Anonymous wrote:I think DCPS is doing a great job making progress considering that, unlike charters, they can't IN ANY way "cherry pick" students. Or "counsel them out".

Um, they do in fact "counsel kids out" of DCPS schools - and frankly that's part of the reason so many kids are in charters now - because DCPS could not meet their needs, made them miserable, made them feel unwelcome, or "counseled them out" - nobody likes to admit or acknowledge that but it does happen quite a bit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi Kaya!

Kaya Henderson is generally supportive of all education reform in DC.

She supports DCPS first and does not take shots at charters unless they bump up against specific plans to hold onto DCPS buildings or create new programs that duplicate what she has in mind.

That's exactly the right attitude. It's certainly how I see it. Charters are supposed to fill gaps left by the public-run system (montessori etc). They should not compete directly with it, and should be given a fair second choice for buildings after the public system has decided they're not needed.

+1 well said

+2

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi Kaya!

Kaya Henderson is generally supportive of all education reform in DC.

She supports DCPS first and does not take shots at charters unless they bump up against specific plans to hold onto DCPS buildings or create new programs that duplicate what she has in mind.

That's exactly the right attitude. It's certainly how I see it. Charters are supposed to fill gaps left by the public-run system (montessori etc). They should not compete directly with it, and should be given a fair second choice for buildings after the public system has decided they're not needed.

+1 well said

Anonymous wrote:Ever notice how the national union, WTU and some purported DCPS people try to force charter parents and supporters to show they are not anti-DCPS?

It's a simple tactic that works.

I noticed that too. False equivalence.

Ever notice how the national union, WTU and some purported DCPS people try to force charter parents and supporters to show they are not anti-DCPS?

It's a simple tactic that works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loathsome parent? Worst parent? Good grief. Get over your own agenda and yourself. I shared my observations and am moving my kids to other, more established charters because my local DCPS is a non starter. My point was simply that new charters are serious risks. Keep your anger in check.

I actually have no agenda, other than to call out BS artists who think that policy positions and binary thinking is productive. But let's take a moment and evaluate your posts and your inconsistent hypocritical positions. First, you say no more charters, you were snookered and wish you'd invested in your DCPS and yet stayed there for four years. When I observed that leaving a kid in a bad situation for 4 years is bad parenting, you popped back up to explain that you are now moving your kid...to another charter because your "local DCPS is a non starter." So are you anti-charter or not? You were at first, but now it seems you are anti-the charter your kid attends. Because you seem all about choice when it is for your kid (see: going to different charter). Also not clear on what the investing in local DCPS means or has to do with anything.

Of course, this is all academic because I stand behind my position that your original post was BS. You didn't leave your kid in a poor charter for 4 years; didn't happen.

NP with no skin in this squabble, but I'll bite. I can see a parent leaving their kid in an ES that has the illusion of a great new wonderful thing. See, most of these new charters. That would place the kid in either the first or second grade after four years at the charter. At this point there are levels of expectarions and parents begin to reevaluate the school(s). I know plenty of parents who have pulled their kids and placed them in another charter, DCPS, and private after becoming disillusioned about a HRCS that they may have once touted as awesome.

I also think your response was over the top and you do seem to have an agenda. It is almost as though you have a personal stake in the success of charters or a particular HRCS.

Also, maybe she just can't get into a better school. It's not like your odds of getting into a desirable increase each year. The people who nailed a good spot early have a huge advantage. Sometimes you just stick with the devil you know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DCPS is doing a great job making progress considering that, unlike charters, they can't IN ANY way "cherry pick" students. Or "counsel them out".

Out-of-boundary students can be sent back to their in-boundary school at the principal's discretion. Some principals use that power to "cherry pick" and "counsel out" students.

But the number of students that actually happens to is minute compared to the number that charters cherry pick/counsel out/convince parents to withdraw from. DCPS schools who are on the receiving end of those students counseled out of charters know better than anyone what those numbers are like. It happens all the time in charters.

Assume for the sake of argument that you're completely unfounded conjecture is correct (as if an anonymous posting that "it happens all the time is credible - but let's assume). The idea that this impacts all of DCPS is a fallacy. It doesn't impact JKLM. It doesn't impact Brent, or likely Maurey. So it isn't impacting all of DCPS. That all or none approach is garbage. It is impacting the marginal schools in poor neighborhoods. And those are the very kids who are looking for a way out (read: charters). For sure those kids can be counseled out - some legitimately because they don't show up, or show up on time. Some may be targeted. But the idea that the answer is that charters are causing the problem just doesn't make sense. I've never understood the argument that because some kids from poor neighborhoods get screwed we should take away the choice from all of them. I just don't get it...

