Anonymous wrote:If PCSB had a response, it is not on the original page.

And I think most people would say we are a far ways from coordination when the charter reps walk out of the boundary planning advisory group in the last week.

they walked out because they refused to accept the "Whatever % OOB at risk requirement" for schools that have no boundaries, where admission is by lottery, where starting with the common lottery and the help of social workers at risk kids can apply, where many charters have FARMS populations that are much higher than the Ward 3 Elementary schools and the other ES EOTP schools that are being gentrified, under circumstances where, while there are specific charters that cater to at risk kids, not all of them do, and they do not get the per pupil money that DCPS does to provide wrap around services. We have SEEDS, ROOTS, KIPP, DC PREP etc - and then we have schools offering to teach kids a trade, like Hospitality High (I wish we could start more of them), schools that offer language immersion, STEM opportunities............ To me that was completely understandable. Had they done anything else it would have destroyed our charter school, which is already Title I.

I also hate the idea, espoused by some political candidates, of in boundary preferences for charters, when charters spend so much time moving around the first few years, and when they ultimately land and are impossible to get in to, suddenly wherever they end up, the students who, by coincidence, happen to live in those areas.

The whole point of the lottery is EQUAL opportunity. Everyone gets the same shot when a new school opens, except for the teachers who come to teach, and, in the case of a home grown charter, the founders who put their sweat equity in. Then those who came in the beginning get sibling preferences, without which, the system absolutely would not function.

But stirring the pot is right. Good for the Charter Board for nipping this in the bud. And good for them as well for their recent crackdowns - it is becoming harder and harder to get permission to open a charter in DC, and to expand. What they want at this point is quality, not quantity - in what we have, and in what we will get. Even chains like Harmony have to come back multiple years. I like that. There are no free passes in DC anymore. We have enough to clean up with the charters that exist. But I would say we are probably doing just as well as DCPS in terms of functioning schools and corruption.........

We would not still be in this city if it were not for charter schools. Our plan was always to move to Md for MS and HS.

Can anyone post a link that works to the original diatribe?

There have been many responses since the original post from this groups post. It seems that OP might educate her/him self on the whole topic before random posting of 1/2 the information.

"Charter school leader". Ha.

School choice is really just school chance until either people start investing in neighborhood schools or charters take on the right scale.

For instance, some of the language immersion charters could be as large as Deal if they had the facilities for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF you can guarantee a spot for my 3 kids at the Charter 4 blocks away from my house I'm all for it, but that can't be done.


I don't feel like parents should be forced to do a long commute just for a Charter School.

Are they suggesting neighborhood preference for Charters? I think they axed that during the DME process.

No one is 'forced' to do a long commute for a charter. Just like no one is 'forced' to attend their neighborhood school. Having a choice isn't the same as having a convenient choice.

Separately the idea of a neighborhood preference for charters predates the DME process of last year. Just because it lost there doesn't mean its proponents won't try to resurrect it. And many charter folks will continue to oppose it.

NP. I think you are incorrect. If charters take over DCPS as they desire, there are no in-bound schools. Charters are lottery based and you get what you get in the lottery. A parent could choose the twelve closest schools to their home and still end up without a clear match.

Anonymous wrote:IF you can guarantee a spot for my 3 kids at the Charter 4 blocks away from my house I'm all for it, but that can't be done.


I don't feel like parents should be forced to do a long commute just for a Charter School.

Are they suggesting neighborhood preference for Charters? I think they axed that during the DME process.

No one is 'forced' to do a long commute for a charter. Just like no one is 'forced' to attend their neighborhood school. Having a choice isn't the same as having a convenient choice.

Separately the idea of a neighborhood preference for charters predates the DME process of last year. Just because it lost there doesn't mean its proponents won't try to resurrect it. And many charter folks will continue to oppose it.

IF you can guarantee a spot for my 3 kids at the Charter 4 blocks away from my house I'm all for it, but that can't be done.


I don't feel like parents should be forced to do a long commute just for a Charter School.

Are they suggesting neighborhood preference for Charters? I think they axed that during the DME process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…they want them gone. Every single one of them.

In a shocking opinion piece on March 30, one of the leaders of the charter movement/philosophy came out against DC’s Public Charter School Board for saying that maybe (MAYBE) the mix of charters to neighborhood schools is almost right.

