Anonymous wrote:Wait. Hold up. Do you not know that there are sufficient spots for all children to go to preschool and prekindergarten in DC? There are always available spots. They are in the poorest areas of the city though, so most of the wealthier parents wouldn't consider them. But they are there. Nobody is actually getting shut out.

PP is basing her whole premise on how extending these programs to middle and wealthy class family helps kids in the lower SES. So while there may be a handful of spots at the city's scariest and lowest performing schools, do you really want to put that out there as a MEANINGFUL choice?

Wait. Hold up. Do you not know that there are sufficient spots for all children to go to preschool and prekindergarten in DC? There are always available spots. They are in the poorest areas of the city though, so most of the wealthier parents wouldn't consider them. But they are there. Nobody is actually getting shut out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority.

Fat chance, cuz then your whole goal of reserved K slots at the best charters would never go to you. Unless you had "low income priority slots" (2) and "middle/ upper income priority slots" (20), which would also conveniently wipe out most slots for rising pre-k-ers.

Although, why am I pretty sure you'd be just fine with that?

Funny how you completely misunderstand my entire goal and the fact that I am not middle or upper income. I wouldn't qualify for low-income at my salary. That's okay with me because I'd prefer to see the program used the way it was intended. For low income kids. If only low income kids could get into the program at the PK / PS level, then they'd reserve remaining spots for people like you and me to duke it out. That sounds okay with me. I don't mind competing fairly with you while leaving a program geared toward REALLY low income kids to serve those kids who need it most instead of wealthy pricks with a "me first" attitude like yours.

Btw, the irony of you calling me a "wealthy prick with a me first attitude" is not lost here. Riiiiight, brilliant, coming from someone who can't see her own "me first prick" attitude in suggesting changing a system set up NOT to serve her in a way that ONLY serves her/parents like her (keep kids home til K but don't miss out on K slots). You would take a K slot away from a child already in Pre-K ready to rise into that slot - who statistics show is likel to be a child of a low-income family (I know, you couldn't follow along. But that's what the low income enrollment shows) - just to give you a better chance to get it.

Well, if trying to protect the class that this was meant to serve means I'm a "wealthy me first prick", I would probably get kicked off of DCUM for using accurate language to paint which type of me first prick that clearly makes you. And remember, you are doing the namecalling, not me.

You're a piece or work PP! The good news though is, your argument is so blatantly self-serving and goes so counter to the interests/goals of the whole DCPS and DCPCS systems, your idea will never fly. At least, not unless you and your "Me First but framed as It's All About You!" selfish advantaged parents take over either or both systems (as opposed to the advantaged parents like me who are grateful we are allowed to participate, and play by the rules, but also support any and all efforts to expand access to low income families, even if it means I get shut out (which is entirely possible - my childbearing years aren't over yet!). Fortunately, you're too selfish to probably put that effort in so I think we're all safe. For now.

Thank you for providing a good writing sample to prove my point! LOL.

The beautiful part is though, I'd rather have made my point accurately and get criticized for typos than be unwilling to see that my point is wrong. I realize you don't get that either and think your insults have an impact, but no matter hwo perfect your grammar is, you're idea still sucks for the people these schools were intended to help. Actually, you show so much more about your character by trying to hammer my point with insults of my writing, that's pretty beautiful too, the way those with nothing more to show than insults highlight both the weakness of their argument and the weakness in their character all by themselves. Don't even have to lift a grammatically-incorrect finger to assist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority.

Fat chance, cuz then your whole goal of reserved K slots at the best charters would never go to you. Unless you had "low income priority slots" (2) and "middle/ upper income priority slots" (20), which would also conveniently wipe out most slots for rising pre-k-ers.

Although, why am I pretty sure you'd be just fine with that?

Funny how you completely misunderstand my entire goal and the fact that I am not middle or upper income. I wouldn't qualify for low-income at my salary. That's okay with me because I'd prefer to see the program used the way it was intended. For low income kids. If only low income kids could get into the program at the PK / PS level, then they'd reserve remaining spots for people like you and me to duke it out. That sounds okay with me. I don't mind competing fairly with you while leaving a program geared toward REALLY low income kids to serve those kids who need it most instead of wealthy pricks with a "me first" attitude like yours.

I revise my statement then: anyone who doesn't qualify as low income. And everything else I already said STILL APPLIES because there should be no slots reserved at K. If you're the PP who already said you can't wade through my posts, I won't bother explaining again, you have already decided there is no understanding it and you said you were not going to try.

