It is not just teachers--it is any full-time employee.

I wonder how many teachers teaching at charter schools have children at said school? What types of numbers are we looking at?

Are we talking about teachers only? Or admin as well?

I'm very much having those who teach my kids have preference for slots at my HRCS as well. But, I already have a spot. I'm not sure how I would feel if I was still fighting and clawing to get a seat.

Anonymous wrote:This also gives an admissions preference to a certain set of largely higher SES students (students with parents working in the schools). These students are not going to be homeless, or be raised by a single parent too disabled to work. They are also largely going to be raised by parents who are very invested in education. These are exactly the type of kids many people want their kids going to school with - so I get why people whose kids are already in a charter school want this proposal to pass. But from an equity perspective, this seems nuts.

Also, for people who think this won't be manipulated, I know a lot of stay at home parents (many are former teachers) who would happily teach or work in a charter school for a few years to gain an admissions preference.

In order to make your argument, did you just define school teachers as "high SES"???

I see this reference to "high SES" a lot on DCUM. I always assumed it referred to corporate lawyers, surgeons, bankers, lobbyists, congressmen. In other words, people with "high socio-economic status". If you are including teachers then I assume you also include nurses, car mechanics, firefighters, police officers, plumbers, and all the other members of the working class, i.e., anyone who is not on government assistance?

Don't be ridiculous. Teachers don't earn a ton, and it makes sense to offer them some benefit at the schools where they teach. Many universities already do this, and even go further, offering free tuition to the students of professors and staff. It's becoming increasingly difficult for working class people (includes teachers) to live in DC these days. Most young unmarried teachers live in group houses or inexpensive apartments. We should make it easier where we can. If they use the 10% cap as proposed, this isn't hurting anyone.

There are only so many spots for teachers at the best charters. I am sure this policy is more about getting and retaining great teachers at second and their tier charters. if I was a teacher at a school, as long as it wasn't failing, I'd want my kid there. If I was a school, I'd want the teacher's kid there.

The policy should extend to all dcps schools. Will teachers with kids all want spots at Murch - yes. Will they get them - no. There is limited teaching spots available. Murch already gets many more applications for open teaching spots than they can spill. SO the best one of two teachers a year will switch over but the other best 20-50 teachers will stay where they are but with their kids there and their investment in the school increased.

Anonymous wrote:Why should teach era get rights over others? I don't see why a teacher should get a spot over anyone else--a police officer, a fire fighter, or anyone else. It doesn't mean that people don't respect teachers.

Yes, yes and yes. I understand that teacher retention is important and I get why this would probably increase it, but only at the "good schools". I think overall this would be damaging to retention and I also agree that teachers, as fantastic and critical to our society as they are, should not get preference in what is supposed to be either a random lottery system or an IB/OOB lottery system for all DC residents. It's a nice idea that would predictably have negative consequences for the majority of schools except for the most popular ones.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone against having preference for teacher's children should also be against sibling preference. If you aren't for both, you just sound bitter.

That makes no sense at all. While sibling preference is unquestionably also drastically limiting the numbers of open spots for new families at every popular school, the policy makes sense. It would be too destablizing and crazy-making if every family had to go through lottery insanity for every child individually. It is a bad idea for so many reasons, some already mentioned. And I say that as a parent of an only child who has all kinds of personal peace I had to make re: how families with siblings already in good schools have it made!

But teachers hopefully, presumably, go into teaching because they want to teach. And hopefully, presumably, they apply to teach at schools they think would be good fits or at least would give them good experience. Throwing into the mix that if you teach at School A your kids have preference at School A adds an unwarranted and frankly unfair factor to why teachers choose to teach at all, and at certain schools for some people. I have been a teacher (I'm now a social worker), but even as an ex-teacher, while yes, I would have been thrilled to have that preference if I was teaching at a school I wanted my kids at, I would have been the first to admit that in a system that is supposed to be admissions by random lottery, this is not fair and not justified. I would not have turned down the spot for my kid, but I don't think it's fair.

Anonymous wrote:This also gives an admissions preference to a certain set of largely higher SES students (students with parents working in the schools). These students are not going to be homeless, or be raised by a single parent too disabled to work. They are also largely going to be raised by parents who are very invested in education. These are exactly the type of kids many people want their kids going to school with - so I get why people whose kids are already in a charter school want this proposal to pass. But from an equity perspective, this seems nuts.

Also, for people who think this won't be manipulated, I know a lot of stay at home parents (many are former teachers) who would happily teach or work in a charter school for a few years to gain an admissions preference.

This X 1,000! I also know teachers who, while not SAHMs, have actually said that if this was a policy, they'd not hesitate to drop the school's they're currently at to work at a choice school when they've got babies, and then get their kids in and either go back to their other school or move onto something else (grad school, etc). I have heard several current teachers say this. It is naive to think people won't be strategic as hell about how to game this policy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This would make charters more and more like entities that only benefit those who are already there and not the overall city and its taxpayers. It would also make the odds of admissions so dismal that many people would be discouraged and likely move to the suburbs. For individuals who are unlucky enough to be entering the lottery when there are not promising new charters starting, they will always be competing against both siblings and teachers, making it almost impossible to get in.