[url]http://edexcellence.net/articles/time-for-a-new-non-district-charter-authorizer-in-dc-0
[/url]

This if from Andy Smarick, who is close to Kaya and one of the writers whom all the Ed Reformer read and worship:

Excerpts: “The D.C. charter sector has grown methodically for almost two decades, now serving nearly half the city’s public school students. It is demonstrating that the district can be replaced in a gradual, deliberate fashion.”

DC “…could offer America’s cities an invaluable new example of an all-charter approach.”

“They say an all-charter city would require all charters to backfill and serve as neighborhood schools. Untrue: Backfilling and residential assignments could be limited to a subset of schools.”

“Sadly, PCSB’s position has closed an exhilarating chapter of reform. But D.C. can start writing a new one. It can create a great new non-district authorizer, and maybe even a cross-sector chancellor…”

“But we should all be unwilling to contribute to the pausing of D.C. chartering….”


Where do I sign up to give money to local school lobbyists?!? Oh that’s right…there’s no money to be made in that…meanwhile PCSB the charters have dozens of think tanks and lobbyists.

Yes, thank god this type of thinking was thoroughly rejected in the recent boundary review process, in favor of neighborhood schools. I think DC was in danger for a while of being turned into a massive social experiment like San Francisco. Thankfully I think this will be less and less likely politically as we go forward.

Andy Smarick isn't a charter leader. He works for a conservative think tank.

Here's the link to the response from one of the DC charter board members http://www.dcpcsb.org/blog/debating-dc-charter-market-share-quality-schools-all-kids-should-be-primary-goal

Sara Mead's response is spot on.

Moderation for the win! (well, for now anyway)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…they want them gone. Every single one of them.

In a shocking opinion piece on March 30, one of the leaders of the charter movement/philosophy came out against DC’s Public Charter School Board for saying that maybe (MAYBE) the mix of charters to neighborhood schools is almost right.

[url]http://edexcellence.net/articles/time-for-a-new-non-district-charter-authorizer-in-dc-0
[/url]

This if from Andy Smarick, who is close to Kaya and one of the writers whom all the Ed Reformer read and worship:

Excerpts: “The D.C. charter sector has grown methodically for almost two decades, now serving nearly half the city’s public school students. It is demonstrating that the district can be replaced in a gradual, deliberate fashion.”

DC “…could offer America’s cities an invaluable new example of an all-charter approach.”

“They say an all-charter city would require all charters to backfill and serve as neighborhood schools. Untrue: Backfilling and residential assignments could be limited to a subset of schools.”

“Sadly, PCSB’s position has closed an exhilarating chapter of reform. But D.C. can start writing a new one. It can create a great new non-district authorizer, and maybe even a cross-sector chancellor…”

“But we should all be unwilling to contribute to the pausing of D.C. chartering….”


Where do I sign up to give money to local school lobbyists?!? Oh that’s right…there’s no money to be made in that…meanwhile PCSB the charters have dozens of think tanks and lobbyists.

Yes, thank god this type of thinking was thoroughly rejected in the recent boundary review process, in favor of neighborhood schools. I think DC was in danger for a while of being turned into a massive social experiment like San Francisco. Thankfully I think this will be less and less likely politically as we go forward.

Andy Smarick isn't a charter leader. He works for a conservative think tank.

Here's the link to the response from one of the DC charter board members http://www.dcpcsb.org/blog/debating-dc-charter-market-share-quality-schools-all-kids-should-be-primary-goal

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…they want them gone. Every single one of them.

In a shocking opinion piece on March 30, one of the leaders of the charter movement/philosophy came out against DC’s Public Charter School Board for saying that maybe (MAYBE) the mix of charters to neighborhood schools is almost right.

[url]http://edexcellence.net/articles/time-for-a-new-non-district-charter-authorizer-in-dc-0
[/url]

This if from Andy Smarick, who is close to Kaya and one of the writers whom all the Ed Reformer read and worship:

Excerpts: “The D.C. charter sector has grown methodically for almost two decades, now serving nearly half the city’s public school students. It is demonstrating that the district can be replaced in a gradual, deliberate fashion.”

DC “…could offer America’s cities an invaluable new example of an all-charter approach.”

“They say an all-charter city would require all charters to backfill and serve as neighborhood schools. Untrue: Backfilling and residential assignments could be limited to a subset of schools.”

