Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Bowser’s motivation is destroying public schools, just like I don’t think her motivation is gentrification and pushing lower-income Black people out of the city.

I think her motivation is staying in power by courting the most powerful interests, who are developers and wealthy charter school advocates. She is willing to do whatever is necessary to keep them on her side, which means schools and lower-income people are the collateral damage.

I suspect charter schools in many ways are a pain in her ass, especially since their very existence makes improving public schools much harder. Some of them siphon off motivated students and engaged families, which concentrates students with the biggest challenges in public schools; others are completely incompetent and unaccountable, meaning students who attend and then return to public schools have gained nothing other than disruption in their lives.

But the charter system is entrenched, and Bowser is not a disrupter or reformer. Again, she wants to stay in power, and she knows whom she needs to do that.

How are schools "collateral damage" of creating a thriving charter network in DC? That does not compute. Charter schools are a type of public schools, and they have a clear and positive role in DC. I'm sure there are also some negatives but to ignore the fact that they are working (and proactively chosen) by many DC families is to miss a huge part of the overall picture.

As for development - the real problem there is wealthy people refusing zoning reforms. It's equally nonsensical for you to complain about "gentrification" and development in one breath. Building more housing is the only way to get affordable housing in DC.

I suspect we’re never going to agree here, but: charter schools exist and thrive at the expense of public schools. Rather than investing all of our resources in creating an equitable, successful public school system, we divert public resources to private actors (with minimal accountability) for charter schools. The diversion of resources undermines public schools, meaning families increasingly opt out of public schools for charters. And the cycle continues. I’m not saying there aren’t good reasons for families in our current system to go to charters. But it would be far better to have a single, thriving public school system with strong accountability so that families didn’t feel compelled to seek other options.

Re: gentrification/development—yes! We agree that more development of affordable housing and elimination of restrictive zoning is the key. Where we disagree is over whether that’s what the developers who support Bowser want to do and thus whether that’s what her administration prioritizes.

Anonymous wrote:Problem is that there are way too many charter schools and most of them are bad. Only a handful are doing a good job.

Bowser has done nothing to improve UDC. It is a disaster and run by one of her cronies. That is a huge disservice to her lower income constituents

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Bowser’s motivation is destroying public schools, just like I don’t think her motivation is gentrification and pushing lower-income Black people out of the city.

I think her motivation is staying in power by courting the most powerful interests, who are developers and wealthy charter school advocates. She is willing to do whatever is necessary to keep them on her side, which means schools and lower-income people are the collateral damage.

I suspect charter schools in many ways are a pain in her ass, especially since their very existence makes improving public schools much harder. Some of them siphon off motivated students and engaged families, which concentrates students with the biggest challenges in public schools; others are completely incompetent and unaccountable, meaning students who attend and then return to public schools have gained nothing other than disruption in their lives.

But the charter system is entrenched, and Bowser is not a disrupter or reformer. Again, she wants to stay in power, and she knows whom she needs to do that.

How are schools "collateral damage" of creating a thriving charter network in DC? That does not compute. Charter schools are a type of public schools, and they have a clear and positive role in DC. I'm sure there are also some negatives but to ignore the fact that they are working (and proactively chosen) by many DC families is to miss a huge part of the overall picture.

As for development - the real problem there is wealthy people refusing zoning reforms. It's equally nonsensical for you to complain about "gentrification" and development in one breath. Building more housing is the only way to get affordable housing in DC.

I suspect we’re never going to agree here, but: charter schools exist and thrive at the expense of public schools. Rather than investing all of our resources in creating an equitable, successful public school system, we divert public resources to private actors (with minimal accountability) for charter schools. The diversion of resources undermines public schools, meaning families increasingly opt out of public schools for charters. And the cycle continues. I’m not saying there aren’t good reasons for families in our current system to go to charters. But it would be far better to have a single, thriving public school system with strong accountability so that families didn’t feel compelled to seek other options.

Re: gentrification/development—yes! We agree that more development of affordable housing and elimination of restrictive zoning is the key. Where we disagree is over whether that’s what the developers who support Bowser want to do and thus whether that’s what her administration prioritizes.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Bowser’s motivation is destroying public schools, just like I don’t think her motivation is gentrification and pushing lower-income Black people out of the city.

