Ward/neighborhood preferences for Charter School admissions

[Anonymous]

I thought that people were saying that Ward 3 was well served in education, not at charters.

[Anonymous]

Some charters---such as Latin---have an express mission to serve all areas of the City. And by the maps contained in the link posted on the prior page, Latin seems to be doing a good job at doing just that. So who is Tommy Wells to declare that a charter should no longer be allowed to have that goal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind that 70% of D.C.'s kids live east of the river. PCSB should be encouraging as many high-performing charters to go into Wards 7-8 as possible. Next, they should focus on getting more charters in 5 and 4. Perhaps they should not approve new charters unless they agree to locate in the underserved Wards. Too many charter schools are clinging to Wards 1-3. There are already excellent charters in these Wards, and thier parents are more likely to have other options. Perhaps having the neighborhood preference will even spur new development/growth in "unchic" neighborhoods like Brightwood and Brentwood. What a great idea!

Nice try, but there are no charters in Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

I was with you until you revealed yourself to be an idiot in the second paragraph.

This isn't about YY families; you're fruitlessly complaining about one of the most diverse public schools in the entire city. Furthermore, even if pigs flew and you were correct, who in Chinatown do you suppose is going to give up a gorgeous 40,000 sq. ft. facility + 3 acre lot for an outdoor nature center and classrooms?

Neighborhood preference sounds good only if it's an opt-in situation.

Not idiotic to think in terms of neighborhood charter preferences benefitting Hill families in particular -just talk to parents IB for Ludlow-Taylor, Payne and Miner but landed waaay down the waiting lists for YY, SWS, Logan Montesorri, 2 Rivers etc.

An opt-in situation meaning what? Charter school boards decide if they want the neighorhood preference? Surely that's how Wells will frame the law. He's among the pols who doen't want to fix neighborhood schools the only way you can outside a few high-SES enclaves (Brent District, north Lincoln Park area zoned for Maury). That is to stay stop busing in Ward 8 kids in droves, stop letting in PG County kids and add GT test-in programs. Schools could also be allowed to decide admissions policies, e.g. preferential admissions for native speakers of target languages like DCPS uses. But no, all that would work too well.

WTF? Where do you think we are? Birmingham? Memphis? The '60s? The only children getting bused into schools are special education students. Helllo? Those are the only students in DC that get buses. So, is your agenda to eliminate Special Ed students from your school along with all the lower SES students? It sounds like you really want a private school, you just spent too much on your tiny rowhouse on the Hill and now you're bitter because you can't afford what you want. Herndon/Chantilly is calling for you, they want to know when you're coming home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some charters---such as Latin---have an express mission to serve all areas of the City. And by the maps contained in the link posted on the prior page, Latin seems to be doing a good job at doing just that. So who is Tommy Wells to declare that a charter should no longer be allowed to have that goal?

Is that what Tommy Wells is proposing?

Why is everyone so quick to assume that what is being proposed is a duplication of the in-boundary system that DCPS has? Upthread there have been at least two proposals for forms of modified in-boundary preference that wouldn't be like what DCPS does. One is to allow charter schools to declare whether they are neighborhood schools or all-areas schools. The other is simply to set aside a portion of the seats for neighborhood kids, but still have some available by city-wide lottery.

All other things equal, it's good for schools to have their kids geographically concentrated. It makes the logistics easier for parents, takes strain off of the transportation system, and makes it easier to build community.

Why is everyone so quick to assume that there will only be losers in this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


WTF? Where do you think we are? Birmingham? Memphis? The '60s? The only children getting bused into schools are special education students. Helllo? Those are the only students in DC that get buses.

NCLB kids get bused too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ward 3 is under served by charters crowded in its decent traditional public schools. Latin has a strong contingent but is on the other side of the park and moving north across the park from Chevy Chase DC. That is Ward 4.

I know, that's my point. Let's everyone stop saying that "Wards 1-3 are well-served by charters already blah blah blah ... they have all the charters blah blah..."

There aren't any over here in Ward 3. The fact that a handful of elementary kids make the drive to YY and a couple dozen go to Latin -- schools in other Wards -- doesn't change facts.

This. A few adventurous/ambitious Ward 3 families travel to Latin and Yu Ying, because they have high scholastic ambitions. Otherwise, there's no need to break out of the bubble. DCPS isn't a trainwreck in Ward 3, and there are no charters - nobody can afford the rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Why is everyone so quick to assume that what is being proposed is a duplication of the in-boundary system that DCPS has? Upthread there have been at least two proposals for forms of modified in-boundary preference that wouldn't be like what DCPS does. One is to allow charter schools to declare whether they are neighborhood schools or all-areas schools. The other is simply to set aside a portion of the seats for neighborhood kids, but still have some available by city-wide lottery.

All other things equal, it's good for schools to have their kids geographically concentrated. It makes the logistics easier for parents, takes strain off of the transportation system, and makes it easier to build community.

Why is everyone so quick to assume that there will only be losers in this?

My sibling live in Takoma Park MD with kids attending the math/science MS magnet there, which reserves 25 of 100 6th grade test-in spots with a MoCo wide draw for Takoma kids. He says that's been done for several decades without controversy. Perhaps the experience of our near neighbors in balancing geographical imperatives can serve as a guide, whether or not elementary or middle school test-in programs ever arrive in the District.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My sibling live in Takoma Park MD with kids attending the math/science MS magnet there, which reserves 25 of 100 6th grade test-in spots with a MoCo wide draw for Takoma kids. He says that's been done for several decades without controversy. Perhaps the experience of our near neighbors in balancing geographical imperatives can serve as a guide, whether or not elementary or middle school test-in programs ever arrive in the District.

