Reply to Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Are we fools not to play lottery for our 3 y o?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The problem with your ^^ frame of this PP is that the majority of families this was set up for would be greatly disrupted and disadvantaged if the lottery year became K.  It would be disrupting the majority to better serve the advantaged much smaller %  and it stinks.  You are using great PR language to make it sound like 1) it would only inconvenience a few and 2) it would be great for most.  Utter bullshit.  It would way disproportionately hurt the majority of the families it was set up to serve by disrupting them and making them do 2 lotteries... All to allow privileged families like yours and mine to have better choices.

Spraying nice-smelling language over it doesn't change that bottom line, and it's eloquent privileged people like you who keep cheating the underserved out of the resources intended for them once those resources actually start to improve.  Framing your proposal as if hardly anyone wpuld be harmed is a real example of that.[/quote]

This is really funny. You are calling someone already in the system that she'd be cheating (herself, I guess?) out of the system. The other person you're blasting as a "privileged family" like yours makes 60K a year. That's some funny shit. The problem is that the charter school system in DC mostly helps students who least need the help. It's the struggling DCPS that need our time and attention. The preschools at those schools were initially set up to help the at risk kids. Then the wealthier families wanted access to the preschools so they lifted the income restrictions. You are some kind of piece of work that you're trying to somehow argue that allowing you to continue competing against poor kids for the few spots open at preschools is actually better for the disadvantaged. The system is built on a landfill, okay? and the bridges and safety nets are serving you and people like you. They're not serving the vast majority of kids in this city, and they're certainly not serving the struggling schools in ward 5, 7, 8, and the kids in bounds for them. [/quote]

My kids have all attended DC public or charter PS and PK.  The majority of EVERY ONE OF THEIR CLASSES was FARMS/lower SES.  We have visited and looked at stats for practically every elementary school in DC (and especially the sought after ones).  Almost none of them have MAJORITY middle or upper class.  Yes, those numbers are growing every year, but the MAJORITY is FARMS at all the schools we've seriously considered.

So, given that, please produce numbers for how allowing a few parents who are MAJORITY with options (by definition: we can afford/choose to wait until K for child to enter school) to institute a policy that for all already in PS/PK, you have to start over for K.  Show me numbers that show that that change would NOT drastically impact the FARMS families who send their kids to PS/PK (since, again, they are the majority in almost every DC school, including charters, that I have looked at), and not drastically benefit higher SES (middle and upper class) families who are gunning for this policy because they WANT to keep DC home longer but don't want to be shut out at K?  Where are your numbers that FARMS kids are no longer in the majority at DC public schools?[/quote]

I really want to try and refute what you are saying but I cannot follow your reasoning at all. I don't think you're speaking or reading well. I'm not the one advocating for a kindergarten restart. I just want some options and spots set aside for those who don't use public / charter preschool. This in fact opens up MORE seats at the ps3/pk4 grades because those who don't need or want to use the DC public or charter system for this will not.

And I don't think you understood my comments. The at risk kids should get top bidding for a program that serves at-risk kids. I'd be glad to support a system that goes back to doing that because the current system does not. If a program is set up to serve at risk kids, and you open it up to non at risk kids, and there are not enough seats for everyone, explain to me again how that benefits all the at risk kids again? Mixing up SES kids is beneficial, but not if it means far fewer poor kids get in in the first place. Kids who do not have family resources to be driven across town (or across the river) to an acceptable charter school or OOB preschool. I don't mind you trying to protect your own skin in this game, but stop trying to use the at risk kids. It makes you look nuts. [/quote]

Ok, let's try this again, and stop me where I am misrepresenting what's been said or what you've said.

We all agree  the demographics of DC are changing, right?  And in large part because charter schools have improved the school options in DC dramatically, more and more middle/upper class families are moving in/staying, and are competing for slots at the top tier public and charter schools.  We all together so far?

I assume we also all agree that this means that the competition for those spots is increasingly shutting out lower SES families, simply because demand is exceeding supply.  Right, all still on board?

So several here on DCUM voice frustration with feeling like they don't want to send their kids to PS and/or PK, but they feel they must because if not, they'll be shut out of K in the lotteries.  Some of those same parents are suggesting that a solution would be to either have the entire school lottery process start over for K for everyone... or hold some number of slots for those who just want to start in K while everyone else can keep advancing.  And then a PP (not sure if it was you) suggested something about it going back to being income-based, which I actually totally support if there's a way to prioritize lower SES/FARMS kids in those schools.  I am like many on this thread, I have choices, and if that became suggested criteria for shelling out those few spots at the best schools, it IS DC, it IS public school, yes, I'd support that because I believe great options should be available for underserved communities.  And I practice what I preach - in the city we lived in prior to moving to DC when our oldest was PK age, I had a chance to get a spot at one of the best preschools in our city which primarily served underserved families.  I asked a lot of questions and eventually decided I shouldn't use our "in" for that, that slot should go to someone who it was designed for.  So I practice what I preach, we had to pay more for a different program and that is fair.

So this brings us to the most recent issue, which unless you already disagree with something else I've said is apparently where I lost you:

1. Even considering the most popular charters, the majority of students enrolled in public and charter elementaries in DC are lower SES.
2. Unless you've got some really interesting data to prove otherwise, it's obvious (and clear) that the vast majority of those who would favor letting everyone go to the PS/PK they want but then starting the entire school lottery system again at K so they can choose to keep their DC home, OR holding some of those K slots we've already established are scarce to begin with for the same families who want to start in K, are NOT underserved families who need (obviously they don't need) free PS/PK because a) they have no other options for their kids while they're at work, or b) if their kids didn't enter PS/PK they then would not enter K ready to learn because they wouldn't get the development to bring them up to speed for K.  Some have mentioned the founding priciples of Headstart, yes, that is what led DC to this system.
3. SO, if the majority of students enrolled in DC charter schools and public schools are lower SES/FARMS (do you dispute that?)... and the majority of those interested in holding K slots or a K starts the process lottery are NOT underserved (and a small % of the total student population), then to institute such a policy would be disadvantaging everyone who starts in PS/PK and likes where they are (again, unless you've got numbers to show otherwise, majority lower SES kids) JUST SO advantaged parents can make choices to keep their kids home but have a better shot at the lottery.

To sum up: if the group disadvantaged is bigger, majority FARMS/lower SES, and therefore who the system was set up to serve in the first place, how does doing this "lottery starts at K" policy NOT disadvantage them in favor of the desires of a small, advantaged population?

Where am I losing you on that?  Why do you not understand that?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics