I could see Ward 4 and 5 residents being intrigued by the neighborhood preference for charters aspect.

To original Q: no.

Anonymous wrote:charter autonomy guys can say whatever they want, but it's clear there's an interplay between them and DCPS, right? Why they have an absolute right to do whatever they want but DCPS has to come up with a system for everyone that takes them into account, as well as their rogue actor, we do whatever we want status, is beyond me.

There needs to be a level of rationalization. It does not necessarily need to be high, but some.

Just to pick a few random examples, if a PCS's only clear niche that makes it truly different from the school around the block is that it runs only through K, should it be allowed to expand to run through 5? Why is/was DC Bilingual a hundred yard away from CHEC? If Roosevelt and Coolidge are both massively underenrolled, what does it mean to have DCI placed between them? I say this just to raise the idea that some level of coordination is required, or else literally billions in DC taxpayer money goes to two separate systems of schools.

If I had the privilege of paying money to only one system of schools, fine, but I don't - we all fund both. As a taxpayer, I want a rationalized system.

Some of the concern about charters drawing away segments of students might be better addressed by starting with some rationalization and coordination WITHIN DCPS. There's a reason why people are leaving DCPS schools in droves - it's because of the internal lack of coordination, lack of rationalization, and unwillingness to listen to what families are looking for and unwillingness to meet needs. If DCPS can't figure it out with all of its resources, what makes you think it will happen? Frankly, I think it's a good thing that we have charters as a disruptor, to come in and fill all of the missed needs. DCPS has demonstrated for decades that it wouldn't do it on its own.

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that DCPS first recommends that we do away with neighborhood boundaries for high schools. Rather you apply to what school interests you by theme or focus and then they try to get as much socio-economic diversity as possible in there.

Then, they will do this at middle school level ( trying to suck in charter schools into the mix )

Elementary will be a really tough sell.

This is a sure-fire way to make sure there are no more white high schoolers in DCPS. There is no way that Wilson-zoned kids would go to other general ed high schools. They can't even get them to go to Banneker. There are lots of parents that might not be able to afford K-12 private but could certainly swing four years of private HS if they had to.

Argh. Intimation = litigation. I give up for today.

Zip one = zone. Damn spell check.

Anonymous wrote:It seems like political suicide to me. If you get rid of the OOB system for the whole city, you piss off involved Ward 7 and 8 constituencies heading WOTR for school. If you mess around with Ward 3 school, you piss off the wealthiest sector of DC. I think Capitol Hill would be pissed. Ludlow-Taylor parents don't want to go to J.O. Wilson and vice versa. The only supporters I could see would be neighborhoods with a lot of the more sought after charters if the charters were wrapped up into a nearby controlled choice zone.

Anyway, I'm not very politically savvy when it comes to DC, so I'd love to hear other opinions.

My .02 is that implementing a controlled choice zip one madel could be tied up by means of
Intimation for several years.

My guess is that DCPS first recommends that we do away with neighborhood boundaries for high schools. Rather you apply to what school interests you by theme or focus and then they try to get as much socio-economic diversity as possible in there.

Then, they will do this at middle school level ( trying to suck in charter schools into the mix )

Elementary will be a really tough sell.

charter autonomy guys can say whatever they want, but it's clear there's an interplay between them and DCPS, right? Why they have an absolute right to do whatever they want but DCPS has to come up with a system for everyone that takes them into account, as well as their rogue actor, we do whatever we want status, is beyond me.

There needs to be a level of rationalization. It does not necessarily need to be high, but some.

Just to pick a few random examples, if a PCS's only clear niche that makes it truly different from the school around the block is that it runs only through K, should it be allowed to expand to run through 5? Why is/was DC Bilingual a hundred yard away from CHEC? If Roosevelt and Coolidge are both massively underenrolled, what does it mean to have DCI placed between them? I say this just to raise the idea that some level of coordination is required, or else literally billions in DC taxpayer money goes to two separate systems of schools.

If I had the privilege of paying money to only one system of schools, fine, but I don't - we all fund both. As a taxpayer, I want a rationalized system.

Charters were not designed to be neighborhood schools. Anyone proposing geographic restrictions for charters really does not understand what the point is.

Limiting charter schools to only students within a "zone" in the city is an absolute non-starter for many people.

The charter sector is supposed to innovate and offer alternative curriculums, grade configurations and administration and attract families who feel they offer a good fit for their students. A lynchpin of this is that the slots be open to every student throughout the city.

If DCPS wants to get its own charting authority and turn some of its schools over to charter operators and limit to a specific zone, that is another story altogether and I say have at it.

Charters moving around is also another issue. Give preference to one neighborhood, the school moves and new neighborhood is shut out. Tough call.

I have a lot of thoughts on this that turn out to be a complex system of preferences.

I would support a strong 1 mile proximity preference. I would eliminate the boundaries and require that at least one of the schools within the 1 mile be a "rising" school, and if that is not the case, there is a 1 mile preference for any charter school within that zone and a 2 mile proximity preference.

I would not accept algorithm-based assignment based on demographics. That kind of balance simply cannot realistically be achieved based on DC demographics and residential patterns. However, a proximity preference would allow all within a certain area to converge on a certain school or another and build it into something as an alternative to shipping our kids west. Long-term, we build something that would allow a more robust system to take shape.

I would add the caveat that at-risk children get to trump the proximity preference and can lottery to enroll anywhere.

I would also allow an exception to the lottery for PS3 and PK4 for at-risk children, allowing them to enroll at their nearest elementary school at those ages by right.

Some controversy, but at least a few ideas.

I think that they won't try it on a city-wide basis first. I think the idea would be to get a foot in the door by applying it to Ward 1 (and perhaps Ward 6)---since Jim Graham doesn't care about education at all and Tommy Wells is a socialist nut---the chances of either of those councilmembers protecting their consitituents is small.

As a Ward 1 parent---the thought panics me.

It seems like political suicide to me. If you get rid of the OOB system for the whole city, you piss off involved Ward 7 and 8 constituencies heading WOTR for school. If you mess around with Ward 3 school, you piss off the wealthiest sector of DC. I think Capitol Hill would be pissed. Ludlow-Taylor parents don't want to go to J.O. Wilson and vice versa. The only supporters I could see would be neighborhoods with a lot of the more sought after charters if the charters were wrapped up into a nearby controlled choice zone.

Anyway, I'm not very politically savvy when it comes to DC, so I'd love to hear other opinions.