I think her motivation is staying in power by courting the most powerful interests, who are developers and wealthy charter school advocates. She is willing to do whatever is necessary to keep them on her side, which means schools and lower-income people are the collateral damage.

I suspect charter schools in many ways are a pain in her ass, especially since their very existence makes improving public schools much harder. Some of them siphon off motivated students and engaged families, which concentrates students with the biggest challenges in public schools; others are completely incompetent and unaccountable, meaning students who attend and then return to public schools have gained nothing other than disruption in their lives.

But the charter system is entrenched, and Bowser is not a disrupter or reformer. Again, she wants to stay in power, and she knows whom she needs to do that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I saw this today and it made me think.

We know that Bowser and politicians in general get a lot of money from school privatizers – from the Walton and DeVos crew, and from the big charter school corporations.
(This is one of the biggest problems with charters. They distort our political process by injecting huge amounts of money into it. In contrast, public school parents don't have big PACs that are donating to politicians that defend them – donating to pro-public-school and pro-democracy politicians.)

If Bowser really wanted to harm public schools, what would she being doing differently?
- She appointed Ferebee, a Chancellor trained by pro-charter Broad, who works hard to deceive parents and keep them in the dark.
- Bowser's team seems not to care about students who are above the median. Once a kid gets a 5 on PARCC they're not Bowser's problem anymore.
- Bowser's school opening plan was the right idea but the implementation was a chaotic farce and its making parents dislike DCPS.
- Now Bowser is appointing another school privatizer to run OSSE.
- DCPS Central Office is a total mess, and not getting better. No vision, no improvement.
- OSSE is a total mess.
- Instead of building two schools in Shaw, a middle school and New Banneker, Bowser chose to divide those communities against each other, trying to get the Banneker people to hate the Shaw middle people and vice versa.

Seriously, if Bowser wanted to hurt DCPS, what could she be doing differently?

Can we get a next mayor who cares about DCPS, please?!

Look. There is no grand plan or conspiracy. DCPS has been a political entity, a middle class jobs program and a playground for leftist experimenters for many years. The adults in charge are lame and so the schools are lame. That’s why almost 50% of public school families choose charters and why charters are a huge part of the solution here in DC

Love it when the Republicans arrive to a DC thread. (Your radical word choice and ideas make it clear, so please don’t protest.)

I know it’s hard being in a city where people try to improve society for working people and not just sell out the government for billionaires’ profit. I know it’s hard to be a pro-billionaire anti-democracy radical if you live in DC because you have to hide your actual horrible ideas, and only post them here on DCUM. But really— few actual real-life parents agree with you. Please stop. Maybe move to a red area and stop bothering us.

Also:

The whole problem is that there is no grand plan.
And that the adults in charge — Bowser, Ferebee — are lame.
It’s nice you agree.

I think the next mayor will hopefully have a lot more focus on DCPS.

I’m PP and the degree to which you are completely wrong about my political leanings demonstrates the problem with trying to solve education issues in DC with didactic progressive tropes. Open your mind, dump out the preconceived notions, really look at what’s working ( or not ) for students in our city and then we’ll talk. In the meantime, you are predictable boring and ineffective

+1 Anyone that tells you to move somewhere else because you have a different opinion is a jerk who should be ignored.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a Bowser fan by a long shot but, no, I don’t think her goal is to destroy public schools. Why can’t you just say you strongly oppose her approach to them? Hyperbole only weakens your argument.

because OP (and Laura Fuchs) don’t actually want to have a conversation about what works best to educate kids in DC. They have an extremist, pro-union, anti-charter ideology.

people who actually care about kids in DC can see for themselves the plusses and minuses of charters. Clearly many families in DC are satisfied with charters (of every race/income level) and plenty of charters seem to do a solid job based on test scores. We’re in DCPS and based on conversations with my friends in charters, the flexibility of charters can provide a lot of advantages. otoh we are very happy with the curriculum and structure of our neighborhood DCPS and the excellent teaching staff with minimal turnover, no doubt in part due to the better wages than charters AND the school being wealthy and more attractive to teachers. There’s a lot of nuance but it’s clear charters are here to stay and provide a positive resource in DC to a lot of kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Bowser’s motivation is destroying public schools, just like I don’t think her motivation is gentrification and pushing lower-income Black people out of the city.

