Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was listening recently to someone argue that DCPS lacks equity because the best-performing (and most over-crowded) schools - the Wilson feeder pattern - are in the Upper NW, whereas EOTR schools fail to attract students from there own neighborhood and are routinely closed down due to low enrollment numbers.

Would DCPS be more equitable if Wilson and it’s feeders were also not good enough to attract in-boundary families and they by and large chose privates instead? Would DCPS be more equitable without a citywide lottery that allowed EOTR students to attend schools in other parts of the city?

Obviously, it would be wonderful to have better schools EOTR that could attract EOTR students. But my understanding is that it is not unlike DCPS has tried. Is there something that they haven’t tried which stands a good chance of working?

I think you're misunderstanding the equity issue. It's not that schools EOTR are worse, it's that they don't have as affluent of a student body population to do things such as fundraise through a PTA. When the majority of students live in homes with financial insecurity, the academic performance of the students is affected. This has nothing to do with the school itself, the teaching, etc.

Right. Hence the question of whether there is anything that DCPS could do EOTR - that is doing elsewhere in the city or which any public school system in America is doing - that would make EOTR schools attractive. I don’t know that there is and I very doubt that redirecting funding from NW to SE would make much of a difference.

Yes, absolutely. Commit to actual differentiation. Create a test-in program at one of the EOTP middle schools. Have real advanced classes, not classes you call advanced even though most of the kids aren't even on grade level. Yes, other school systems do this. DCPS won't, of course.

Why would having “real advanced classes” help if “most of the kids aren’t at grade level”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was listening recently to someone argue that DCPS lacks equity because the best-performing (and most over-crowded) schools - the Wilson feeder pattern - are in the Upper NW, whereas EOTR schools fail to attract students from there own neighborhood and are routinely closed down due to low enrollment numbers.

Would DCPS be more equitable if Wilson and it’s feeders were also not good enough to attract in-boundary families and they by and large chose privates instead? Would DCPS be more equitable without a citywide lottery that allowed EOTR students to attend schools in other parts of the city?

Obviously, it would be wonderful to have better schools EOTR that could attract EOTR students. But my understanding is that it is not unlike DCPS has tried. Is there something that they haven’t tried which stands a good chance of working?

I think you're misunderstanding the equity issue. It's not that schools EOTR are worse, it's that they don't have as affluent of a student body population to do things such as fundraise through a PTA. When the majority of students live in homes with financial insecurity, the academic performance of the students is affected. This has nothing to do with the school itself, the teaching, etc.

Right. Hence the question of whether there is anything that DCPS could do EOTR - that is doing elsewhere in the city or which any public school system in America is doing - that would make EOTR schools attractive. I don’t know that there is and I very doubt that redirecting funding from NW to SE would make much of a difference.

Yes, absolutely. Commit to actual differentiation. Create a test-in program at one of the EOTP middle schools. Have real advanced classes, not classes you call advanced even though most of the kids aren't even on grade level. Yes, other school systems do this. DCPS won't, of course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools in DC are lavishly funded, including the terrible ones. The facilities are gorgeous; teachers' salaries are very, very generous. Money isn't the problem.

+1

This is just completely untrue. As someone typing this from an ES where we still don't have an elevator, functioning water fountains, consistent heat/ac, among others

Per pupil spending is 22.5k which is more than almost anywhere else in the country.

You know the # but not what it means or why it is so high. DC has to fund all schools within a single, high cost city environment. Contrast that with states like CA where there are rural districts and Alabama where they would rather pray than do book learning.

But by all means, continue to repeat a meaningless stat.

Interesting story. DC outspends LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle... Boston and NYC are the only districts that spend more. I guess you consider San Francisco rural and low cost?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools in DC are lavishly funded, including the terrible ones. The facilities are gorgeous; teachers' salaries are very, very generous. Money isn't the problem.

+1

This is just completely untrue. As someone typing this from an ES where we still don't have an elevator, functioning water fountains, consistent heat/ac, among others

Per pupil spending is 22.5k which is more than almost anywhere else in the country.

You know the # but not what it means or why it is so high. DC has to fund all schools within a single, high cost city environment. Contrast that with states like CA where there are rural districts and Alabama where they would rather pray than do book learning.

But by all means, continue to repeat a meaningless stat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools in DC are lavishly funded, including the terrible ones. The facilities are gorgeous; teachers' salaries are very, very generous. Money isn't the problem.

