Oh, I see. If the solution is just to make sure everybody becomes rich, then count me in.

Seriously, I'm all for redistribution through the tax code. Although I'm still not convinced that gentrification will help kids in the worst schools.

Anonymous wrote:But gentrification will only help schools that are being gentrified. Yet we will probably always have concentrations of poverty, and parents who can't speak English/work the system.

Gentrified schools have lots of econ-disadvantaged students getting a better education TODAY. More gentrified schools = more disadvantaged kids getting better educations.

Anonymous wrote:So why set up a system of winner-take-all, where the gentrifying schools with the savvy, pushy parents lobby for and get all the resources?

Your assumption is wrong. Gentrifying schools do not get more resources, they get fewer resources as the school gets better. Higher poverty and lower performing schools get significantly more resources.

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't a system of charters, where the families who want to leave the "terrible" schools have that option, sound better?

Yes, charters are a part of the solution because they keep middle class families in DC and increase economic integration in public schools.

But gentrification will only help schools that are being gentrified. Yet we will probably always have concentrations of poverty, and parents who can't speak English/work the system.

So why set up a system of winner-take-all, where the gentrifying schools with the savvy, pushy parents lobby for and get all the resources?

Doesn't a system of charters, where the families who want to leave the "terrible" schools have that option, sound better?

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about this some more, gentrification of the so-called "Middling" schools really doesn't seem like it could be a system-wide solution. Gentrification only really helps kids in schools that are being gentrified. It doesn't help kids in the so-called "terrible" schools even a bit, as we all seem to agree. In fact, gentrification means that the parents in the "middling" schools are working the system to lobby for better pedagogy, better teachers, better science labs, et cetera. As 20:55 says herself, the parents in the "terrible" schools don't know how to work the system to get these things. So why not give these things (labs, good teachers) to ALL schools? Instead of just the schools that are in the process of gentrification with the more aggressive parents. As I posted earlier, I don't know the solution, but I don't think the solution lies in favoring a few schools over others.

Gentrification alleviates concentrations of poverty. Econ-disadvantaged groups in “gentrified” schools do better than econ-disadvantaged in high poverty schools. See this link:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/06/21/41kahlenberg.h25.html?print=1&levelId=1000

“Research has long found that a given student will perform better in a middle-class school than in a high-poverty school. The highly regarded Coleman Report of the 1960s found that, after the influence of the family, the socioeconomic status of a school is the single most important determinant of a student’s academic success. The basic findings of the report—including that all children do better in middle-class schools—have been affirmed again and again in the research literature.”

DCPS data demonstrates its econ-disadvantaged students do better at gentrified schools.

ALL DCPS MIDDLE SCHOOLS
14,656 children tested
48% proficient in reading
52% proficient in math

DEAL
935 children tested
211 are econ-disadvantaged (proficient: 63% reading, 71% math)

ALL DCPS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
18,349 children tested
44% proficient in reading
43% proficient in math

BRENT
87 children tested
31 are econ-disadvantaged (proficient: 71% reading, 55% math)

ROSS
58 children tested
23 are econ-disadvantaged (proficient: 74% reading, 70% math)

SPENDING ON SCHOOLS – Higher proficiency means lower expenditures
1. Deal MS - $8,400
2. Hardy MS - $8,400
3. Stuart Hobson - $8,876
4. Souza - $10,839
5. Hart - $11,161
6. Miller - $12,048
7. Johnson - $12,464
8. Eliot Hine - $12,791
9. Kramer - $ 12,921
10. Jefferson – $13,441
11. Brown - $14,839
12. MacFarland - $15,184

The above spending does not include facilities spending. The 21st Century School Fund has studied it, and my reading of their data is that on a per student basis, facility spending is evenly distributed across all wards.

There are only two proven two ways to fix school systems. The first is a KIPP-like “academic boot camp” model, and the other is economic integration (reducing concentrations of poverty). Everything else we know of may see occasional success at certain schools, but has yet to fix entire school systems. Economic integration via gentrification is the fastest and surest way to fix DCPS.

Anonymous wrote:20:32 poster here again. @ 22:09, You're stating that I said things that I did not in fact say. I didn't say word about income, that was you bringing it into the equation. Of course low-income parents as a group care about their kids education - just like high-income parents as a group care about their kids education. It's not about income - it's about kids marooned in bad schools.

There are DC parents who may be illiterate, or not speak English, or simply not be the least bit engaged in their kids education. These parents may barely be able to get their kids to their neighborhood school, let alone navigate the charter application process. That means their kids don't apply to the charters - and that there is not as many people left advocating on behalf of the other schools. When the glib answer to bad schools becomes "All parents should go charter", you are going to leave kids behind.