OK you lost me there...where in this thread did it say anything about taking choice away from the poor marginalized children. I think the point that people have been making is that charters are being touted as the next best thing for those poor children who can't hit the lottery (how ironic) to get into a school on the "good side of town" yet those charters are not up to par because the are being staffed with inexperienced teachers and administrators. Yet their neighborhood DCPS is being skipped over for renovation and experienced teachers are being escorted out due to DCPS wanting to replace them with younger teachers who make less money. Those were the main points being discussed.

Moving, inconsistent target much?

***No one against charters ever says they are taking choice away. But if charters go away then what choice is available?

***So are the people who want a school somewhere else getting snookered and not getting a quality education? Or are they getting forced out and denied a quality education?

***The assertion that teachers are inexperienced is unfounded and doesn't match the results the HRCS are producing. It was disingenuous to slide that in as if it was a fact. It's one of the talking points of the anti-charter people...that you claim not to be. You undermine your credibility when you slide in those talking points.

***There is zero evidence that charters are the reason that lousy DCPS schools aren't being funded. Zero.

Are you intentionally hiding the ball? Or are you just not smart enough to see the crap in your post?

Yup, you've got an agenda.

Yes i do!!!!!! Good schools for my kid and everyone else who doesn't live in Ward 3. But good on you for sniffing that out, genius.

As long as the poor marginalized kids stay on their side of town in their "separate but equal" charters. Right. I get it.

Huh? Now it's not charters forcing kids into DCPS but charters forcing kids into other charters? Also, there are no charters in ward 3. But keep moving the goal post. And by all means, whatever else you do don't formulate a proposal for how to improve schools, just sit in the corner and take pot shots at charters. That's incredibly productive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DCPS is doing a great job making progress considering that, unlike charters, they can't IN ANY way "cherry pick" students. Or "counsel them out".

Out-of-boundary students can be sent back to their in-boundary school at the principal's discretion. Some principals use that power to "cherry pick" and "counsel out" students.

But the number of students that actually happens to is minute compared to the number that charters cherry pick/counsel out/convince parents to withdraw from. DCPS schools who are on the receiving end of those students counseled out of charters know better than anyone what those numbers are like. It happens all the time in charters.

Assume for the sake of argument that you're completely unfounded conjecture is correct (as if an anonymous posting that "it happens all the time is credible - but let's assume). The idea that this impacts all of DCPS is a fallacy. It doesn't impact JKLM. It doesn't impact Brent, or likely Maurey. So it isn't impacting all of DCPS. That all or none approach is garbage. It is impacting the marginal schools in poor neighborhoods. And those are the very kids who are looking for a way out (read: charters). For sure those kids can be counseled out - some legitimately because they don't show up, or show up on time. Some may be targeted. But the idea that the answer is that charters are causing the problem just doesn't make sense. I've never understood the argument that because some kids from poor neighborhoods get screwed we should take away the choice from all of them. I just don't get it...

OK you lost me there...where in this thread did it say anything about taking choice away from the poor marginalized children. I think the point that people have been making is that charters are being touted as the next best thing for those poor children who can't hit the lottery (how ironic) to get into a school on the "good side of town" yet those charters are not up to par because the are being staffed with inexperienced teachers and administrators. Yet their neighborhood DCPS is being skipped over for renovation and experienced teachers are being escorted out due to DCPS wanting to replace them with younger teachers who make less money. Those were the main points being discussed.

Moving, inconsistent target much?

***No one against charters ever says they are taking choice away. But if charters go away then what choice is available?

***So are the people who want a school somewhere else getting snookered and not getting a quality education? Or are they getting forced out and denied a quality education?

***The assertion that teachers are inexperienced is unfounded and doesn't match the results the HRCS are producing. It was disingenuous to slide that in as if it was a fact. It's one of the talking points of the anti-charter people...that you claim not to be. You undermine your credibility when you slide in those talking points.

***There is zero evidence that charters are the reason that lousy DCPS schools aren't being funded. Zero.

Are you intentionally hiding the ball? Or are you just not smart enough to see the crap in your post?

Yup, you've got an agenda.

Yes i do!!!!!! Good schools for my kid and everyone else who doesn't live in Ward 3. But good on you for sniffing that out, genius.

As long as the poor marginalized kids stay on their side of town in their "separate but equal" charters. Right. I get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DCPS is doing a great job making progress considering that, unlike charters, they can't IN ANY way "cherry pick" students. Or "counsel them out".

