Good schools EoTP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be clear, dc has a very very large number of charter schools that are not just basis and latin. those schools and the system of school choice more generally arguably siphon off public education funds too.

Neither the system nor the schools "siphon off" anything. Those schools can't get a dime if parents in DC don't decide with free will and based on available information to send their kids there. That's the part you and others seem to be missing. 50k kids' parents have decided that a charter school is a better option for their kids. And yet the answer from people like you is not that DCPS needs to do a better job. Not that an absence of true AP or advanced classes is causing an issue. Not that a bloated Central that wastes money and resources needs to be truly overhauled. Not that DCPS decided in their infinite wisdom to renovate the HS buildings before the ES buildings. No, apparently the problem is that, faced with available information, parents are choosing charters. The subtext from people like you is that somehow 50k kids are getting fooled and that charters aren't a better choice. OK, stick with that and see where it gets you. Howl at the moon and blame the customer for making the "wrong choice" without bothering to look inward for even a moment.

It's both.

I live on the Hill and known plenty of parents who are IB for fantastic schools like Maury and L-T but still choose to send their kids to charters like Two Rivers for some reason. We also know parents who drive 40 minutes round trip every day to charters like Lee and CMI rather than send their kids to their IB DCPS like Watkins or JO Wilson, which are not as good as Maury or L-T but also not failing schools.

I think often UMC parents get enamored with charters when they are doing the PK lottery and convince themselves that charters are de facto better than their IB school before they really even know much about the schools. They are often persuaded by brand new facilities or certain programming that is targeted specifically at things UMC parents value but do not actually make these schools better. There is sometimes a glow of elitism on many charters because you can only attend by doing well in the lottery, and I think this skews many parents thinking.

I don't mean to dismiss the very real and valid reasons many families choose charters. These boards have gone into great detail to explain why many families EOTP adopt a "charters or bust" approach for MS and HS, and if you know anything about the EOTP MS/HS situation, you wouldn't judge them for it. There also are truly failing elementary schools in this city and charters give families at those schools a fighting chance. But again, that's why it's both. Charters offer a vital alternative to many families with terrible IB options. They also absolutely siphon off kids who would do well in DCPS schools and whose seat dollars and parental contributions/involvement would be a major benefit to DCPS schools.

Charters in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS. It's a frustrating situation.

You are wrong. If there were no viable charters, families would move out of the city or go private, just like they did pre-charter establishment.

You also don’t seem to get that some DCPS schools might look maybe OK and not failing but they spend most of their time teaching to the test. It’’s terrible and no way to learn.

You really think that if Two Rivers wasn't there, a family IB for Maury would instead go to private school or move? That's nonsensical.

The point is that there are plenty of people who are IB for good or even great DCPS schools but choose charters for a variety of reasons. Thus, yes, charters do siphon off students from DCPS. You may think that's okay if your goal is diversity of school choice. But if your goal is really strong public schools, that diversity of choice can undermine your goal.

Except that reams of data show that DCPS failed students time and time again pre-charter, and there was no option for parents. If your goal is really strong public (charter or dcps) schools, this has been better than it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be clear, dc has a very very large number of charter schools that are not just basis and latin. those schools and the system of school choice more generally arguably siphon off public education funds too.

Neither the system nor the schools "siphon off" anything. Those schools can't get a dime if parents in DC don't decide with free will and based on available information to send their kids there. That's the part you and others seem to be missing. 50k kids' parents have decided that a charter school is a better option for their kids. And yet the answer from people like you is not that DCPS needs to do a better job. Not that an absence of true AP or advanced classes is causing an issue. Not that a bloated Central that wastes money and resources needs to be truly overhauled. Not that DCPS decided in their infinite wisdom to renovate the HS buildings before the ES buildings. No, apparently the problem is that, faced with available information, parents are choosing charters. The subtext from people like you is that somehow 50k kids are getting fooled and that charters aren't a better choice. OK, stick with that and see where it gets you. Howl at the moon and blame the customer for making the "wrong choice" without bothering to look inward for even a moment.

It's both.

I live on the Hill and known plenty of parents who are IB for fantastic schools like Maury and L-T but still choose to send their kids to charters like Two Rivers for some reason. We also know parents who drive 40 minutes round trip every day to charters like Lee and CMI rather than send their kids to their IB DCPS like Watkins or JO Wilson, which are not as good as Maury or L-T but also not failing schools.

I think often UMC parents get enamored with charters when they are doing the PK lottery and convince themselves that charters are de facto better than their IB school before they really even know much about the schools. They are often persuaded by brand new facilities or certain programming that is targeted specifically at things UMC parents value but do not actually make these schools better. There is sometimes a glow of elitism on many charters because you can only attend by doing well in the lottery, and I think this skews many parents thinking.

I don't mean to dismiss the very real and valid reasons many families choose charters. These boards have gone into great detail to explain why many families EOTP adopt a "charters or bust" approach for MS and HS, and if you know anything about the EOTP MS/HS situation, you wouldn't judge them for it. There also are truly failing elementary schools in this city and charters give families at those schools a fighting chance. But again, that's why it's both. Charters offer a vital alternative to many families with terrible IB options. They also absolutely siphon off kids who would do well in DCPS schools and whose seat dollars and parental contributions/involvement would be a major benefit to DCPS schools.

Charters in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS. It's a frustrating situation.

You are wrong. If there were no viable charters, families would move out of the city or go private, just like they did pre-charter establishment.

You also don’t seem to get that some DCPS schools might look maybe OK and not failing but they spend most of their time teaching to the test. It’’s terrible and no way to learn.

You really think that if Two Rivers wasn't there, a family IB for Maury would instead go to private school or move? That's nonsensical.

