Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi PP - listen. I'm the 'stressed' poster and it's true that I AM stressed over this. I'm also tired. Maybe that is why I'm having a struggle reading your posts and following. I've had a long week. I really don't get everything you're saying and I'm not trying to be a dick. I think we might agree on more than we disagree on. So since you tried to really explain yourself well i just want to tell you why I'm not trying to refute every point you're making. I can't really tell where we disagree except on whether or not there should be an effort made to provide flexibility for families who don't enter at PS3 or PK4. That is all I want. I am not advocating a hard restart at K. I don't think that's fair to the kids who already dealt with this shit. PP who was advocating for that, however, has some interesting ideas. Maybe it is possible that current families could be grandfathered in.

My loose idea was simply some kind of system where there was some diversity in an entry points. Yes, a new charter could be opened up that starts at K, but this doesn't really do it. As you say, there aren't really that many parents who WANT to start at K. Maybe you could lottery for K a few years ahead, but I accept that this means you still have to pretty much try and guess what school system your child will fit into, which is rough at three (especially when you're dealing with magnet type schools and not something that would probably work for most kids).

I think what I keep responding to is perhaps another poster, who keeps saying that it's not fair to disadvantage the at risk kids by changing the system. I just don't embrace that changing the system disadvantages these kids. Even if the majority of students in DCPS and charters are low income kids, that doesn't mean that every low income kid gets the spot he needs. My challenge to you is to tell me how this system is serving the kids across the river? My position is that the charter school "out" is doing the opposite. When you provide kids of a higher SES multiple options for schools, they will not choose the school that could benefit from their enrollment. And yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't want to force kids into underperforming schools, but you're still forcing the poor kids into underperforming schools. AND, you then make it an "other people's problem" kind of thing, because the happy parents in OOB schools or lotteried into top charters are no longer (generally speaking, there are exceptions) fighting with the same energy they might have otherwise put into fixing the in-bounds. It reduces the city-wide appetite to improve all schools.

Really, what I'm "anti" here is not parents who have already lotteried in. Not at all. I see them as having to play the same system. It works really well for some of them, and they lucked out. But I don't think its fundamentally more FAIR to make me start my kid at 3, any more than I think it is fundamentally FAIR to make someone lottery twice. Both are unfair and should be rejected. But just because one is unfair does not make the other fair by default. Life does not exist in neat rows of point and counterpoint. IMO, both options would be unfair. So it's time to start thinking of something else.

With all of the great thinkers on these boards, I bet we could come up with ways that the system work afford more flexibility while protecting those kids whose parents have already endured the grueling aspect of the lotteries.

I was going to try an analogy to simplify this conversation but if you don't understand my previous post to you laying it out, I doubt understanding is going to happen. At least we tried...

PP, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your posts are rambling and hard to follow. I'm too tired to correct your grammatical mistakes. You keep asking everyone to produce numbers. Do you have numbers for your claims?

You're rude, and you won't do your "side" any favors by continuing this fight because you don't know how to lay out a compelling argument.

Carry on though.

Wow, after I laid it out step by step you still can't follow? That isn't you tired or you confused. That means you don't have an out, you can't figure out a way to continue to make your point that somehow reserving slots for K only lottery doesn't only benefit advantaged families so you're claiming "I can't follow". And re: you thinking I'm rude, I'm ok with that. I think you are clueless and selfish for not being able to see or admit that this whole conversation about how the needs of families who want to keep their kids home up to K somehow is not just about advantaged families who make up a less than majority of the public school system. I think trying to frame it as a win-win is disingenous and obnoxious. So we all have our feelings.

As for numbers, assuming you somehow missed this from my prior posts, I got my numbers from the schools themselves in conversation. It is part of something I had to do for my job, and no I did not write up what they told me and post it to an internet website for the purpose of this conversation, no. But ironically I just left a mtg (work-related, not personal) where the shift in students from Ward 8 going to schools all over the district was brought up because it's causing agencies who work primarily with families in wards 7 and 8 to rethink where they provide services to kids. Because... wait for it... those kids are going to school all over the city in INCREASING numebrs, not DEcreasing numbers. It never even occurred to me that people who know DC schools would not know that the student enrollment is still majority FARMS, including most of the charters (and yes, including most of the popular charters).

I get my information from the schools themselves on FARMS %. Where are you getting your information? When I have time I'll try to contact some of the folks I work with re: whether there's a site that shows at least school year 11-12 numbers. In the meantime though, do tell, where are

you and the other poster that questioned that getting your numbers? What data have you seen to believe even the charters alone are NOT majority FARMS? Or are you just winging it still trying to justify that a policy (slots for K only lottery saved) still wouuld somehow NOT hurt majority disadvantaged families, even though it would clearly only benefit majority advantaged families?

