Anonymous wrote:

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?

Anonymous wrote: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:Not entirely true. Brent may get less cash in Title I funding these days, but the parents raise at least 3x that amount each year and those are funds they can use any way they like.

Funding goes well beyond Title 1. Look at per pupil funding for four schools.

$8,813 – Murch (fully gentrified, 85% reading proficient)
$9,772 - Brent (partially gentrified, 76% reading proficient)
$10,506 - Garfield (no gentrification, 10% reading proficient)
$12,458 – Drew (no gentrification, 44% proficient)

Brent would get $256,166 more if it had Garfield’s, and $937,414 more if it had Drew’s per pupil funding. The Brent PTA does not provide anywhere close to that level of support.

Murch would get almost $1 million more if it had Garfield’s and almost $2 million more if it had Drew’s funding level. This doesn’t even include extra funding for struggling schools like Garfield and Drew that comes in for special education, Title I, etc.

Larger schools cost less to operate. And successful schools have larger enrollment.

Also, successful schools have parents who pay a lot of taxes, and that benefits econ-disadvantaged students.

Anonymous wrote:Moreover, Brent is well on its way to having less than 5% FARMS. I'd be surprised if by 2014 there are 25 children who are "benefiting" from this glorious gentrification.

Brent, to use your example, will host a new autism program in 2012-13. In this program, 15 children with autism will be enrolled at Brent who otherwise would have been placed in private schools and would otherwise have cost DCPS huge sums of money. The program will be placed in Brent because the culture and climate are amenable to autistic children. Brent will not reap the savings directly, but the savings will disproportionately benefit Garfield and Drew. Additionally, Brent is a receiving school (because it made AYP) for a federal program that allows a small number of students from struggling schools to enroll at Brent. Ask their parents how they feel about gentrification. Additionally, Brent sent 10 students to Jefferson Academy and they are amongst the strongest students at Jefferson. Those former Brent parents are the backbone of the Jefferson’s parent leadership. Jefferson is benefiting from Brent feeding it strong students, and thus graduates from Amidon (a struggling school which sends most of its students to Jefferson) are also benefiting. Murch is having similar effects within it's domain. The ripple effect of DCPS having good schools is immense.

For me, gentrification does not represent dislocation, rather it represents addition. DC should have a population of one million instead of 600,000. We need Hope VI type policies to ensure the city keeps a supply of affordable housing. This city and its schools would be better off if we changed the proportion of econ-disadvantaged to non econ-disadvantaged.

A rising tide raises all ships in the harbor.

Are you serious?!

A more logical conclusion is: money doesn't solve everything.

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification requires gentry , i.e., more children of gentry occupying the schools than non-gentry, meaning a lot of non's have to move out in order for the schools to become middle-class.

Some get to stay to be influenced by the gentry-children, but what happens to the others? Where do they go?

Really - for more schools to become middle-class enough to benefit the low-income kids, those kids have to become the minority in all DC schools. This means many will have to leave town.

That seems to be what it's all about -- please, most of you, just leave town so we gentrifiers can let our wonderfulness rub off on the few of you who stay behind.

We need a representative from the Clovis culture to chime in here.

Gentrification requires gentry , i.e., more children of gentry occupying the schools than non-gentry, meaning a lot of non's have to move out in order for the schools to become middle-class.

Some get to stay to be influenced by the gentry-children, but what happens to the others? Where do they go?

Really - for more schools to become middle-class enough to benefit the low-income kids, those kids have to become the minority in all DC schools. This means many will have to leave town.

That seems to be what it's all about -- please, most of you, just leave town so we gentrifiers can let our wonderfulness rub off on the few of you who stay behind.

17:39, nice selective use of per pupil funding/test scores to benefit your argument. Regardless, Brent parents will raise in excess of $300,000 this year, no?

As for the autism program, I'm guessing most of those children won't be from a low SES. Even if they are, Brent still will serve under 10% FARMS. But keep up your cheerleading. Someone will eventually buy in until 5th grade.

Brent is a fine example of gentrification=test score success. I'm guessing you won't make AYP this year though. Why? Because you still have too many FARMS in your testing grades.

Next post you'll be blaming BASIS for that, right?

Anonymous wrote:

...

For me, gentrification does not represent dislocation, rather it represents addition. DC should have a population of one million instead of 600,000. We need Hope VI type policies to ensure the city keeps a supply of affordable housing. This city and its schools would be better off if we changed the proportion of econ-disadvantaged to non econ-disadvantaged.

