It may be getting even harder to get a spot at a charter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not just teachers--it is any full-time employee.

This is an important point. The law will give a preference to the children of any full-time employee without considering the number of years of service.

It might be hard to attract good teachers, but I don't think it is hard to attract good secretaries, janitors, etc.

Parents will game the system. They'll apply for any full-time position for which they are qualified at a desirable charter and take any salary offered in order to ensure that their child gets in. Once their child is in, they move on to a better position elsewhere. After all, they can rely on sibling preference for their younger children.

This does seem like it would be a problem.

You don't seem to have a comprehension of charter schools. Example, our schools has several teaching positions which you need certain qualifications to get (you think any SAHM just has her master's in teaching?) Or, there are a few other positions in the admin office - and special needs positions. These aren't just slots you can jump into.

Well, I know several former teachers who have their Master degrees and stopped teaching for a few years while they had young kids, who would certainly go back into the work force for even just a short time to ensure their kids a spot at a high-quality nearby charter. And there are many charter schools who hire teachers without their Master degrees, so it's certainly not a prerequisite in any case (not that your point is valid even if it were a prerequisite). Also, the broader point is that anyone who is a full-time employee of the school would get the preference, not just teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, for people who think this won't be manipulated, I know a lot of stay at home parents (many are former teachers) who would happily teach or work in a charter school for a few years to gain an admissions preference.

This would be a great thing. Encouraging good teachers who care about kids to stop homeschooling and come back to the classroom! That would be awesome!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, for people who think this won't be manipulated, I know a lot of stay at home parents (many are former teachers) who would happily teach or work in a charter school for a few years to gain an admissions preference.

This would be a great thing. Encouraging good teachers who care about kids to stop homeschooling and come back to the classroom! That would be awesome!

Agreed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, for people who think this won't be manipulated, I know a lot of stay at home parents (many are former teachers) who would happily teach or work in a charter school for a few years to gain an admissions preference.

This would be a great thing. Encouraging good teachers who care about kids to stop homeschooling and come back to the classroom! That would be awesome!

The ones I know are not homeschooling. They are just stay at home parents.

[Anonymous]

Query - does anyone actually know what happened in the city council yesterday? The article said they were voting on it yesterday (I assume as part of a broader bill) and would have to vote on it again in a few weeks.

[Anonymous]

I'm a great teacher at an at risk school. The policy change goes through and all of the sudden I am desperate to give up my good benefits and better salary and bonuses to teach at a HRCS. I quickly quickly run out and put my application in at all of them. And what happens, NOTHING. There are 300 other teacher applicantions. I stay at my at risk school and continue making a fairly decent living. Meanwhile, the HRCS retains some of the teachers they would have lost to DCPS's higher pay and better job security, and potential parents loose a few spots (NOTHING like what they lose to sibling preference). We are not talking many spots, folks. What is gained - a more stable and committed workforce in all charters. I wish dscp would do this as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not just teachers--it is any full-time employee.

This is an important point. The law will give a preference to the children of any full-time employee without considering the number of years of service.

It might be hard to attract good teachers, but I don't think it is hard to attract good secretaries, janitors, etc.

Parents will game the system. They'll apply for any full-time position for which they are qualified at a desirable charter and take any salary offered in order to ensure that their child gets in. Once their child is in, they move on to a better position elsewhere. After all, they can rely on sibling preference for their younger children.

This does seem like it would be a problem.

You don't seem to have a comprehension of charter schools. Example, our schools has several teaching positions which you need certain qualifications to get (you think any SAHM just has her master's in teaching?) Or, there are a few other positions in the admin office - and special needs positions. These aren't just slots you can jump into.

No, PP. I have a good understanding of charter schools. We've been enrolled at two charter schools so far. Both had janitors, secretaries, and administrative assistants. They were all positions that just about anyone with a high school diploma or associates degree could "jump right into".

[Anonymous]

My son's teacher has her children in the school, I am assuming through the OOB process. This teacher works incredibly hard, I know does a lot of work on the evenings and weekends. I know she is often available after school to give a little extra help. If she had to scramble to go get her children across the city, it would decrease this time or frankly leave her more frazzled. At a very selfish level, I think that my son's class benefits because this teacher has fewer worries about her children. Win-Win. I can see why this would be a benefit in charters and wish it would be extended to public schools.