Completely agree with everything in this post.

I agree as well. The only people who should get preference are Founders, and only founders present when the school is founded!

This would also give teachers an incentive NOT to teach at charters that serve more challenged populations. If I'm thinking about what job I'm going to pursue/accept and one of the considerations is my kid having preference in that school, how likely will I be to teach at a Kipp or another less popular charter instead of all the usual over-applied-to suspects?

All that said (and I will be contacting my Council folks to oppose this), at a minimum if it does pass, there should be a requirement that the teacher has to have taught at the school for 2 or 3 years before they can get preference. That will at least cut down on those who choose to teach there just for admission advantage. And yes, all you saying "Who would do that? That wouldn't happen" are living in La La Land. There are much more outrageous stories out there of people trying to get their kids in schools than that. It is absolutely a likely dynamic that will crop up or be taken advantage of, so requiring 3 years of teaching before preference is allowed seems totally and absolutely fair. That teacher will have already made a real commitment to the school by then.

You are stupid.

I'm all for children weighing in on this issue, but maybe have your mom or dad type for you, since this post is useless. Cute, because kids typing is cute, but useless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should teach era get rights over others? I don't see why a teacher should get a spot over anyone else--a police officer, a fire fighter, or anyone else. It doesn't mean that people don't respect teachers.

But they teach at the school? it isn't any teacher that gets a preference, but a teacher who teaches at the school. This is a no brainer to me.

This doesn't seem a reason to me. I live near a bunch of charters and my husband works by a bunch of charters, but we get no preference for them. It would be a lot more convenient for us. And if you give preference, then you will have teachers wanting to work at certain desirable charters and not wanting to work at ones that are less desirable for their kids, where they could be making a real contribution. Bad idea.

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand why people are against sibling preference. When I was a kid I had a family with 8 kids. Because of boundary changes, one year we attended six different schools. We got our picture int he local paper because of it. I doubt my parents went to a single PTA meeting at any of the schools.

It just makes sense to have siblings attend the same school. It's environmentally friendly by promoting carpooling, it reduces parents' stress by easing the morning routine, it enables parents to become more invested in the school.

The only argument people make is that the sibling is taking up a space that a non-sibling would otherwise take. But they don't really care about that non-affiliated student, because as soon as the person is admitted they become affiliated and might -- horror! -- also have siblings taking up more spaces. But each student can take no more and no less than one space. They have to take a space somewhere, and nobody else will be able to take that space.

People who complain about sibling preference remind me of children who throw a fit to get a toy from another child, only to toss it aside and throw another fit when the other child picks up a different toy.

My experience is that those trying to get a spot at a popular school--particularly those with only children--are frustrated that so few spots are available outside of sibling preference, but that is different from opposing sibling preference.

Anonymous wrote:Why should teach era get rights over others? I don't see why a teacher should get a spot over anyone else--a police officer, a fire fighter, or anyone else. It doesn't mean that people don't respect teachers.

But they teach at the school? it isn't any teacher that gets a preference, but a teacher who teaches at the school. This is a no brainer to me.

I am absolutely in favor of this. Those teachers ARE NOT getting the pay and benefits of public school teachers. The least we can give them is the ability to have their kids with them in a school they believe in. Private schools offer tuition discounts and easier acceptances. This is no different. This should be for FULL-TIME teachers only, not other employees of the school. And they still have to lottery in, but they get a preference akin to sibling preference.

Why should teach era get rights over others? I don't see why a teacher should get a spot over anyone else--a police officer, a fire fighter, or anyone else. It doesn't mean that people don't respect teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This would make charters more and more like entities that only benefit those who are already there and not the overall city and its taxpayers. It would also make the odds of admissions so dismal that many people would be discouraged and likely move to the suburbs. For individuals who are unlucky enough to be entering the lottery when there are not promising new charters starting, they will always be competing against both siblings and teachers, making it almost impossible to get in.

This x 1000. What was the purpose of charter schools in the first place? They seem to be turning into publicly funded private schools, everything that the critics warned.

They have been this way for a long time. I often tell people that my child attends a low-level private school at taxpayers expense.

Anonymous wrote:I'm laughing at the comment about teachers coming for a year, dropping off their kids, and then leaving. Will many people really just up and quit their current gig, randomly happen to get a job at a great school (which usually don't have many openings), and then be compelled to quit after a year? Also, where are these eager teacher-moms running off to after a year -- another school for their younger DS who has slightly different academic needs?

I don't have any skin in this game because my kid is already in a good charter, accoridng to DCUM standards. But it has been often said, even in many of the HRCS, that turn-over is high. Maybe the teachers won't leave in a year, but many are not there for the long haul, especially if they have to depend on those salaries.