Anonymous wrote:Which agencies?

State and Defense, duh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My point was that DC is full of narrowly-focused charters, but that doesn't much matter, because so many parents are desperate for a decent school & they'll put up with whatever esoteric idea the founders may have favored. This does NOT make such schools a substitute for privates--in fact, it's families who couldn't afford private who provide the critical mass to make such schools viable.

But how is that a convincing argument? Wouldn't it be better to put those taxpayer dollars to a school that appeals to more parents, not less? People choosing a Hebrew/Amharic/Tagalog school out of "desperation" doesn't seem like it's the best use of taxpayer dollars.

Actually, it's the families who can't afford private who are exactly the demographic for a private school-on-the cheap in the form of a charter.

And if they don't get a suitable school, they'll pack up and move to MoCo, and take their tax base with them. If you want the middle and upper-middle class to stay in DC, you'd better give them a reason to. Pretty simple, really.

Then what's the problem with a "private-like" charter, assuming it complies with DC law & admits all comers? It seems like the pp was criticizing WashHebrew for aspiring to be such a school. (Or is my reading comprehension way off?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My point was that DC is full of narrowly-focused charters, but that doesn't much matter, because so many parents are desperate for a decent school & they'll put up with whatever esoteric idea the founders may have favored. This does NOT make such schools a substitute for privates--in fact, it's families who couldn't afford private who provide the critical mass to make such schools viable.

Actually, it's the families who can't afford private who are exactly the demographic for a private school-on-the cheap in the form of a charter.

I wonder if we're working with different definitions of "can't afford private." In my mind it's everyone whose in-bounds DCPS is unacceptable but who happens not to have $30k/child/year. We're the ones who take up OOB slots and flock to charters, including charters that are poor fits for us.

Does your definition assume more privilege than that?

That's totally consistent with my definition of "can't afford private." My definition also assumes a very wide range of parental educational levels. There are lots of 2-masters degrees families working in NGOs who can't afford private, and lots of well-educated lower-income families, and lots of families with lower educational levels, all of whom can't afford private but place a high value on getting a good education for their kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My point was that DC is full of narrowly-focused charters, but that doesn't much matter, because so many parents are desperate for a decent school & they'll put up with whatever esoteric idea the founders may have favored. This does NOT make such schools a substitute for privates--in fact, it's families who couldn't afford private who provide the critical mass to make such schools viable.

Actually, it's the families who can't afford private who are exactly the demographic for a private school-on-the cheap in the form of a charter.

I wonder if we're working with different definitions of "can't afford private." In my mind it's everyone whose in-bounds DCPS is unacceptable but who happens not to have $30k/child/year. We're the ones who take up OOB slots and flock to charters, including charters that are poor fits for us.

Does your definition assume more privilege than that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My point was that DC is full of narrowly-focused charters, but that doesn't much matter, because so many parents are desperate for a decent school & they'll put up with whatever esoteric idea the founders may have favored. This does NOT make such schools a substitute for privates--in fact, it's families who couldn't afford private who provide the critical mass to make such schools viable.

But how is that a convincing argument? Wouldn't it be better to put those taxpayer dollars to a school that appeals to more parents, not less? People choosing a Hebrew/Amharic/Tagalog school out of "desperation" doesn't seem like it's the best use of taxpayer dollars.

Actually, it's the families who can't afford private who are exactly the demographic for a private school-on-the cheap in the form of a charter.

I agree that choosing a niche school out of desperation isn't the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. But that ship sailed a long time ago--just ask the parent who wants Mundo Verde to celebrate American holidays, those who are making new plans because Inspired Teaching doesn't have a permanent home, and more.

The place tasked with making centralized decisions regarding the city's educational needs and how to meet them is DCPS. Charters are laissez-faire chaos. I doubt that Congress, who we can thank for our charter system in the first place, will let us change the system to add a relevancy test for new charters. (And if they did, where would the Council draw the line?)

Anonymous wrote:My point was that DC is full of narrowly-focused charters, but that doesn't much matter, because so many parents are desperate for a decent school & they'll put up with whatever esoteric idea the founders may have favored. This does NOT make such schools a substitute for privates--in fact, it's families who couldn't afford private who provide the critical mass to make such schools viable.

But how is that a convincing argument? Wouldn't it be better to put those taxpayer dollars to a school that appeals to more parents, not less? People choosing a Hebrew/Amharic/Tagalog school out of "desperation" doesn't seem like it's the best use of taxpayer dollars.

Actually, it's the families who can't afford private who are exactly the demographic for a private school-on-the cheap in the form of a charter.