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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many teachers teaching at charter schools have children at said school? What types of numbers are we looking at?

Are we talking about teachers only? Or admin as well?

I'm very much having those who teach my kids have preference for slots at my HRCS as well. But, I already have a spot. I'm not sure how I would feel if I was still fighting and clawing to get a seat.

You would have a different opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to know how many teachers/staffers this would actually affect. Since they would have to have children of the right age AND live in DC. Most teachers at our HRCS live in Maryland.

I would imagine many teachers and staff members would move to DC to take advantage of the provision if they knew they could get their kids in.

I wonder, actually. Living in DC on a teacher's salary, with kids? That's not a move I would undertake lightly. Would love to see some real data.

The point is that you can't get data on what would happen if a policy change came about in the future. And Maryland isn't cheap, either, especially relative to parts of the city where charters set up (this is not JKLMM territory).

Maryland close to where charters set up in NE is a lot cheaper actually. Our teachers live in PG county, mostly.

Not if they are renters. There are a lot of affordable apartments in the Woodridge, Brookland, Edgewood, Fort Totten are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know most of the teachers at my charter school live an hour + away.

How do people know this about their children's teachers. Do they share this information at the PTA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to know how many teachers/staffers this would actually affect. Since they would have to have children of the right age AND live in DC. Most teachers at our HRCS live in Maryland.

I would imagine many teachers and staff members would move to DC to take advantage of the provision if they knew they could get their kids in.

I wonder, actually. Living in DC on a teacher's salary, with kids? That's not a move I would undertake lightly. Would love to see some real data.

The point is that you can't get data on what would happen if a policy change came about in the future. And Maryland isn't cheap, either, especially relative to parts of the city where charters set up (this is not JKLMM territory).

Maryland close to where charters set up in NE is a lot cheaper actually. Our teachers live in PG county, mostly.

Not if they are renters. There are a lot of affordable apartments in the Woodridge, Brookland, Edgewood, Fort Totten are.

And up along 14th Street. Many of the teachers I have talked to live in those areas. Some are homeowners also, either because they are experienced and bought a while ago because they have been earning well for a while, or are younger and have a spouse/partner who makes more money. But it's definitely tough for single teachers or those with partners who don't earn a lot to afford to live in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know most of the teachers at my charter school live an hour + away.

How do people know this about their children's teachers. Do they share this information at the PTA?

Come up during chit chat, or sometimes admins have mentioned general trends of where teachers live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Says the woman who already had lottery luck or lives IB for a good school. Get over yourself. The whole point of the lottery is to give everyone an equal shot at admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also gives an admissions preference to a certain set of largely higher SES students (students with parents working in the schools). These students are not going to be homeless, or be raised by a single parent too disabled to work. They are also largely going to be raised by parents who are very invested in education. These are exactly the type of kids many people want their kids going to school with - so I get why people whose kids are already in a charter school want this proposal to pass. But from an equity perspective, this seems nuts.

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 X 1,000! I also know teachers who, while not SAHMs, have actually said that if this was a policy, they'd not hesitate to drop the school's they're currently at to work at a choice school when they've got babies, and then get their kids in and either go back to their other school or move onto something else (grad school, etc). I have heard several current teachers say this. It is naive to think people won't be strategic as hell about how to game this policy.

This is just silly. You think that teachers, or a SAHM who is a former teacher, can just snap her fingers and get a job at any school she wants? Or just flip flop between schools of her choice at will? These jobs are so plentiful and easy to come by? I have a very hard time believing that any teacher would say this, as a teacher would know how unrealistic this is. Unless it was a very, very naive teacher.