Same PP as ^^ - also, I haven't written anything here since 08:04 today, so just be clear you aren't only talking to me. There are several here (despite your inability to understand me) who clearly not only understand but agree. You don't have to like it, but your inability/unwillingess to even understand the point is amazing. Hopefully, re: of any back and forth on this baord, no one who actually has the power to create reserved K slots will ever go for it.

PP, your all caps and run on sentences do not advance your argument. Your posts were hard to follow not because you laid out carefully sourced, intellectually compelling arguments that were hard to grasp, but rather because you seem unfamiliar with even basic writing skills and you don't bother cleaning up your posts. You tricked me by claiming to care about the poor kids so I was nice and said maybe I could not understand you because I was tired. The truth is, you write like a first grader and you have absolutely no logical backing for any of your baseless claims, and what I can't understand is why you think it would be convincing to anyone.

You can shout if a, then b as loud as you want. If a is not true, then b does not follow. Get how that works? Your premise that making poor kids compete for services that they used to benefit from exclusively somehow benefits them is flawed, so you can't base your thesis on it. Kay?

You said these schools are not majority low income. Someone helped me prove that point by citing a link where you can see what % low income every charter school is. Your argument in favor of even one single resserved K slot is selfish, self-serving, and is more than likely to impact a low income rising pre-K er, all to serve your preference to not send your kid to PeS or PreK.

You can talk about my writing all you want. You are either incapable of getting it, or - much more likely - you refuse to and think your criticizing my writing dismisses the selfishness of your point.

You are wrong. And I notice you don't even acknowledge the actual date posted, after questioning my sources and questioning my premise. Data proves you wrong, and all you can say is my writing sucks and you can't follow.

As another PP pointed out, you've got nothing else to say, your point has been proven wrong - and turning to insults does zero to counter the bottom line. All I really care about is that those who would have sign off if your idea were to ever get seriously raised, they get it and would see through your selfishness. That's all that really matters.

I didn't quibble with your FARMS data because it is irrelevant to the point. If you ensure that all FARMS kids get in at the PS / PK spots and may continue on, then you can let everyone else compete for the other spots, some held open for PS3, some for PS4, and some for K. So even though I think you used only stats that articulated the already specious point you were making, I let you get away with it because that is just not relevant to the discussion.

If you use PS3 and PK4 for what it is GEARED toward, low-income families, you cover the argument that you continue to insist on making. Get it? What I find rich is a wealthy person who wants to use services for poor kids and then turns around and calls someone selfish who says: 1. first make sure the pre s and pre k kids can use services they need and then, IF and only IF there are leftover spots, divide those up for staggered entry for PS3, PS4, and K, so that there are an even number of entry points at each slot.

Kids with current spots can be grandfathered in, and schools who really feel it is necessary for kids to begin at 3 may bid for an exemption to the start rules. You could also accomplish this by adding classes at each grade. There are many ways to skin this cat. But you, PP, are so threatened by someone with an idea does not directly benefit your family, that you go all ranty on a listserv and accuse others of being selfish when selfish is the actual definition of what you are doing here.

AND, you get bonus "crappy person" points for trying to claim poor kids as the reason you want to protect your own. LOL. I'm not positive anyone thinks you are "right," exactly but surely there are many who feel equally threatened by any changes to the system, and will gladly argue right alongside you, either without really stopping to think about it or just blatantly using whatever talking points they think might serve their own interests.

Selfish, indeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority.

Fat chance, cuz then your whole goal of reserved K slots at the best charters would never go to you. Unless you had "low income priority slots" (2) and "middle/ upper income priority slots" (20), which would also conveniently wipe out most slots for rising pre-k-ers.

Although, why am I pretty sure you'd be just fine with that?

Funny how you completely misunderstand my entire goal and the fact that I am not middle or upper income. I wouldn't qualify for low-income at my salary. That's okay with me because I'd prefer to see the program used the way it was intended. For low income kids. If only low income kids could get into the program at the PK / PS level, then they'd reserve remaining spots for people like you and me to duke it out. That sounds okay with me. I don't mind competing fairly with you while leaving a program geared toward REALLY low income kids to serve those kids who need it most instead of wealthy pricks with a "me first" attitude like yours.

I revise my statement then: anyone who doesn't qualify as low income. And everything else I already said STILL APPLIES because there should be no slots reserved at K. If you're the PP who already said you can't wade through my posts, I won't bother explaining again, you have already decided there is no understanding it and you said you were not going to try.

Same PP as ^^ - also, I haven't written anything here since 08:04 today, so just be clear you aren't only talking to me. There are several here (despite your inability to understand me) who clearly not only understand but agree. You don't have to like it, but your inability/unwillingess to even understand the point is amazing. Hopefully, re: of any back and forth on this baord, no one who actually has the power to create reserved K slots will ever go for it.