[Anonymous]

heaven forbid we make life a little easier for teachers -- after all, their job is to serve US. They knew in advance that their college education would never earn the salary or respect that other college grads get.

They are good enough to teach our children, but please don't allow the teachers' children in with our precious angels. Let them continue their life of quiet servitude without expecting any benefits that would make their lives a little easier if it might, just might, take something away from our family. Teachers are important, We really appreciate them, but they should know their place.

[sarcasm]

[Anonymous]

They. Can apply to the lottery like the rest of us. Just like the police officer must. And the firefighter. And the public defender. And the legal aid attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They. Can apply to the lottery like the rest of us. Just like the police officer must. And the firefighter. And the public defender. And the legal aid attorney.

God, not this dense logic again. None of these people you mention work in the school. That's kind of the point.

I think this is a great idea -- it will only strengthen charter schools, giving teachers more buy-in, incentivising them to stay longer in their current position, attracting better teachers, etc. To be clear, I think this should apply to teachers/principals only.

[Anonymous]

This isn't the most relevant fact in this debate, but I'm just curious...If you're one of the people who posted about about how you have to get your kids to schools and still go to work, so teachers can figure it out, too - what time do you HAVE to be at work?

As a teacher in a DCPCS, I must be clocked in by 7:30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They. Can apply to the lottery like the rest of us. Just like the police officer must. And the firefighter. And the public defender. And the legal aid attorney.

God, not this dense logic again. None of these people you mention work in the school. That's kind of the point.

I think this is a great idea -- it will only strengthen charter schools, giving teachers more buy-in, incentivising them to stay longer in their current position, attracting better teachers, etc. To be clear, I think this should apply to teachers/principals only.

Charter schools are there to serve ALL children in DC. It is unfair to give some people am advantage in getting in. Those who work in the school should have to lottery in for the slots like everyone else. They are not private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They. Can apply to the lottery like the rest of us. Just like the police officer must. And the firefighter. And the public defender. And the legal aid attorney.

God, not this dense logic again. None of these people you mention work in the school. That's kind of the point.

I think this is a great idea -- it will only strengthen charter schools, giving teachers more buy-in, incentivising them to stay longer in their current position, attracting better teachers, etc. To be clear, I think this should apply to teachers/principals only.

Charter schools are there to serve ALL children in DC. It is unfair to give some people am advantage in getting in. Those who work in the school should have to lottery in for the slots like everyone else. They are not private schools.

No, actually, they are not. Not a single charter school, nor all of them together, can serve ALL children in DC. Each one can only serve some of the children, and that some changes every year.

What you really want to argue is that you think the value of an open lottery spot outweighs the benefits you would get from giving that spot to a teacher's child. But you are wrong.

If you give that spot to a random child, one DC child gets educated. Let's score that a +1 DCCE.

If you give that spot to a teacher's child, a different DC child gets educated, so you still get +1 DCCE. You also increase the teacher-parent's investment in the school. If having her own child at the school leads the teacher to improve her own teaching or the school in general, even a little bit, then that benefits more than just one student. Even if it does no more than make her daily commute easier, she will most likely be in a better mood and more effective at teaching her class. Let's call teacher effectiveness TE and school quality SQ, and the increased percentage of each ip

So on the one hand you have 1 DCCE, and on the other hand you have 1 DCCE + ipTE x (number of students in class) + ipSQ x (number of students in school)

Unless ipTE and ipSQ are both zero, the teacher preference side of the equation is obviously greater than the random selection side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They. Can apply to the lottery like the rest of us. Just like the police officer must. And the firefighter. And the public defender. And the legal aid attorney.

God, not this dense logic again. None of these people you mention work in the school. That's kind of the point.

I think this is a great idea -- it will only strengthen charter schools, giving teachers more buy-in, incentivising them to stay longer in their current position, attracting better teachers, etc. To be clear, I think this should apply to teachers/principals only.

Charter schools are there to serve ALL children in DC. It is unfair to give some people am advantage in getting in. Those who work in the school should have to lottery in for the slots like everyone else. They are not private schools.

Oh shut up, life is unfair! Get over it.