The point is that there are plenty of people who are IB for good or even great DCPS schools but choose charters for a variety of reasons. Thus, yes, charters do siphon off students from DCPS. You may think that's okay if your goal is diversity of school choice. But if your goal is really strong public schools, that diversity of choice can undermine your goal.

They very well might if they don't like their middle school choices (which TR provides.)

By and large, affluent parents will not send their kids to schools they aren't comfortable with. And they will -- and have-- move to avoid this. See: DCPS in the 1990s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be clear, dc has a very very large number of charter schools that are not just basis and latin. those schools and the system of school choice more generally arguably siphon off public education funds too.

Neither the system nor the schools "siphon off" anything. Those schools can't get a dime if parents in DC don't decide with free will and based on available information to send their kids there. That's the part you and others seem to be missing. 50k kids' parents have decided that a charter school is a better option for their kids. And yet the answer from people like you is not that DCPS needs to do a better job. Not that an absence of true AP or advanced classes is causing an issue. Not that a bloated Central that wastes money and resources needs to be truly overhauled. Not that DCPS decided in their infinite wisdom to renovate the HS buildings before the ES buildings. No, apparently the problem is that, faced with available information, parents are choosing charters. The subtext from people like you is that somehow 50k kids are getting fooled and that charters aren't a better choice. OK, stick with that and see where it gets you. Howl at the moon and blame the customer for making the "wrong choice" without bothering to look inward for even a moment.

It's both.

I live on the Hill and known plenty of parents who are IB for fantastic schools like Maury and L-T but still choose to send their kids to charters like Two Rivers for some reason. We also know parents who drive 40 minutes round trip every day to charters like Lee and CMI rather than send their kids to their IB DCPS like Watkins or JO Wilson, which are not as good as Maury or L-T but also not failing schools.

I think often UMC parents get enamored with charters when they are doing the PK lottery and convince themselves that charters are de facto better than their IB school before they really even know much about the schools. They are often persuaded by brand new facilities or certain programming that is targeted specifically at things UMC parents value but do not actually make these schools better. There is sometimes a glow of elitism on many charters because you can only attend by doing well in the lottery, and I think this skews many parents thinking.

I don't mean to dismiss the very real and valid reasons many families choose charters. These boards have gone into great detail to explain why many families EOTP adopt a "charters or bust" approach for MS and HS, and if you know anything about the EOTP MS/HS situation, you wouldn't judge them for it. There also are truly failing elementary schools in this city and charters give families at those schools a fighting chance. But again, that's why it's both. Charters offer a vital alternative to many families with terrible IB options. They also absolutely siphon off kids who would do well in DCPS schools and whose seat dollars and parental contributions/involvement would be a major benefit to DCPS schools.

Charters in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS. It's a frustrating situation.

You are wrong. If there were no viable charters, families would move out of the city or go private, just like they did pre-charter establishment.

You also don’t seem to get that some DCPS schools might look maybe OK and not failing but they spend most of their time teaching to the test. It’’s terrible and no way to learn.

I actually thought this poster was pretty even-handed. "Charter in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS." pretty much spot-on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say we send our kids to Maury and LOVE it. Great school community. But we are very stuck in terms of whether to continue them in EH -- the CH problem as many have said is middle and high school.

SAME. literally in tears over it here. Well at least we had a great 6 years at Maury (not counting the "virtual" years!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be clear, dc has a very very large number of charter schools that are not just basis and latin. those schools and the system of school choice more generally arguably siphon off public education funds too.

Neither the system nor the schools "siphon off" anything. Those schools can't get a dime if parents in DC don't decide with free will and based on available information to send their kids there. That's the part you and others seem to be missing. 50k kids' parents have decided that a charter school is a better option for their kids. And yet the answer from people like you is not that DCPS needs to do a better job. Not that an absence of true AP or advanced classes is causing an issue. Not that a bloated Central that wastes money and resources needs to be truly overhauled. Not that DCPS decided in their infinite wisdom to renovate the HS buildings before the ES buildings. No, apparently the problem is that, faced with available information, parents are choosing charters. The subtext from people like you is that somehow 50k kids are getting fooled and that charters aren't a better choice. OK, stick with that and see where it gets you. Howl at the moon and blame the customer for making the "wrong choice" without bothering to look inward for even a moment.

It's both.

I live on the Hill and known plenty of parents who are IB for fantastic schools like Maury and L-T but still choose to send their kids to charters like Two Rivers for some reason. We also know parents who drive 40 minutes round trip every day to charters like Lee and CMI rather than send their kids to their IB DCPS like Watkins or JO Wilson, which are not as good as Maury or L-T but also not failing schools.

I think often UMC parents get enamored with charters when they are doing the PK lottery and convince themselves that charters are de facto better than their IB school before they really even know much about the schools. They are often persuaded by brand new facilities or certain programming that is targeted specifically at things UMC parents value but do not actually make these schools better. There is sometimes a glow of elitism on many charters because you can only attend by doing well in the lottery, and I think this skews many parents thinking.

I don't mean to dismiss the very real and valid reasons many families choose charters. These boards have gone into great detail to explain why many families EOTP adopt a "charters or bust" approach for MS and HS, and if you know anything about the EOTP MS/HS situation, you wouldn't judge them for it. There also are truly failing elementary schools in this city and charters give families at those schools a fighting chance. But again, that's why it's both. Charters offer a vital alternative to many families with terrible IB options. They also absolutely siphon off kids who would do well in DCPS schools and whose seat dollars and parental contributions/involvement would be a major benefit to DCPS schools.

Charters in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS. It's a frustrating situation.

You are wrong. If there were no viable charters, families would move out of the city or go private, just like they did pre-charter establishment.

You also don’t seem to get that some DCPS schools might look maybe OK and not failing but they spend most of their time teaching to the test. It’’s terrible and no way to learn.

You really think that if Two Rivers wasn't there, a family IB for Maury would instead go to private school or move? That's nonsensical.

The point is that there are plenty of people who are IB for good or even great DCPS schools but choose charters for a variety of reasons. Thus, yes, charters do siphon off students from DCPS. You may think that's okay if your goal is diversity of school choice. But if your goal is really strong public schools, that diversity of choice can undermine your goal.

They very well might if they don't like their middle school choices (which TR provides.)

By and large, affluent parents will not send their kids to schools they aren't comfortable with. And they will -- and have-- move to avoid this. See: DCPS in the 1990s.

Except that the same affluent parents who want a charter for PK do not like the MS at TR -- they are all fleeing for Basis, Latin, ITS, and even (gasp) SH.

Two Rivers is actually a great example of a charter school that maybe doesn't need to exist. What does it offer that is actually better than what is offered at nearby DCPS schools, other than a more affluent family base and newer facilities? And TR has had a devastating impact on the DCPS nearest its 4th street campus (J.O. Wilson). This is actually a perfect example of a charter siphoning off UMC families in a way that undermines the ability of DCPS schools to get better in ways that would attract those same families. It's a catch-22.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be clear, dc has a very very large number of charter schools that are not just basis and latin. those schools and the system of school choice more generally arguably siphon off public education funds too.

Neither the system nor the schools "siphon off" anything. Those schools can't get a dime if parents in DC don't decide with free will and based on available information to send their kids there. That's the part you and others seem to be missing. 50k kids' parents have decided that a charter school is a better option for their kids. And yet the answer from people like you is not that DCPS needs to do a better job. Not that an absence of true AP or advanced classes is causing an issue. Not that a bloated Central that wastes money and resources needs to be truly overhauled. Not that DCPS decided in their infinite wisdom to renovate the HS buildings before the ES buildings. No, apparently the problem is that, faced with available information, parents are choosing charters. The subtext from people like you is that somehow 50k kids are getting fooled and that charters aren't a better choice. OK, stick with that and see where it gets you. Howl at the moon and blame the customer for making the "wrong choice" without bothering to look inward for even a moment.

It's both.

I live on the Hill and known plenty of parents who are IB for fantastic schools like Maury and L-T but still choose to send their kids to charters like Two Rivers for some reason. We also know parents who drive 40 minutes round trip every day to charters like Lee and CMI rather than send their kids to their IB DCPS like Watkins or JO Wilson, which are not as good as Maury or L-T but also not failing schools.

I think often UMC parents get enamored with charters when they are doing the PK lottery and convince themselves that charters are de facto better than their IB school before they really even know much about the schools. They are often persuaded by brand new facilities or certain programming that is targeted specifically at things UMC parents value but do not actually make these schools better. There is sometimes a glow of elitism on many charters because you can only attend by doing well in the lottery, and I think this skews many parents thinking.

I don't mean to dismiss the very real and valid reasons many families choose charters. These boards have gone into great detail to explain why many families EOTP adopt a "charters or bust" approach for MS and HS, and if you know anything about the EOTP MS/HS situation, you wouldn't judge them for it. There also are truly failing elementary schools in this city and charters give families at those schools a fighting chance. But again, that's why it's both. Charters offer a vital alternative to many families with terrible IB options. They also absolutely siphon off kids who would do well in DCPS schools and whose seat dollars and parental contributions/involvement would be a major benefit to DCPS schools.

Charters in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS. It's a frustrating situation.

You are wrong. If there were no viable charters, families would move out of the city or go private, just like they did pre-charter establishment.

You also don’t seem to get that some DCPS schools might look maybe OK and not failing but they spend most of their time teaching to the test. It’’s terrible and no way to learn.

I actually thought this poster was pretty even-handed. "Charter in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS." pretty much spot-on.

I'm just not sure that's true. It feels that way on a micro level, but overall the data suggests that charter competition has improved all scores. People argue that its just demographics that have shaped school improvment, but those demographics are directly related to how parents feel about schools. Even if all charters have done is to help retain UMC families, that's a big improvement for everyone.

Also, even WOTP schools were considered unappealing 20+ years ago. They have also improved and become more popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be clear, dc has a very very large number of charter schools that are not just basis and latin. those schools and the system of school choice more generally arguably siphon off public education funds too.

Neither the system nor the schools "siphon off" anything. Those schools can't get a dime if parents in DC don't decide with free will and based on available information to send their kids there. That's the part you and others seem to be missing. 50k kids' parents have decided that a charter school is a better option for their kids. And yet the answer from people like you is not that DCPS needs to do a better job. Not that an absence of true AP or advanced classes is causing an issue. Not that a bloated Central that wastes money and resources needs to be truly overhauled. Not that DCPS decided in their infinite wisdom to renovate the HS buildings before the ES buildings. No, apparently the problem is that, faced with available information, parents are choosing charters. The subtext from people like you is that somehow 50k kids are getting fooled and that charters aren't a better choice. OK, stick with that and see where it gets you. Howl at the moon and blame the customer for making the "wrong choice" without bothering to look inward for even a moment.

It's both.

I live on the Hill and known plenty of parents who are IB for fantastic schools like Maury and L-T but still choose to send their kids to charters like Two Rivers for some reason. We also know parents who drive 40 minutes round trip every day to charters like Lee and CMI rather than send their kids to their IB DCPS like Watkins or JO Wilson, which are not as good as Maury or L-T but also not failing schools.