See the following link from the PSCB -- the FARM % are reported for each school. Please note that MV is 29.3% FARM. This data is from last year. I am parent at the school and the percentage this year is approx. 35%. Not sure who you talked to, but that is the number as reported.

LAMB 31.7%
Cap City 48.1%
Inspired 22.2%

Just a quick correction, Mundo Verde is not majority FARMS. Last I heard it was about 30-40% FARMS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi PP - listen. I'm the 'stressed' poster and it's true that I AM stressed over this. I'm also tired. Maybe that is why I'm having a struggle reading your posts and following. I've had a long week. I really don't get everything you're saying and I'm not trying to be a dick. I think we might agree on more than we disagree on. So since you tried to really explain yourself well i just want to tell you why I'm not trying to refute every point you're making. I can't really tell where we disagree except on whether or not there should be an effort made to provide flexibility for families who don't enter at PS3 or PK4. That is all I want. I am not advocating a hard restart at K. I don't think that's fair to the kids who already dealt with this shit. PP who was advocating for that, however, has some interesting ideas. Maybe it is possible that current families could be grandfathered in.

My loose idea was simply some kind of system where there was some diversity in an entry points. Yes, a new charter could be opened up that starts at K, but this doesn't really do it. As you say, there aren't really that many parents who WANT to start at K. Maybe you could lottery for K a few years ahead, but I accept that this means you still have to pretty much try and guess what school system your child will fit into, which is rough at three (especially when you're dealing with magnet type schools and not something that would probably work for most kids).

I think what I keep responding to is perhaps another poster, who keeps saying that it's not fair to disadvantage the at risk kids by changing the system. I just don't embrace that changing the system disadvantages these kids. Even if the majority of students in DCPS and charters are low income kids, that doesn't mean that every low income kid gets the spot he needs. My challenge to you is to tell me how this system is serving the kids across the river? My position is that the charter school "out" is doing the opposite. When you provide kids of a higher SES multiple options for schools, they will not choose the school that could benefit from their enrollment. And yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't want to force kids into underperforming schools, but you're still forcing the poor kids into underperforming schools. AND, you then make it an "other people's problem" kind of thing, because the happy parents in OOB schools or lotteried into top charters are no longer (generally speaking, there are exceptions) fighting with the same energy they might have otherwise put into fixing the in-bounds. It reduces the city-wide appetite to improve all schools.

Really, what I'm "anti" here is not parents who have already lotteried in. Not at all. I see them as having to play the same system. It works really well for some of them, and they lucked out. But I don't think its fundamentally more FAIR to make me start my kid at 3, any more than I think it is fundamentally FAIR to make someone lottery twice. Both are unfair and should be rejected. But just because one is unfair does not make the other fair by default. Life does not exist in neat rows of point and counterpoint. IMO, both options would be unfair. So it's time to start thinking of something else.

With all of the great thinkers on these boards, I bet we could come up with ways that the system work afford more flexibility while protecting those kids whose parents have already endured the grueling aspect of the lotteries.

I was going to try an analogy to simplify this conversation but if you don't understand my previous post to you laying it out, I doubt understanding is going to happen. At least we tried...

PP, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your posts are rambling and hard to follow. I'm too tired to correct your grammatical mistakes. You keep asking everyone to produce numbers. Do you have numbers for your claims?

You're rude, and you won't do your "side" any favors by continuing this fight because you don't know how to lay out a compelling argument.

Carry on though.

Wow, after I laid it out step by step you still can't follow? That isn't you tired or you confused. That means you don't have an out, you can't figure out a way to continue to make your point that somehow reserving slots for K only lottery doesn't only benefit advantaged families so you're claiming "I can't follow". And re: you thinking I'm rude, I'm ok with that. I think you are clueless and selfish for not being able to see or admit that this whole conversation about how the needs of families who want to keep their kids home up to K somehow is not just about advantaged families who make up a less than majority of the public school system. I think trying to frame it as a win-win is disingenous and obnoxious. So we all have our feelings.

As for numbers, assuming you somehow missed this from my prior posts, I got my numbers from the schools themselves in conversation. It is part of something I had to do for my job, and no I did not write up what they told me and post it to an internet website for the purpose of this conversation, no. But ironically I just left a mtg (work-related, not personal) where the shift in students from Ward 8 going to schools all over the district was brought up because it's causing agencies who work primarily with families in wards 7 and 8 to rethink where they provide services to kids. Because... wait for it... those kids are going to school all over the city in INCREASING numebrs, not DEcreasing numbers. It never even occurred to me that people who know DC schools would not know that the student enrollment is still majority FARMS, including most of the charters (and yes, including most of the popular charters).

