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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012.  That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend:  the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.[/quote]

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority. :)
[/quote]

Fat chance, cuz then your whole goal of reserved K slots at the best charters would never go to you.  Unless you had "low income priority slots" (2) and "middle/ upper income priority slots" (20), which would also conveniently wipe out most slots for rising pre-k-ers.

Although, why am I pretty sure you'd be just fine with that?  :wink:  :mrgreen: 
[/quote]

Funny how you completely misunderstand my entire goal and the fact that I am not middle or upper income. I wouldn't qualify for low-income at my salary. That's okay with me because I'd prefer to see the program used the way it was intended. For low income kids. If only low income kids could get into the program at the PK / PS level, then they'd reserve remaining spots for people like you and me to duke it out. That sounds okay with me. I don't mind competing fairly with you while leaving a program geared toward REALLY low income kids to serve those kids who need it most instead of wealthy pricks with a "me first" attitude like yours. [/quote]

I revise my statement then: anyone who doesn't qualify as low income.  And everything else I already said STILL APPLIES because there should be no slots reserved at K.  If you're the PP who already said you can't wade through my posts, I won't bother explaining again, you have already decided there is no understanding it and you said you were not going to try.[/quote]

Same PP as ^^ - also, I haven't written anything here since 08:04 today, so just be clear you aren't only talking to me.  There are several here (despite your inability to understand me) who clearly not only understand but agree.  You don't have to like it, but your inability/unwillingess to even understand the point is amazing.  Hopefully, re: of any back and forth on this baord, no one who actually has the power to create reserved K slots will ever go for it.[/quote]

PP, your all caps and run on sentences do not advance your argument. Your posts were hard to follow not because you laid out carefully sourced, intellectually compelling arguments that were hard to grasp, but rather because you seem unfamiliar with even basic writing skills and you don't bother cleaning up your posts. You tricked me by claiming to care about the poor kids so I was nice and said maybe I could not understand you because I was tired. The truth is, you write like a first grader and you have absolutely no logical backing for any of your baseless claims, and what I can't understand is why you think it would be convincing to anyone.

You can shout if a, then b as loud as you want. If a is not true, then b does not follow. Get how that works? Your premise that making poor kids compete for services that they used to benefit from exclusively somehow benefits them is flawed, so you can't base your thesis on it. Kay? [/quote]

You said these schools are not majority low income.  Someone helped me prove that point by citing a link where you can see what % low income every charter school is.  Your argument in favor of even one single resserved K slot is selfish, self-serving, and is more than likely to impact a low income rising pre-K er, all to serve your preference to not send your kid to PeS or PreK.

You can talk about my writing all you want.  You are either incapable of getting it, or - much more likely - you refuse to and think your criticizing my writing dismisses the selfishness of your point.

You are wrong.  And I notice you don't even acknowledge the actual date posted, after questioning my sources and questioning my premise.  Data proves you wrong, and all you can say is my writing sucks and you can't follow.

As another PP pointed out, you've got nothing else to say, your point has been proven wrong - and turning to insults does zero to counter the bottom line.  All I really care about is that those who would have sign off if your idea were to ever get seriously raised, they get it and would see through your selfishness.  That's all that really matters.[/quote]

I didn't quibble with your FARMS data because it is irrelevant to the point. If you ensure that all FARMS kids get in at the PS / PK spots and may continue on, then you can let everyone else compete for the other spots, some held open for PS3, some for PS4, and some for K. So even though I think you used only stats that articulated the already specious point you were making, I let you get away with it because that is just not relevant to the discussion.

If you use PS3 and PK4 for what it is GEARED toward, low-income families, you cover the argument that you continue to insist on making. Get it? What I find rich is a wealthy person who wants to use services for poor kids and then turns around and calls someone selfish who says: 1. first make sure the pre s and pre k kids can use services they need and then, IF and only IF there are leftover spots, divide those up for staggered entry for PS3, PS4, and K, so that there are an even number of entry points at each slot.

Kids with current spots can be grandfathered in, and schools who really feel it is necessary for kids to begin at 3 may bid for an exemption to the start rules. You could also accomplish this by adding classes at each grade. There are many ways to skin this cat. But you, PP, are so threatened by someone with an idea does not directly benefit your family, that you go all ranty on a listserv and accuse others of being selfish when selfish is the actual definition of what you are doing here.

AND, you get bonus "crappy person" points for trying to claim poor kids as the reason you want to protect your own. LOL. I'm not positive anyone thinks you are "right," exactly but surely there are many who feel equally threatened by any changes to the system, and will gladly argue right alongside you, either without really stopping to think about it or just blatantly using whatever talking points they think might serve their own interests.

Selfish, indeed. [/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