I think often UMC parents get enamored with charters when they are doing the PK lottery and convince themselves that charters are de facto better than their IB school before they really even know much about the schools. They are often persuaded by brand new facilities or certain programming that is targeted specifically at things UMC parents value but do not actually make these schools better. There is sometimes a glow of elitism on many charters because you can only attend by doing well in the lottery, and I think this skews many parents thinking.

I don't mean to dismiss the very real and valid reasons many families choose charters. These boards have gone into great detail to explain why many families EOTP adopt a "charters or bust" approach for MS and HS, and if you know anything about the EOTP MS/HS situation, you wouldn't judge them for it. There also are truly failing elementary schools in this city and charters give families at those schools a fighting chance. But again, that's why it's both. Charters offer a vital alternative to many families with terrible IB options. They also absolutely siphon off kids who would do well in DCPS schools and whose seat dollars and parental contributions/involvement would be a major benefit to DCPS schools.

Charters in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS. It's a frustrating situation.

You are wrong. If there were no viable charters, families would move out of the city or go private, just like they did pre-charter establishment.

You also don’t seem to get that some DCPS schools might look maybe OK and not failing but they spend most of their time teaching to the test. It’’s terrible and no way to learn.

You really think that if Two Rivers wasn't there, a family IB for Maury would instead go to private school or move? That's nonsensical.

The point is that there are plenty of people who are IB for good or even great DCPS schools but choose charters for a variety of reasons. Thus, yes, charters do siphon off students from DCPS. You may think that's okay if your goal is diversity of school choice. But if your goal is really strong public schools, that diversity of choice can undermine your goal.

They very well might if they don't like their middle school choices (which TR provides.)

By and large, affluent parents will not send their kids to schools they aren't comfortable with. And they will -- and have-- move to avoid this. See: DCPS in the 1990s.

Except that the same affluent parents who want a charter for PK do not like the MS at TR -- they are all fleeing for Basis, Latin, ITS, and even (gasp) SH.

Two Rivers is actually a great example of a charter school that maybe doesn't need to exist. What does it offer that is actually better than what is offered at nearby DCPS schools, other than a more affluent family base and newer facilities? And TR has had a devastating impact on the DCPS nearest its 4th street campus (J.O. Wilson). This is actually a perfect example of a charter siphoning off UMC families in a way that undermines the ability of DCPS schools to get better in ways that would attract those same families. It's a catch-22.

"Other than a more affluent family base and newer facilities" - I love how you dismiss these things as so irrelevant. Yes, nicer facilities and a higher income peer group are important to MANY parents. It may not be important to you--but in which case, I wonder why you think TR has had a "devastating" impact on JOW by siphoning off those very parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be clear, dc has a very very large number of charter schools that are not just basis and latin. those schools and the system of school choice more generally arguably siphon off public education funds too.

Neither the system nor the schools "siphon off" anything. Those schools can't get a dime if parents in DC don't decide with free will and based on available information to send their kids there. That's the part you and others seem to be missing. 50k kids' parents have decided that a charter school is a better option for their kids. And yet the answer from people like you is not that DCPS needs to do a better job. Not that an absence of true AP or advanced classes is causing an issue. Not that a bloated Central that wastes money and resources needs to be truly overhauled. Not that DCPS decided in their infinite wisdom to renovate the HS buildings before the ES buildings. No, apparently the problem is that, faced with available information, parents are choosing charters. The subtext from people like you is that somehow 50k kids are getting fooled and that charters aren't a better choice. OK, stick with that and see where it gets you. Howl at the moon and blame the customer for making the "wrong choice" without bothering to look inward for even a moment.

It's both.

I live on the Hill and known plenty of parents who are IB for fantastic schools like Maury and L-T but still choose to send their kids to charters like Two Rivers for some reason. We also know parents who drive 40 minutes round trip every day to charters like Lee and CMI rather than send their kids to their IB DCPS like Watkins or JO Wilson, which are not as good as Maury or L-T but also not failing schools.

I think often UMC parents get enamored with charters when they are doing the PK lottery and convince themselves that charters are de facto better than their IB school before they really even know much about the schools. They are often persuaded by brand new facilities or certain programming that is targeted specifically at things UMC parents value but do not actually make these schools better. There is sometimes a glow of elitism on many charters because you can only attend by doing well in the lottery, and I think this skews many parents thinking.

I don't mean to dismiss the very real and valid reasons many families choose charters. These boards have gone into great detail to explain why many families EOTP adopt a "charters or bust" approach for MS and HS, and if you know anything about the EOTP MS/HS situation, you wouldn't judge them for it. There also are truly failing elementary schools in this city and charters give families at those schools a fighting chance. But again, that's why it's both. Charters offer a vital alternative to many families with terrible IB options. They also absolutely siphon off kids who would do well in DCPS schools and whose seat dollars and parental contributions/involvement would be a major benefit to DCPS schools.

Charters in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS. It's a frustrating situation.

You are wrong. If there were no viable charters, families would move out of the city or go private, just like they did pre-charter establishment.

You also don’t seem to get that some DCPS schools might look maybe OK and not failing but they spend most of their time teaching to the test. It’’s terrible and no way to learn.

You really think that if Two Rivers wasn't there, a family IB for Maury would instead go to private school or move? That's nonsensical.

The point is that there are plenty of people who are IB for good or even great DCPS schools but choose charters for a variety of reasons. Thus, yes, charters do siphon off students from DCPS. You may think that's okay if your goal is diversity of school choice. But if your goal is really strong public schools, that diversity of choice can undermine your goal.

They very well might if they don't like their middle school choices (which TR provides.)