I get my information from the schools themselves on FARMS %. Where are you getting your information? When I have time I'll try to contact some of the folks I work with re: whether there's a site that shows at least school year 11-12 numbers. In the meantime though, do tell, where are

you and the other poster that questioned that getting your numbers? What data have you seen to believe even the charters alone are NOT majority FARMS? Or are you just winging it still trying to justify that a policy (slots for K only lottery saved) still wouuld somehow NOT hurt majority disadvantaged families, even though it would clearly only benefit majority advantaged families?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi PP - listen. I'm the 'stressed' poster and it's true that I AM stressed over this. I'm also tired. Maybe that is why I'm having a struggle reading your posts and following. I've had a long week. I really don't get everything you're saying and I'm not trying to be a dick. I think we might agree on more than we disagree on. So since you tried to really explain yourself well i just want to tell you why I'm not trying to refute every point you're making. I can't really tell where we disagree except on whether or not there should be an effort made to provide flexibility for families who don't enter at PS3 or PK4. That is all I want. I am not advocating a hard restart at K. I don't think that's fair to the kids who already dealt with this shit. PP who was advocating for that, however, has some interesting ideas. Maybe it is possible that current families could be grandfathered in.

My loose idea was simply some kind of system where there was some diversity in an entry points. Yes, a new charter could be opened up that starts at K, but this doesn't really do it. As you say, there aren't really that many parents who WANT to start at K. Maybe you could lottery for K a few years ahead, but I accept that this means you still have to pretty much try and guess what school system your child will fit into, which is rough at three (especially when you're dealing with magnet type schools and not something that would probably work for most kids).

I think what I keep responding to is perhaps another poster, who keeps saying that it's not fair to disadvantage the at risk kids by changing the system. I just don't embrace that changing the system disadvantages these kids. Even if the majority of students in DCPS and charters are low income kids, that doesn't mean that every low income kid gets the spot he needs. My challenge to you is to tell me how this system is serving the kids across the river? My position is that the charter school "out" is doing the opposite. When you provide kids of a higher SES multiple options for schools, they will not choose the school that could benefit from their enrollment. And yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't want to force kids into underperforming schools, but you're still forcing the poor kids into underperforming schools. AND, you then make it an "other people's problem" kind of thing, because the happy parents in OOB schools or lotteried into top charters are no longer (generally speaking, there are exceptions) fighting with the same energy they might have otherwise put into fixing the in-bounds. It reduces the city-wide appetite to improve all schools.

Really, what I'm "anti" here is not parents who have already lotteried in. Not at all. I see them as having to play the same system. It works really well for some of them, and they lucked out. But I don't think its fundamentally more FAIR to make me start my kid at 3, any more than I think it is fundamentally FAIR to make someone lottery twice. Both are unfair and should be rejected. But just because one is unfair does not make the other fair by default. Life does not exist in neat rows of point and counterpoint. IMO, both options would be unfair. So it's time to start thinking of something else.

With all of the great thinkers on these boards, I bet we could come up with ways that the system work afford more flexibility while protecting those kids whose parents have already endured the grueling aspect of the lotteries.

I was going to try an analogy to simplify this conversation but if you don't understand my previous post to you laying it out, I doubt understanding is going to happen. At least we tried...

PP, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your posts are rambling and hard to follow. I'm too tired to correct your grammatical mistakes. You keep asking everyone to produce numbers. Do you have numbers for your claims?

You're rude, and you won't do your "side" any favors by continuing this fight because you don't know how to lay out a compelling argument.

Carry on though.

Anonymous wrote:Hi PP - listen. I'm the 'stressed' poster and it's true that I AM stressed over this. I'm also tired. Maybe that is why I'm having a struggle reading your posts and following. I've had a long week. I really don't get everything you're saying and I'm not trying to be a dick. I think we might agree on more than we disagree on. So since you tried to really explain yourself well i just want to tell you why I'm not trying to refute every point you're making. I can't really tell where we disagree except on whether or not there should be an effort made to provide flexibility for families who don't enter at PS3 or PK4. That is all I want. I am not advocating a hard restart at K. I don't think that's fair to the kids who already dealt with this shit. PP who was advocating for that, however, has some interesting ideas. Maybe it is possible that current families could be grandfathered in.

My loose idea was simply some kind of system where there was some diversity in an entry points. Yes, a new charter could be opened up that starts at K, but this doesn't really do it. As you say, there aren't really that many parents who WANT to start at K. Maybe you could lottery for K a few years ahead, but I accept that this means you still have to pretty much try and guess what school system your child will fit into, which is rough at three (especially when you're dealing with magnet type schools and not something that would probably work for most kids).

