WaPo Editorial today on DCPS/charter collaboration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See the thing is, if we didn't have charters we'd have a greater number of better neighborhood schools because the many families that flee for HRCS would be forced to put their resources into their "focus" or "rising" schools that a few are already trying to improve. Yeah, some would move, but not all.

We will NEVER have universally good by-right schools if we perpetuate an easy opt-out for families. It will never happen. I'm not suggesting improvement would stretch east of the river immediately, but our Wests and Garrisons and Brookland Middles and Coolidges and Amidon-Bowens and Takomas and Truesdells would be much improved if all the families that go charter were there instead. I'm also not suggesting that we shouldn't have initiated charters when we did; it seems like it was necessary for our failing city schools at the time. But now? We can reevaluate our definition of and path to "excellence for everyone."

The mayor knows this, and to not continue to move us down this separate-but-equal-but-not-really road we are on is the right move.

What you fail to acknowledge is that the freedom to innovate and do things differently than DCPS is part of what is making some of these charters work. I have a child who have profound and significant language based learning disabilities - now in high school with minimal accommodations. The charter school was willing and able to provide much more targetted and better services for him because they had the freedom to hire contractor specialists who were trained in his rare disorder and these services enabled him to now be succeeding beyond all of our expectations. We tried our local DCPS (Takoma) and were offered a fraction of the services by people with no experience. Rather than suing the school system - which we could have done and secured a private SN school placement - we have stayed in charters.

I get your situation, I think you're right, and I'm happy things have worked out. But I'm admittedly speaking about the general population of students, which is the overwhelming majority of DCPS. FWIW, we are very familiar with Takoma and have found it to be chock full of experienced and effective educators.

FWIW, Takoma of the last few years is definitely not the same school it was in 2004 our son was starting PK3.

Please just keep in mind that of the most persistent groups of at-risk children are those with learning disabilities. Children from low income families with learning disabilities have even more challenges. SN kids are 10-15% of the total DC school population and require more resources and, in my opinion, flexibility and innovation than they are getting today from virtually every school. Making sure they get appropriate and quality education can't be an afterthought to the broader education reform discussions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See the thing is, if we didn't have charters we'd have a greater number of better neighborhood schools because the many families that flee for HRCS would be forced to put their resources into their "focus" or "rising" schools that a few are already trying to improve. Yeah, some would move, but not all.

We will NEVER have universally good by-right schools if we perpetuate an easy opt-out for families. It will never happen. I'm not suggesting improvement would stretch east of the river immediately, but our Wests and Garrisons and Brookland Middles and Coolidges and Amidon-Bowens and Takomas and Truesdells would be much improved if all the families that go charter were there instead. I'm also not suggesting that we shouldn't have initiated charters when we did; it seems like it was necessary for our failing city schools at the time. But now? We can reevaluate our definition of and path to "excellence for everyone."

The mayor knows this, and to not continue to move us down this separate-but-equal-but-not-really road we are on is the right move.

What you fail to acknowledge is that the freedom to innovate and do things differently than DCPS is part of what is making some of these charters work. I have a child who have profound and significant language based learning disabilities - now in high school with minimal accommodations. The charter school was willing and able to provide much more targetted and better services for him because they had the freedom to hire contractor specialists who were trained in his rare disorder and these services enabled him to now be succeeding beyond all of our expectations. We tried our local DCPS (Takoma) and were offered a fraction of the services by people with no experience. Rather than suing the school system - which we could have done and secured a private SN school placement - we have stayed in charters.

I get your situation, I think you're right, and I'm happy things have worked out. But I'm admittedly speaking about the general population of students, which is the overwhelming majority of DCPS. FWIW, we are very familiar with Takoma and have found it to be chock full of experienced and effective educators.

FWIW, Takoma of the last few years is definitely not the same school it was in 2004 our son was starting PK3.

Please just keep in mind that of the most persistent groups of at-risk children are those with learning disabilities. Children from low income families with learning disabilities have even more challenges. SN kids are 10-15% of the total DC school population and require more resources and, in my opinion, flexibility and innovation than they are getting today from virtually every school. Making sure they get appropriate and quality education can't be an afterthought to the broader education reform discussions.