By and large, affluent parents will not send their kids to schools they aren't comfortable with. And they will -- and have-- move to avoid this. See: DCPS in the 1990s.

Except that the same affluent parents who want a charter for PK do not like the MS at TR -- they are all fleeing for Basis, Latin, ITS, and even (gasp) SH.

Two Rivers is actually a great example of a charter school that maybe doesn't need to exist. What does it offer that is actually better than what is offered at nearby DCPS schools, other than a more affluent family base and newer facilities? And TR has had a devastating impact on the DCPS nearest its 4th street campus (J.O. Wilson). This is actually a perfect example of a charter siphoning off UMC families in a way that undermines the ability of DCPS schools to get better in ways that would attract those same families. It's a catch-22.

If DCPS wants to capture and retain UMC families to go to JOW, its easy to do -- have an honors program. But the truth is, that while you think its important to attract UMC families, DCPS does not. It is not a priority for them and never will be. Your goals and DCPS goals are not aligned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be clear, dc has a very very large number of charter schools that are not just basis and latin. those schools and the system of school choice more generally arguably siphon off public education funds too.

Neither the system nor the schools "siphon off" anything. Those schools can't get a dime if parents in DC don't decide with free will and based on available information to send their kids there. That's the part you and others seem to be missing. 50k kids' parents have decided that a charter school is a better option for their kids. And yet the answer from people like you is not that DCPS needs to do a better job. Not that an absence of true AP or advanced classes is causing an issue. Not that a bloated Central that wastes money and resources needs to be truly overhauled. Not that DCPS decided in their infinite wisdom to renovate the HS buildings before the ES buildings. No, apparently the problem is that, faced with available information, parents are choosing charters. The subtext from people like you is that somehow 50k kids are getting fooled and that charters aren't a better choice. OK, stick with that and see where it gets you. Howl at the moon and blame the customer for making the "wrong choice" without bothering to look inward for even a moment.

It's both.

I live on the Hill and known plenty of parents who are IB for fantastic schools like Maury and L-T but still choose to send their kids to charters like Two Rivers for some reason. We also know parents who drive 40 minutes round trip every day to charters like Lee and CMI rather than send their kids to their IB DCPS like Watkins or JO Wilson, which are not as good as Maury or L-T but also not failing schools.

I think often UMC parents get enamored with charters when they are doing the PK lottery and convince themselves that charters are de facto better than their IB school before they really even know much about the schools. They are often persuaded by brand new facilities or certain programming that is targeted specifically at things UMC parents value but do not actually make these schools better. There is sometimes a glow of elitism on many charters because you can only attend by doing well in the lottery, and I think this skews many parents thinking.

I don't mean to dismiss the very real and valid reasons many families choose charters. These boards have gone into great detail to explain why many families EOTP adopt a "charters or bust" approach for MS and HS, and if you know anything about the EOTP MS/HS situation, you wouldn't judge them for it. There also are truly failing elementary schools in this city and charters give families at those schools a fighting chance. But again, that's why it's both. Charters offer a vital alternative to many families with terrible IB options. They also absolutely siphon off kids who would do well in DCPS schools and whose seat dollars and parental contributions/involvement would be a major benefit to DCPS schools.

Charters in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS. It's a frustrating situation.

You are wrong. If there were no viable charters, families would move out of the city or go private, just like they did pre-charter establishment.

You also don’t seem to get that some DCPS schools might look maybe OK and not failing but they spend most of their time teaching to the test. It’’s terrible and no way to learn.

You really think that if Two Rivers wasn't there, a family IB for Maury would instead go to private school or move? That's nonsensical.

The point is that there are plenty of people who are IB for good or even great DCPS schools but choose charters for a variety of reasons. Thus, yes, charters do siphon off students from DCPS. You may think that's okay if your goal is diversity of school choice. But if your goal is really strong public schools, that diversity of choice can undermine your goal.

They very well might if they don't like their middle school choices (which TR provides.)

By and large, affluent parents will not send their kids to schools they aren't comfortable with. And they will -- and have-- move to avoid this. See: DCPS in the 1990s.

Except that the same affluent parents who want a charter for PK do not like the MS at TR -- they are all fleeing for Basis, Latin, ITS, and even (gasp) SH.

Two Rivers is actually a great example of a charter school that maybe doesn't need to exist. What does it offer that is actually better than what is offered at nearby DCPS schools, other than a more affluent family base and newer facilities? And TR has had a devastating impact on the DCPS nearest its 4th street campus (J.O. Wilson). This is actually a perfect example of a charter siphoning off UMC families in a way that undermines the ability of DCPS schools to get better in ways that would attract those same families. It's a catch-22.

If DCPS wants to capture and retain UMC families to go to JOW, its easy to do -- have an honors program. But the truth is, that while you think its important to attract UMC families, DCPS does not. It is not a priority for them and never will be. Your goals and DCPS goals are not aligned.

It would be easier for TR to have an honors program. Why don't they have one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be clear, dc has a very very large number of charter schools that are not just basis and latin. those schools and the system of school choice more generally arguably siphon off public education funds too.

Neither the system nor the schools "siphon off" anything. Those schools can't get a dime if parents in DC don't decide with free will and based on available information to send their kids there. That's the part you and others seem to be missing. 50k kids' parents have decided that a charter school is a better option for their kids. And yet the answer from people like you is not that DCPS needs to do a better job. Not that an absence of true AP or advanced classes is causing an issue. Not that a bloated Central that wastes money and resources needs to be truly overhauled. Not that DCPS decided in their infinite wisdom to renovate the HS buildings before the ES buildings. No, apparently the problem is that, faced with available information, parents are choosing charters. The subtext from people like you is that somehow 50k kids are getting fooled and that charters aren't a better choice. OK, stick with that and see where it gets you. Howl at the moon and blame the customer for making the "wrong choice" without bothering to look inward for even a moment.