I think what I keep responding to is perhaps another poster, who keeps saying that it's not fair to disadvantage the at risk kids by changing the system. I just don't embrace that changing the system disadvantages these kids. Even if the majority of students in DCPS and charters are low income kids, that doesn't mean that every low income kid gets the spot he needs. My challenge to you is to tell me how this system is serving the kids across the river? My position is that the charter school "out" is doing the opposite. When you provide kids of a higher SES multiple options for schools, they will not choose the school that could benefit from their enrollment. And yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't want to force kids into underperforming schools, but you're still forcing the poor kids into underperforming schools. AND, you then make it an "other people's problem" kind of thing, because the happy parents in OOB schools or lotteried into top charters are no longer (generally speaking, there are exceptions) fighting with the same energy they might have otherwise put into fixing the in-bounds. It reduces the city-wide appetite to improve all schools.

Really, what I'm "anti" here is not parents who have already lotteried in. Not at all. I see them as having to play the same system. It works really well for some of them, and they lucked out. But I don't think its fundamentally more FAIR to make me start my kid at 3, any more than I think it is fundamentally FAIR to make someone lottery twice. Both are unfair and should be rejected. But just because one is unfair does not make the other fair by default. Life does not exist in neat rows of point and counterpoint. IMO, both options would be unfair. So it's time to start thinking of something else.

With all of the great thinkers on these boards, I bet we could come up with ways that the system work afford more flexibility while protecting those kids whose parents have already endured the grueling aspect of the lotteries.

I was going to try an analogy to simplify this conversation but if you don't understand my previous post to you laying it out, I doubt understanding is going to happen. At least we tried...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My kids have all attended DC public or charter PS and PK. The majority of EVERY ONE OF THEIR CLASSES was FARMS/lower SES. We have visited and looked at stats for practically every elementary school in DC (and especially the sought after ones). Almost none of them have MAJORITY middle or upper class. Yes, those numbers are growing every year, but the MAJORITY is FARMS at all the...

JKLMM are not majority FARMS nor any of the sought after charters frequently mentioned on DCUM like YY, MV, LAMB, etc.

Where did your kids attend for DC publics and charter that were majority FARMS/lower SES?

I said "most", knowing full well that the JKLMM schools are not. Check my post, I never said all. And MV is more than half FARMS - what numbers have you seen that show otherwise? Even Cap City is majority FARMS according to them, what numbers are you and other PP seeing that say otherwise? Please produce those links.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My kids have all attended DC public or charter PS and PK. The majority of EVERY ONE OF THEIR CLASSES was FARMS/lower SES. We have visited and looked at stats for practically every elementary school in DC (and especially the sought after ones). Almost none of them have MAJORITY middle or upper class. Yes, those numbers are growing every year, but the MAJORITY is FARMS at all the schools we've seriously considered.

So, given that, please produce numbers for how allowing a few parents who are MAJORITY with options (by definition: we can afford/choose to wait until K for child to enter school) to institute a policy that for all already in PS/PK, you have to start over for K. Show me numbers that show that that change would NOT drastically impact the FARMS families who send their kids to PS/PK (since, again, they are the majority in almost every DC school, including charters, that I have looked at), and not drastically benefit higher SES (middle and upper class) families who are gunning for this policy because they WANT to keep DC home longer but don't want to be shut out at K? Where are your numbers that FARMS kids are no longer in the majority at DC public schools?

Aha! But can you show me that the MAJORITY of the families doing the lotteries are FARMS families?! We are talking about the lotteries, not attendees at public schools. My guess is that the majority of lottery players, both for OOB and for the charter lotteries are not FARMS families. Certainly for the "desirable" charters and OOB schools, FARMS percentages are plummeting. So it's a little disingenuous to suggest that reforming the lottery is by definition hurting FARMS families.

Unless the schools themselves are lying, even the most popular charters (except YY, LAMB and possibly Stokes) are majority FARMS. And so are the rest.

If you're going to dispute that you need to produce numbers. This is a question I asked every school I looked at, which includes the most sought charters. FARMS #s are definitely going down, but point to the school by school numbers that you see that dispute the info the schools themselves are giving out?

At this time there are approximately 20-25 primary schools (charters and DCPS) that families are competing for spaces and the entry years are PS3 or PK4. There are not enough spaces for the number of applicants. Starting at K or reserving spaces thru a K lottery will still leave many families out in the cold. Most charters have 2-3 classes per grade with 18-25 seats per class. DCPS may have more classes but there are space constraints and IB kids are guaranteed a seat.

Anonymous wrote:
My kids have all attended DC public or charter PS and PK. The majority of EVERY ONE OF THEIR CLASSES was FARMS/lower SES. We have visited and looked at stats for practically every elementary school in DC (and especially the sought after ones). Almost none of them have MAJORITY middle or upper class. Yes, those numbers are growing every year, but the MAJORITY is FARMS at all the...