Ahem, no you are not 20:32. I am. I am also 21:54. Why are you impersonating me?

Note from 20:32/21:54 to all: I am not 22:29, so when you see me on the street, please don't throw rotten eggs my way.

Thinking about this some more, gentrification of the so-called "Middling" schools really doesn't seem like it could be a system-wide solution.

Gentrification only really helps kids in schools that are being gentrified. It doesn't help kids in the so-called "terrible" schools even a bit, as we all seem to agree. In fact, gentrification means that the parents in the "middling" schools are working the system to lobby for
better pedagogy, better teachers, better science labs, et cetera. As 20:55 says herself, the parents in the "terrible" schools don't know how to work the system to get these things.

So why not give these things (labs, good teachers) to ALL schools? Instead of just the schools that are in the process of gentrification with the more aggressive parents. As I posted earlier, I don't know the solution, but I don't think the solution lies in favoring a few schools over others.

Anonymous wrote:

But those benefits come with a system-wide cost. Non-neighborhood charter schools makes it all-but impossible for terrible neighborhood schools to improve, and makes it harder for middling schools to improve because they strip many good, dedicated parents away. from the perspective of the kids left behind in terrible schools because their parents are incapable of getting them out, that enacts a very heavy price.

Over and out.

Sounds like you're advocating for DC to figure out a way to improve all public schools. I don't think any of us disagree with that. I personally would pay more taxes for this to happen.

However, I think it's unrealistic to think that "good, dedicated parents" are the magic bullet, if only we can persuade them to stay in the "terrible" and "middling" schools. There is a lot more involved than "good, dedicated parents," including money for textbooks, great teachers, great principals, better facilities, motivated peer groups and, last but not least, teaching methods that really work for struggling as well as motivated kids. Nobody has figured out the answer yet although, as I say, I'd gladly pay more taxes to put better teachers/books/pedagogy methods in other schools.

In fact, I worry that "good, dedicated parents" is really just another way of saying "gentrification" of the schools. That is, you are talking about tipping the balance away from non-English-speaking or illiterate families (your points not mine), and towards ambitious middle-class families who want their kids to go to college. Because this what leads to the results you seem to want, in the way of more pressure on kids, teachers and the school administration to solve those other problems like teaching and textbooks.

Original 15:22 poster here, and after this I'm going to check out of this conversation because there is only so many times I can make my point.

I am not and have not advocated against charter schools. Heck, I might even send my kid to a charter school myself some time. I agree with those who say charter schools give families who would otherwise have to move a chance at a decent education.

But those benefits come with a system-wide cost. Non-neighborhood charter schools makes it all-but impossible for terrible neighborhood schools to improve, and makes it harder for middling schools to improve because they strip many good, dedicated parents away. from the perspective of the kids left behind in terrible schools because their parents are incapable of getting them out, that enacts a very heavy price.

I'm done now, but let me clarify a final time before I go: I am not advocating against charter schools or criticizing parents who choose them. I am saying we need to figure out a way to solve the secondary, system-wide problems that are not addressed, and indeed, are exacerbated by, these schools.

Over and out.

Anonymous wrote:the thing that bothers me about Latin is the buses. They provide bus service from Tenleytown and Union Station. Both, but especially Tenleytown, are accessible to upper class families. But, no bus service from Wards 7 or 8?

Families pay for the bus service and it's expensive. Luckily, I can drop my kids off at Latin everday because I would not be able to afford it. I imagine there is no bus service from Wards 7 or 8 because the cost is prohibitive for many of those families. However, if there were enough families interested in a bus service I'm sure it could be arranged as it doesn't cost the school a dime. So, please stop your race baiting. It's embarrassing.

I really don't understand why people are so up in arms about this subject. This discussion started out about which is the better school not the plight of children from under served neighborhoods. I am a parent in ward 7 and I will send my children to school in any ward in the city and gladly pay for them to catch the metro. Unfortunately there are not enough parents in my neighborhood who have the knowledge or the resources to bring a school like Latin or BASIS to our area. So the few of us send our children across town so that they can get a better education. Yes we have we have KIPP but KIPP's focus is to bring students who are not on grade level coming into 5th grade up to and beyond grade level by 8th grade, what about our children that are above grade level in 5th grade. Don't get me wrong I would love to have a diverse high achieving middle school or high school in my neighborhood but until that happens I will continue to send my children across town.

