More charters are opening. There's obviously tons of demand, given the angst over lotteries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would contend that chance is better than no choice at all.

Just because you didn't get your choice doesn't mean that someone else didn't either.

I would argue that you are wrong and the majority of families don't like lotterying education.

I really don't think I'm all that wrong and I'd suggest you take a deeper look beyond a simplistic question of "do you like the lottery".

It's pretty clear that given the fact that nearly half of the students in DC are in charters and the fact that there are many more who still want to get into charters and many more charters being applied for with strong interest behind them quite clearly says they still want to have choice even if that means by lottery.

Yes, some are frustrated that they didn't get into their first-choice school. But for every one who didn't another one did. And getting into your second-choice school rather than your first-choice school may still be a whole lot better than if you didn't try the lottery at all. Just because some don't like lotteries doesn't mean they don't still want choice. People definitely want choice, they just want the mechanism for getting into their desired schools tweaked. But the problem is that nobody agrees on how to tweak it. If, for example, schools were given more latitude in terms of admissions (like test in) rather than lottery, that would satisfy many families, but anger many others.

Your argument misses out on the families that leave DC once they have "lost" the lottery, or who shy away from playing at all, since they have seen others fail.

The city will not improve if the middle class leaves again. Perhaps your are new to DC, but this recent growth trend in population started BEFORE the lotteries and charter schools, not because of it. Urban renewal is happening in urban areas throughout the country, and is not a direct result of school choice wooing families to stay in DC.

The "choice" you describe includes leaving the city, regardless of income level. Until DC recognizes they should actively attract a range of income levels, there is no hope to magically balance the schools out by busing or a lottery system.

Move out of DC is a choice of last resort and I'd point out that there are many choices besides that - for example that charters are what's helping to keep many families in DC. Many of the families currently in charters would have otherwise also left for the burbs or exercised other options if they hadn't gotten into charters. Also, as for the range of income levels, that's driven by available jobs. DC has far more jobs for policy wonks than it does riveting together widgets on an assembly line. Your argument about no choice or not taking things into consideration seems to be about as fallacious as the Yogi Berra "nobody goes there anymore because it got to be too popular" type of argument. You act like nobody ever gets in and everyone hates the lottery yet the fact is that over 35,000 students DID get in.

Many, if not most, of those 35,000 would rather go to a school near their home that was good if that option was available to them. I guarantee it, experiential learning and all.

I really don't think you are from here. You don't seem to understand that the population of DC doubles during the day with commuters. My point is, if we can convince more people to stay INSIDE the city, then all schools would be better. Then more people would see it as an option to stay. You are sort of saying, screw the people who are not tough enough to stay in the city, I am saying, let's make things better so that more people choose to stay in the city. San Francisco has few children, is that what you want DC to be like? Push out the middle class?

i suggest you look at the breakdown of the 35,000. The vast majority are poor and they're attending Carlos Rosario (1,941), Community Academy (1,697), Cesar Chavez (1,436), Friendship (3,880), Kipp D (3,039), etc. (all numbers SY2012).

Many of these are Tier 1 charters, but they're not the ones that DCUM members -- nor are they attended in large numbers the demographic typified by the Wards 1, 2, 4, 6 baby booms.

Charters are great, but there are not enough seats at MV, CM, IT, 2R, ELH and the handful of others deemed "acceptable" by the middle and upper-middle, educated members of this community who are increasingly electing to live in DC.

Good luck in the lottery!

As a matter of fact, I do live and work in DC and have been here for years. Yes, I understand there are commuters - and many who work in DC end up in this odd situation of having a horrible commute each day because of a combination of things, being not just schools but also affordable living.

All schools won't magically become better if people simply stay. And, there need to be compelling reasons why people would want to stay. The diverse and in a few cases advanced options that charters bring start to provide a compelling reason. Now, if only DCPS would start offering more compelling options as well.

But, there are many other problems aside from it just being schools, such as affordable housing. In DC, "affordable housing" only means subsidized low income housing, but for a middle class family with kids, even a small 2 bedroom apartment in DC is barely affordable. A lot of federal agencies slimmed down with and after the sequester and aren't hiring at higher grades. Good luck being able to afford something if you are just a GS-7 or GS-9 in DC.

Meanwhile, one sees the "poor" in DC enjoying units that are sometimes townhouse-sized, far bigger than what many of us in the middle class can afford. And then one hears, "well, we need apartments for the poor in DC otherwise who would be sweeping floors and busing tables" - agreed, but it turns out that most of the people sweeping floors and busing tables aren't even the poor from places like Greenleaf Gardens - instead, it's mostly latinos commuting in from Virginia and elsewhere by metro.

There are a lot of things that are highly out of whack and distorted in DC and I'm not sure you are totally in tune with reality as opposed to just sticking to the storyline that's been told for the last 40 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would contend that chance is better than no choice at all.

Just because you didn't get your choice doesn't mean that someone else didn't either.

I would argue that you are wrong and the majority of families don't like lotterying education.

