D.C. City Council Has Given Up on Improving Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a simple reality here. It isn’t complex. DC’s school system is a completely failed institution. It should be completely abolished and all public school services should shift to smaller operations on a community basis with the rest picked up by private school operations.

The best solution is probably to take these kids away from their parents and lock them in a school for five years, but that isnt going to happen.

This worked out great for Native Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a simple reality here. It isn’t complex. DC’s school system is a completely failed institution. It should be completely abolished and all public school services should shift to smaller operations on a community basis with the rest picked up by private school operations.

The best solution is probably to take these kids away from their parents and lock them in a school for five years, but that isnt going to happen.

So upper northwest gets to recreate a mini Long Island or Connecticut district with over funded amazing schools and the rest of the schools can get even worse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are out of school now, but I had three go through. I can’t pinpoint the year, but there was a switch to when ever communication or school meeting with parents, the primary subject was closing the achievement gap. It took about two months from hearing it emphasized the first time to realize, “oh, I see how they plan to do that.”

This happened during Vince Gray's tenure as mayor. Linda Cropp made a statement about how DC is no longer trying to attract middle class families with kids because they take too many resources away from DC 's "real" families in city spending and remove the focus from DC's "real" students in the schools. She said there was an ever-replenishing supply of childless high earners and it was in DC'S best interest to take their money while they're here and encourage them to move to the suburbs once they had kids. It all happened after the transition from Fenty to Gray.

This is PP. Thanks for confirming my memory. It’s not alway correct and time warps memories. I didn’t know the Cropp statement, it was just a vibe shift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


This happened during Vince Gray's tenure as mayor. Linda Cropp made a statement about how DC is no longer trying to attract middle class families with kids because they take too many resources away from DC 's "real" families in city spending and remove the focus from DC's "real" students in the schools. She said there was an ever-replenishing supply of childless high earners and it was in DC'S best interest to take their money while they're here and encourage them to move to the suburbs once they had kids. It all happened after the transition from Fenty to Gray.


Yikes. Someone actually *said* it? I thought that I was just cynical.

I believe this. Public education in DC is a combination of the ivory tower education policy people (like the guy who proposed DC adopt a lottery system while moving to Bethesda for his own kids, or a former PCSB member who regularly excoriated schools about their results with at-risk populations while choosing to live in-bounds for Murch, a school that is less than 10% at risk) coupled with the entrenched local multi-generational DCPS employees who either live in PG or manage to wrangle WOTP OOB seats for their own kids, who just want to retain their DCPS jobs and not be questioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities (within city limits) are nice for young adults, but no place to raise a family in. You move to the suburbs when you have kids for safety, stricter police forces, good schools, green space and being around more independent folks. Cities contain highly dependent populations.

Only in a society with failing cities. In countries that embrace cities, they are places full of stimulation for growing minds. Children in London and Paris have wonderful opportunities. The problem really is that DC was never much of a city to begin with and has proven harder to reclaim from the forces of chaos and inertia than it looked like it would be ca. 2000.

Nope. Poor in London go to failing state schools.

But plenty of children in London are not poor. London isn't only for poor families. That's the thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities (within city limits) are nice for young adults, but no place to raise a family in. You move to the suburbs when you have kids for safety, stricter police forces, good schools, green space and being around more independent folks. Cities contain highly dependent populations.

Only in a society with failing cities. In countries that embrace cities, they are places full of stimulation for growing minds. Children in London and Paris have wonderful opportunities. The problem really is that DC was never much of a city to begin with and has proven harder to reclaim from the forces of chaos and inertia than it looked like it would be ca. 2000.

Nope. Poor in London go to failing state schools.

But plenty of children in London are not poor. London isn't only for poor families. That's the thing.

Much different social safety net there. You can live on a waiter’s salary. Here, you’re doomed.

[Anonymous]

OP here. I didn't see any disagreement about the Council's apparent lack of interest in addressing DCPS's objective terribleness. Is there any member of the Council who does want to improve DCPS's performance, as opposed to fighting over individual school budgets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities (within city limits) are nice for young adults, but no place to raise a family in. You move to the suburbs when you have kids for safety, stricter police forces, good schools, green space and being around more independent folks. Cities contain highly dependent populations.

Only in a society with failing cities. In countries that embrace cities, they are places full of stimulation for growing minds. Children in London and Paris have wonderful opportunities. The problem really is that DC was never much of a city to begin with and has proven harder to reclaim from the forces of chaos and inertia than it looked like it would be ca. 2000.

Nope. Poor in London go to failing state schools.

But plenty of children in London are not poor. London isn't only for poor families. That's the thing.

Much different social safety net there. You can live on a waiter’s salary. Here, you’re doomed.

We have a lot of social programs in DC. There seems to be this narrative that it’s a fend for yourself situation in this city. It really isn’t. We have a lot of supports for low income residents in DC. We have lots of support systems in schools. What other social safety nets would you like? I would personally like some of these safety nets to be tied to children’s school attendance. Maybe that would get parents or families to actually send their kids to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities (within city limits) are nice for young adults, but no place to raise a family in. You move to the suburbs when you have kids for safety, stricter police forces, good schools, green space and being around more independent folks. Cities contain highly dependent populations.

Only in a society with failing cities. In countries that embrace cities, they are places full of stimulation for growing minds. Children in London and Paris have wonderful opportunities. The problem really is that DC was never much of a city to begin with and has proven harder to reclaim from the forces of chaos and inertia than it looked like it would be ca. 2000.

Nope. Poor in London go to failing state schools.

But plenty of children in London are not poor. London isn't only for poor families. That's the thing.

Much different social safety net there. You can live on a waiter’s salary. Here, you’re doomed.

There is so much ignorance about the vast network of government and nonprofit services available for families in the United States. And yet, so many pontificate and idealize Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities (within city limits) are nice for young adults, but no place to raise a family in. You move to the suburbs when you have kids for safety, stricter police forces, good schools, green space and being around more independent folks. Cities contain highly dependent populations.

Only in a society with failing cities. In countries that embrace cities, they are places full of stimulation for growing minds. Children in London and Paris have wonderful opportunities. The problem really is that DC was never much of a city to begin with and has proven harder to reclaim from the forces of chaos and inertia than it looked like it would be ca. 2000.

Nope. Poor in London go to failing state schools.

But plenty of children in London are not poor. London isn't only for poor families. That's the thing.

Much different social safety net there. You can live on a waiter’s salary. Here, you’re doomed.

We have a lot of social programs in DC. There seems to be this narrative that it’s a fend for yourself situation in this city. It really isn’t. We have a lot of supports for low income residents in DC. We have lots of support systems in schools. What other social safety nets would you like? I would personally like some of these safety nets to be tied to children’s school attendance. Maybe that would get parents or families to actually send their kids to school.

I know, personally know, multiple families who specifically moved to DC because the services and, basically, “free stuff” was better than they were receiving in MD.

[Anonymous]

Pretty sure MoCo is still better for kids with SN.