“Sadly, PCSB’s position has closed an exhilarating chapter of reform. But D.C. can start writing a new one. It can create a great new non-district authorizer, and maybe even a cross-sector chancellor…”

“But we should all be unwilling to contribute to the pausing of D.C. chartering….”


Where do I sign up to give money to local school lobbyists?!? Oh that’s right…there’s no money to be made in that…meanwhile PCSB the charters have dozens of think tanks and lobbyists.

Yes, thank god this type of thinking was thoroughly rejected in the recent boundary review process, in favor of neighborhood schools. I think DC was in danger for a while of being turned into a massive social experiment like San Francisco. Thankfully I think this will be less and less likely politically as we go forward.

+1. For once people mobilized, sent the crazies home packing, and politicians took note. Let's see how long it lasts.

Anonymous wrote:…they want them gone. Every single one of them.

In a shocking opinion piece on March 30, one of the leaders of the charter movement/philosophy came out against DC’s Public Charter School Board for saying that maybe (MAYBE) the mix of charters to neighborhood schools is almost right.

[url]http://edexcellence.net/articles/time-for-a-new-non-district-charter-authorizer-in-dc-0
[/url]

This if from Andy Smarick, who is close to Kaya and one of the writers whom all the Ed Reformer read and worship:

Excerpts: “The D.C. charter sector has grown methodically for almost two decades, now serving nearly half the city’s public school students. It is demonstrating that the district can be replaced in a gradual, deliberate fashion.”

DC “…could offer America’s cities an invaluable new example of an all-charter approach.”

“They say an all-charter city would require all charters to backfill and serve as neighborhood schools. Untrue: Backfilling and residential assignments could be limited to a subset of schools.”

“Sadly, PCSB’s position has closed an exhilarating chapter of reform. But D.C. can start writing a new one. It can create a great new non-district authorizer, and maybe even a cross-sector chancellor…”

“But we should all be unwilling to contribute to the pausing of D.C. chartering….”


Where do I sign up to give money to local school lobbyists?!? Oh that’s right…there’s no money to be made in that…meanwhile PCSB the charters have dozens of think tanks and lobbyists.

Yes, thank god this type of thinking was thoroughly rejected in the recent boundary review process, in favor of neighborhood schools. I think DC was in danger for a while of being turned into a massive social experiment like San Francisco. Thankfully I think this will be less and less likely politically as we go forward.

If PCSB had a response, it is not on the original page.

And I think most people would say we are a far ways from coordination when the charter reps walk out of the boundary planning advisory group in the last week.

Anonymous wrote:
That's like blaming your local neighbor schools because the teachers union goes on a rant.

Really? Please site examples.

AND....DCPCSB Wrote a response back praising neighborhood schools and the coloboration between the two that night (I notice you didn't post that).

That's like blaming your local neighbor schools because the teachers union goes on a rant.

Don't stir the pot when we are finally coordinating here in DC.

It's negative haters like you that bring the education movement down.

…they want them gone. Every single one of them.

In a shocking opinion piece on March 30, one of the leaders of the charter movement/philosophy came out against DC’s Public Charter School Board for saying that maybe (MAYBE) the mix of charters to neighborhood schools is almost right.

[url]http://edexcellence.net/articles/time-for-a-new-non-district-charter-authorizer-in-dc-0
[/url]

This if from Andy Smarick, who is close to Kaya and one of the writers whom all the Ed Reformer read and worship:

Excerpts: “The D.C. charter sector has grown methodically for almost two decades, now serving nearly half the city’s public school students. It is demonstrating that the district can be replaced in a gradual, deliberate fashion.”

DC “…could offer America’s cities an invaluable new example of an all-charter approach.”

“They say an all-charter city would require all charters to backfill and serve as neighborhood schools. Untrue: Backfilling and residential assignments could be limited to a subset of schools.”

“Sadly, PCSB’s position has closed an exhilarating chapter of reform. But D.C. can start writing a new one. It can create a great new non-district authorizer, and maybe even a cross-sector chancellor…”

“But we should all be unwilling to contribute to the pausing of D.C. chartering….”


Where do I sign up to give money to local school lobbyists?!? Oh that’s right…there’s no money to be made in that…meanwhile PCSB the charters have dozens of think tanks and lobbyists.