It's both.

I live on the Hill and known plenty of parents who are IB for fantastic schools like Maury and L-T but still choose to send their kids to charters like Two Rivers for some reason. We also know parents who drive 40 minutes round trip every day to charters like Lee and CMI rather than send their kids to their IB DCPS like Watkins or JO Wilson, which are not as good as Maury or L-T but also not failing schools.

I think often UMC parents get enamored with charters when they are doing the PK lottery and convince themselves that charters are de facto better than their IB school before they really even know much about the schools. They are often persuaded by brand new facilities or certain programming that is targeted specifically at things UMC parents value but do not actually make these schools better. There is sometimes a glow of elitism on many charters because you can only attend by doing well in the lottery, and I think this skews many parents thinking.

I don't mean to dismiss the very real and valid reasons many families choose charters. These boards have gone into great detail to explain why many families EOTP adopt a "charters or bust" approach for MS and HS, and if you know anything about the EOTP MS/HS situation, you wouldn't judge them for it. There also are truly failing elementary schools in this city and charters give families at those schools a fighting chance. But again, that's why it's both. Charters offer a vital alternative to many families with terrible IB options. They also absolutely siphon off kids who would do well in DCPS schools and whose seat dollars and parental contributions/involvement would be a major benefit to DCPS schools.

Charters in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS. It's a frustrating situation.

You are wrong. If there were no viable charters, families would move out of the city or go private, just like they did pre-charter establishment.

You also don’t seem to get that some DCPS schools might look maybe OK and not failing but they spend most of their time teaching to the test. It’’s terrible and no way to learn.

You really think that if Two Rivers wasn't there, a family IB for Maury would instead go to private school or move? That's nonsensical.

The point is that there are plenty of people who are IB for good or even great DCPS schools but choose charters for a variety of reasons. Thus, yes, charters do siphon off students from DCPS. You may think that's okay if your goal is diversity of school choice. But if your goal is really strong public schools, that diversity of choice can undermine your goal.

They very well might if they don't like their middle school choices (which TR provides.)

By and large, affluent parents will not send their kids to schools they aren't comfortable with. And they will -- and have-- move to avoid this. See: DCPS in the 1990s.

Except that the same affluent parents who want a charter for PK do not like the MS at TR -- they are all fleeing for Basis, Latin, ITS, and even (gasp) SH.

Two Rivers is actually a great example of a charter school that maybe doesn't need to exist. What does it offer that is actually better than what is offered at nearby DCPS schools, other than a more affluent family base and newer facilities? And TR has had a devastating impact on the DCPS nearest its 4th street campus (J.O. Wilson). This is actually a perfect example of a charter siphoning off UMC families in a way that undermines the ability of DCPS schools to get better in ways that would attract those same families. It's a catch-22.

If DCPS wants to capture and retain UMC families to go to JOW, its easy to do -- have an honors program. But the truth is, that while you think its important to attract UMC families, DCPS does not. It is not a priority for them and never will be. Your goals and DCPS goals are not aligned.

It would be easier for TR to have an honors program. Why don't they have one?

Exactly. But people will make excuses about why a charter doesn't offer something while indicting the DCPS school for the same shortcoming.

Though I'd also like to point out that we're talking about elementary schools here where honors tracking honestly doesn't make much sense. What both JOW and TR likely do is if they have a student who is significantly above grade level in a subject, they will arrange for them to pull out into a higher grade level for that subject. Plus elementary teachers are usually quite skilled at differentiation because it is very normal for kids to acquire foundational ELA and math skills at different ages. Plenty of even UMC kids don't learn to read until 1st grade for instance, some not even until 2nd grade. That's still considered a normal range. What would these UMC families do if JOW tracked ELA in 1st and 2nd grade and their kid was not in the honors track.

Like is your goal to actually teach kids or to massage the egos of UMC professionals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be clear, dc has a very very large number of charter schools that are not just basis and latin. those schools and the system of school choice more generally arguably siphon off public education funds too.

Neither the system nor the schools "siphon off" anything. Those schools can't get a dime if parents in DC don't decide with free will and based on available information to send their kids there. That's the part you and others seem to be missing. 50k kids' parents have decided that a charter school is a better option for their kids. And yet the answer from people like you is not that DCPS needs to do a better job. Not that an absence of true AP or advanced classes is causing an issue. Not that a bloated Central that wastes money and resources needs to be truly overhauled. Not that DCPS decided in their infinite wisdom to renovate the HS buildings before the ES buildings. No, apparently the problem is that, faced with available information, parents are choosing charters. The subtext from people like you is that somehow 50k kids are getting fooled and that charters aren't a better choice. OK, stick with that and see where it gets you. Howl at the moon and blame the customer for making the "wrong choice" without bothering to look inward for even a moment.

It's both.

I live on the Hill and known plenty of parents who are IB for fantastic schools like Maury and L-T but still choose to send their kids to charters like Two Rivers for some reason. We also know parents who drive 40 minutes round trip every day to charters like Lee and CMI rather than send their kids to their IB DCPS like Watkins or JO Wilson, which are not as good as Maury or L-T but also not failing schools.

I think often UMC parents get enamored with charters when they are doing the PK lottery and convince themselves that charters are de facto better than their IB school before they really even know much about the schools. They are often persuaded by brand new facilities or certain programming that is targeted specifically at things UMC parents value but do not actually make these schools better. There is sometimes a glow of elitism on many charters because you can only attend by doing well in the lottery, and I think this skews many parents thinking.