JKLMM are not majority FARMS nor any of the sought after charters frequently mentioned on DCUM like YY, MV, LAMB, etc.

Where did your kids attend for DC publics and charter that were majority FARMS/lower SES?

Anonymous wrote:

My kids have all attended DC public or charter PS and PK. The majority of EVERY ONE OF THEIR CLASSES was FARMS/lower SES. We have visited and looked at stats for practically every elementary school in DC (and especially the sought after ones). Almost none of them have MAJORITY middle or upper class. Yes, those numbers are growing every year, but the MAJORITY is FARMS at all the schools we've seriously considered.

So, given that, please produce numbers for how allowing a few parents who are MAJORITY with options (by definition: we can afford/choose to wait until K for child to enter school) to institute a policy that for all already in PS/PK, you have to start over for K. Show me numbers that show that that change would NOT drastically impact the FARMS families who send their kids to PS/PK (since, again, they are the majority in almost every DC school, including charters, that I have looked at), and not drastically benefit higher SES (middle and upper class) families who are gunning for this policy because they WANT to keep DC home longer but don't want to be shut out at K? Where are your numbers that FARMS kids are no longer in the majority at DC public schools?

Aha! But can you show me that the MAJORITY of the families doing the lotteries are FARMS families?! We are talking about the lotteries, not attendees at public schools. My guess is that the majority of lottery players, both for OOB and for the charter lotteries are not FARMS families. Certainly for the "desirable" charters and OOB schools, FARMS percentages are plummeting. So it's a little disingenuous to suggest that reforming the lottery is by definition hurting FARMS families.

Hi PP - listen. I'm the 'stressed' poster and it's true that I AM stressed over this. I'm also tired. Maybe that is why I'm having a struggle reading your posts and following. I've had a long week. I really don't get everything you're saying and I'm not trying to be a dick. I think we might agree on more than we disagree on. So since you tried to really explain yourself well i just want to tell you why I'm not trying to refute every point you're making. I can't really tell where we disagree except on whether or not there should be an effort made to provide flexibility for families who don't enter at PS3 or PK4. That is all I want. I am not advocating a hard restart at K. I don't think that's fair to the kids who already dealt with this shit. PP who was advocating for that, however, has some interesting ideas. Maybe it is possible that current families could be grandfathered in.

My loose idea was simply some kind of system where there was some diversity in an entry points. Yes, a new charter could be opened up that starts at K, but this doesn't really do it. As you say, there aren't really that many parents who WANT to start at K. Maybe you could lottery for K a few years ahead, but I accept that this means you still have to pretty much try and guess what school system your child will fit into, which is rough at three (especially when you're dealing with magnet type schools and not something that would probably work for most kids).

I think what I keep responding to is perhaps another poster, who keeps saying that it's not fair to disadvantage the at risk kids by changing the system. I just don't embrace that changing the system disadvantages these kids. Even if the majority of students in DCPS and charters are low income kids, that doesn't mean that every low income kid gets the spot he needs. My challenge to you is to tell me how this system is serving the kids across the river? My position is that the charter school "out" is doing the opposite. When you provide kids of a higher SES multiple options for schools, they will not choose the school that could benefit from their enrollment. And yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't want to force kids into underperforming schools, but you're still forcing the poor kids into underperforming schools. AND, you then make it an "other people's problem" kind of thing, because the happy parents in OOB schools or lotteried into top charters are no longer (generally speaking, there are exceptions) fighting with the same energy they might have otherwise put into fixing the in-bounds. It reduces the city-wide appetite to improve all schools.

Really, what I'm "anti" here is not parents who have already lotteried in. Not at all. I see them as having to play the same system. It works really well for some of them, and they lucked out. But I don't think its fundamentally more FAIR to make me start my kid at 3, any more than I think it is fundamentally FAIR to make someone lottery twice. Both are unfair and should be rejected. But just because one is unfair does not make the other fair by default. Life does not exist in neat rows of point and counterpoint. IMO, both options would be unfair. So it's time to start thinking of something else.

With all of the great thinkers on these boards, I bet we could come up with ways that the system work afford more flexibility while protecting those kids whose parents have already endured the grueling aspect of the lotteries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with your ^^ frame of this PP is that the majority of families this was set up for would be greatly disrupted and disadvantaged if the lottery year became K. It would be disrupting the majority to better serve the advantaged much smaller % and it stinks. You are using great PR language to make it sound like 1) it would only inconvenience a few and 2) it would be great for most. Utter bullshit. It would way disproportionately hurt the majority of the families it was set up to serve by disrupting them and making them do 2 lotteries... All to allow privileged families like yours and mine to have better choices.