+1. I really wish you could see it today. There are several families who have sought it out specifically for its excellent special needs program, particularly autism. I think it's actually an example of one thing DCPS is doing really well. But again, I agree with you and appreciate your thoughtful and respectfully worded comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See the thing is, if we didn't have charters we'd have a greater number of better neighborhood schools because the many families that flee for HRCS would be forced to put their resources into their "focus" or "rising" schools that a few are already trying to improve. Yeah, some would move, but not all.

We will NEVER have universally good by-right schools if we perpetuate an easy opt-out for families. It will never happen. I'm not suggesting improvement would stretch east of the river immediately, but our Wests and Garrisons and Brookland Middles and Coolidges and Amidon-Bowens and Takomas and Truesdells would be much improved if all the families that go charter were there instead. I'm also not suggesting that we shouldn't have initiated charters when we did; it seems like it was necessary for our failing city schools at the time. But now? We can reevaluate our definition of and path to "excellence for everyone."

The mayor knows this, and to not continue to move us down this separate-but-equal-but-not-really road we are on is the right move.

Not true. I would NEVER send my child to our IB schools. If not for charters, I would be living in Maryland.

You and most transplants.

I'm not a transplant, well - I've got 30 years living in the city.

What HS did you attend and graduate from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Please just keep in mind that of the most persistent groups of at-risk children are those with learning disabilities. Children from low income families with learning disabilities have even more challenges. SN kids are 10-15% of the total DC school population and require more resources and, in my opinion, flexibility and innovation than they are getting today from virtually every school. Making sure they get appropriate and quality education can't be an afterthought to the broader education reform discussions.

+1,000. A lot of kids with SNs don't have parents who are driving them to therapies, suing DCPS for an IEP etc. They shouldn't have to!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ew. So what you are saying is you don't care about educating all kids. You just care about educating kids as long as they choose DCPS?

You are just gross.

I care about having buildings for public schools. I don't care about giving buildings to private companies.

Nice try with the extrapolation BTW.

Charter schools are public schools.

Charter schools are private companies that run public schools.

DP - wow PP, nice overgeneralization which = misrepresentation. But since you're claiming they're private companies, please, do us the honor of naming the private companies that are behind: Yu Ying, LAMB, Stokes, 2 Rivers, CMI, Mundo Verde, Haynes and Capital City. What are the names of the private corporations or companies that own them/run them?

I know Kipp and a few others are part of much larger models, but since you're trying to paint everyone with one giant (ignorant) brushstroke, name the private companies/corporations behind the schools listed above?

I won't hold my breath...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See the thing is, if we didn't have charters we'd have a greater number of better neighborhood schools because the many families that flee for HRCS would be forced to put their resources into their "focus" or "rising" schools that a few are already trying to improve. Yeah, some would move, but not all.

We will NEVER have universally good by-right schools if we perpetuate an easy opt-out for families. It will never happen. I'm not suggesting improvement would stretch east of the river immediately, but our Wests and Garrisons and Brookland Middles and Coolidges and Amidon-Bowens and Takomas and Truesdells would be much improved if all the families that go charter were there instead. I'm also not suggesting that we shouldn't have initiated charters when we did; it seems like it was necessary for our failing city schools at the time. But now? We can reevaluate our definition of and path to "excellence for everyone."

The mayor knows this, and to not continue to move us down this separate-but-equal-but-not-really road we are on is the right move.

I have one, and only one question: if not having charters would allow for DCPS to produce "a greater number of better neighborhood schools"... why the hell didn't this process occur when there were no charters, oh, 12-15 years ago? Why did DCPS do a disservice to DC's public school children for DECADES with horrible schools and not have this miraculous development of "good by-right schools" when there were NO other options for DC families?

Anxiously awaiting your answer to that... even though we all know you haven't a clue what the heck you're talking about. Just like you haven't a clue that there wouldn't BE this many families looking for public options *in* DC if charters hadn't turned the tide of public opinion here and paved the way for DCPS to make some long overdue decisions about how they run things. Not that things are perfect with DCPS by a long shot, but at least the schools are increasing enrollment now. But your post shows your total ignorance about what it was like when there were no charters and your Nirvana of quality by-right schools never happened in decades of failing schools. Failing with zero competition from charters.