Out-of-boundary students can be sent back to their in-boundary school at the principal's discretion. Some principals use that power to "cherry pick" and "counsel out" students.

But the number of students that actually happens to is minute compared to the number that charters cherry pick/counsel out/convince parents to withdraw from. DCPS schools who are on the receiving end of those students counseled out of charters know better than anyone what those numbers are like. It happens all the time in charters.

Assume for the sake of argument that you're completely unfounded conjecture is correct (as if an anonymous posting that "it happens all the time is credible - but let's assume). The idea that this impacts all of DCPS is a fallacy. It doesn't impact JKLM. It doesn't impact Brent, or likely Maurey. So it isn't impacting all of DCPS. That all or none approach is garbage. It is impacting the marginal schools in poor neighborhoods. And those are the very kids who are looking for a way out (read: charters). For sure those kids can be counseled out - some legitimately because they don't show up, or show up on time. Some may be targeted. But the idea that the answer is that charters are causing the problem just doesn't make sense. I've never understood the argument that because some kids from poor neighborhoods get screwed we should take away the choice from all of them. I just don't get it...

OK you lost me there...where in this thread did it say anything about taking choice away from the poor marginalized children. I think the point that people have been making is that charters are being touted as the next best thing for those poor children who can't hit the lottery (how ironic) to get into a school on the "good side of town" yet those charters are not up to par because the are being staffed with inexperienced teachers and administrators. Yet their neighborhood DCPS is being skipped over for renovation and experienced teachers are being escorted out due to DCPS wanting to replace them with younger teachers who make less money. Those were the main points being discussed.

Moving, inconsistent target much?

***No one against charters ever says they are taking choice away. But if charters go away then what choice is available?

***So are the people who want a school somewhere else getting snookered and not getting a quality education? Or are they getting forced out and denied a quality education?

***The assertion that teachers are inexperienced is unfounded and doesn't match the results the HRCS are producing. It was disingenuous to slide that in as if it was a fact. It's one of the talking points of the anti-charter people...that you claim not to be. You undermine your credibility when you slide in those talking points.

***There is zero evidence that charters are the reason that lousy DCPS schools aren't being funded. Zero.

Are you intentionally hiding the ball? Or are you just not smart enough to see the crap in your post?

Yup, you've got an agenda.

Yes i do!!!!!! Good schools for my kid and everyone else who doesn't live in Ward 3. But good on you for sniffing that out, genius.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loathsome parent? Worst parent? Good grief. Get over your own agenda and yourself. I shared my observations and am moving my kids to other, more established charters because my local DCPS is a non starter. My point was simply that new charters are serious risks. Keep your anger in check.

I actually have no agenda, other than to call out BS artists who think that policy positions and binary thinking is productive. But let's take a moment and evaluate your posts and your inconsistent hypocritical positions. First, you say no more charters, you were snookered and wish you'd invested in your DCPS and yet stayed there for four years. When I observed that leaving a kid in a bad situation for 4 years is bad parenting, you popped back up to explain that you are now moving your kid...to another charter because your "local DCPS is a non starter." So are you anti-charter or not? You were at first, but now it seems you are anti-the charter your kid attends. Because you seem all about choice when it is for your kid (see: going to different charter). Also not clear on what the investing in local DCPS means or has to do with anything.

Of course, this is all academic because I stand behind my position that your original post was BS. You didn't leave your kid in a poor charter for 4 years; didn't happen.

NP with no skin in this squabble, but I'll bite. I can see a parent leaving their kid in an ES that has the illusion of a great new wonderful thing. See, most of these new charters. That would place the kid in either the first or second grade after four years at the charter. At this point there are levels of expectarions and parents begin to reevaluate the school(s). I know plenty of parents who have pulled their kids and placed them in another charter, DCPS, and private after becoming disillusioned about a HRCS that they may have once touted as awesome.

I also think your response was over the top and you do seem to have an agenda. It is almost as though you have a personal stake in the success of charters or a particular HRCS.

Of course I have a stake in the success of HRCS, my kid attends one!!! It's much better than my IB DCPS school. But I am not against DCPS, I am against people who illogically rail against charters without a coherent argument and without telling us what they would do to replace the quality options that HRCS present. And especially annoyed by the white liberal guilt crowd that seems to have this political agenda without a proposal for how to improve schools. And you didn't address the irony that the poster chimed in to say no more about charters and that they are snake oil salesmen, but in a subsequent post acknowledged that (i) their kid is going to attend another charter and (ii) their IB school is not an option.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DCPS is doing a great job making progress considering that, unlike charters, they can't IN ANY way "cherry pick" students. Or "counsel them out".

