Does anyone IB for JKLM send their kid to a charter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, that's not what the $265K/yr. poster said (please reread the post above). She thinks that her poor money management skills should still get her child into any school of her choice. Unfortunately for her, America (and capitalism) doesn't work that way. She will only be able to send her child to the school that she can afford (private or moving IB), or getting lucky in the lottery. Both you and the prior poster are not owed anything by people who live IB for JKLM or other desirable schools. No one pays my mortgage or taxes except me and my husband. Therefore, we can only live where we can afford to rent or buy. Why should you be treated any differently?!?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no idea what her poor management skills have to do with where she sends her child to school. What I'm saying is if she is already in bounds for a great school why take the spot in a charter? I don't give a rats ass how much she makes.

Because JKLMORS, etc. parents have as much of a right to a charter spot as you do! Too bad if you don't like that parents with great IB schools, who send their children to charters, have more/better options than you. There will always be people who have more than you do...it's called LIFE. I/they/we don't owe you anything!!!

Who said you owe me anything??? I don't live my life on the premise that I'm OWED anything. My kid goes to Murch is that makes any difference. I'm lucky that I'm in a position to send my child there and don't take it for granted. I've made many sacrifices to be able to do that. there are families who work very hard ETOP who would LOVE to have an opportunity to send their child to a school like ours. I just find it ridiculous that you'd see a need to take a charter spot. To each her own, right. Perhaps living in a million dollar home in Tenley entitles you to whatever you damn please.

That's the thing--I don't feel entitled at all. I BOUGHT my house...no one gave it to me. I'm also going to exercise my right to take an IB spot, or a spot at a charter--no matter what you think about it. You enjoy your time at Murch, and don't worry about what I'm doing. I would dare someone to tell me to my face that I had no right to take a charter spot.

I'd be happy to do it. Care to meet for coffee?

No coffee necessary. Post your contact info. so we can set something up.

You first

[e-mail]

[Anonymous]

I am only aware of a few (less than a handful) older kids at Murch who left in fourth or fifth grade to go to Basis or Latin. My understanding from talking to some of the parents is that these kids are smart and feel they might get lost at Deal, and also not sporty, and so will not miss the athletic opportunities at Deal. But the vast majority of Murch fifth graders are going to Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only JKLMs I know who have sent their kid(s) to a charter are those who are in-bound for Hardy. But now that Hardy has improved, I don't think many will be opting for a charter. They will be going to either Hardy or Deal. Those who are inclined to go private will continue to go private; but that set never considered charters OR Deal/Hardy, anyway.

So the person who doesn't like JKLMs going charter (ill-founded as that opinion may be) won't have a problem any more.

Well, my neighbors send two kids to a charter school in the Janney District. And they drive across town to do it. And a friend of mine in Murch's boundaries sends her two kids to charters too. And as far as I'm concerned, they have every right to do so and should not have any concerns about whether or not what they're doing isn't 'moral'. I believe they pay taxes just like the rest of us in DC, maybe even more than other residents do.

[Anonymous]

Is there a charter in the Janney cachment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a charter in the Janney cachment?

There are no charters anywhere in ward 3. Or WOTP for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a charter in the Janney cachment?

Sorry, I meant they live in Janney district but send their kids to a charter.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that there is no means to endure priority access to at risk children, if wotp parents choose to send their children to a HRCS it is likely they are taking the seat from another high SES family that may live by choice in a neighborhood with poorly performing schools. There is no moral imperative to make space for families that choose to take the risks of the lottery system and have the means to make another choice should that not work out for them, even if that means a smaller house or more difficult commute.

i think the majority of families want to help children with poor educational options. There is no reason to believe, however, that those are the children that would be helped by the decision to abstain from lottery participation.

Those eotp gentrifiers just do not generate a whole lot of sympathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that there is no means to endure priority access to at risk children, if wotp parents choose to send their children to a HRCS it is likely they are taking the seat from another high SES family that may live by choice in a neighborhood with poorly performing schools. There is no moral imperative to make space for families that choose to take the risks of the lottery system and have the means to make another choice should that not work out for them, even if that means a smaller house or more difficult commute.

i think the majority of families want to help children with poor educational options. There is no reason to believe, however, that those are the children that would be helped by the decision to abstain from lottery participation.

Those eotp gentrifiers just do not generate a whole lot of sympathy.

Charters are only for the poor? So by extension, any non-poor family should not access charters either. So all you DCUM charter families had also reject your places. Or now are the charters only for the poor and Petworth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that there is no means to endure priority access to at risk children, if wotp parents choose to send their children to a HRCS it is likely they are taking the seat from another high SES family that may live by choice in a neighborhood with poorly performing schools. There is no moral imperative to make space for families that choose to take the risks of the lottery system and have the means to make another choice should that not work out for them, even if that means a smaller house or more difficult commute.

i think the majority of families want to help children with poor educational options. There is no reason to believe, however, that those are the children that would be helped by the decision to abstain from lottery participation.