Spraying nice-smelling language over it doesn't change that bottom line, and it's eloquent privileged people like you who keep cheating the underserved out of the resources intended for them once those resources actually start to improve. Framing your proposal as if hardly anyone wpuld be harmed is a real example of that.

This is really funny. You are calling someone already in the system that she'd be cheating (herself, I guess?) out of the system. The other person you're blasting as a "privileged family" like yours makes 60K a year. That's some funny shit. The problem is that the charter school system in DC mostly helps students who least need the help. It's the struggling DCPS that need our time and attention. The preschools at those schools were initially set up to help the at risk kids. Then the wealthier families wanted access to the preschools so they lifted the income restrictions. You are some kind of piece of work that you're trying to somehow argue that allowing you to continue competing against poor kids for the few spots open at preschools is actually better for the disadvantaged. The system is built on a landfill, okay? and the bridges and safety nets are serving you and people like you. They're not serving the vast majority of kids in this city, and they're certainly not serving the struggling schools in ward 5, 7, 8, and the kids in bounds for them.

My kids have all attended DC public or charter PS and PK. The majority of EVERY ONE OF THEIR CLASSES was FARMS/lower SES. We have visited and looked at stats for practically every elementary school in DC (and especially the sought after ones). Almost none of them have MAJORITY middle or upper class. Yes, those numbers are growing every year, but the MAJORITY is FARMS at all the schools we've seriously considered.

So, given that, please produce numbers for how allowing a few parents who are MAJORITY with options (by definition: we can afford/choose to wait until K for child to enter school) to institute a policy that for all already in PS/PK, you have to start over for K. Show me numbers that show that that change would NOT drastically impact the FARMS families who send their kids to PS/PK (since, again, they are the majority in almost every DC school, including charters, that I have looked at), and not drastically benefit higher SES (middle and upper class) families who are gunning for this policy because they WANT to keep DC home longer but don't want to be shut out at K? Where are your numbers that FARMS kids are no longer in the majority at DC public schools?

I really want to try and refute what you are saying but I cannot follow your reasoning at all. I don't think you're speaking or reading well. I'm not the one advocating for a kindergarten restart. I just want some options and spots set aside for those who don't use public / charter preschool. This in fact opens up MORE seats at the ps3/pk4 grades because those who don't need or want to use the DC public or charter system for this will not.

And I don't think you understood my comments. The at risk kids should get top bidding for a program that serves at-risk kids. I'd be glad to support a system that goes back to doing that because the current system does not. If a program is set up to serve at risk kids, and you open it up to non at risk kids, and there are not enough seats for everyone, explain to me again how that benefits all the at risk kids again? Mixing up SES kids is beneficial, but not if it means far fewer poor kids get in in the first place. Kids who do not have family resources to be driven across town (or across the river) to an acceptable charter school or OOB preschool. I don't mind you trying to protect your own skin in this game, but stop trying to use the at risk kids. It makes you look nuts.

Ok, let's try this again, and stop me where I am misrepresenting what's been said or what you've said.

We all agree the demographics of DC are changing, right? And in large part because charter schools have improved the school options in DC dramatically, more and more middle/upper class families are moving in/staying, and are competing for slots at the top tier public and charter schools. We all together so far?

I assume we also all agree that this means that the competition for those spots is increasingly shutting out lower SES families, simply because demand is exceeding supply. Right, all still on board?

So several here on DCUM voice frustration with feeling like they don't want to send their kids to PS and/or PK, but they feel they must because if not, they'll be shut out of K in the lotteries. Some of those same parents are suggesting that a solution would be to either have the entire school lottery process start over for K for everyone... or hold some number of slots for those who just want to start in K while everyone else can keep advancing. And then a PP (not sure if it was you) suggested something about it going back to being income-based, which I actually totally support if there's a way to prioritize lower SES/FARMS kids in those schools. I am like many on this thread, I have choices, and if that became suggested criteria for shelling out those few spots at the best schools, it IS DC, it IS public school, yes, I'd support that because I believe great options should be available for underserved communities. And I practice what I preach - in the city we lived in prior to moving to DC when our oldest was PK age, I had a chance to get a spot at one of the best preschools in our city which primarily served underserved families. I asked a lot of questions and eventually decided I shouldn't use our "in" for that, that slot should go to someone who it was designed for. So I practice what I preach, we had to pay more for a different program and that is fair.