Out-of-boundary students can be sent back to their in-boundary school at the principal's discretion. Some principals use that power to "cherry pick" and "counsel out" students.

But the number of students that actually happens to is minute compared to the number that charters cherry pick/counsel out/convince parents to withdraw from. DCPS schools who are on the receiving end of those students counseled out of charters know better than anyone what those numbers are like. It happens all the time in charters.

Assume for the sake of argument that you're completely unfounded conjecture is correct (as if an anonymous posting that "it happens all the time is credible - but let's assume). The idea that this impacts all of DCPS is a fallacy. It doesn't impact JKLM. It doesn't impact Brent, or likely Maurey. So it isn't impacting all of DCPS. That all or none approach is garbage. It is impacting the marginal schools in poor neighborhoods. And those are the very kids who are looking for a way out (read: charters). For sure those kids can be counseled out - some legitimately because they don't show up, or show up on time. Some may be targeted. But the idea that the answer is that charters are causing the problem just doesn't make sense. I've never understood the argument that because some kids from poor neighborhoods get screwed we should take away the choice from all of them. I just don't get it...

OK you lost me there...where in this thread did it say anything about taking choice away from the poor marginalized children. I think the point that people have been making is that charters are being touted as the next best thing for those poor children who can't hit the lottery (how ironic) to get into a school on the "good side of town" yet those charters are not up to par because the are being staffed with inexperienced teachers and administrators. Yet their neighborhood DCPS is being skipped over for renovation and experienced teachers are being escorted out due to DCPS wanting to replace them with younger teachers who make less money. Those were the main points being discussed.

Moving, inconsistent target much?

***No one against charters ever says they are taking choice away. But if charters go away then what choice is available?

***So are the people who want a school somewhere else getting snookered and not getting a quality education? Or are they getting forced out and denied a quality education?

***The assertion that teachers are inexperienced is unfounded and doesn't match the results the HRCS are producing. It was disingenuous to slide that in as if it was a fact. It's one of the talking points of the anti-charter people...that you claim not to be. You undermine your credibility when you slide in those talking points.

***There is zero evidence that charters are the reason that lousy DCPS schools aren't being funded. Zero.

Are you intentionally hiding the ball? Or are you just not smart enough to see the crap in your post?

Yup, you've got an agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DCPS is doing a great job making progress considering that, unlike charters, they can't IN ANY way "cherry pick" students. Or "counsel them out".

Out-of-boundary students can be sent back to their in-boundary school at the principal's discretion. Some principals use that power to "cherry pick" and "counsel out" students.

But the number of students that actually happens to is minute compared to the number that charters cherry pick/counsel out/convince parents to withdraw from. DCPS schools who are on the receiving end of those students counseled out of charters know better than anyone what those numbers are like. It happens all the time in charters.

Assume for the sake of argument that you're completely unfounded conjecture is correct (as if an anonymous posting that "it happens all the time is credible - but let's assume). The idea that this impacts all of DCPS is a fallacy. It doesn't impact JKLM. It doesn't impact Brent, or likely Maurey. So it isn't impacting all of DCPS. That all or none approach is garbage. It is impacting the marginal schools in poor neighborhoods. And those are the very kids who are looking for a way out (read: charters). For sure those kids can be counseled out - some legitimately because they don't show up, or show up on time. Some may be targeted. But the idea that the answer is that charters are causing the problem just doesn't make sense. I've never understood the argument that because some kids from poor neighborhoods get screwed we should take away the choice from all of them. I just don't get it...

OK you lost me there...where in this thread did it say anything about taking choice away from the poor marginalized children. I think the point that people have been making is that charters are being touted as the next best thing for those poor children who can't hit the lottery (how ironic) to get into a school on the "good side of town" yet those charters are not up to par because the are being staffed with inexperienced teachers and administrators. Yet their neighborhood DCPS is being skipped over for renovation and experienced teachers are being escorted out due to DCPS wanting to replace them with younger teachers who make less money. Those were the main points being discussed.

Moving, inconsistent target much?

***No one against charters ever says they are taking choice away. But if charters go away then what choice is available?

***So are the people who want a school somewhere else getting snookered and not getting a quality education? Or are they getting forced out and denied a quality education?

***The assertion that teachers are inexperienced is unfounded and doesn't match the results the HRCS are producing. It was disingenuous to slide that in as if it was a fact. It's one of the talking points of the anti-charter people...that you claim not to be. You undermine your credibility when you slide in those talking points.

