Anonymous wrote:Oh, redneck mom. Don't you have some frybread to make or something?

Good one, PP, you made me google fry bread.

I also wonder what would happen if you broke it down by grade (or range of grades), both at DCPS and at charters? Would it be a larger difference as kids aged (between charter and DCPS)? I would think it would...but maybe not. It'd probably push most of the charters higher, with a few select charters relatively immune.

And I bet if you looked at say Pre-k3 and 4, or Pre-k 3-1st, you'd see more diversity across DCPS and charter - though I'd wonder if DCPS and charters would be closer or you'd have the same pattern (similar spread between DCPS and charter). I assume that would differ by ward/neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

As noted, I too suspect that's true - but that's not something that can be supported from this data. For that, you'd need to know where the kids are coming from, where they would have gone instead, the population that applies to charters, etc. You could get the exact same data here if all of the Ward 7 and 8 charters pulled 5 or 10% of their kids (not at risk) from other wards. They'd still be lower at risk percentages than surrounding schools but it wouldn't have anything to do with pulling not at risk kids from surrounding schools (and given that kids travel further to charters, you can't really compare the charter next door to a traditional school to that DCPS school and conclude anything about that DCPS school - kids leaving that DCPS school just as likely went to some other charter). Now, I'm guessing that's not what's happening (pulling lots of not at risk kids from other wards) in most cases - but my point is this data isn't going to tell you that. And it's dangerous to go around saying data proves things it doesn't. The authors are using the data to say charters a no less segregated (and I think quite possibly implying they're more segregated - hard to tell). They're not saying anything about the impact on DCPS at all (though I think that'd be useful to look at). From what I can see, charters are slightly less segregated overall compared to DCPS (based on fewer schools on the extremes), but I don't have the breakdowns I'd need to conclude that at all.

Exactly, the extremes at either end are the real problem- either schools that are vast majority at-risk (which is a recipe for disaster), or those that have close to zero at-risk (which are by their nature exclusionary). But the extremes are a symptom of the overall racial and economic segregation of the city, so pretty tough to combat without major policy changes. It would be interesting to consider the concept that by keeping more middle class families in the public school system (in theory), charters are lowering the overall percentage of at-risk kids in the public schools, and how that would affect all of these numbers. It's not like there were a lot of kids from well-off families at Stanton or Garfield before charters were around.

Here's my question- what percentage of at-risk kids causes middle class families to flee en masse? Based on the data, it looks like it's around 25%. Pretty much all of the "hot" charters which presumably appeal the most to middle class families are below that line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"So we wondered: can charter schools, which base admissions entirely on a lottery instead of a student’s address, better mix at-risk students than DCPS and create more egalitarian schools? Our answer is a qualified no."

I'm a little confused here...how is having fewer at risk students in areas where at risk students make up 75% of students actually LESS diverse/egalitarian? If the question is, do charter schools make the school system as a whole (DCPS AND Charter) less segregated, it seems likely the answer is no (though this data isn't going to answer that question). But if the question is are charters more diverse than DCPS - I'm not sure a lower percentage of at risk kids necessarily means the answer is now when you're comparing it to schools with majority at risk populations. Wouldn't greater diversity/less segregation mean more not-at-risk kids in those cases? I think this is not the comparison to be making with this data. I think you'd need a whole different set of data. I'm not sure what the data would have looked like if they'd seen what they wanted to see?

Outside of WoTP DCPS schools, charters are concentrating nearly all of the non-"at-risk" kids. Thereby ensuring that the remaining DCPS continue to remain segregated and filled with "at-risk" students. Hence, charters are not helping de-segregation, but rather giving middle and upper-middle SES families a "sanctuary" from the DCPS.

As noted, I too suspect that's true - but that's not something that can be supported from this data. For that, you'd need to know where the kids are coming from, where they would have gone instead, the population that applies to charters, etc. You could get the exact same data here if all of the Ward 7 and 8 charters pulled 5 or 10% of their kids (not at risk) from other wards. They'd still be lower at risk percentages than surrounding schools but it wouldn't have anything to do with pulling not at risk kids from surrounding schools (and given that kids travel further to charters, you can't really compare the charter next door to a traditional school to that DCPS school and conclude anything about that DCPS school - kids leaving that DCPS school just as likely went to some other charter). Now, I'm guessing that's not what's happening (pulling lots of not at risk kids from other wards) in most cases - but my point is this data isn't going to tell you that. And it's dangerous to go around saying data proves things it doesn't. The authors are using the data to say charters a no less segregated (and I think quite possibly implying they're more segregated - hard to tell). They're not saying anything about the impact on DCPS at all (though I think that'd be useful to look at). From what I can see, charters are slightly less segregated overall compared to DCPS (based on fewer schools on the extremes), but I don't have the breakdowns I'd need to conclude that at all.