I don't mean to dismiss the very real and valid reasons many families choose charters. These boards have gone into great detail to explain why many families EOTP adopt a "charters or bust" approach for MS and HS, and if you know anything about the EOTP MS/HS situation, you wouldn't judge them for it. There also are truly failing elementary schools in this city and charters give families at those schools a fighting chance. But again, that's why it's both. Charters offer a vital alternative to many families with terrible IB options. They also absolutely siphon off kids who would do well in DCPS schools and whose seat dollars and parental contributions/involvement would be a major benefit to DCPS schools.

Charters in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS. It's a frustrating situation.

You are wrong. If there were no viable charters, families would move out of the city or go private, just like they did pre-charter establishment.

You also don’t seem to get that some DCPS schools might look maybe OK and not failing but they spend most of their time teaching to the test. It’’s terrible and no way to learn.

You really think that if Two Rivers wasn't there, a family IB for Maury would instead go to private school or move? That's nonsensical.

The point is that there are plenty of people who are IB for good or even great DCPS schools but choose charters for a variety of reasons. Thus, yes, charters do siphon off students from DCPS. You may think that's okay if your goal is diversity of school choice. But if your goal is really strong public schools, that diversity of choice can undermine your goal.

They very well might if they don't like their middle school choices (which TR provides.)

By and large, affluent parents will not send their kids to schools they aren't comfortable with. And they will -- and have-- move to avoid this. See: DCPS in the 1990s.

Except that the same affluent parents who want a charter for PK do not like the MS at TR -- they are all fleeing for Basis, Latin, ITS, and even (gasp) SH.

Two Rivers is actually a great example of a charter school that maybe doesn't need to exist. What does it offer that is actually better than what is offered at nearby DCPS schools, other than a more affluent family base and newer facilities? And TR has had a devastating impact on the DCPS nearest its 4th street campus (J.O. Wilson). This is actually a perfect example of a charter siphoning off UMC families in a way that undermines the ability of DCPS schools to get better in ways that would attract those same families. It's a catch-22.

"Other than a more affluent family base and newer facilities" - I love how you dismiss these things as so irrelevant. Yes, nicer facilities and a higher income peer group are important to MANY parents. It may not be important to you--but in which case, I wonder why you think TR has had a "devastating" impact on JOW by siphoning off those very parents?

When Two Rivers started 18 or 19 years ago, most of its founders lived on Capitol Hill. They were roundly criticized and accused of being overtly racist for not sending their kids to Watkins, Maury, and Tyler. J.O. Wilson? Absolutely no way were affluent families on Capitol Hill families even considering sending a kid to J.O. Wilson. Same for Ludlow-Taylor or Payne. Over two decades, Two Rivers and Latin and then BASIS, Mundo Verde, and a handful of other charters have helped keep families in DC rather than moving out to the suburbs. Period. And, local DCPS schools have improved to boot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say we send our kids to Maury and LOVE it. Great school community. But we are very stuck in terms of whether to continue them in EH -- the CH problem as many have said is middle and high school.

SAME. literally in tears over it here. Well at least we had a great 6 years at Maury (not counting the "virtual" years!)

+1. The sad thing is that CH could have a very strong MS (and even HS) if DCPS only allowed it. Instead of consolidating the neighborhood into a single school, DCPS has sliced and diced everyone into different schools far and wide so that no critical mass can form at any of them. This is on purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say we send our kids to Maury and LOVE it. Great school community. But we are very stuck in terms of whether to continue them in EH -- the CH problem as many have said is middle and high school.

SAME. literally in tears over it here. Well at least we had a great 6 years at Maury (not counting the "virtual" years!)

yeah the virtual year was horrible. Had to spend the whole next year making up the damage. I guess I don't blame Maury staff for that, so my affection for the place survived. Still angry that the teacher's union sank the attempt to return in person though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be clear, dc has a very very large number of charter schools that are not just basis and latin. those schools and the system of school choice more generally arguably siphon off public education funds too.

Neither the system nor the schools "siphon off" anything. Those schools can't get a dime if parents in DC don't decide with free will and based on available information to send their kids there. That's the part you and others seem to be missing. 50k kids' parents have decided that a charter school is a better option for their kids. And yet the answer from people like you is not that DCPS needs to do a better job. Not that an absence of true AP or advanced classes is causing an issue. Not that a bloated Central that wastes money and resources needs to be truly overhauled. Not that DCPS decided in their infinite wisdom to renovate the HS buildings before the ES buildings. No, apparently the problem is that, faced with available information, parents are choosing charters. The subtext from people like you is that somehow 50k kids are getting fooled and that charters aren't a better choice. OK, stick with that and see where it gets you. Howl at the moon and blame the customer for making the "wrong choice" without bothering to look inward for even a moment.

It's both.

I live on the Hill and known plenty of parents who are IB for fantastic schools like Maury and L-T but still choose to send their kids to charters like Two Rivers for some reason. We also know parents who drive 40 minutes round trip every day to charters like Lee and CMI rather than send their kids to their IB DCPS like Watkins or JO Wilson, which are not as good as Maury or L-T but also not failing schools.

I think often UMC parents get enamored with charters when they are doing the PK lottery and convince themselves that charters are de facto better than their IB school before they really even know much about the schools. They are often persuaded by brand new facilities or certain programming that is targeted specifically at things UMC parents value but do not actually make these schools better. There is sometimes a glow of elitism on many charters because you can only attend by doing well in the lottery, and I think this skews many parents thinking.