***There is zero evidence that charters are the reason that lousy DCPS schools aren't being funded. Zero.

Are you intentionally hiding the ball? Or are you just not smart enough to see the crap in your post?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loathsome parent? Worst parent? Good grief. Get over your own agenda and yourself. I shared my observations and am moving my kids to other, more established charters because my local DCPS is a non starter. My point was simply that new charters are serious risks. Keep your anger in check.

I actually have no agenda, other than to call out BS artists who think that policy positions and binary thinking is productive. But let's take a moment and evaluate your posts and your inconsistent hypocritical positions. First, you say no more charters, you were snookered and wish you'd invested in your DCPS and yet stayed there for four years. When I observed that leaving a kid in a bad situation for 4 years is bad parenting, you popped back up to explain that you are now moving your kid...to another charter because your "local DCPS is a non starter." So are you anti-charter or not? You were at first, but now it seems you are anti-the charter your kid attends. Because you seem all about choice when it is for your kid (see: going to different charter). Also not clear on what the investing in local DCPS means or has to do with anything.

Of course, this is all academic because I stand behind my position that your original post was BS. You didn't leave your kid in a poor charter for 4 years; didn't happen.

NP with no skin in this squabble, but I'll bite. I can see a parent leaving their kid in an ES that has the illusion of a great new wonderful thing. See, most of these new charters. That would place the kid in either the first or second grade after four years at the charter. At this point there are levels of expectarions and parents begin to reevaluate the school(s). I know plenty of parents who have pulled their kids and placed them in another charter, DCPS, and private after becoming disillusioned about a HRCS that they may have once touted as awesome.

I also think your response was over the top and you do seem to have an agenda. It is almost as though you have a personal stake in the success of charters or a particular HRCS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DCPS is doing a great job making progress considering that, unlike charters, they can't IN ANY way "cherry pick" students. Or "counsel them out".

Out-of-boundary students can be sent back to their in-boundary school at the principal's discretion. Some principals use that power to "cherry pick" and "counsel out" students.

But the number of students that actually happens to is minute compared to the number that charters cherry pick/counsel out/convince parents to withdraw from. DCPS schools who are on the receiving end of those students counseled out of charters know better than anyone what those numbers are like. It happens all the time in charters.

Assume for the sake of argument that you're completely unfounded conjecture is correct (as if an anonymous posting that "it happens all the time is credible - but let's assume). The idea that this impacts all of DCPS is a fallacy. It doesn't impact JKLM. It doesn't impact Brent, or likely Maurey. So it isn't impacting all of DCPS. That all or none approach is garbage. It is impacting the marginal schools in poor neighborhoods. And those are the very kids who are looking for a way out (read: charters). For sure those kids can be counseled out - some legitimately because they don't show up, or show up on time. Some may be targeted. But the idea that the answer is that charters are causing the problem just doesn't make sense. I've never understood the argument that because some kids from poor neighborhoods get screwed we should take away the choice from all of them. I just don't get it...

OK you lost me there...where in this thread did it say anything about taking choice away from the poor marginalized children. I think the point that people have been making is that charters are being touted as the next best thing for those poor children who can't hit the lottery (how ironic) to get into a school on the "good side of town" yet those charters are not up to par because the are being staffed with inexperienced teachers and administrators. Yet their neighborhood DCPS is being skipped over for renovation and experienced teachers are being escorted out due to DCPS wanting to replace them with younger teachers who make less money. Those were the main points being discussed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DCPS is doing a great job making progress considering that, unlike charters, they can't IN ANY way "cherry pick" students. Or "counsel them out".

Out-of-boundary students can be sent back to their in-boundary school at the principal's discretion. Some principals use that power to "cherry pick" and "counsel out" students.

But the number of students that actually happens to is minute compared to the number that charters cherry pick/counsel out/convince parents to withdraw from. DCPS schools who are on the receiving end of those students counseled out of charters know better than anyone what those numbers are like. It happens all the time in charters.

Assume for the sake of argument that you're completely unfounded conjecture is correct (as if an anonymous posting that "it happens all the time is credible - but let's assume). The idea that this impacts all of DCPS is a fallacy. It doesn't impact JKLM. It doesn't impact Brent, or likely Maurey. So it isn't impacting all of DCPS. That all or none approach is garbage. It is impacting the marginal schools in poor neighborhoods. And those are the very kids who are looking for a way out (read: charters). For sure those kids can be counseled out - some legitimately because they don't show up, or show up on time. Some may be targeted. But the idea that the answer is that charters are causing the problem just doesn't make sense. I've never understood the argument that because some kids from poor neighborhoods get screwed we should take away the choice from all of them. I just don't get it...