Anonymous wrote:


Wow. Well I suspected people thought deep down that charter school policies should favor the kids already there, but I didn't think people were actually proud of those thoughts or thought they were acceptable. By that same logic [+1DCCE + bonus points for something], the following should be allowed:

1) Admissions preference for kids who don't have behavior problems (those with behavior detract from overall learning environment and can make it harder for other kids to learn, thereby giving preference to well-behaved kids has a positive utility for kids already in the school)

2) admissions preference for rich kids whose parents pledge to donate a lot to the school (a kid whose parents promise to pay for an extra aide could have a larger net benefit to the other kids than the benefits of having a teacher's kid there)

3) a ban on special needs kids or homeless kids (these kids require extra resources)

4) admissions preference kids with a stay at home parent who pledges to volunteer 20 hours a week at the school (this could clearly benefit the other kids)


None of these policies are allowed because charters are paid for by all taxpayers and thus all city residents should have equal access.

Anonymous wrote:So is it only teachers? How about other full time employees including aids, janitor, principal, security staff, other operations people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Wow, 8 pages for what is really a total non-issue? It's not as though staff kids would account for any meaningful percentage. I wouldn't even expect more than single digits.

NP as well, but PP previously doesn't get it. People will do what it takes to get into HRCS (DCUMers should know what I'm talking about), so if a couple of SAH moms or dads with PhD or professional degrees would happily take 40-hour week admin jobs at $20k to get into the school. Multiply this several times over and you'll see the problem.

I say let teachers (and teachers only) have this benefit. At least they have to earn their qualifications. Even better that the law would require them to be DC residents.

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Wow, 8 pages for what is really a total non-issue? It's not as though staff kids would account for any meaningful percentage. I wouldn't even expect more than single digits.

Why should teach era get rights over others? I don't see why a teacher should get a spot over anyone else--a police officer, a fire fighter, or anyone else. It doesn't mean that people don't respect teachers.


But they teach at the school? it isn't any teacher that gets a preference, but a teacher who teaches at the school. This is a no brainer to me.


This doesn't seem a reason to me. I live near a bunch of charters and my husband works by a bunch of charters, but we get no preference for them. It would be a lot more convenient for us. And if you give preference, then you will have teachers wanting to work at certain desirable charters and not wanting to work at ones that are less desirable for their kids, where they could be making a real contribution. Bad idea.


Well, since you don't work at any of these charters, your opinion means nothing and is irrelevant to the conversation.

Most of the PPs on this thread are straight up teacher haters with absolutely no insight into the problem at hand. Seriously, people, you are worried about a handful of kids in the entire school. If you are so up in arms about people having unfair advantages, then you should be against sibling preference. Far, far more students get coveted spots per the sibling preference than any number of teacher children ever get.

Go ahead. Do the math. I'll wait. Because in my 15 years of K-12 teaching, I personally witnessed a whole 7 children who attended as children of teachers. Seven.

Teacher preference is a small and incredibly cheap perk to attract and retain good teachers. It is ridiculous and small minded to be opposed to it.

Then again, DCUM posters are often known to be both ridiculous and small minded. I just didn't expect them to be so hateful and ignorant.


Wait, the only people allowed to comment on this policy are people who work for charters? Of course they favor the policy, since they are unfairly advantaged. I love that anyone who gldoesnt favor your position must be a "teacher hater." Right. No one could possibly have a different perspective from you.

Anonymous wrote:Shocked at the selfishness and short-sightedness of DC parents! So let me get this straight - you expect excellent teachers to work for less pay and no job security at your charter, and you begrudge them this one perk? A perk, mind you, that may be a key element in increasing teacher retention? You all need to step back and take a breath. If you are this desperate and cut throat maybe consider going private or moving.

Anonymous wrote:So is it only teachers? How about other full time employees including aids, janitor, principal, security staff, other operations people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They. Can apply to the lottery like the rest of us. Just like the police officer must. And the firefighter. And the public defender. And the legal aid attorney.

God, not this dense logic again. None of these people you mention work in the school. That's kind of the point.

I think this is a great idea -- it will only strengthen charter schools, giving teachers more buy-in, incentivising them to stay longer in their current position, attracting better teachers, etc. To be clear, I think this should apply to teachers/principals only.

Charter schools are there to serve ALL children in DC. It is unfair to give some people am advantage in getting in. Those who work in the school should have to lottery in for the slots like everyone else. They are not private schools.

No, actually, they are not. Not a single charter school, nor all of them together, can serve ALL children in DC. Each one can only serve some of the children, and that some changes every year.

What you really want to argue is that you think the value of an open lottery spot outweighs the benefits you would get from giving that spot to a teacher's child. But you are wrong.

If you give that spot to a random child, one DC child gets educated. Let's score that a +1 DCCE.