A rising tide raises all ships in the harbor.

To me, this sounds like "if only we were all rich, everything would be great, including the schools which would be great." Yes, but this isn't the situation today, and moreover there are always likely to be pockets of non-english speakers, illiteracy, parents who don't care enough. Perhaps the difference between your position and mine is, you want the market to solve things "in the long term" (no, I won't quote Keynes' response to this), while I think the government should do more now. And also that charters are a solution for today's problems.

PP here: I should have added transportation, which is at least somewhat taken care of in DC, but, also based on the experiences I outlined, I would suspect that few low-income families can pull the transportation piece off while holding down a job, not with elementary school age children anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: So what is the problem? Rich people on Cpaitol Hill should stop attending their neighborhood school because that is taking up the spots of kids OOB? Only in DC are people criticized for attending their neighborhood school!

You put the finger on what's amiss, namely that we're trying to stem the downsides of gentrification (homogenizing areas upward or downward by income) by school choice, where a more effective solution to the problem would be to make sure people from all walks of of life can locate where they want to. That's no longer the case in most of Capitol Hill, and many other areas in DC. That's where economic and housing policy in DC drives a wedge into education policy.

I'm not sure I follow. It's income inequality that drives the fact that a HHI of $100K can't buy on Capitol Hill or NW or other areas. In any case, are you suggesting that reducing income inequality would be the best route? And are you also suggesting that the only available policy, since income inequality seems unsolvable, and even if it's the second-best policy, is school choice?

Actually, housing is what I had in mind. I sort of had to see it first-hand to truly understand how gentrification (without a doubt beneficial over all) can rear its ugly head. In all three cases I followed more or less closely, a family lived in rental housing within the school boundaries (working poor in two cases, welfare in another), with kids that do/did quite well in the neighborhood school. Each of them was forced out for very different reasons, one because the landlord sold, one due to divorce, and other due to a transfer in custody. But all three were completely unable to relocate within even a generously defined vicinity of the school, in two cases literally being forced to move to another end of town. Even for middle income families (e.g. one parent staying home) it would be something of a juggle to rent or buy where we live, certainly not without compromising saving for college or retirement. One conceivable way of moving (back) into the neighborhood would be inheritance. But that quickly becomes a no go if several siblings claim a piece of a property and one has to pay off the other. I'm no housing expert, but countless other cities on this fine planet have rent control and other housing policies that counter-act trends we just take for granted around here.

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?

Anonymous wrote: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:Not entirely true. Brent may get less cash in Title I funding these days, but the parents raise at least 3x that amount each year and those are funds they can use any way they like.

Funding goes well beyond Title 1. Look at per pupil funding for four schools.

$8,813 – Murch (fully gentrified, 85% reading proficient)
$9,772 - Brent (partially gentrified, 76% reading proficient)
$10,506 - Garfield (no gentrification, 10% reading proficient)
$12,458 – Drew (no gentrification, 44% proficient)

Brent would get $256,166 more if it had Garfield’s, and $937,414 more if it had Drew’s per pupil funding. The Brent PTA does not provide anywhere close to that level of support.

Murch would get almost $1 million more if it had Garfield’s and almost $2 million more if it had Drew’s funding level. This doesn’t even include extra funding for struggling schools like Garfield and Drew that comes in for special education, Title I, etc.

Larger schools cost less to operate. And successful schools have larger enrollment.

Also, successful schools have parents who pay a lot of taxes, and that benefits econ-disadvantaged students.

Anonymous wrote:Moreover, Brent is well on its way to having less than 5% FARMS. I'd be surprised if by 2014 there are 25 children who are "benefiting" from this glorious gentrification.

Brent, to use your example, will host a new autism program in 2012-13. In this program, 15 children with autism will be enrolled at Brent who otherwise would have been placed in private schools and would otherwise have cost DCPS huge sums of money. The program will be placed in Brent because the culture and climate are amenable to autistic children. Brent will not reap the savings directly, but the savings will disproportionately benefit Garfield and Drew. Additionally, Brent is a receiving school (because it made AYP) for a federal program that allows a small number of students from struggling schools to enroll at Brent. Ask their parents how they feel about gentrification. Additionally, Brent sent 10 students to Jefferson Academy and they are amongst the strongest students at Jefferson. Those former Brent parents are the backbone of the Jefferson’s parent leadership. Jefferson is benefiting from Brent feeding it strong students, and thus graduates from Amidon (a struggling school which sends most of its students to Jefferson) are also benefiting. Murch is having similar effects within it's domain. The ripple effect of DCPS having good schools is immense.