I don't mean to dismiss the very real and valid reasons many families choose charters. These boards have gone into great detail to explain why many families EOTP adopt a "charters or bust" approach for MS and HS, and if you know anything about the EOTP MS/HS situation, you wouldn't judge them for it. There also are truly failing elementary schools in this city and charters give families at those schools a fighting chance. But again, that's why it's both. Charters offer a vital alternative to many families with terrible IB options. They also absolutely siphon off kids who would do well in DCPS schools and whose seat dollars and parental contributions/involvement would be a major benefit to DCPS schools.

Charters in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS. It's a frustrating situation.

You are wrong. If there were no viable charters, families would move out of the city or go private, just like they did pre-charter establishment.

You also don’t seem to get that some DCPS schools might look maybe OK and not failing but they spend most of their time teaching to the test. It’’s terrible and no way to learn.

You really think that if Two Rivers wasn't there, a family IB for Maury would instead go to private school or move? That's nonsensical.

The point is that there are plenty of people who are IB for good or even great DCPS schools but choose charters for a variety of reasons. Thus, yes, charters do siphon off students from DCPS. You may think that's okay if your goal is diversity of school choice. But if your goal is really strong public schools, that diversity of choice can undermine your goal.

They very well might if they don't like their middle school choices (which TR provides.)

By and large, affluent parents will not send their kids to schools they aren't comfortable with. And they will -- and have-- move to avoid this. See: DCPS in the 1990s.

Except that the same affluent parents who want a charter for PK do not like the MS at TR -- they are all fleeing for Basis, Latin, ITS, and even (gasp) SH.

Two Rivers is actually a great example of a charter school that maybe doesn't need to exist. What does it offer that is actually better than what is offered at nearby DCPS schools, other than a more affluent family base and newer facilities? And TR has had a devastating impact on the DCPS nearest its 4th street campus (J.O. Wilson). This is actually a perfect example of a charter siphoning off UMC families in a way that undermines the ability of DCPS schools to get better in ways that would attract those same families. It's a catch-22.

If DCPS wants to capture and retain UMC families to go to JOW, its easy to do -- have an honors program. But the truth is, that while you think its important to attract UMC families, DCPS does not. It is not a priority for them and never will be. Your goals and DCPS goals are not aligned.

It would be easier for TR to have an honors program. Why don't they have one?

Are you dense? No charter is allowed to have a test-in program. By law.

Both your argument and your point make no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be clear, dc has a very very large number of charter schools that are not just basis and latin. those schools and the system of school choice more generally arguably siphon off public education funds too.

Neither the system nor the schools "siphon off" anything. Those schools can't get a dime if parents in DC don't decide with free will and based on available information to send their kids there. That's the part you and others seem to be missing. 50k kids' parents have decided that a charter school is a better option for their kids. And yet the answer from people like you is not that DCPS needs to do a better job. Not that an absence of true AP or advanced classes is causing an issue. Not that a bloated Central that wastes money and resources needs to be truly overhauled. Not that DCPS decided in their infinite wisdom to renovate the HS buildings before the ES buildings. No, apparently the problem is that, faced with available information, parents are choosing charters. The subtext from people like you is that somehow 50k kids are getting fooled and that charters aren't a better choice. OK, stick with that and see where it gets you. Howl at the moon and blame the customer for making the "wrong choice" without bothering to look inward for even a moment.

It's both.

I live on the Hill and known plenty of parents who are IB for fantastic schools like Maury and L-T but still choose to send their kids to charters like Two Rivers for some reason. We also know parents who drive 40 minutes round trip every day to charters like Lee and CMI rather than send their kids to their IB DCPS like Watkins or JO Wilson, which are not as good as Maury or L-T but also not failing schools.

I think often UMC parents get enamored with charters when they are doing the PK lottery and convince themselves that charters are de facto better than their IB school before they really even know much about the schools. They are often persuaded by brand new facilities or certain programming that is targeted specifically at things UMC parents value but do not actually make these schools better. There is sometimes a glow of elitism on many charters because you can only attend by doing well in the lottery, and I think this skews many parents thinking.

I don't mean to dismiss the very real and valid reasons many families choose charters. These boards have gone into great detail to explain why many families EOTP adopt a "charters or bust" approach for MS and HS, and if you know anything about the EOTP MS/HS situation, you wouldn't judge them for it. There also are truly failing elementary schools in this city and charters give families at those schools a fighting chance. But again, that's why it's both. Charters offer a vital alternative to many families with terrible IB options. They also absolutely siphon off kids who would do well in DCPS schools and whose seat dollars and parental contributions/involvement would be a major benefit to DCPS schools.

Charters in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS. It's a frustrating situation.

You are wrong. If there were no viable charters, families would move out of the city or go private, just like they did pre-charter establishment.

You also don’t seem to get that some DCPS schools might look maybe OK and not failing but they spend most of their time teaching to the test. It’’s terrible and no way to learn.

I actually thought this poster was pretty even-handed. "Charter in DC are necessary and also likely make it harder to improve DCPS." pretty much spot-on.

I'm just not sure that's true. It feels that way on a micro level, but overall the data suggests that charter competition has improved all scores. People argue that its just demographics that have shaped school improvment, but those demographics are directly related to how parents feel about schools. Even if all charters have done is to help retain UMC families, that's a big improvement for everyone.

Also, even WOTP schools were considered unappealing 20+ years ago. They have also improved and become more popular.

No, JKLMM were well attended 20 years ago. Especially janney and lafayette. Tons of neighborhood buy in. Murch had some OOB opportunities. Mann had more IB kids at private than the others.

Actually janney and lafayette have been beloved, at capacity neighborhood schools since the 1990s.

Deal, not the case until Melissa Kim showed up. The crash of 2008 really led the neighborhoods to reconsider public MS in light of the economy. The assumption of going private after JKLMM began to change significantly around this time.