But yeah, please do try to answer: why didn't the Nirvana you are saying charters are blocking occur when there were no charters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GO TO MARYLAND. Good riddance. I would much rather have a neighbor who is invested in our community than one who opts out. Please move, seriously.

Charters ARE part of the community and the data shows they doing a better job at getting kids to graduate than DCPS. Perhaps you should go to Virginia where charter schools aren't even allowed.

Neighborhoods are communities. Charters actively fight any ties to educating their neighborhoods' children. Charters are interested in fostering tribes, not community.

But keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better. Most people in your echo chamber probably find you entirely sincere.

Oooooohhh, now I understand who you are! You're another bitter person who didn't get into the highly regarded charter that is in your neighborhood and you're pissed that there's no neighborhood preference! You resent that people from other far away wards got in but you don't have a right!

You're not concerned about DC's kids overall at all, so stop trying to fool us, it ain't working. Being angry that charters don't allow neighborhood preference shows you support the old system that, when unchallenged by competition produced a very very bottom line "Haves" and "Have nots" IB structure that either you could afford to buy into, or you couldn't. You didn't send your kids to school in Wards 5, 7 or 8 twelve years ago to "invest in community", so why are you calling on people to do something you didn't even do yourself?

Anyone who harps on the fact that charters do NOT give neighborhood preference is bitter that they actually offer an OPTION to families who live near crappy neighborhood schools TODAY. When you are willing to sacrifice your kids' educations TODAY in the hopes of making the worst of the worst schools better TOMORROW for someone else's kids, then we'll listen to you. But now you're just bitter that charters don't give you what you want. District-wide lotteries give families with awful options today better options for their kids TODAY. It's up to DCPS to do the work to improve the schools in basic ways (which, actually, I think they're doing a better job of now than they've ever done) so people WANT to go to those schools and not trek across DC. Until then though, who are you to try to deny families a choice today for their kids who need educating TODAY?

[Anonymous]

lso whoever said charters are not looking to rehab vacant/crumbling buildings - that's not true. Otherwise charters have to build a new site from scratch at $10-20 million at LEAST, or have to lease from a private facility which is generally not optimal (in terms of adequate space/design etc for student learning). If they can renovate a building, they are spending dramatically less - and a lot less than DCPS is spending on facilities rehab.

Duke Ellington's renovation costs have ballooned to $178 million for a projected enrollment of 600 students, or $300,000 per student. Even if you assume a useful life of 40 years in the renovation, that's an absurd per-pupil cost of over $7,000 per student. A public charter school receives $3,000 per student for facilities costs, which is intended to cover lease + occupancy expenses.

So, there is an equity argument to be had (whether Public Charters produce similar or better outcomes with similar populations of students). But the efficiency argument -- whether the government, or non-profit entities, do a better job of spending public dollars -- seems to be a non-starter. Our public policy should be geared toward removing as many barriers to charter expansion as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See the thing is, if we didn't have charters we'd have a greater number of better neighborhood schools because the many families that flee for HRCS would be forced to put their resources into their "focus" or "rising" schools that a few are already trying to improve. Yeah, some would move, but not all.

We will NEVER have universally good by-right schools if we perpetuate an easy opt-out for families. It will never happen. I'm not suggesting improvement would stretch east of the river immediately, but our Wests and Garrisons and Brookland Middles and Coolidges and Amidon-Bowens and Takomas and Truesdells would be much improved if all the families that go charter were there instead. I'm also not suggesting that we shouldn't have initiated charters when we did; it seems like it was necessary for our failing city schools at the time. But now? We can reevaluate our definition of and path to "excellence for everyone."

The mayor knows this, and to not continue to move us down this separate-but-equal-but-not-really road we are on is the right move.

I have one, and only one question: if not having charters would allow for DCPS to produce "a greater number of better neighborhood schools"... why the hell didn't this process occur when there were no charters, oh, 12-15 years ago? Why did DCPS do a disservice to DC's public school children for DECADES with horrible schools and not have this miraculous development of "good by-right schools" when there were NO other options for DC families?