For me, gentrification does not represent dislocation, rather it represents addition. DC should have a population of one million instead of 600,000. We need Hope VI type policies to ensure the city keeps a supply of affordable housing. This city and its schools would be better off if we changed the proportion of econ-disadvantaged to non econ-disadvantaged.

A rising tide raises all ships in the harbor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: So what is the problem? Rich people on Cpaitol Hill should stop attending their neighborhood school because that is taking up the spots of kids OOB? Only in DC are people criticized for attending their neighborhood school!

You put the finger on what's amiss, namely that we're trying to stem the downsides of gentrification (homogenizing areas upward or downward by income) by school choice, where a more effective solution to the problem would be to make sure people from all walks of of life can locate where they want to. That's no longer the case in most of Capitol Hill, and many other areas in DC. That's where economic and housing policy in DC drives a wedge into education policy.

I'm not sure I follow. It's income inequality that drives the fact that a HHI of $100K can't buy on Capitol Hill or NW or other areas. In any case, are you suggesting that reducing income inequality would be the best route? And are you also suggesting that the only available policy, since income inequality seems unsolvable, and even if it's the second-best policy, is school choice?

Anonymous wrote: So what is the problem? Rich people on Cpaitol Hill should stop attending their neighborhood school because that is taking up the spots of kids OOB? Only in DC are people criticized for attending their neighborhood school!

You put the finger on what's amiss, namely that we're trying to stem the downsides of gentrification (homogenizing areas upward or downward by income) by school choice, where a more effective solution to the problem would be to make sure people from all walks of of life can locate where they want to. That's no longer the case in most of Capitol Hill, and many other areas in DC. That's where economic and housing policy in DC drives a wedge into education policy.

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

I don't think that was the policy intent (although I can't claim to have lived here when the charter school system was foisted on DC). The idea is a different one: Charter schools have one important leg up over one's average, even if excellent, neighborhood school, namely the ability to specialize and respond to educational market trends a little more flexibly where needed. This would theoretically allow them to serve particular pockets of needs (gifted children, children with learning differences, children who're exceptionally strong in math/science, children who're through the roof in language/arts, language immersion needs, etc.) and some do. But by enlarge they're all trying to be everything to everybody (just look at the Basis' marketing for example). We only need to look around us to see where that's headed, namely for all of them to be average. For analogies, think about your phone company, internet service providers, cable TV, your grocery stores, your department store, your online suppliers etc.
With few exceptions, the only way they can claim to do better is by "adverse selection"; in plain terms, by helping those somehow performing better self-select out of the rest of the lot. So be it, you may say. But there is actually no added benefit to the individual child, it's just a statistical artifact. In other words, one and the same kid may not do any better here or there, they just sort themselves out into different pockets, which we then equate with "better school".

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not entirely true. Brent may get less cash in Title I funding these days, but the parents raise at least 3x that amount each year and those are funds they can use any way they like.

Moreover, Brent (to use one of your examples) is well on it's way to having less than 5% FARMS. I'd be surprised if by 2014 there are 25 children who are "benefiting" from this glorious gentrification.

Np here-- but didn't Brent used to have really high FARMS? Even rather recently? so it was needing more taxpayer money in the past and now it will be needing less-- and that moeny can instead go to other schools with greater need? and in the meanwhile, all teh kids there, whether non-FARMS or FARMS are getting a good, general, public education. So what is the problem? Rich people on Cpaitol Hill should stop attending their neighborhood school because that is taking up the spots of kids OOB? Only in DC are people criticized for attending their neighborhood school!

15:34 here and I messed up that quote. The last 2 paragraphs are my words. The first 2 are quotes.

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.

Not entirely true. Brent may get less cash in Title I funding these days, but the parents raise at least 3x that amount each year and those are funds they can use any way they like.

Moreover, Brent (to use one of your examples) is well on it's way to having less than 5% FARMS. I'd be surprised if by 2014 there are 25 children who are "benefiting" from this glorious gentrification.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well there must a few unaccounted for variables there. By that logic, JKLM & Deal should have few, if any resources and Brookland, Langley, and Noyes should be rolling in them. Yet, such is not the case.