Anonymous
04/09/2014 00:13
Subject: Winners under the policy examples
The only winner is the charter schools. They have been advantaged for years, while neighborhood schools are being closed down and parents left with no options.
All three of these proposals protect and strengthen the charters at the expense of DCPS.
It won't be long before they succeed in completely privatizing our schools.
All three of these proposals protect and strengthen the charters at the expense of DCPS.
It won't be long before they succeed in completely privatizing our schools.
Anonymous
04/08/2014 22:57
Subject: Winners under the policy examples
Anonymous wrote:Winners: Shepherd ES students mainly continue feeding into Deal/Wilson.
Winners: Under option C, any students that can escape a K-8 monstrosity for a new stand along middle school.
Why are the K-8 models all so bad? I never have understood this.
Anonymous
04/08/2014 22:56
Subject: Winners under the policy examples
Winners: Shepherd ES students mainly continue feeding into Deal/Wilson.
Winners: Under option C, any students that can escape a K-8 monstrosity for a new stand along middle school.
Winners: Under option C, any students that can escape a K-8 monstrosity for a new stand along middle school.
Anonymous
04/08/2014 22:55
Subject: Winners under the policy examples
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:21:58 -- Is this because of the OOB set-asides & preferences for low-performing schools? IMHO, that is one of the few parts of these proposals that seems like a good idea & one that can improve things for some without making all the WOTP families head straight to charters/privates/MoCo, which doesn't seem to be in anyone's interest.
Yes-- my IB school is rated as "priority" by OSSE and so my understanding of this new system would either allow me equal access to good schools as my WOTP friends, or allow priority access to a small set-aside portion of OOB seats. Not guaranteed access for sure-- but better than I have now.
It, why isn't dcps doing more to make your inbound options viable? A chance is not a choice, no one wants to gamble with their child's educational options. What can dcps do to support your school or at least more schools so that we can grow the pie rather than redistribute it?
Anonymous
04/08/2014 22:37
Subject: Winners under the policy examples
Anonymous wrote:21:58 -- Is this because of the OOB set-asides & preferences for low-performing schools? IMHO, that is one of the few parts of these proposals that seems like a good idea & one that can improve things for some without making all the WOTP families head straight to charters/privates/MoCo, which doesn't seem to be in anyone's interest.
Yes-- my IB school is rated as "priority" by OSSE and so my understanding of this new system would either allow me equal access to good schools as my WOTP friends, or allow priority access to a small set-aside portion of OOB seats. Not guaranteed access for sure-- but better than I have now.
Anonymous
04/08/2014 22:08
Subject: Winners under the policy examples
21:58 -- Is this because of the OOB set-asides & preferences for low-performing schools? IMHO, that is one of the few parts of these proposals that seems like a good idea & one that can improve things for some without making all the WOTP families head straight to charters/privates/MoCo, which doesn't seem to be in anyone's interest.
Anonymous
04/08/2014 22:04
Subject: Winners under the policy examples
Following up on your proximity point, I'd be interested in learning how many of the "geographical choice sets" under Option A include both high and low performing schools, so that your hypothetical is likely to come to pass.
Because, if you're in a set with all crappy choices, you're still going to go charter or private if you have the resources to do so, or be stuck in a crappy school.
If you're in a set with all great choices (e.g., Choice Set T, which includes Janney, Lafayette & Murch), this option is worse than the status quo, because you're not guaranteed a spot at your closest school and your neighbors' kids have only a 1-in-3 chance of being at the same school as your kids.
So, this option seems like it would only help a small fraction of people--those zoned for choice sets with both good and bad schools who are lucky enough to get into one of the good ones. Right?
Because, if you're in a set with all crappy choices, you're still going to go charter or private if you have the resources to do so, or be stuck in a crappy school.
If you're in a set with all great choices (e.g., Choice Set T, which includes Janney, Lafayette & Murch), this option is worse than the status quo, because you're not guaranteed a spot at your closest school and your neighbors' kids have only a 1-in-3 chance of being at the same school as your kids.
So, this option seems like it would only help a small fraction of people--those zoned for choice sets with both good and bad schools who are lucky enough to get into one of the good ones. Right?
Anonymous
04/08/2014 21:58
Subject: Winners under the policy examples
As a family assigned to a poor-performing EOTP school, we're "winners" because we have a better shot at a good school.
Anonymous
04/08/2014 21:44
Subject: Winners under the policy examples
We've been talking a lot about the "losers" under the various example scenarios floated by the Deputy Mayor for Education. I have another question-- who or what are the winners?
My thoughts:
- School proximity: While many of the proposals weaken school predicability by removing a single school of right for some or all grades, overall they may actually increase the number of families attending a school near home. (Predicability and proximity are not one in the same.) Currently, only 25-35% of families attend their school of right. Those who chose to go elsewhere often have to go substantially further away from home -- under some of these scenarios, they would have priority access to more nearby options, which could allow more families to stay closer to home.
- Specialized programs such as language immersion: Several of the scenarios flesh out adding new programs and creating or strengthening feeder relationships between specialized elementary, middle, and high schools with specific academic programs.
- Students/families currently assigned to low-performing schools: Under several of the scenarios, they'd have a better chance of ending up at a high-quality school (although under Scenario B, still a much lower chance than their peers from wealthier neighborhoods)
Any other winners? Trying to look for some of the silver linings in all of the negativity
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1102971/policy-example-a.pdf
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1102974/policy-example-b.pdf
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1102976/policy-example-c.pdf
My thoughts:
- School proximity: While many of the proposals weaken school predicability by removing a single school of right for some or all grades, overall they may actually increase the number of families attending a school near home. (Predicability and proximity are not one in the same.) Currently, only 25-35% of families attend their school of right. Those who chose to go elsewhere often have to go substantially further away from home -- under some of these scenarios, they would have priority access to more nearby options, which could allow more families to stay closer to home.
- Specialized programs such as language immersion: Several of the scenarios flesh out adding new programs and creating or strengthening feeder relationships between specialized elementary, middle, and high schools with specific academic programs.
- Students/families currently assigned to low-performing schools: Under several of the scenarios, they'd have a better chance of ending up at a high-quality school (although under Scenario B, still a much lower chance than their peers from wealthier neighborhoods)
Any other winners? Trying to look for some of the silver linings in all of the negativity
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1102971/policy-example-a.pdf
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1102974/policy-example-b.pdf
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1102976/policy-example-c.pdf