I really don't think I'm all that wrong and I'd suggest you take a deeper look beyond a simplistic question of "do you like the lottery".

It's pretty clear that given the fact that nearly half of the students in DC are in charters and the fact that there are many more who still want to get into charters and many more charters being applied for with strong interest behind them quite clearly says they still want to have choice even if that means by lottery.

Yes, some are frustrated that they didn't get into their first-choice school. But for every one who didn't another one did. And getting into your second-choice school rather than your first-choice school may still be a whole lot better than if you didn't try the lottery at all. Just because some don't like lotteries doesn't mean they don't still want choice. People definitely want choice, they just want the mechanism for getting into their desired schools tweaked. But the problem is that nobody agrees on how to tweak it. If, for example, schools were given more latitude in terms of admissions (like test in) rather than lottery, that would satisfy many families, but anger many others.

Your argument misses out on the families that leave DC once they have "lost" the lottery, or who shy away from playing at all, since they have seen others fail.

The city will not improve if the middle class leaves again. Perhaps your are new to DC, but this recent growth trend in population started BEFORE the lotteries and charter schools, not because of it. Urban renewal is happening in urban areas throughout the country, and is not a direct result of school choice wooing families to stay in DC.

The "choice" you describe includes leaving the city, regardless of income level. Until DC recognizes they should actively attract a range of income levels, there is no hope to magically balance the schools out by busing or a lottery system.

Move out of DC is a choice of last resort and I'd point out that there are many choices besides that - for example that charters are what's helping to keep many families in DC. Many of the families currently in charters would have otherwise also left for the burbs or exercised other options if they hadn't gotten into charters. Also, as for the range of income levels, that's driven by available jobs. DC has far more jobs for policy wonks than it does riveting together widgets on an assembly line. Your argument about no choice or not taking things into consideration seems to be about as fallacious as the Yogi Berra "nobody goes there anymore because it got to be too popular" type of argument. You act like nobody ever gets in and everyone hates the lottery yet the fact is that over 35,000 students DID get in.

Many, if not most, of those 35,000 would rather go to a school near their home that was good if that option was available to them. I guarantee it, experiential learning and all.

I really don't think you are from here. You don't seem to understand that the population of DC doubles during the day with commuters. My point is, if we can convince more people to stay INSIDE the city, then all schools would be better. Then more people would see it as an option to stay. You are sort of saying, screw the people who are not tough enough to stay in the city, I am saying, let's make things better so that more people choose to stay in the city. San Francisco has few children, is that what you want DC to be like? Push out the middle class?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would contend that chance is better than no choice at all.

Just because you didn't get your choice doesn't mean that someone else didn't either.

I would argue that you are wrong and the majority of families don't like lotterying education.

I really don't think I'm all that wrong and I'd suggest you take a deeper look beyond a simplistic question of "do you like the lottery".

It's pretty clear that given the fact that nearly half of the students in DC are in charters and the fact that there are many more who still want to get into charters and many more charters being applied for with strong interest behind them quite clearly says they still want to have choice even if that means by lottery.

Yes, some are frustrated that they didn't get into their first-choice school. But for every one who didn't another one did. And getting into your second-choice school rather than your first-choice school may still be a whole lot better than if you didn't try the lottery at all. Just because some don't like lotteries doesn't mean they don't still want choice. People definitely want choice, they just want the mechanism for getting into their desired schools tweaked. But the problem is that nobody agrees on how to tweak it. If, for example, schools were given more latitude in terms of admissions (like test in) rather than lottery, that would satisfy many families, but anger many others.

Your argument misses out on the families that leave DC once they have "lost" the lottery, or who shy away from playing at all, since they have seen others fail.

The city will not improve if the middle class leaves again. Perhaps your are new to DC, but this recent growth trend in population started BEFORE the lotteries and charter schools, not because of it. Urban renewal is happening in urban areas throughout the country, and is not a direct result of school choice wooing families to stay in DC.

The "choice" you describe includes leaving the city, regardless of income level. Until DC recognizes they should actively attract a range of income levels, there is no hope to magically balance the schools out by busing or a lottery system.

Move out of DC is a choice of last resort and I'd point out that there are many choices besides that - for example that charters are what's helping to keep many families in DC. Many of the families currently in charters would have otherwise also left for the burbs or exercised other options if they hadn't gotten into charters. Also, as for the range of income levels, that's driven by available jobs. DC has far more jobs for policy wonks than it does riveting together widgets on an assembly line. Your argument about no choice or not taking things into consideration seems to be about as fallacious as the Yogi Berra "nobody goes there anymore because it got to be too popular" type of argument. You act like nobody ever gets in and everyone hates the lottery yet the fact is that over 35,000 students DID get in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would contend that chance is better than no choice at all.

Just because you didn't get your choice doesn't mean that someone else didn't either.

I would argue that you are wrong and the majority of families don't like lotterying education.

I really don't think I'm all that wrong and I'd suggest you take a deeper look beyond a simplistic question of "do you like the lottery".