PP, your all caps and run on sentences do not advance your argument. Your posts were hard to follow not because you laid out carefully sourced, intellectually compelling arguments that were hard to grasp, but rather because you seem unfamiliar with even basic writing skills and you don't bother cleaning up your posts. You tricked me by claiming to care about the poor kids so I was nice and said maybe I could not understand you because I was tired. The truth is, you write like a first grader and you have absolutely no logical backing for any of your baseless claims, and what I can't understand is why you think it would be convincing to anyone.

You can shout if a, then b as loud as you want. If a is not true, then b does not follow. Get how that works? Your premise that making poor kids compete for services that they used to benefit from exclusively somehow benefits them is flawed, so you can't base your thesis on it. Kay?

You said these schools are not majority low income. Someone helped me prove that point by citing a link where you can see what % low income every charter school is. Your argument in favor of even one single resserved K slot is selfish, self-serving, and is more than likely to impact a low income rising pre-K er, all to serve your preference to not send your kid to PeS or PreK.

You can talk about my writing all you want. You are either incapable of getting it, or - much more likely - you refuse to and think your criticizing my writing dismisses the selfishness of your point.

You are wrong. And I notice you don't even acknowledge the actual date posted, after questioning my sources and questioning my premise. Data proves you wrong, and all you can say is my writing sucks and you can't follow.

As another PP pointed out, you've got nothing else to say, your point has been proven wrong - and turning to insults does zero to counter the bottom line. All I really care about is that those who would have sign off if your idea were to ever get seriously raised, they get it and would see through your selfishness. That's all that really matters.

I have not been following the whole thread, but OP, this is to you -

It can be more difficult to get in at the PK4 level, which is why applying for PK3 can benefit you in terms of the "odds." When our DC was in PK3 at a charter, we talked to admin and teachers about altering the schedule to suit our needs. I am not saying that every school is so flexible, but we were able to find a situation that worked for us and still ensured that we had a choice when it came to PK4 and beyond.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority.

Fat chance, cuz then your whole goal of reserved K slots at the best charters would never go to you. Unless you had "low income priority slots" (2) and "middle/ upper income priority slots" (20), which would also conveniently wipe out most slots for rising pre-k-ers.

Although, why am I pretty sure you'd be just fine with that?

Funny how you completely misunderstand my entire goal and the fact that I am not middle or upper income. I wouldn't qualify for low-income at my salary. That's okay with me because I'd prefer to see the program used the way it was intended. For low income kids. If only low income kids could get into the program at the PK / PS level, then they'd reserve remaining spots for people like you and me to duke it out. That sounds okay with me. I don't mind competing fairly with you while leaving a program geared toward REALLY low income kids to serve those kids who need it most instead of wealthy pricks with a "me first" attitude like yours.

Btw, the irony of you calling me a "wealthy prick with a me first attitude" is not lost here. Riiiiight, brilliant, coming from someone who can't see her own "me first prick" attitude in suggesting changing a system set up NOT to serve her in a way that ONLY serves her/parents like her (keep kids home til K but don't miss out on K slots). You would take a K slot away from a child already in Pre-K ready to rise into that slot - who statistics show is likel to be a child of a low-income family (I know, you couldn't follow along. But that's what the low income enrollment shows) - just to give you a better chance to get it.

Well, if trying to protect the class that this was meant to serve means I'm a "wealthy me first prick", I would probably get kicked off of DCUM for using accurate language to paint which type of me first prick that clearly makes you. And remember, you are doing the namecalling, not me.

You're a piece or work PP! The good news though is, your argument is so blatantly self-serving and goes so counter to the interests/goals of the whole DCPS and DCPCS systems, your idea will never fly. At least, not unless you and your "Me First but framed as It's All About You!" selfish advantaged parents take over either or both systems (as opposed to the advantaged parents like me who are grateful we are allowed to participate, and play by the rules, but also support any and all efforts to expand access to low income families, even if it means I get shut out (which is entirely possible - my childbearing years aren't over yet!). Fortunately, you're too selfish to probably put that effort in so I think we're all safe. For now.

Thank you for providing a good writing sample to prove my point! LOL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority.

Fat chance, cuz then your whole goal of reserved K slots at the best charters would never go to you. Unless you had "low income priority slots" (2) and "middle/ upper income priority slots" (20), which would also conveniently wipe out most slots for rising pre-k-ers.

Although, why am I pretty sure you'd be just fine with that?