P.S.
For the record the parents "East of the River" that are informed enough to know about schools like Banneker, Walls, Latin, BASIS, Deal, YY, Stokes, and a few others out there are more concerned with the education than the location. We are not the ones that come to this forum and discuss the unfairness of schools being in ward 1 or 3 instead of 7 or 8. We come to this forum to get the scoop on the best places to get an education in the city. So thanks for all the information.

Families pay for the Latin buses. So eliminating the Tenley bus won't free up funds for another bus unless you plan on extorting money from the former riders.

Anonymous wrote:As I said a couple of pages ago, Washington Latin offers bus service from one upper class area, Tenleytown, and one area of mixed affluence, Union Station. That favors upper class kids. How about a bus from Minnesota Ave metro stop? Drop the Tenleytown, which is a relic from the former school location.

They used to have 4 busses when DC was there, not sure if it was expense or lack of use or what.

Anonymous wrote:20:32 poster here again. @ 22:09, You're stating that I said things that I did not in fact say. I didn't say word about income, that was you bringing it into the equation. Of course low-income parents as a group care about their kids education - just like high-income parents as a group care about their kids education. It's not about income - it's about kids marooned in bad schools.

There are DC parents who may be illiterate, or not speak English, or simply not be the least bit engaged in their kids education. These parents may barely be able to get their kids to their neighborhood school, let alone navigate the charter application process. That means their kids don't apply to the charters - and that there is not as many people left advocating on behalf of the other schools. When the glib answer to bad schools becomes "All parents should go charter", you are going to leave kids behind.

First, I think "low-income" is implicit in your discussion of parents who are illiterate or disengaged or unable to navigate bureaucracies, even if you won't cop to making the connection explicitly.

Second, I think it's equally glib to say the answer is: "parents who care about schooling should stay in struggling schools, as long as the schools aren't absolutely terrible." To make sure we're on the same wavelength, you seem to be basing your case against charters like Latin on what you call the "Middling schools" because flight to charters won't really make a difference to what you call the "Terrible" and "Great" schools.

To me it seems naive - and "glib" - to insist that parents of schools that are struggling somewhere between your categories of "Terrible" and "Great" should stay in those "Middling" schools. First of all, some parents facing a "Middling" school are just going to go private, or they are going to up and leave for MD or VA, so why not keep them and their taxes in DC? Second, what about the parents working 2 jobs, and all the single parents, who don't have time to devote to the PTA and painting the bathrooms and organizing after-school language classes?

And here is where I urge you to advocate for DCPS to evolve and offer attractive programming, awesome teachers, advanced classes etc. In order to keep those families at your middling schools and attract families back from charters rather than advocating against the charter system and limiting choice for parents who may really need it.

Anonymous wrote:Original 15:22 poster here. Allow me to clarify a few things and expand on some thoughts.

First, the child in question is not in a private school, or a topflight upper NW school. It's a middle of the road (and improving) DC school. So I know a bit of what I speak.

Second, at no point did I suggest that parents be forced to stay in their neighborhood schools. I raised this point that when educated, committed parents -- making perfectly, rationale choices -- decide to leave their neighborhood schools for charters, the children of other, not-as-educated or not-as-committed parents, suffer. It's not the fault of anybody's parents and I'm not blaming anyone for their choice - but its a fact for the kids left behind.

With regard to the previous 20:32 poster, you are right - absent charter options, many parents would leave DC or DCPS, and that would not be good for anyone. But not all would leave. Let's break it down:

- Terrible schools - you are right - absent charter, most parents would leave anyway; arguably, the charters make no impact on the unlucky kids left behind here.

- Middling schools - absent charters, a lot of parents would leave, but some would stay, get involved, and work to improve these schools. Instead, the vast majority of these parents go charter. Net loss for kids left behind.

- Great schools - ie, the Upper NW Schools. Most parents would stay absent charters. Instead, a few of these parents go charter anyway. Hard to say what the impact is - maybe it makes no difference; maybe it means that the school is a bit worse off.

So...bad schools, it probably makes no difference. Middling schools are hurt. And great schools are not helped, and maybe not hurt.

Again - I'm not suggesting parents going to charters are making bad choices. I'm not saying parents should be forced to send their kids to rotten schools. I'm just describing what I see as the impacts of dedicated and committed parents making choices to go charter.

Great. Thanks for making your case clear. Your child is in a middling school that you are hoping will improve. Charters that pull families away are making that tough. You admit that charters probably have no effect on the terrible schools ( although I would argue they have a life altering effect for kids who can escape those schools to charters ) and that charters probably don't effect the already great schools.

So your argument against charters actually has no larger systemic aspect and , in fact, about preserving your child's middling school. Good to know.