It's pretty clear that given the fact that nearly half of the students in DC are in charters and the fact that there are many more who still want to get into charters and many more charters being applied for with strong interest behind them quite clearly says they still want to have choice even if that means by lottery.

Yes, some are frustrated that they didn't get into their first-choice school. But for every one who didn't another one did. And getting into your second-choice school rather than your first-choice school may still be a whole lot better than if you didn't try the lottery at all. Just because some don't like lotteries doesn't mean they don't still want choice. People definitely want choice, they just want the mechanism for getting into their desired schools tweaked. But the problem is that nobody agrees on how to tweak it. If, for example, schools were given more latitude in terms of admissions (like test in) rather than lottery, that would satisfy many families, but anger many others.

Your argument misses out on the families that leave DC once they have "lost" the lottery, or who shy away from playing at all, since they have seen others fail.

The city will not improve if the middle class leaves again. Perhaps your are new to DC, but this recent growth trend in population started BEFORE the lotteries and charter schools, not because of it. Urban renewal is happening in urban areas throughout the country, and is not a direct result of school choice wooing families to stay in DC.

The "choice" you describe includes leaving the city, regardless of income level. Until DC recognizes they should actively attract a range of income levels, there is no hope to magically balance the schools out by busing or a lottery system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would contend that chance is better than no choice at all.

Just because you didn't get your choice doesn't mean that someone else didn't either.

I would argue that you are wrong and the majority of families don't like lotterying education.

I really don't think I'm all that wrong and I'd suggest you take a deeper look beyond a simplistic question of "do you like the lottery".

It's pretty clear that given the fact that nearly half of the students in DC are in charters and the fact that there are many more who still want to get into charters and many more charters being applied for with strong interest behind them quite clearly says they still want to have choice even if that means by lottery.

Yes, some are frustrated that they didn't get into their first-choice school. But for every one who didn't another one did. And getting into your second-choice school rather than your first-choice school may still be a whole lot better than if you didn't try the lottery at all. Just because some don't like lotteries doesn't mean they don't still want choice. People definitely want choice, they just want the mechanism for getting into their desired schools tweaked. But the problem is that nobody agrees on how to tweak it. If, for example, schools were given more latitude in terms of admissions (like test in) rather than lottery, that would satisfy many families, but anger many others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the big question in my mind is about the author's assumption that a change in a school's demographics DOESN'T equal a change in a school's "quality". Is a charter that has 30% FARMS one year going to be as good if it has 60% FARMS the next year. The leadership and teachers would remain the same, but will the school experience? (I would guess that test scores would at least initially go down.) And that's the million dollar question for me about controlled choice. It seems like most people on DCUM assume that school quality will suffer with such a change in demographics.

I agree with you. From what I am gathering that is what happened to EL Haynes (besides their unstable leadership).

EL Haynes has always had a high percentage of FARMS. It was ranked as one of the highest performing schools in the country with well over 30% FARMS. If the quality has fallen, I would argue it's because there's more and better competition and/or because of its administration. DCUM may assume it's because of demographics, but the demographics haven't changed much.

Anonymous wrote:I would contend that chance is better than no choice at all.

Just because you didn't get your choice doesn't mean that someone else didn't either.

I would argue that you are wrong and the majority of families don't like lotterying education.

I would contend that chance is better than no choice at all.

Just because you didn't get your choice doesn't mean that someone else didn't either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He writes: "In Washington, D.C., great neighborhood schools exist—but they are inaccessible to the middle class."

That's an overly broad generalization. I'm IB for a JKLM school and while there are rich kids at the school, there are also families that are scraping by. There are cheap (but dreary) rental apartments nearby, and there are a significant number of families who decide that's the best choice for their family.

+1

But that is overwhelmingly the exception and not the rule. "Affordable housing" (even in DC higher rates) is essentially almost non-existent in those communities. When something affordable opens up, it's almost as competitive as the charter lottery to get it. It is impractical to act like low or moderate income families have real choice in moving there to be inbound.

Anonymous wrote:I guess the big question in my mind is about the author's assumption that a change in a school's demographics DOESN'T equal a change in a school's "quality". Is a charter that has 30% FARMS one year going to be as good if it has 60% FARMS the next year. The leadership and teachers would remain the same, but will the school experience? (I would guess that test scores would at least initially go down.) And that's the million dollar question for me about controlled choice. It seems like most people on DCUM assume that school quality will suffer with such a change in demographics.

I agree with you. From what I am gathering that is what happened to EL Haynes (besides their unstable leadership).

Anonymous wrote:He writes: "In Washington, D.C., great neighborhood schools exist—but they are inaccessible to the middle class."

That's an overly broad generalization. I'm IB for a JKLM school and while there are rich kids at the school, there are also families that are scraping by. There are cheap (but dreary) rental apartments nearby, and there are a significant number of families who decide that's the best choice for their family.

+1

Having lost in a lottery today, this could never be more true.

CHANCE IS NOT CHOICE.