Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the feedback and additional opinions. I probably could have been a bit more concise with everything. I just don't think that there are honest conversations about the day to day experience that many middle income families have at high demand charter schools. And I wish someone would have written something like this when I was starting out.

As a new parent several years ago, I've seen the charter school movement in DC go from unique pockets of primarily small, independent schools to an industry of branding and replication that many schools are today. While the remnants and impression of a diverse landscape are there, it is fading fast when one truly unpacks what happens in the classroom.

The pressure to expand, grow, and replicate many times means that the public tuition paid for middle income and lower income (above FARMS) kids are used as leverage to fund the expansion programs. Parents are pressured to keep quiet and go with the flow, especially if you want your kid's residency verification paperwork to not magically disappear when it’s time to re-apply or renew admission for the next fall.

The public tuition that is paid for each student does not vary based on income; the access and delivery of an equal education should reflect this equality. Many performance ratings of "high demand" schools ride on the academic achievement of children that pay for supplementation outside of the school, while the school itself provides a low quality, lackluster education program to a specific segment of their students within the school. And they can afford to do better.

The operative word in this conversation is "Public". I agree that many of the same issues expressed in this post are experienced at private institutions. However, if the activity and support of wealthier families at public schools grossly benefits the children of wealthier families yet marginally helps poorer families, this creates a disparate impact on the middle income and lower income families that depend on the school's existence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the PTA representation of the sought after charters. I know one that was almost entirely white parents this past year. How does that fly?

At our great charter, it is like pulling teeth to get anyone to volunteer for representing parent group or to even attend meetings. Any parent can run for a position and any parent can vote for said representatives. Therefore, I suspect that the PTA at your school may be almost entirely white simply by chance due to those who chose to step up and volunteer and not due to anything nefarious.

Anonymous wrote:
Regardless of whatever reality you want to create for yourself, I hope you don't poison your kids heads with this before you send them off to school each morning. "Try not to let the fact that you're being treated unfairly effect your success DC!" There's one approach to parenting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Regardless of whatever reality you want to create for yourself, I hope you don't poison your kids heads with this before you send them off to school each morning. "Try not to let the fact that you're being treated unfairly effect your success DC!" There's one approach to parenting.

This is just silly and mean-spirited.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the feedback and additional opinions. I probably could have been a bit more concise with everything. I just don't think that there are honest conversations about the day to day experience that many middle income families have at high demand charter schools. And I wish someone would have written something like this when I was starting out.

As a new parent several years ago, I've seen the charter school movement in DC go from unique pockets of primarily small, independent schools to an industry of branding and replication that many schools are today. While the remnants and impression of a diverse landscape are there, it is fading fast when one truly unpacks what happens in the classroom.

The pressure to expand, grow, and replicate many times means that the public tuition paid for middle income and lower income (above FARMS) kids are used as leverage to fund the expansion programs. Parents are pressured to keep quiet and go with the flow, especially if you want your kid's residency verification paperwork to not magically disappear when it’s time to re-apply or renew admission for the next fall.

The public tuition that is paid for each student does not vary based on income; the access and delivery of an equal education should reflect this equality. Many performance ratings of "high demand" schools ride on the academic achievement of children that pay for supplementation outside of the school, while the school itself provides a low quality, lackluster education program to a specific segment of their students within the school. And they can afford to do better.

The operative word in this conversation is "Public". I agree that many of the same issues expressed in this post are experienced at private institutions. However, if the activity and support of wealthier families at public schools grossly benefits the children of wealthier families yet marginally helps poorer families, this creates a disparate impact on the middle income and lower income families that depend on the school's existence.

With the exception of KIPP, none of the highly regarded charters in DC are part of a network that has any interest in expansion. At least none of the ones that are highly regarded on this forum. All of the chain charters are focused on low-SES students (KIPP, CAPCS, Friendship). There is no expansion plan for Latin, Yu Ying, Mundo Verde, Creative Minds, etc.

Anonymous wrote:And by making before and after care so expensive, and expensive extracurriculars, combined with a crazy school calendar, they are purposefully weeding out lower income families so that they can continue to maintain these false appearances. So in fact, what they are doing is successful, according to some pp's in this thread who have admitted that they haven't applied because of this very culture. And the school knows these lower income families, and know that these families don't contribute anything to their agenda, so they are treated differently.

And, to that end, I believe several of these sought after charters are completely aware of these facts - they are way ahead of the OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wealthy parents are recognized as "pioneers", "friends of public education","school reformers", and "parent organization leaders". But many are really attention seekers using public education to save money and to generate their own personal relevance. Listservs are abundant at these schools coupled with a clear understanding that a large portion of the school's parents may not have regular internet or technology

A lot of what you said was interesting but for me it was almost negated by the above. Suggesting that people USE public education to SAVE money is very ugly to read. Do you think well off people should just always pay for private? Can you imagine the state of public schools if everyone who could afford private went private? This is a major problem of charter schools because more educated parents often invest more efforts in selecting a charter leaving the public schools struggling with lack of parental involvement, poverty, behavior issues, etc. it sounds like you charter school is not treating the entire student body equally. That is a big problem and I would be upset too. But you have to understand that charter schools are a breeding ground for a variety of corruption and dishonesty. Recall the recent Washington post story exposing the fact that the DC charters expel a tremendous amount of students forcing those kids back to the public schools. As soon as charters get their money they can start weeding out the undesirables.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are wonderful. Sincerely, a working class DCPS teacher.

+ 1

Anonymous wrote:And by making before and after care so expensive, and expensive extracurriculars, combined with a crazy school calendar, they are purposefully weeding out lower income families so that they can continue to maintain these false appearances. So in fact, what they are doing is successful, according to some pp's in this thread who have admitted that they haven't applied because of this very culture. And the school knows these lower income families, and know that these families don't contribute anything to their agenda, so they are treated differently.

And, to that end, I believe several of these sought after charters are completely aware of these facts - they are way ahead of the OP.

Anonymous wrote:Struggling middle/working class people problems. you want to make it clear you're not poor by not needing a govt hand out but want us to feel sorry for you because you can't compete with the upper class. Don't have a savings to donate for favor, huh? Child's not an academic or athletic stand out, huh?

OP, sit your regular ass down somewhere and continue to brew about all the things you are not. Don't waste our time with these long ass diary posts.