Anxiously awaiting your answer to that... even though we all know you haven't a clue what the heck you're talking about. Just like you haven't a clue that there wouldn't BE this many families looking for public options *in* DC if charters hadn't turned the tide of public opinion here and paved the way for DCPS to make some long overdue decisions about how they run things. Not that things are perfect with DCPS by a long shot, but at least the schools are increasing enrollment now. But your post shows your total ignorance about what it was like when there were no charters and your Nirvana of quality by-right schools never happened in decades of failing schools. Failing with zero competition from charters.

But yeah, please do try to answer: why didn't the Nirvana you are saying charters are blocking occur when there were no charters?

THANK YOU!! When I praise and support the charter sector in DC it is because it offers an alternative for students who were being let down by the neighborhood schools for generations. Before charter schools the DC public schools outside of northwest sucked to a degree that you can't even imagine. They were losing students by the THOUSANDS to surrounding school systems. The whole thing was a stinking disgrace. It's slightly less of a disgrace now and nearly half of the city's students have found an alternative in charter schools. Hopefully both sectors will thrive next to and in dialectic with one another. But this mythical utopia of cozy communities of neighborhood schools being blown apart by charters is complete b*******

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See the thing is, if we didn't have charters we'd have a greater number of better neighborhood schools because the many families that flee for HRCS would be forced to put their resources into their "focus" or "rising" schools that a few are already trying to improve. Yeah, some would move, but not all.

We will NEVER have universally good by-right schools if we perpetuate an easy opt-out for families. It will never happen. I'm not suggesting improvement would stretch east of the river immediately, but our Wests and Garrisons and Brookland Middles and Coolidges and Amidon-Bowens and Takomas and Truesdells would be much improved if all the families that go charter were there instead. I'm also not suggesting that we shouldn't have initiated charters when we did; it seems like it was necessary for our failing city schools at the time. But now? We can reevaluate our definition of and path to "excellence for everyone."

The mayor knows this, and to not continue to move us down this separate-but-equal-but-not-really road we are on is the right move.

I have one, and only one question: if not having charters would allow for DCPS to produce "a greater number of better neighborhood schools"... why the hell didn't this process occur when there were no charters, oh, 12-15 years ago? Why did DCPS do a disservice to DC's public school children for DECADES with horrible schools and not have this miraculous development of "good by-right schools" when there were NO other options for DC families?

Anxiously awaiting your answer to that... even though we all know you haven't a clue what the heck you're talking about. Just like you haven't a clue that there wouldn't BE this many families looking for public options *in* DC if charters hadn't turned the tide of public opinion here and paved the way for DCPS to make some long overdue decisions about how they run things. Not that things are perfect with DCPS by a long shot, but at least the schools are increasing enrollment now. But your post shows your total ignorance about what it was like when there were no charters and your Nirvana of quality by-right schools never happened in decades of failing schools. Failing with zero competition from charters.

But yeah, please do try to answer: why didn't the Nirvana you are saying charters are blocking occur when there were no charters?

THANK YOU!! When I praise and support the charter sector in DC it is because it offers an alternative for students who were being let down by the neighborhood schools for generations. Before charter schools the DC public schools outside of northwest sucked to a degree that you can't even imagine. They were losing students by the THOUSANDS to surrounding school systems. The whole thing was a stinking disgrace. It's slightly less of a disgrace now and nearly half of the city's students have found an alternative in charter schools. Hopefully both sectors will thrive next to and in dialectic with one another. But this mythical utopia of cozy communities of neighborhood schools being blown apart by charters is complete b*******

YES X 1,000!

[Anonymous]

Yes, 1:34 nailed it, good for you, PP. A stinking disgrace is putting it mildly. My neighborhood elementary school was 0% in-boundary in the late 1990s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

lso whoever said charters are not looking to rehab vacant/crumbling buildings - that's not true. Otherwise charters have to build a new site from scratch at $10-20 million at LEAST, or have to lease from a private facility which is generally not optimal (in terms of adequate space/design etc for student learning). If they can renovate a building, they are spending dramatically less - and a lot less than DCPS is spending on facilities rehab.