If you give that spot to a teacher's child, a different DC child gets educated, so you still get +1 DCCE. You also increase the teacher-parent's investment in the school. If having her own child at the school leads the teacher to improve her own teaching or the school in general, even a little bit, then that benefits more than just one student. Even if it does no more than make her daily commute easier, she will most likely be in a better mood and more effective at teaching her class. Let's call teacher effectiveness TE and school quality SQ, and the increased percentage of each ip

So on the one hand you have 1 DCCE, and on the other hand you have 1 DCCE + ipTE x (number of students in class) + ipSQ x (number of students in school)

Unless ipTE and ipSQ are both zero, the teacher preference side of the equation is obviously greater than the random selection side.

Wow. Well I suspected people thought deep down that charter school policies should favor the kids already there, but I didn't think people were actually proud of those thoughts or thought they were acceptable. By that same logic [+1DCCE + bonus points for something], the following should be allowed:

1) Admissions preference for kids who don't have behavior problems (those with behavior detract from overall learning environment and can make it harder for other kids to learn, thereby giving preference to well-behaved kids has a positive utility for kids already in the school)

2) admissions preference for rich kids whose parents pledge to donate a lot to the school (a kid whose parents promise to pay for an extra aide could have a larger net benefit to the other kids than the benefits of having a teacher's kid there)

3) a ban on special needs kids or homeless kids (these kids require extra resources)

4) admissions preference kids with a stay at home parent who pledges to volunteer 20 hours a week at the school (this could clearly benefit the other kids)


None of these policies are allowed because charters are paid for by all taxpayers and thus all city residents should have equal access.

Anonymous wrote:

Why should teach era get rights over others? I don't see why a teacher should get a spot over anyone else--a police officer, a fire fighter, or anyone else. It doesn't mean that people don't respect teachers.


But they teach at the school? it isn't any teacher that gets a preference, but a teacher who teaches at the school. This is a no brainer to me.


This doesn't seem a reason to me. I live near a bunch of charters and my husband works by a bunch of charters, but we get no preference for them. It would be a lot more convenient for us. And if you give preference, then you will have teachers wanting to work at certain desirable charters and not wanting to work at ones that are less desirable for their kids, where they could be making a real contribution. Bad idea.

Well, since you don't work at any of these charters, your opinion means nothing and is irrelevant to the conversation.

Most of the PPs on this thread are straight up teacher haters with absolutely no insight into the problem at hand. Seriously, people, you are worried about a handful of kids in the entire school. If you are so up in arms about people having unfair advantages, then you should be against sibling preference. Far, far more students get coveted spots per the sibling preference than any number of teacher children ever get.

Go ahead. Do the math. I'll wait. Because in my 15 years of K-12 teaching, I personally witnessed a whole 7 children who attended as children of teachers. Seven.

Teacher preference is a small and incredibly cheap perk to attract and retain good teachers. It is ridiculous and small minded to be opposed to it.

Then again, DCUM posters are often known to be both ridiculous and small minded. I just didn't expect them to be so hateful and ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:At our HRCS the majority of the teachers are single and/or childless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They. Can apply to the lottery like the rest of us. Just like the police officer must. And the firefighter. And the public defender. And the legal aid attorney.

God, not this dense logic again. None of these people you mention work in the school. That's kind of the point.

I think this is a great idea -- it will only strengthen charter schools, giving teachers more buy-in, incentivising them to stay longer in their current position, attracting better teachers, etc. To be clear, I think this should apply to teachers/principals only.

Charter schools are there to serve ALL children in DC. It is unfair to give some people am advantage in getting in. Those who work in the school should have to lottery in for the slots like everyone else. They are not private schools.

No, actually, they are not. Not a single charter school, nor all of them together, can serve ALL children in DC. Each one can only serve some of the children, and that some changes every year.

What you really want to argue is that you think the value of an open lottery spot outweighs the benefits you would get from giving that spot to a teacher's child. But you are wrong.

If you give that spot to a random child, one DC child gets educated. Let's score that a +1 DCCE.

If you give that spot to a teacher's child, a different DC child gets educated, so you still get +1 DCCE. You also increase the teacher-parent's investment in the school. If having her own child at the school leads the teacher to improve her own teaching or the school in general, even a little bit, then that benefits more than just one student. Even if it does no more than make her daily commute easier, she will most likely be in a better mood and more effective at teaching her class. Let's call teacher effectiveness TE and school quality SQ, and the increased percentage of each ip

So on the one hand you have 1 DCCE, and on the other hand you have 1 DCCE + ipTE x (number of students in class) + ipSQ x (number of students in school)

Unless ipTE and ipSQ are both zero, the teacher preference side of the equation is obviously greater than the random selection side.