DP, actually, you are being silly. I don't know if this was the other PP's point, but you are acting as if the effects of this only matter in Year 1 or Year 2. The point is, this policy would affect schools that haven't even opened yet, as well as current schools when maybe after a few years they have openings. And also, DCUM posters who support this policy can't have it both ways: there can't BOTH be a problem with tremendous teacher turnover at charters AND there aren't openings at charters! This (apparently) is a real possibility now and can shape how teachers choose which schools they want to work at and apply for in the future. Even if all teachers can't all teach at the four most popular schools, it can still skew the distribution of the better teachers who have kids or plan to have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Again, it can't be both ways. HRCS's can't have tremendous teacher turnover, which this would address, AND not have openings for new teachers. No one school will have enough for all 300 people looking for jobs at any given time, of course not. But apparently by your own example this would make a good teacher at an at risk school jump to leave for a HRCS if they got in. Hell, now that we know janitors or front desk people would get preference too, I wouldn't be surprised if some teachers jumped ship at their current schools to work front desks if it means getting a spot at a HRCS, especially one with a good feeder pattern i.e. DCI today, but who knows what will exist tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Aaaaand what do all the teachers at your school and all of the other public schools in DC do if their kids don't go to their school? Because I know many teachers in DC with kids at other schools. Somehow they figure it out, like the rest of the parents. If you're at a charter, there must be parents of school aged kids teaching there who haven't gotten in there - what do they do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Brilliant summary. Those arguing against this benefit are just reacting viscerally, without using logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

but you need to consider at least 3 other factors:
factor 1 - is a negative - it is the loss of an engaged parent to participate in field trips, the PTA, fundraising etc.
factor 2 - another negative - is when there needs to be open discussion about issues at the school. If there is an issue, the teacher parent may feel allegiance to the job and not be in a position to advocate
factor 3 - is the increment that would have been offered to the other school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

but you need to consider at least 3 other factors:
factor 1 - is a negative - it is the loss of an engaged parent to participate in field trips, the PTA, fundraising etc.
factor 2 - another negative - is when there needs to be open discussion about issues at the school. If there is an issue, the teacher parent may feel allegiance to the job and not be in a position to advocate
factor 3 - is the increment that would have been offered to the other school

Factor 1 doesn't exist. Teacher/parents still participate in the PTA and fundraising, and are no different from other working parents who can't engage in field trips.
Factor 2 isn't negative. Teacher/parent may have information which clarifies issues at the school, could in fact be positive.
Factor 3 doesn't exist. Teacher/parent isn't going to have the same level of engagement at the other school.

Many, many working parents would love for their child to have daycare where they work. That's why this story caused such controversy:

http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-who-just-banned-working-from-home-paid-to-have-a-nursery-built-at-her-office-2013-2

[Anonymous]

Why should teach era get rights over others? I don't see why a teacher should get a spot over anyone else--a police officer, a fire fighter, or anyone else. It doesn't mean that people don't respect teachers.


But they teach at the school? it isn't any teacher that gets a preference, but a teacher who teaches at the school. This is a no brainer to me.


This doesn't seem a reason to me. I live near a bunch of charters and my husband works by a bunch of charters, but we get no preference for them. It would be a lot more convenient for us. And if you give preference, then you will have teachers wanting to work at certain desirable charters and not wanting to work at ones that are less desirable for their kids, where they could be making a real contribution. Bad idea.

Well, since you don't work at any of these charters, your opinion means nothing and is irrelevant to the conversation.

Most of the PPs on this thread are straight up teacher haters with absolutely no insight into the problem at hand. Seriously, people, you are worried about a handful of kids in the entire school. If you are so up in arms about people having unfair advantages, then you should be against sibling preference. Far, far more students get coveted spots per the sibling preference than any number of teacher children ever get.

Go ahead. Do the math. I'll wait. Because in my 15 years of K-12 teaching, I personally witnessed a whole 7 children who attended as children of teachers. Seven.

Teacher preference is a small and incredibly cheap perk to attract and retain good teachers. It is ridiculous and small minded to be opposed to it.

Then again, DCUM posters are often known to be both ridiculous and small minded. I just didn't expect them to be so hateful and ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Says the woman who already had lottery luck or lives IB for a good school. Get over yourself. The whole point of the lottery is to give everyone an equal shot at admission.

And some some, that equal shot means losing out completely.