to be forced to double in size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've invested in every school we've attended, thanks. And that's one reason I don't want to bail after a single year. However, I still say, successful charters should expand. I'm not saying you need to add 2000 kids, but a size of about 600-700 seems reasonable. To educate fewer kids than that is inefficient.

And while I applaud the work so many parents have done, starting charters, it is half hearted, because the same investment in local schools might have lifted the tide for more kids. A charter school with one or two classes per grade is barely a school.

I'm glad you've invested in every school you've attended. Because your random assessment that somehow "adding 600-700 kids seems reasonable" for successful charters is just that: random. There are so many variables and factors (mainly #s & size of classrooms, staffing, Admin capacity, and teacher development capacity) that determine whether that's reasonable or not, it just seems like a really random blanket statement to make. And therefore meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've invested in every school we've attended, thanks. And that's one reason I don't want to bail after a single year. However, I still say, successful charters should expand. I'm not saying you need to add 2000 kids, but a size of about 600-700 seems reasonable. To educate fewer kids than that is inefficient.

And while I applaud the work so many parents have done, starting charters, it is half hearted, because the same investment in local schools might have lifted the tide for more kids. A charter school with one or two classes per grade is barely a school.

Your second paragraph assumes all else is equal. It is not. With a charter, you deal with a small number of individuals on the board. With dcps you are dealing within the monolith of the district. Making change within the second paradigm is extraordinarily difficult. Have you tried it? I have, in Chicago, with a dedicated group of neighbors. It was excruciating and it takes YEARS.

Totally agree PP. It's crucial work, working to change district schools, but it does take somewhat different work, strategies, and often tremendous amount of effort even within one school, since there are so many decisionmakers about that one school both in and outside of that school. A charter is mostly a free standing organization and the number of decisionmakers who need to be engaged and convinced to make change are far fewer and the effort can be more focused. And yes, the scope of students positively affected may be smaller, but it's still way way better to have that impact than to sit home and complain about how there aren't enough good slots but do nothing about it. Not saying you specifically prior PP, but that is more for the people saying "Why does everyone keep repeating "start your own school"? As if!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ That's a sweeping generalization that isn't true. I am sure LAMB, for example, wishes it had more 'poor' and native Spanish speakers than they have now.

Were you trying to be funny? You take issue with a sweeping generalization and then follow with one of your own? Great example of irony, PP.

The point is the people who go to open houses aren't their target audience. My kids went there for 10+ years combined and I know the administration well and why they opened their school.

As someone who works in demography, the "poor and native Spanish speakers" are dwindling in DC. In another 10 years, LAMB might have white high SES families as their main "customer base"--what will they do then? They might have to actually compete to get families interested in the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ That's a sweeping generalization that isn't true. I am sure LAMB, for example, wishes it had more 'poor' and native Spanish speakers than they have now.

Were you trying to be funny? You take issue with a sweeping generalization and then follow with one of your own? Great example of irony, PP.

The point is the people who go to open houses aren't their target audience. My kids went there for 10+ years combined and I know the administration well and why they opened their school.

As someone who works in demography, the "poor and native Spanish speakers" are dwindling in DC. In another 10 years, LAMB might have white high SES families as their main "customer base"--what will they do then? They might have to actually compete to get families interested in the school.

Not the person from LAMB, but it seems pretty obvious that that won't be an issue. white high SES families already want to go to LAMB, LAMB is just trying to balance with native and less affluent Spanish speakers so there's a balance. If there are hardly any native Spanish-speaking families left in 10 yrs, that poses a different issue for their model but I assume those same white high SES families will be overjoyed to have a Spanish immersion Montessori school all to themselves. Not to say at all that that's what every white family wants, but plenty of threads on DCUM show it's what a lot of families want. Sounds awful to me though, which is why we don't go to our IB JKLMM even though we could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've invested in every school we've attended, thanks. And that's one reason I don't want to bail after a single year. However, I still say, successful charters should expand. I'm not saying you need to add 2000 kids, but a size of about 600-700 seems reasonable. To educate fewer kids than that is inefficient.

And while I applaud the work so many parents have done, starting charters, it is half hearted, because the same investment in local schools might have lifted the tide for more kids. A charter school with one or two classes per grade is barely a school.

Half hearted? You are misusing the word.

It takes an unbelievable amount of heart (blood, sweat, tears and money - personal money) to open a school. How dare you say it's "half hearted".

You speak in hypotheticals about the "tide lifting all boats" I've lived here for a long time and have yet to see that happen with DCPS. Time and time again, I've seen a small group of,parents band together and create great charter programs. You insult the effort they put into making this city better by calling it half hearted.

[Anonymous]

I've seen it happen in a different city. Admittedly, DC does seem to have provincial, almost tribal, issues with integrating its socioeconomic populations... But this is only exacerbated by the "start your own unicorn charter" approach.

A school of 700 kids is also not unreasonable. About 4 or 5 classes per grade, and with that comes increased amenities, increased fundraising, increased opportunity.
The fact that so many of you oppose it because you're afraid of the children that might attend is not encouraging.

[Anonymous]

And you misunderstand--MY enthusiasm for your blood sweat and tears is half-hearted, because you seem to be treating this as a zero sum game: you're only putting in that blood, sweat and tears so your child, and 24 other three year olds can have a special school all to themselves, with mandarin, yoga, and organic milk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've seen it happen in a different city. Admittedly, DC does seem to have provincial, almost tribal, issues with integrating its socioeconomic populations... But this is only exacerbated by the "start your own unicorn charter" approach.

A school of 700 kids is also not unreasonable. About 4 or 5 classes per grade, and with that comes increased amenities, increased fundraising, increased opportunity.
The fact that so many of you oppose it because you're afraid of the children that might attend is not encouraging.

The data says that the charters - particularly the smaller ones - are more diverse racially and by SES than the traditional schools which uses geography / property values to shape the school populations.

It is also very hard for a charter operator to find a building that could hold 700 students.

[Anonymous]

Initially, yes. But the successful charters could expand to be that size. Existing buildings I've seen could accommodate that fairly easily. In moco they already would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ That's a sweeping generalization that isn't true. I am sure LAMB, for example, wishes it had more 'poor' and native Spanish speakers than they have now.

Were you trying to be funny? You take issue with a sweeping generalization and then follow with one of your own? Great example of irony, PP.

The point is the people who go to open houses aren't their target audience. My kids went there for 10+ years combined and I know the administration well and why they opened their school.

As someone who works in demography, the "poor and native Spanish speakers" are dwindling in DC. In another 10 years, LAMB might have white high SES families as their main "customer base"--what will they do then? They might have to actually compete to get families interested in the school.

Your understanding of peoples motivations is... cute. The families that I know that are very interested in LAMB are not interested in it for the "poor and native Spanish speakers".