Today's Post OpEd from DCPS consultants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Scott Pearson of the public Charter School Board has called the idea of weighted lotteries at Charter schools a "solution without a problem". Because there is only one charter school in the city with less then 40% low income students ( which one? )

Mike Petrilli already conceded that this plan won't work in wards 3,7 and 8 since the communities are so economically polarized. So the only schools he is concerned with are schools like Brent, Ross, Maury, the cCapitol Hill Cluster school

Because, apparently, having more schools like those would be a horrible thing for the city.

These guys are ridiculous.

Not just capital hill, he also called out Petworth and Columbia Heights.

[Anonymous]

Here's a thought. Let's get some decent public schools in Petworth and Columbia Heights first. All the families I know with school aged children attend charters or private.

[Anonymous]

How about the opposite? Dilute the FARMS families to the burbs, where there's more likely to be a critical mass of middle-class that could absorb it? Rents are a lot cheaper outside of the city, and it's not as though there has ever been any real opportunity for life change for folks in multigenerational poverty as long as they stay in the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scott Pearson of the public Charter School Board has called the idea of weighted lotteries at Charter schools a "solution without a problem". Because there is only one charter school in the city with less then 40% low income students ( which one? )

Mike Petrilli already conceded that this plan won't work in wards 3,7 and 8 since the communities are so economically polarized. So the only schools he is concerned with are schools like Brent, Ross, Maury, the cCapitol Hill Cluster school

Because, apparently, having more schools like those would be a horrible thing for the city.

These guys are ridiculous.

Not just capital hill, he also called out Petworth and Columbia Heights.

Which schools in those neighborhoods are in danger of what they call "The Big Flip"? I guess that means becoming a majority middle/upper class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn't Mr. Petrilli go shill his philosphies about the social utility of "maximizing socioeconomic diversity" at the next PTA meeting in his Bethesda neighborhood?

Practice what you preach, buddy--before you start lecturing me and my fellow targeted neighborhood parents.

This was my thought also.

There are folks coming from every ward to Eaton, but it really is not great at times for those kids either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scott Pearson of the public Charter School Board has called the idea of weighted lotteries at Charter schools a "solution without a problem". Because there is only one charter school in the city with less then 40% low income students ( which one? )

Mike Petrilli already conceded that this plan won't work in wards 3,7 and 8 since the communities are so economically polarized. So the only schools he is concerned with are schools like Brent, Ross, Maury, the cCapitol Hill Cluster school

Because, apparently, having more schools like those would be a horrible thing for the city.

These guys are ridiculous.

Not just capital hill, he also called out Petworth and Columbia Heights.

Which schools in those neighborhoods are in danger of what they call "The Big Flip"? I guess that means becoming a majority middle/upper class.

You will have to ask the author. I can't speak for his article.

[Anonymous]

Let's experiment on some white and black folk in DC and see how it goes...

What lack-of-a-plan-plan.

Does this mean there is no good solution to failing DC schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about the opposite? Dilute the FARMS families to the burbs, where there's more likely to be a critical mass of middle-class that could absorb it? Rents are a lot cheaper outside of the city, and it's not as though there has ever been any real opportunity for life change for folks in multigenerational poverty as long as they stay in the city.

Ah yes, ship the poor folks out to the burbs and make them commute into the city for their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the opposite? Dilute the FARMS families to the burbs, where there's more likely to be a critical mass of middle-class that could absorb it? Rents are a lot cheaper outside of the city, and it's not as though there has ever been any real opportunity for life change for folks in multigenerational poverty as long as they stay in the city.

Ah yes, ship the poor folks out to the burbs and make them commute into the city for their jobs.

If they had worthwhile jobs in the city, they wouldn't be FARMS in the first place.

And consider that thousands of people commute into the city because they can't afford to live in the city. Lower cost of living outside the city can more than offset the cost of commuting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about the opposite? Dilute the FARMS families to the burbs, where there's more likely to be a critical mass of middle-class that could absorb it? Rents are a lot cheaper outside of the city, and it's not as though there has ever been any real opportunity for life change for folks in multigenerational poverty as long as they stay in the city.

So if you ever find yourself living in the burbs for one reason or another, would you still support that idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the opposite? Dilute the FARMS families to the burbs, where there's more likely to be a critical mass of middle-class that could absorb it? Rents are a lot cheaper outside of the city, and it's not as though there has ever been any real opportunity for life change for folks in multigenerational poverty as long as they stay in the city.

Ah yes, ship the poor folks out to the burbs and make them commute into the city for their jobs.

If they had worthwhile jobs in the city, they wouldn't be FARMS in the first place.

And consider that thousands of people commute into the city because they can't afford to live in the city. Lower cost of living outside the city can more than offset the cost of commuting.

Not when you're talking about jobs that pay 9 bucks an hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the opposite? Dilute the FARMS families to the burbs, where there's more likely to be a critical mass of middle-class that could absorb it? Rents are a lot cheaper outside of the city, and it's not as though there has ever been any real opportunity for life change for folks in multigenerational poverty as long as they stay in the city.

So if you ever find yourself living in the burbs for one reason or another, would you still support that idea?

Yes. I've lived a lot of different places. This kind of thing is already well in swing in many other parts of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about the opposite? Dilute the FARMS families to the burbs, where there's more likely to be a critical mass of middle-class that could absorb it? Rents are a lot cheaper outside of the city, and it's not as though there has ever been any real opportunity for life change for folks in multigenerational poverty as long as they stay in the city.

LOL you mean gentrification? It's already happening, but apparently not fast enough for some of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the opposite? Dilute the FARMS families to the burbs, where there's more likely to be a critical mass of middle-class that could absorb it? Rents are a lot cheaper outside of the city, and it's not as though there has ever been any real opportunity for life change for folks in multigenerational poverty as long as they stay in the city.

Ah yes, ship the poor folks out to the burbs and make them commute into the city for their jobs.

If they had worthwhile jobs in the city, they wouldn't be FARMS in the first place.

And consider that thousands of people commute into the city because they can't afford to live in the city. Lower cost of living outside the city can more than offset the cost of commuting.

Not when you're talking about jobs that pay 9 bucks an hour.

A job paying $9 an hour sure wouldn't keep me rooted in DC. There are plenty of places in MD and VA with decent paying jobs and a significantly lower cost of living.

[Anonymous]

Here is an interesting article about how the use of limited choice in MoCo has created a white flight situation.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19285/de-facto-segregation-threatens-montgomery-public-schools/