+1

This is just completely untrue. As someone typing this from an ES where we still don't have an elevator, functioning water fountains, consistent heat/ac, among others

Per pupil spending is 22.5k which is more than almost anywhere else in the country.

You know the # but not what it means or why it is so high. DC has to fund all schools within a single, high cost city environment. Contrast that with states like CA where there are rural districts and Alabama where they would rather pray than do book learning.

But by all means, continue to repeat a meaningless stat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools in DC are lavishly funded, including the terrible ones. The facilities are gorgeous; teachers' salaries are very, very generous. Money isn't the problem.

+1

This is just completely untrue. As someone typing this from an ES where we still don't have an elevator, functioning water fountains, consistent heat/ac, among others

Per pupil spending is 22.5k which is more than almost anywhere else in the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was listening recently to someone argue that DCPS lacks equity because the best-performing (and most over-crowded) schools - the Wilson feeder pattern - are in the Upper NW, whereas EOTR schools fail to attract students from there own neighborhood and are routinely closed down due to low enrollment numbers.

Would DCPS be more equitable if Wilson and it’s feeders were also not good enough to attract in-boundary families and they by and large chose privates instead? Would DCPS be more equitable without a citywide lottery that allowed EOTR students to attend schools in other parts of the city?

Obviously, it would be wonderful to have better schools EOTR that could attract EOTR students. But my understanding is that it is not unlike DCPS has tried. Is there something that they haven’t tried which stands a good chance of working?

I think you're misunderstanding the equity issue. It's not that schools EOTR are worse, it's that they don't have as affluent of a student body population to do things such as fundraise through a PTA. When the majority of students live in homes with financial insecurity, the academic performance of the students is affected. This has nothing to do with the school itself, the teaching, etc.

Throw $100k into all of the troubled schools EOTP and you will still see the same issues. School is only one ingredient in fostering a good student. We all know that affluence has a lot more to do with success not just because of the resources available to you during non-school hours, but because families in higher socio-economic circles read to their kids from an early age, travel with their kids, subscribe to newspapers, hang out with educated folks...kids in affluent neighborhoods are more likely to have a lot less crime in their neighborhood, more at home supervision...

So many other factors-- people think money is the issue. It's not.

I agree with this to some extent - there are broader and deeper issues with huge impacts on student performance that can't be fixed by the school system. And it's unlikely that additional money would make those schools places that more privileged families would be comfortable sending their kids.

BUT - more money could make a huge difference in the experience of the kids already there IF it was well targeted. I mean, imagine that instead of 25 kids per elementary class, all of a sudden it was 12. Much more time for individualized attention, small group learning especially in areas like reading, the ability to truly differentiate within classes, fewer discipline issues, easier classroom management. Teacher attraction and retention becomes easier.

Now, i'm not an expert, maybe that's not the best use of that money. But it's one easy example where money could make a huge difference. Are you all of a sudden going to see a ton of kids getting 4s and 5s on PARCC? No. But the children in those schools would get a dramatically better education.

This! More money for additional teachers and teachers aides would absolutely help improve educational outcomes! No, it wouldn't solve all of the socio-economic issues at play, but it would go a long way in helping students actually master the material being taught.

DC spends an insane amount per pupil. It's become the poster child for 'money doesn't solve problems in education'

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools in DC are lavishly funded, including the terrible ones. The facilities are gorgeous; teachers' salaries are very, very generous. Money isn't the problem.

+1

This is just completely untrue. As someone typing this from an ES where we still don't have an elevator, functioning water fountains, consistent heat/ac, among others

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools in DC are lavishly funded, including the terrible ones. The facilities are gorgeous; teachers' salaries are very, very generous. Money isn't the problem.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was listening recently to someone argue that DCPS lacks equity because the best-performing (and most over-crowded) schools - the Wilson feeder pattern - are in the Upper NW, whereas EOTR schools fail to attract students from there own neighborhood and are routinely closed down due to low enrollment numbers.

Would DCPS be more equitable if Wilson and it’s feeders were also not good enough to attract in-boundary families and they by and large chose privates instead? Would DCPS be more equitable without a citywide lottery that allowed EOTR students to attend schools in other parts of the city?

Obviously, it would be wonderful to have better schools EOTR that could attract EOTR students. But my understanding is that it is not unlike DCPS has tried. Is there something that they haven’t tried which stands a good chance of working?