Those eotp gentrifiers just do not generate a whole lot of sympathy.

Charters are only for the poor? So by extension, any non-poor family should not access charters either. So all you DCUM charter families had also reject your places. Or now are the charters only for the poor and Petworth?

Not at all, but the line of thinking that families without good IB options have a higher moral right to charter slots falls apart when you consider it was their choice to live in neighborhoods with poor options and take their chances in the lottery. I am responding to those who say familys with good IB options should not use charter schools that may provide an educational option such a family wants. My response is what gives the families with a poor IB school such a right when their neighborhood was their choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that there is no means to endure priority access to at risk children, if wotp parents choose to send their children to a HRCS it is likely they are taking the seat from another high SES family that may live by choice in a neighborhood with poorly performing schools. There is no moral imperative to make space for families that choose to take the risks of the lottery system and have the means to make another choice should that not work out for them, even if that means a smaller house or more difficult commute.

i think the majority of families want to help children with poor educational options. There is no reason to believe, however, that those are the children that would be helped by the decision to abstain from lottery participation.

Those eotp gentrifiers just do not generate a whole lot of sympathy.

Charters are only for the poor? So by extension, any non-poor family should not access charters either. So all you DCUM charter families had also reject your places. Or now are the charters only for the poor and Petworth?

Not at all, but the line of thinking that families without good IB options have a higher moral right to charter slots falls apart when you consider it was their choice to live in neighborhoods with poor options and take their chances in the lottery. I am responding to those who say familys with good IB options should not use charter schools that may provide an educational option such a family wants. My response is what gives the families with a poor IB school such a right when their neighborhood was their choice.

Sorry, I guess I am agreeing with you then! This whole line of reasoning is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that there is no means to endure priority access to at risk children, if wotp parents choose to send their children to a HRCS it is likely they are taking the seat from another high SES family that may live by choice in a neighborhood with poorly performing schools. There is no moral imperative to make space for families that choose to take the risks of the lottery system and have the means to make another choice should that not work out for them, even if that means a smaller house or more difficult commute.

i think the majority of families want to help children with poor educational options. There is no reason to believe, however, that those are the children that would be helped by the decision to abstain from lottery participation.

Those eotp gentrifiers just do not generate a whole lot of sympathy.

Charters are only for the poor? So by extension, any non-poor family should not access charters either. So all you DCUM charter families had also reject your places. Or now are the charters only for the poor and Petworth?

Not at all, but the line of thinking that families without good IB options have a higher moral right to charter slots falls apart when you consider it was their choice to live in neighborhoods with poor options and take their chances in the lottery. I am responding to those who say familys with good IB options should not use charter schools that may provide an educational option such a family wants. My response is what gives the families with a poor IB school such a right when their neighborhood was their choice.

Sorry, I guess I am agreeing with you then! This whole line of reasoning is insane.

Agreed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am only aware of a few (less than a handful) older kids at Murch who left in fourth or fifth grade to go to Basis or Latin. My understanding from talking to some of the parents is that these kids are smart and feel they might get lost at Deal, and also not sporty, and so will not miss the athletic opportunities at Deal. But the vast majority of Murch fifth graders are going to Deal.

So few that there is no anonymity, so probably not polite to discuss these three families' choices.

[Anonymous]

Who said you owe me anything??? I don't live my life on the premise that I'm OWED anything. My kid goes to Murch is that makes any difference. I'm lucky that I'm in a position to send my child there and don't take it for granted. I've made many sacrifices to be able to do that. there are families who work very hard ETOP who would LOVE to have an opportunity to send their child to a school like ours. I just find it ridiculous that you'd see a need to take a charter spot. To each her own, right. Perhaps living in a million dollar home in Tenley entitles you to whatever you damn please.

That's the thing--I don't feel entitled at all. I BOUGHT my house...no one gave it to me. I'm also going to exercise my right to take an IB spot, or a spot at a charter--no matter what you think about it. You enjoy your time at Murch, and don't worry about what I'm doing. I would dare someone to tell me to my face that I had no right to take a charter spot.

I'd be happy to do it. Care to meet for coffee?

No coffee necessary. Post your contact info. so we can set something up.

You first

No dear. I insist--you first. Willful ignorance before wisdom.

[Anonymous]

I live inbound for a great elementary east of the park. My nearby neighbor lives inbounds for a horrible, failing school. Why was my house close to 200k more than his? You guessed it, the school. We got into our top choice charter, and he felt the need to unload a bunch of vitriol my way after I told him where we were going. I guess I didn't realize that if I paid extra money to have a good IB option, I was forced to send my kids there. Before you start to feel bad for my neighbor- his dc got into a fabulous charter as well. Thankfully not the same one as us.

[Anonymous]

IB for Murch. DC goes to Bridges.