I think her motivation is staying in power by courting the most powerful interests, who are developers and wealthy charter school advocates. She is willing to do whatever is necessary to keep them on her side, which means schools and lower-income people are the collateral damage.

I suspect charter schools in many ways are a pain in her ass, especially since their very existence makes improving public schools much harder. Some of them siphon off motivated students and engaged families, which concentrates students with the biggest challenges in public schools; others are completely incompetent and unaccountable, meaning students who attend and then return to public schools have gained nothing other than disruption in their lives.

But the charter system is entrenched, and Bowser is not a disrupter or reformer. Again, she wants to stay in power, and she knows whom she needs to do that.

How are schools "collateral damage" of creating a thriving charter network in DC? That does not compute. Charter schools are a type of public schools, and they have a clear and positive role in DC. I'm sure there are also some negatives but to ignore the fact that they are working (and proactively chosen) by many DC families is to miss a huge part of the overall picture.

As for development - the real problem there is wealthy people refusing zoning reforms. It's equally nonsensical for you to complain about "gentrification" and development in one breath. Building more housing is the only way to get affordable housing in DC.

I suspect we’re never going to agree here, but: charter schools exist and thrive at the expense of public schools. Rather than investing all of our resources in creating an equitable, successful public school system, we divert public resources to private actors (with minimal accountability) for charter schools. The diversion of resources undermines public schools, meaning families increasingly opt out of public schools for charters. And the cycle continues. I’m not saying there aren’t good reasons for families in our current system to go to charters. But it would be far better to have a single, thriving public school system with strong accountability so that families didn’t feel compelled to seek other options.

Re: gentrification/development—yes! We agree that more development of affordable housing and elimination of restrictive zoning is the key. Where we disagree is over whether that’s what the developers who support Bowser want to do and thus whether that’s what her administration prioritizes.

Anonymous wrote:Problem is that there are way too many charter schools and most of them are bad. Only a handful are doing a good job.

Bowser has done nothing to improve UDC. It is a disaster and run by one of her cronies. That is a huge disservice to her lower income constituents

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Bowser’s motivation is destroying public schools, just like I don’t think her motivation is gentrification and pushing lower-income Black people out of the city.

I think her motivation is staying in power by courting the most powerful interests, who are developers and wealthy charter school advocates. She is willing to do whatever is necessary to keep them on her side, which means schools and lower-income people are the collateral damage.

I suspect charter schools in many ways are a pain in her ass, especially since their very existence makes improving public schools much harder. Some of them siphon off motivated students and engaged families, which concentrates students with the biggest challenges in public schools; others are completely incompetent and unaccountable, meaning students who attend and then return to public schools have gained nothing other than disruption in their lives.

But the charter system is entrenched, and Bowser is not a disrupter or reformer. Again, she wants to stay in power, and she knows whom she needs to do that.

How are schools "collateral damage" of creating a thriving charter network in DC? That does not compute. Charter schools are a type of public schools, and they have a clear and positive role in DC. I'm sure there are also some negatives but to ignore the fact that they are working (and proactively chosen) by many DC families is to miss a huge part of the overall picture.

As for development - the real problem there is wealthy people refusing zoning reforms. It's equally nonsensical for you to complain about "gentrification" and development in one breath. Building more housing is the only way to get affordable housing in DC.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Bowser’s motivation is destroying public schools, just like I don’t think her motivation is gentrification and pushing lower-income Black people out of the city.

I think her motivation is staying in power by courting the most powerful interests, who are developers and wealthy charter school advocates. She is willing to do whatever is necessary to keep them on her side, which means schools and lower-income people are the collateral damage.

I suspect charter schools in many ways are a pain in her ass, especially since their very existence makes improving public schools much harder. Some of them siphon off motivated students and engaged families, which concentrates students with the biggest challenges in public schools; others are completely incompetent and unaccountable, meaning students who attend and then return to public schools have gained nothing other than disruption in their lives.

But the charter system is entrenched, and Bowser is not a disrupter or reformer. Again, she wants to stay in power, and she knows whom she needs to do that.