So this brings us to the most recent issue, which unless you already disagree with something else I've said is apparently where I lost you:

1. Even considering the most popular charters, the majority of students enrolled in public and charter elementaries in DC are lower SES.
2. Unless you've got some really interesting data to prove otherwise, it's obvious (and clear) that the vast majority of those who would favor letting everyone go to the PS/PK they want but then starting the entire school lottery system again at K so they can choose to keep their DC home, OR holding some of those K slots we've already established are scarce to begin with for the same families who want to start in K, are NOT underserved families who need (obviously they don't need) free PS/PK because a) they have no other options for their kids while they're at work, or b) if their kids didn't enter PS/PK they then would not enter K ready to learn because they wouldn't get the development to bring them up to speed for K. Some have mentioned the founding priciples of Headstart, yes, that is what led DC to this system.
3. SO, if the majority of students enrolled in DC charter schools and public schools are lower SES/FARMS (do you dispute that?)... and the majority of those interested in holding K slots or a K starts the process lottery are NOT underserved (and a small % of the total student population), then to institute such a policy would be disadvantaging everyone who starts in PS/PK and likes where they are (again, unless you've got numbers to show otherwise, majority lower SES kids) JUST SO advantaged parents can make choices to keep their kids home but have a better shot at the lottery.

To sum up: if the group disadvantaged is bigger, majority FARMS/lower SES, and therefore who the system was set up to serve in the first place, how does doing this "lottery starts at K" policy NOT disadvantage them in favor of the desires of a small, advantaged population?

Where am I losing you on that? Why do you not understand that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with your ^^ frame of this PP is that the majority of families this was set up for would be greatly disrupted and disadvantaged if the lottery year became K. It would be disrupting the majority to better serve the advantaged much smaller % and it stinks. You are using great PR language to make it sound like 1) it would only inconvenience a few and 2) it would be great for most. Utter bullshit. It would way disproportionately hurt the majority of the families it was set up to serve by disrupting them and making them do 2 lotteries... All to allow privileged families like yours and mine to have better choices.

Spraying nice-smelling language over it doesn't change that bottom line, and it's eloquent privileged people like you who keep cheating the underserved out of the resources intended for them once those resources actually start to improve. Framing your proposal as if hardly anyone wpuld be harmed is a real example of that.

This is really funny. You are calling someone already in the system that she'd be cheating (herself, I guess?) out of the system. The other person you're blasting as a "privileged family" like yours makes 60K a year. That's some funny shit. The problem is that the charter school system in DC mostly helps students who least need the help. It's the struggling DCPS that need our time and attention. The preschools at those schools were initially set up to help the at risk kids. Then the wealthier families wanted access to the preschools so they lifted the income restrictions. You are some kind of piece of work that you're trying to somehow argue that allowing you to continue competing against poor kids for the few spots open at preschools is actually better for the disadvantaged. The system is built on a landfill, okay? and the bridges and safety nets are serving you and people like you. They're not serving the vast majority of kids in this city, and they're certainly not serving the struggling schools in ward 5, 7, 8, and the kids in bounds for them.

My kids have all attended DC public or charter PS and PK. The majority of EVERY ONE OF THEIR CLASSES was FARMS/lower SES. We have visited and looked at stats for practically every elementary school in DC (and especially the sought after ones). Almost none of them have MAJORITY middle or upper class. Yes, those numbers are growing every year, but the MAJORITY is FARMS at all the schools we've seriously considered.

So, given that, please produce numbers for how allowing a few parents who are MAJORITY with options (by definition: we can afford/choose to wait until K for child to enter school) to institute a policy that for all already in PS/PK, you have to start over for K. Show me numbers that show that that change would NOT drastically impact the FARMS families who send their kids to PS/PK (since, again, they are the majority in almost every DC school, including charters, that I have looked at), and not drastically benefit higher SES (middle and upper class) families who are gunning for this policy because they WANT to keep DC home longer but don't want to be shut out at K? Where are your numbers that FARMS kids are no longer in the majority at DC public schools?

I really want to try and refute what you are saying but I cannot follow your reasoning at all. I don't think you're speaking or reading well. I'm not the one advocating for a kindergarten restart. I just want some options and spots set aside for those who don't use public / charter preschool. This in fact opens up MORE seats at the ps3/pk4 grades because those who don't need or want to use the DC public or charter system for this will not.

And I don't think you understood my comments. The at risk kids should get top bidding for a program that serves at-risk kids. I'd be glad to support a system that goes back to doing that because the current system does not. If a program is set up to serve at risk kids, and you open it up to non at risk kids, and there are not enough seats for everyone, explain to me again how that benefits all the at risk kids again? Mixing up SES kids is beneficial, but not if it means far fewer poor kids get in in the first place. Kids who do not have family resources to be driven across town (or across the river) to an acceptable charter school or OOB preschool. I don't mind you trying to protect your own skin in this game, but stop trying to use the at risk kids. It makes you look nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with your ^^ frame of this PP is that the majority of families this was set up for would be greatly disrupted and disadvantaged if the lottery year became K. It would be disrupting the majority to better serve the advantaged much smaller % and it stinks. You are using great PR language to make it sound like 1) it would only inconvenience a few and 2) it would be great for most. Utter bullshit. It would way disproportionately hurt the majority of the families it was set up to serve by disrupting them and making them do 2 lotteries... All to allow privileged families like yours and mine to have better choices.