Oh, redneck mom. Don't you have some frybread to make or something?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"So we wondered: can charter schools, which base admissions entirely on a lottery instead of a student’s address, better mix at-risk students than DCPS and create more egalitarian schools? Our answer is a qualified no."

I'm a little confused here...how is having fewer at risk students in areas where at risk students make up 75% of students actually LESS diverse/egalitarian? If the question is, do charter schools make the school system as a whole (DCPS AND Charter) less segregated, it seems likely the answer is no (though this data isn't going to answer that question). But if the question is are charters more diverse than DCPS - I'm not sure a lower percentage of at risk kids necessarily means the answer is now when you're comparing it to schools with majority at risk populations. Wouldn't greater diversity/less segregation mean more not-at-risk kids in those cases? I think this is not the comparison to be making with this data. I think you'd need a whole different set of data. I'm not sure what the data would have looked like if they'd seen what they wanted to see?

Outside of WoTP DCPS schools, charters are concentrating nearly all of the non-"at-risk" kids. Thereby ensuring that the remaining DCPS continue to remain segregated and filled with "at-risk" students. Hence, charters are not helping de-segregation, but rather giving middle and upper-middle SES families a "sanctuary" from the DCPS.

Easiest way to solve "segregation" in DC? Let PG absorb East of Anacostia.

Not sure those families would like it, but social engineers would have a field day!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a theory: The most educated and informed parents are all going to rank what they consider the best charter schools highest when they apply to the lottery. And so, statistically, more of their kids will end up getting their number picked for these schools and more will attend. The majority of these educated and informed parents (sorry to say) do not have kids in the "at-risk" group.

Furthermore, I'd venture that the vast majority of "at-risk" risk kids are not even enrolled in the lottery. So they never had a chance to begin with. The lottery participants are not a representative sample of the kids in our city.

I am not sure I totally agree with the bolded statement. The lottery is advertised pretty far and wide, and the number of students entering each year is pretty high. I would agree with a statement that many of the at-risk kids live in Wards 7 and 8, and therefore are probably less likely to apply to the "hot" charters in wards 4 and 5. Which perpetuates the process of segregation by income (and inherently by where you live).

But I would love to see data from MySchoolDC that compared the primary demographics (including FARM and at-risk) of the applicants in the lottery vs. the overall public school population.

I don't think that data is available but there is a lot of other data that people might find interesting at http://www.myschooldc.org/resources/data/. When you compare the % of kids in public school from each ward to the % of myschooldc applications that come from each ward, they are quite similar--within 1 percentage point for all but two wards, and the exceptions were pretty close too: Ward 6 has 10% of public school kids and 12% of lottery applicants; Ward 8 has 24% of public school kids and 21% of lottery applicants. Based on the match rate by ward https://ms-dc.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2015_r1_match_rate_ward.pdf it seems that people in Wards 1-4 (and especially 3) are applying to schools that are more in-demand (and possibly to fewer schools) than people in Wards 7 and 8. This is not surprising given the disparity in demand for those areas' in-bounds options.

Anonymous wrote:"So we wondered: can charter schools, which base admissions entirely on a lottery instead of a student’s address, better mix at-risk students than DCPS and create more egalitarian schools? Our answer is a qualified no."

I'm a little confused here...how is having fewer at risk students in areas where at risk students make up 75% of students actually LESS diverse/egalitarian? If the question is, do charter schools make the school system as a whole (DCPS AND Charter) less segregated, it seems likely the answer is no (though this data isn't going to answer that question). But if the question is are charters more diverse than DCPS - I'm not sure a lower percentage of at risk kids necessarily means the answer is now when you're comparing it to schools with majority at risk populations. Wouldn't greater diversity/less segregation mean more not-at-risk kids in those cases? I think this is not the comparison to be making with this data. I think you'd need a whole different set of data. I'm not sure what the data would have looked like if they'd seen what they wanted to see?

Outside of WoTP DCPS schools, charters are concentrating nearly all of the non-"at-risk" kids. Thereby ensuring that the remaining DCPS continue to remain segregated and filled with "at-risk" students. Hence, charters are not helping de-segregation, but rather giving middle and upper-middle SES families a "sanctuary" from the DCPS.

"So we wondered: can charter schools, which base admissions entirely on a lottery instead of a student’s address, better mix at-risk students than DCPS and create more egalitarian schools? Our answer is a qualified no."