Funny how you completely misunderstand my entire goal and the fact that I am not middle or upper income. I wouldn't qualify for low-income at my salary. That's okay with me because I'd prefer to see the program used the way it was intended. For low income kids. If only low income kids could get into the program at the PK / PS level, then they'd reserve remaining spots for people like you and me to duke it out. That sounds okay with me. I don't mind competing fairly with you while leaving a program geared toward REALLY low income kids to serve those kids who need it most instead of wealthy pricks with a "me first" attitude like yours.

I revise my statement then: anyone who doesn't qualify as low income. And everything else I already said STILL APPLIES because there should be no slots reserved at K. If you're the PP who already said you can't wade through my posts, I won't bother explaining again, you have already decided there is no understanding it and you said you were not going to try.

Same PP as ^^ - also, I haven't written anything here since 08:04 today, so just be clear you aren't only talking to me. There are several here (despite your inability to understand me) who clearly not only understand but agree. You don't have to like it, but your inability/unwillingess to even understand the point is amazing. Hopefully, re: of any back and forth on this baord, no one who actually has the power to create reserved K slots will ever go for it.

PP, your all caps and run on sentences do not advance your argument. Your posts were hard to follow not because you laid out carefully sourced, intellectually compelling arguments that were hard to grasp, but rather because you seem unfamiliar with even basic writing skills and you don't bother cleaning up your posts. You tricked me by claiming to care about the poor kids so I was nice and said maybe I could not understand you because I was tired. The truth is, you write like a first grader and you have absolutely no logical backing for any of your baseless claims, and what I can't understand is why you think it would be convincing to anyone.

You can shout if a, then b as loud as you want. If a is not true, then b does not follow. Get how that works? Your premise that making poor kids compete for services that they used to benefit from exclusively somehow benefits them is flawed, so you can't base your thesis on it. Kay?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority.

Fat chance, cuz then your whole goal of reserved K slots at the best charters would never go to you. Unless you had "low income priority slots" (2) and "middle/ upper income priority slots" (20), which would also conveniently wipe out most slots for rising pre-k-ers.

Although, why am I pretty sure you'd be just fine with that?

Funny how you completely misunderstand my entire goal and the fact that I am not middle or upper income. I wouldn't qualify for low-income at my salary. That's okay with me because I'd prefer to see the program used the way it was intended. For low income kids. If only low income kids could get into the program at the PK / PS level, then they'd reserve remaining spots for people like you and me to duke it out. That sounds okay with me. I don't mind competing fairly with you while leaving a program geared toward REALLY low income kids to serve those kids who need it most instead of wealthy pricks with a "me first" attitude like yours.

Btw, the irony of you calling me a "wealthy prick with a me first attitude" is not lost here. Riiiiight, brilliant, coming from someone who can't see her own "me first prick" attitude in suggesting changing a system set up NOT to serve her in a way that ONLY serves her/parents like her (keep kids home til K but don't miss out on K slots). You would take a K slot away from a child already in Pre-K ready to rise into that slot - who statistics show is likel to be a child of a low-income family (I know, you couldn't follow along. But that's what the low income enrollment shows) - just to give you a better chance to get it.

Well, if trying to protect the class that this was meant to serve means I'm a "wealthy me first prick", I would probably get kicked off of DCUM for using accurate language to paint which type of me first prick that clearly makes you. And remember, you are doing the namecalling, not me.

You're a piece or work PP! The good news though is, your argument is so blatantly self-serving and goes so counter to the interests/goals of the whole DCPS and DCPCS systems, your idea will never fly. At least, not unless you and your "Me First but framed as It's All About You!" selfish advantaged parents take over either or both systems (as opposed to the advantaged parents like me who are grateful we are allowed to participate, and play by the rules, but also support any and all efforts to expand access to low income families, even if it means I get shut out (which is entirely possible - my childbearing years aren't over yet!). Fortunately, you're too selfish to probably put that effort in so I think we're all safe. For now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority.

Fat chance, cuz then your whole goal of reserved K slots at the best charters would never go to you. Unless you had "low income priority slots" (2) and "middle/ upper income priority slots" (20), which would also conveniently wipe out most slots for rising pre-k-ers.

Although, why am I pretty sure you'd be just fine with that?

Funny how you completely misunderstand my entire goal and the fact that I am not middle or upper income. I wouldn't qualify for low-income at my salary. That's okay with me because I'd prefer to see the program used the way it was intended. For low income kids. If only low income kids could get into the program at the PK / PS level, then they'd reserve remaining spots for people like you and me to duke it out. That sounds okay with me. I don't mind competing fairly with you while leaving a program geared toward REALLY low income kids to serve those kids who need it most instead of wealthy pricks with a "me first" attitude like yours.

