Anonymous wrote:so, exclude in-boundary families in order to accomplish this PP? where do those children go to school?

Put another school in upper NWDC to make room for the 25% Farms space in JKLM. The AU law school across from the Crate & Barrel is moving (or at least I think I read that), put a new elementary school there and call it Janney West. A 75% in-boundary population for WOTP schools should be plenty to keep the in-boundary families interested, active, and engaged in their neighborhood schools. In fact, put another school in any neighborhood that has an overcrowded elementary (eg, Brent). Also, DC should provide bussing to any kids who have to go across the park. At 7:00 am there isn't that much traffic in DC proper and at 3:00 pm it is still before the rush hour and there can be designated pick up/drop off spots like a community center where there can be after care as well. As one PP notes, most working parents have neither the time or the resources to bring their elementary school kids across the city for school every day. Adding a 25% Farms to high performing schools all across the city and not just EOTP would make the "cluster" proposal more fair -- even the authors of the article apparently realize that a 50% Farms at WOTP schools won't work and would result in parents pulling their kids out. But having 25% Farms at the handful of WOTP and other successful schools will be great news for some lucky families it still won't solve the bigger problem by any means. That would be what, maybe 600-800 kids that get spots?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ms Henderson's tweet was

"Interesting & provocative ideas fr @MichaelPetrilli @samchaltain @RickKahlenberg on integrated schools in #DC http://washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-dc-schools-can-ward-off-the-big-flip/2014/01/24/90548788-8479-11e3-9dd4-e7278db80d86_story.html "

I wouldn't exactly call that an endorsement.

+1, thanks for posting the tweet. I don't see where she says she agrees with their ideas. For all we know it was her way of politely acknowledging an article was written.

I wish she had been as strong as Scott Pearson:

@SDPearson: @MichaelPetrilli @samchaltain @dcpcsb weighted lotteries are a solution in search of a problem-All but one dc charters are >=40% low income.

I was curious, so I just looked up a couple of schools and there are at least 5 charters, according to the PCSB performance reports, with less than 40% FARMS. Strange he would say that. I mean, he could have easily said, only a handful of charters are 40% low income

Yu Ying, LAMB, Creative Minds, Inspired Teaching, Mundo Verde... there may be others

Anonymous wrote:Why do I feel like I need a shower after reading that?

Fwiw, it was written as a parody of an article chastising parents for sending their children to private school. Nevertheless, I think his point was to offer a compelling argument to the contrary which was consistent with his opinions regarding school choice and its broader potential benefit to the community.

Why does these men get any say-so at all? It seems if you just write and write and opinionate you get invited on a talk show or two and then get to do more of it. They are no better than realty tv stars. I am done listening to these three on any education issues.

Why do I feel like I need a shower after reading that?

Seriously, everyone should read the original posting link and the above link, totally contradictory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird to see Petrilli proposing this. Fordham has been a strong backer of charters, yet this would essentially undermine the charters.

In addition to his book, he also penned a blog posting in their newsletter that suggested that higher SES families could do more to benefit lower SES families in their IB school but not enrolling there at all, and finding a better fit at a charter or other school. Rationale being that, higher SES parents might push more "progressive" educational approaches on the school which could undermine its efforts to deliver more "back to basics" and other approaches catered to lower SES families. This new push for diverisyt in neighborhood schools seems to contradict his earlier post.

Link?

http://educationnext.org/if-you-send-your-kid-to-a-failing-school-you-are-a-bad-person/

Wow, impressive demonstration of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I see a big future in for-profit private schools if anything like what is proposed happens in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird to see Petrilli proposing this. Fordham has been a strong backer of charters, yet this would essentially undermine the charters.

In addition to his book, he also penned a blog posting in their newsletter that suggested that higher SES families could do more to benefit lower SES families in their IB school but not enrolling there at all, and finding a better fit at a charter or other school. Rationale being that, higher SES parents might push more "progressive" educational approaches on the school which could undermine its efforts to deliver more "back to basics" and other approaches catered to lower SES families. This new push for diverisyt in neighborhood schools seems to contradict his earlier post.

Link?

http://educationnext.org/if-you-send-your-kid-to-a-failing-school-you-are-a-bad-person/

22:10 is right. As for other schools---such as Bancroft---the school administration's devotion to preserving as much FARMs as possible (which Bancroft does in part by granting preference to OOB ELL sibs over IB families) has resulted in the surrounding SF residential neighborhood being unwilling to invest in the school much beyond pre-K and K. So if DCPS wants to see a de facto example of the result of a school's attempting to force socio-economic diversity, and the subsequent flight of the higher SES parents---Bancroft is a pretty good case study.

so, exclude in-boundary families in order to accomplish this PP? where do those children go to school?

^^^ this is much more reasonable. There is a middle way.

For those schools where there has been a big flip I would support a quota of FARMS seats in each grade. Say 25%. Similarly for WOTP schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ms Henderson's tweet was

"Interesting & provocative ideas fr @MichaelPetrilli @samchaltain @RickKahlenberg on integrated schools in #DC http://washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-dc-schools-can-ward-off-the-big-flip/2014/01/24/90548788-8479-11e3-9dd4-e7278db80d86_story.html "

I wouldn't exactly call that an endorsement.

+1, thanks for posting the tweet. I don't see where she says she agrees with their ideas. For all we know it was her way of politely acknowledging an article was written.

I wish she had been as strong as Scott Pearson:

@SDPearson: @MichaelPetrilli @samchaltain @dcpcsb weighted lotteries are a solution in search of a problem-All but one dc charters are >=40% low income.

the big flip is also a non problem. Happened in exactly two EOTP ES; Brent and Ross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird to see Petrilli proposing this. Fordham has been a strong backer of charters, yet this would essentially undermine the charters.

In addition to his book, he also penned a blog posting in their newsletter that suggested that higher SES families could do more to benefit lower SES families in their IB school but not enrolling there at all, and finding a better fit at a charter or other school. Rationale being that, higher SES parents might push more "progressive" educational approaches on the school which could undermine its efforts to deliver more "back to basics" and other approaches catered to lower SES families. This new push for diverisyt in neighborhood schools seems to contradict his earlier post.

Link?