I'm a little confused here...how is having fewer at risk students in areas where at risk students make up 75% of students actually LESS diverse/egalitarian? If the question is, do charter schools make the school system as a whole (DCPS AND Charter) less segregated, it seems likely the answer is no (though this data isn't going to answer that question). But if the question is are charters more diverse than DCPS - I'm not sure a lower percentage of at risk kids necessarily means the answer is now when you're comparing it to schools with majority at risk populations. Wouldn't greater diversity/less segregation mean more not-at-risk kids in those cases? I think this is not the comparison to be making with this data. I think you'd need a whole different set of data. I'm not sure what the data would have looked like if they'd seen what they wanted to see?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a theory: The most educated and informed parents are all going to rank what they consider the best charter schools highest when they apply to the lottery. And so, statistically, more of their kids will end up getting their number picked for these schools and more will attend. The majority of these educated and informed parents (sorry to say) do not have kids in the "at-risk" group.

Furthermore, I'd venture that the vast majority of "at-risk" risk kids are not even enrolled in the lottery. So they never had a chance to begin with. The lottery participants are not a representative sample of the kids in our city.

I am not sure I totally agree with the bolded statement. The lottery is advertised pretty far and wide, and the number of students entering each year is pretty high. I would agree with a statement that many of the at-risk kids live in Wards 7 and 8, and therefore are probably less likely to apply to the "hot" charters in wards 4 and 5. Which perpetuates the process of segregation by income (and inherently by where you live).

But I would love to see data from MySchoolDC that compared the primary demographics (including FARM and at-risk) of the applicants in the lottery vs. the overall public school population.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://districtmeasured.com/2015/10/07/can-school-lotteries-make-schools-more-diverse/

Thanks for posting. As a data geek, this stuff is supremely interesting. I think it's key that they use the "at-risk" definition and not FARM. A family of 4 can earn up to $45,000 a year to qualify for FARM (reduced, not free, at that income level). That is obviously not a lot of money to live on in DC, but it's a very different world from a family scraping by on $15,000 a year from TANF and other forms of assistance.

Agreed that many of the "hot" charters don't have very high levels of at risk students. It's obvious from looking at the graph that the average line for charters is well below DCPS- this supports the general thesis that those who truly are the most at-risk are less likely to seek out charters.

But also note the 11 DCPS schools to the far left, all of which have at-risk numbers of 8% or less. Only one charter would be in that group- Yu Ying, at 4% at-risk. A school system solely based on a severely segregated residential housing pattern will continue to be severely segregated.

Hey data geek, what city are you talking about when you say that "A school system solely based on a severely segregated residential housing pattern will continue to be severely segregated"?

Hint -- please find and share these numbers...

In 2004,
# kids attending DCPS schools:
# kids attending DC charter schools:

In 2014,
# kids attending DCPS schools:
# kids attending DC charter schools:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a theory: The most educated and informed parents are all going to rank what they consider the best charter schools highest when they apply to the lottery. And so, statistically, more of their kids will end up getting their number picked for these schools and more will attend. The majority of these educated and informed parents (sorry to say) do not have kids in the "at-risk" group.

Furthermore, I'd venture that the vast majority of "at-risk" risk kids are not even enrolled in the lottery. So they never had a chance to begin with. The lottery participants are not a representative sample of the kids in our city.

Here's a theory: The most educated and informed parents are all going to rank what they consider the best charter schools highest when they apply to the lottery. And so, statistically, more of their kids will end up getting their number picked for these schools and more will attend. The majority of these educated and informed parents (sorry to say) do not have kids in the "at-risk" group.

Anonymous wrote:http://districtmeasured.com/2015/10/07/can-school-lotteries-make-schools-more-diverse/

Thanks for posting. As a data geek, this stuff is supremely interesting. I think it's key that they use the "at-risk" definition and not FARM. A family of 4 can earn up to $45,000 a year to qualify for FARM (reduced, not free, at that income level). That is obviously not a lot of money to live on in DC, but it's a very different world from a family scraping by on $15,000 a year from TANF and other forms of assistance.

Agreed that many of the "hot" charters don't have very high levels of at risk students. It's obvious from looking at the graph that the average line for charters is well below DCPS- this supports the general thesis that those who truly are the most at-risk are less likely to seek out charters.

But also note the 11 DCPS schools to the far left, all of which have at-risk numbers of 8% or less. Only one charter would be in that group- Yu Ying, at 4% at-risk. A school system solely based on a severely segregated residential housing pattern will continue to be severely segregated.