There is a syndrome in DC that things that work in other places can't work here. That's how we ended up with the glory that is DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Why is everyone so quick to assume that what is being proposed is a duplication of the in-boundary system that DCPS has? Upthread there have been at least two proposals for forms of modified in-boundary preference that wouldn't be like what DCPS does. One is to allow charter schools to declare whether they are neighborhood schools or all-areas schools. The other is simply to set aside a portion of the seats for neighborhood kids, but still have some available by city-wide lottery.

All other things equal, it's good for schools to have their kids geographically concentrated. It makes the logistics easier for parents, takes strain off of the transportation system, and makes it easier to build community.

Why is everyone so quick to assume that there will only be losers in this?

My sibling live in Takoma Park MD with kids attending the math/science MS magnet there, which reserves 25 of 100 6th grade test-in spots with a MoCo wide draw for Takoma kids. He says that's been done for several decades without controversy. Perhaps the experience of our near neighbors in balancing geographical imperatives can serve as a guide, whether or not elementary or middle school test-in programs ever arrive in the District.

Who, by name, is blocking the creation of exam schools like Stuyvestant in Washington, D.C.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If charters take over DCPS buildings, they should be expected to give preference to the kids in that neighborhood. The idea that locations in the geographic center of the city are cheaper is COMPLETELY DETACHED FROM REALITY. Rents are much much cheaper in Wards 7-8-5-4 - there are simply two types of charters - those who focus on kids in 7/8 and those who aspire to serve the wealthy/middle class in Wards 1-3. Wards 5 and 4 are left completely out in the cold for the most part. The PCSB should not not approve charters in 1-3, until 5 and 4 get more schools.

Happy to say this is not true. Haynes and Latin are in Ward 4.

DUTY TO READ: "for the most part[!]"

Ok. I agree that Ward 5 and 4 could use more good charter spaces. DCPS should free up more buildings soon but these need to be good schools.

[Anonymous]

Who, by name, is blocking the creation of exam schools like Stuyvestant in Washington, D.C.?

Good question, anyone? Technically, as politicians are quick to point out, we already have several high school exams schools - Banneker, Ellington and Walls. What we don't have are highly competitive admissions for these schools, like Stuyvesant, or great rigor at them, mainly because we don't have test-in elementary or middle-school G/T programs feeding said exam high schools. All evidence suggests that you can't create "exam schools like Stuyvesant" without first creating well-run (meaning broad-based efforts to draw in and nurture low-SES talent) and well-funded G/T programs, and running them for at least a decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Who, by name, is blocking the creation of exam schools like Stuyvestant in Washington, D.C.?

Good question, anyone? Technically, as politicians are quick to point out, we already have several high school exams schools - Banneker, Ellington and Walls. What we don't have are highly competitive admissions for these schools, like Stuyvesant, or great rigor at them, mainly because we don't have test-in elementary or middle-school G/T programs feeding said exam high schools. All evidence suggests that you can't create "exam schools like Stuyvesant" without first creating well-run (meaning broad-based efforts to draw in and nurture low-SES talent) and well-funded G/T programs, and running them for at least a decade.

Let us confront directly those who on these boards say that real exam schools such as Bronx Science and Stuyvesant are a political "non starter" in DC. Who made that call? Tommy Wells? I would like to hear real names from the current political life of DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some charters---such as Latin---have an express mission to serve all areas of the City. And by the maps contained in the link posted on the prior page, Latin seems to be doing a good job at doing just that. So who is Tommy Wells to declare that a charter should no longer be allowed to have that goal?

Is that what Tommy Wells is proposing?
Why is everyone so quick to assume that what is being proposed is a duplication of the in-boundary system that DCPS has? Upthread there have been at least two proposals for forms of modified in-boundary preference that wouldn't be like what DCPS does. One is to allow charter schools to declare whether they are neighborhood schools or all-areas schools. The other is simply to set aside a portion of the seats for neighborhood kids, but still have some available by city-wide lottery.

All other things equal, it's good for schools to have their kids geographically concentrated. It makes the logistics easier for parents, takes strain off of the transportation system, and makes it easier to build community.

Why is everyone so quick to assume that there will only be losers in this?

You realize Tommy Wells doesn't have anything to do with schools right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some charters---such as Latin---have an express mission to serve all areas of the City. And by the maps contained in the link posted on the prior page, Latin seems to be doing a good job at doing just that. So who is Tommy Wells to declare that a charter should no longer be allowed to have that goal?

Is that what Tommy Wells is proposing?
Why is everyone so quick to assume that what is being proposed is a duplication of the in-boundary system that DCPS has? Upthread there have been at least two proposals for forms of modified in-boundary preference that wouldn't be like what DCPS does. One is to allow charter schools to declare whether they are neighborhood schools or all-areas schools. The other is simply to set aside a portion of the seats for neighborhood kids, but still have some available by city-wide lottery.

All other things equal, it's good for schools to have their kids geographically concentrated. It makes the logistics easier for parents, takes strain off of the transportation system, and makes it easier to build community.

Why is everyone so quick to assume that there will only be losers in this?

You realize Tommy Wells doesn't have anything to do with schools right?

Why is everyone so quick to assume that there will only be losers in this?

You are quite a bit off about Tommy Wells, my friend. He is on the Committee of the Whole and is backing David Grosso for Council who is also somewhat unsure about charters and DCPCSB. His constituents, while not as rich as those in Ward 3, have more political intensity and access.