I think you're misunderstanding the equity issue. It's not that schools EOTR are worse, it's that they don't have as affluent of a student body population to do things such as fundraise through a PTA. When the majority of students live in homes with financial insecurity, the academic performance of the students is affected. This has nothing to do with the school itself, the teaching, etc.

Throw $100k into all of the troubled schools EOTP and you will still see the same issues. School is only one ingredient in fostering a good student. We all know that affluence has a lot more to do with success not just because of the resources available to you during non-school hours, but because families in higher socio-economic circles read to their kids from an early age, travel with their kids, subscribe to newspapers, hang out with educated folks...kids in affluent neighborhoods are more likely to have a lot less crime in their neighborhood, more at home supervision...

So many other factors-- people think money is the issue. It's not.

I agree with this to some extent - there are broader and deeper issues with huge impacts on student performance that can't be fixed by the school system. And it's unlikely that additional money would make those schools places that more privileged families would be comfortable sending their kids.

BUT - more money could make a huge difference in the experience of the kids already there IF it was well targeted. I mean, imagine that instead of 25 kids per elementary class, all of a sudden it was 12. Much more time for individualized attention, small group learning especially in areas like reading, the ability to truly differentiate within classes, fewer discipline issues, easier classroom management. Teacher attraction and retention becomes easier.

Now, i'm not an expert, maybe that's not the best use of that money. But it's one easy example where money could make a huge difference. Are you all of a sudden going to see a ton of kids getting 4s and 5s on PARCC? No. But the children in those schools would get a dramatically better education.

This! More money for additional teachers and teachers aides would absolutely help improve educational outcomes! No, it wouldn't solve all of the socio-economic issues at play, but it would go a long way in helping students actually master the material being taught.

Anonymous wrote:Schools in DC are lavishly funded, including the terrible ones. The facilities are gorgeous; teachers' salaries are very, very generous. Money isn't the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was listening recently to someone argue that DCPS lacks equity because the best-performing (and most over-crowded) schools - the Wilson feeder pattern - are in the Upper NW, whereas EOTR schools fail to attract students from there own neighborhood and are routinely closed down due to low enrollment numbers.

Would DCPS be more equitable if Wilson and it’s feeders were also not good enough to attract in-boundary families and they by and large chose privates instead? Would DCPS be more equitable without a citywide lottery that allowed EOTR students to attend schools in other parts of the city?

Obviously, it would be wonderful to have better schools EOTR that could attract EOTR students. But my understanding is that it is not unlike DCPS has tried. Is there something that they haven’t tried which stands a good chance of working?

I think you're misunderstanding the equity issue. It's not that schools EOTR are worse, it's that they don't have as affluent of a student body population to do things such as fundraise through a PTA. When the majority of students live in homes with financial insecurity, the academic performance of the students is affected. This has nothing to do with the school itself, the teaching, etc.

Throw $100k into all of the troubled schools EOTP and you will still see the same issues. School is only one ingredient in fostering a good student. We all know that affluence has a lot more to do with success not just because of the resources available to you during non-school hours, but because families in higher socio-economic circles read to their kids from an early age, travel with their kids, subscribe to newspapers, hang out with educated folks...kids in affluent neighborhoods are more likely to have a lot less crime in their neighborhood, more at home supervision...

So many other factors-- people think money is the issue. It's not.

I agree with this to some extent - there are broader and deeper issues with huge impacts on student performance that can't be fixed by the school system. And it's unlikely that additional money would make those schools places that more privileged families would be comfortable sending their kids.

BUT - more money could make a huge difference in the experience of the kids already there IF it was well targeted. I mean, imagine that instead of 25 kids per elementary class, all of a sudden it was 12. Much more time for individualized attention, small group learning especially in areas like reading, the ability to truly differentiate within classes, fewer discipline issues, easier classroom management. Teacher attraction and retention becomes easier.

Now, i'm not an expert, maybe that's not the best use of that money. But it's one easy example where money could make a huge difference. Are you all of a sudden going to see a ton of kids getting 4s and 5s on PARCC? No. But the children in those schools would get a dramatically better education.

Anonymous wrote:charter schools are a big political issue. nationwide, over the past several years, mainstream democratic party support for charter schools has dried up. there is a view that investing in neighborhood publicly run schools is better and that charters remove funding from and weaken the public school system.[/quote

they’re only a big political issue due to the influence of teacher’s unions on politics.