Duke Ellington's renovation costs have ballooned to $178 million for a projected enrollment of 600 students, or $300,000 per student. Even if you assume a useful life of 40 years in the renovation, that's an absurd per-pupil cost of over $7,000 per student. A public charter school receives $3,000 per student for facilities costs, which is intended to cover lease + occupancy expenses.

So, there is an equity argument to be had (whether Public Charters produce similar or better outcomes with similar populations of students). But the efficiency argument -- whether the government, or non-profit entities, do a better job of spending public dollars -- seems to be a non-starter. Our public policy should be geared toward removing as many barriers to charter expansion as possible.

There's also an equity problem with Duke Ellington vs. the DCPS buildings that have not been renovated yet. It reeks of a huge political pull that pushed aside renovations of schools that haven't been touched since the '70s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

THANK YOU!! When I praise and support the charter sector in DC it is because it offers an alternative for students who were being let down by the neighborhood schools for generations. Before charter schools the DC public schools outside of northwest sucked to a degree that you can't even imagine. They were losing students by the THOUSANDS to surrounding school systems. The whole thing was a stinking disgrace. It's slightly less of a disgrace now and nearly half of the city's students have found an alternative in charter schools. Hopefully both sectors will thrive next to and in dialectic with one another. But this mythical utopia of cozy communities of neighborhood schools being blown apart by charters is complete b*******

Please show me evidence that charter schools teach better than DCPS versus just correlating with higher scores because they draw more high SES students.

The past is also a lot more complicated because of middle class flight during the 80s / 90s. Today, the presence of options (both charters and OOB DCPS) makes it harder for rising neighborhood schools to pull a community together. Too many people who just want to try a different flavor leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ew. So what you are saying is you don't care about educating all kids. You just care about educating kids as long as they choose DCPS?

You are just gross.

I care about having buildings for public schools. I don't care about giving buildings to private companies.

Nice try with the extrapolation BTW.

Charter schools are public schools.

Charter schools are private companies that run public schools.

DP - wow PP, nice overgeneralization which = misrepresentation. But since you're claiming they're private companies, please, do us the honor of naming the private companies that are behind: Yu Ying, LAMB, Stokes, 2 Rivers, CMI, Mundo Verde, Haynes and Capital City. What are the names of the private corporations or companies that own them/run them?

I know Kipp and a few others are part of much larger models, but since you're trying to paint everyone with one giant (ignorant) brushstroke, name the private companies/corporations behind the schools listed above?

I won't hold my breath...

NP. The Walmart Foundation has given YY and MV lots of money over the years. My kid is at one of the schools you listed, and I had no qualms in describing my kid's education as privately/independently operated with tax payers dollars. It is what it is. By the way, the school was described the same way by many of the parents as we talked while watching our children run around playing. Acknowledging the truth does not mean that the schools are not wanted and needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

lso whoever said charters are not looking to rehab vacant/crumbling buildings - that's not true. Otherwise charters have to build a new site from scratch at $10-20 million at LEAST, or have to lease from a private facility which is generally not optimal (in terms of adequate space/design etc for student learning). If they can renovate a building, they are spending dramatically less - and a lot less than DCPS is spending on facilities rehab.

Duke Ellington's renovation costs have ballooned to $178 million for a projected enrollment of 600 students, or $300,000 per student. Even if you assume a useful life of 40 years in the renovation, that's an absurd per-pupil cost of over $7,000 per student. A public charter school receives $3,000 per student for facilities costs, which is intended to cover lease + occupancy expenses.

So, there is an equity argument to be had (whether Public Charters produce similar or better outcomes with similar populations of students). But the efficiency argument -- whether the government, or non-profit entities, do a better job of spending public dollars -- seems to be a non-starter. Our public policy should be geared toward removing as many barriers to charter expansion as possible.

There's also an equity problem with Duke Ellington vs. the DCPS buildings that have not been renovated yet. It reeks of a huge political pull that pushed aside renovations of schools that haven't been touched since the '70s.

Furthermore, the admissions process allows non-residents to be admitted while residents are rejected.

Has the Post done an exposé on Duke Ellington?