Spraying nice-smelling language over it doesn't change that bottom line, and it's eloquent privileged people like you who keep cheating the underserved out of the resources intended for them once those resources actually start to improve. Framing your proposal as if hardly anyone wpuld be harmed is a real example of that.

This is really funny. You are calling someone already in the system that she'd be cheating (herself, I guess?) out of the system. The other person you're blasting as a "privileged family" like yours makes 60K a year. That's some funny shit. The problem is that the charter school system in DC mostly helps students who least need the help. It's the struggling DCPS that need our time and attention. The preschools at those schools were initially set up to help the at risk kids. Then the wealthier families wanted access to the preschools so they lifted the income restrictions. You are some kind of piece of work that you're trying to somehow argue that allowing you to continue competing against poor kids for the few spots open at preschools is actually better for the disadvantaged. The system is built on a landfill, okay? and the bridges and safety nets are serving you and people like you. They're not serving the vast majority of kids in this city, and they're certainly not serving the struggling schools in ward 5, 7, 8, and the kids in bounds for them.

My kids have all attended DC public or charter PS and PK. The majority of EVERY ONE OF THEIR CLASSES was FARMS/lower SES. We have visited and looked at stats for practically every elementary school in DC (and especially the sought after ones). Almost none of them have MAJORITY middle or upper class. Yes, those numbers are growing every year, but the MAJORITY is FARMS at all the schools we've seriously considered.

So, given that, please produce numbers for how allowing a few parents who are MAJORITY with options (by definition: we can afford/choose to wait until K for child to enter school) to institute a policy that for all already in PS/PK, you have to start over for K. Show me numbers that show that that change would NOT drastically impact the FARMS families who send their kids to PS/PK (since, again, they are the majority in almost every DC school, including charters, that I have looked at), and not drastically benefit higher SES (middle and upper class) families who are gunning for this policy because they WANT to keep DC home longer but don't want to be shut out at K? Where are your numbers that FARMS kids are no longer in the majority at DC public schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I understand where you are coming from, and that might work in some schools, but it would not work in our charter at all. It would disadvantage the entire school. As an immersion school, it is importatnt that the children begin as early as possible and continue in that lanugage for as long as possible. It would bve very difficlut to commit to using and learning a language for just the preschool years without it extending further; it would be a huge wasted effort for all the children involved.

Moreover, schools are communities that thrive at least partially on the investment of the parents into that community. Parents of younger children tend to be more invested and more involved, at every income level. Getting these parents involved early is imperitive for establishing a community of support. I know that I am extraordinarily invested in my child's school, as are many of the other parents. The investment is far, far greater than at our paid daycare because we know that this is a long-term project that we will all be involved with. To cut that off at the knees by having to repeat the lottery would hurt every single student, every single teacher, and the school as a whole.

I agree that language immersion and Montessori present a particular challenge, but nearly every school, even the language immersion charters, accept students at K. The idea that you can only be invested in a school if you start the school at PS3 or PK4 is completely false. Are the schools that start at PK4 less invested than those that start at PS3? Of course not. Nearly every elementary school in the nation begins at kindergarten. DC has created a unique culture that engages students at a very young age, but that is not the only model for success.

That sounds good, but I have one question: are your kids now in or do you plan to put them in such a school, a PS3/PK4 only school? No one anywhere in this or other connected threads have said that you can only be invested in the school if you start at PS/PK. Nor has anyone said no one who starts later is ever invested.

The specific conversation is about whether and why it is fair/unfair to implement a "go where you want until K, but at K everyone starts over" lottery policy when that is mainly to benefit a smaller % of parents who don't want to enter their kids in PS/PK but don't want to get shut out at K.

My child is at Appletree, and we love it and are very grateful for it (it only is PS and PK). But let's be real: we are only there because we got shut out of any good or great PS schools that go through 3rd or 5th grade. What parent in their right mind - unless they already know they're going to leave DC or going private for K - would choose to go through 2 lotteries if they could only go through 1 until middle or high school? You say schools that start at K do well, and the good ones no doubt do. But in DC school options have been extended to PS and PK, you have a choice whether to send your kids or not, and if the rising PKers in the good schools that you want to get into create a shut out situation for K, that is a risk you take. But to propose setting up PS/PK only schools - sure, that's great for those who only want that, but why is it a fair or appropriate solution to do away with "once you're in you're in" for PS and PK just to better position the paerents who choose to stay out until K? Who do you envision will go to the PS/PK only schools that will not jump on a PS/PK-3 or PS/PK-5 slot if they're offered one?