I revise my statement then: anyone who doesn't qualify as low income. And everything else I already said STILL APPLIES because there should be no slots reserved at K. If you're the PP who already said you can't wade through my posts, I won't bother explaining again, you have already decided there is no understanding it and you said you were not going to try.

Same PP as ^^ - also, I haven't written anything here since 08:04 today, so just be clear you aren't only talking to me. There are several here (despite your inability to understand me) who clearly not only understand but agree. You don't have to like it, but your inability/unwillingess to even understand the point is amazing. Hopefully, re: of any back and forth on this baord, no one who actually has the power to create reserved K slots will ever go for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also worth noting that Capital City Lower School (one of the top 4 charter elementaries in all of DC) went from 38.1% low income in 2010-2011 to 48.1% low income in 2011-2012. That 48.1% is lower than what was reported to me when I interviewed them about it, but obviously I'd go with what they publicly state it to be.

The main point being: the idea that these schools are DECREASINGLY low income makes sense in theory (given the INcreasing numbers of middle/upper income families choosing to put their kids in), but several of the most popular charters are showing the opposite trend: the numbers of low income students are INCREASING.

EL Haynes: 48.9% low income in 2010-2011
EL Haynes: 58.7% low income in 2011-2012

So you hold K slots back or make families start the lottery all over again, and yes, odds are, you are negatively impacting a low income family already in P-K who would have had that slot.

Well, how about this. We'll give the low income families priority.

Fat chance, cuz then your whole goal of reserved K slots at the best charters would never go to you. Unless you had "low income priority slots" (2) and "middle/ upper income priority slots" (20), which would also conveniently wipe out most slots for rising pre-k-ers.

Although, why am I pretty sure you'd be just fine with that?

Funny how you completely misunderstand my entire goal and the fact that I am not middle or upper income. I wouldn't qualify for low-income at my salary. That's okay with me because I'd prefer to see the program used the way it was intended. For low income kids. If only low income kids could get into the program at the PK / PS level, then they'd reserve remaining spots for people like you and me to duke it out. That sounds okay with me. I don't mind competing fairly with you while leaving a program geared toward REALLY low income kids to serve those kids who need it most instead of wealthy pricks with a "me first" attitude like yours.

I revise my statement then: anyone who doesn't qualify as low income. And everything else I already said STILL APPLIES because there should be no slots reserved at K. If you're the PP who already said you can't wade through my posts, I won't bother explaining again, you have already decided there is no understanding it and you said you were not going to try.

Anonymous wrote:"Start your own school" is one of my favorite thread-enders, along with "move to a better neighborhood," "go private," and "move to the suburbs." Thanks to everyone who played along and at least had some thoughtful discussion.

The thing is, that is really how it works here. That is how these schools began. People had strong ideas, so they went with them. It isn't that anyone is saying that the system is perfect as it is and there isn't room to change. To the contrary, they are saying, change is good, create more if you want to.

"Start your own school" is one of my favorite thread-enders, along with "move to a better neighborhood," "go private," and "move to the suburbs." Thanks to everyone who played along and at least had some thoughtful discussion.

Actually, if she really feels this strongly about it and there are others that do also, why not start a school that starts at K? Or ask the school you love so much to add spots in K? MAybe the school will go along with it and seek permission from the charter board to adjust the charter in that respect. The charter may like things as they are-- in which case, the OP can band with others to get a K-start school together.

I hope you do one of these things. Good luck!

Anonymous wrote:The integration of wealthier families into the system improves the school for the impoverished students. The programs are better and the schools are better, for all students including the most at-risk, now that more middle class families are involved. The universal pre-school/pre-k program has been a great success in revitalizing the system and getting more non-struggling families on board and invested in the system. This was, and continues to be, imperitive to the improvement of the schools individually and the system in general, as it is very difficult for a school - even an excellent school - to serve its population well if it has too high of a percentage of impoverished students.

It is nice that you have woken up, realized that school will be an issue for your child soon but that you don't want to deal with it yet. But, before you decide to actually be involved, send your child, and suggest eliminating huge succewssful programs, you should probably do a bit of research. In fact, while you are at it, you might find that your child could benefit from some formalized early education.

LOL. You're just a jerk! You have no salient points and your argument above has already been acknowledged and countered many times in this thread. Yep, a rising tide raises all boats, but if you crowd the system with the wealthy boats, and there is not enough room for all of the boats, then the rising tide does NOTHING to raise the boats that get shut out. You can't counter that, and so you keep going back and forth between shouting ridiculous insults "you're selfish! do your research!" and trying to rephrase your tired old arguments.

Look, the system works for you and you're trying to protect your little corner of blanket. Own it. You've got nothing else to say here.