Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another incoherent editorial from the Washington Post.

The whole point of charters is that they are forced to compete for students (and thus funding) and that this competitive pressure is what drives the charters to perform.

Encouraging greater collaboration with DCPS is completely counter to this fundamental principle.

And at the same time, why on earth would DCPS want this to succeed?

Trying to force parties to collaborate when it is against their interest is doomed to fail.

The Washington Post's local editorials are a joke. I can't believe anyone takes them seriously.

The whole point if charters was NOT competition. That has been a fundamental misunderstanding. Charters were supposed to be labs for testing new ideas to integrate into public schools.

In a 1988 address, Mr. Shanker outlined an idea for a new kind of public school where teachers could experiment with fresh and innovative ways of reaching students. Mr. Shanker estimated that only one-fifth of American students were well served by traditional classrooms. In charter schools, teachers would be given the opportunity to draw upon their expertise to create high-performing educational laboratories from which the traditional public schools could learn. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/opinion/sunday/albert-shanker-the-original-charter-school-visionary.html?_r=0

If I had the time and energy, I could easily find quotes from the political types in Congress who actually passed the bill creating the District's charters that support my position that injecting free market competition into the education arena was one the objectives. Not that I believe that it was the only one. But it was an important objective. I also think that, regardless of the original intentions, it is a present reality that should be considered in the debate.

I find it curious that you have such a good memory that you can find an op-ed piece written last year by a charter school lobbyist so quickly. One of the quirks of this anonymous forum is that people who have a professional interest in supporting charters (and public schools) post here often. I find it disingenuous when they do so without identifying their biases. I myself am a parent with 2 kids in charters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another incoherent editorial from the Washington Post.

The whole point of charters is that they are forced to compete for students (and thus funding) and that this competitive pressure is what drives the charters to perform.

Encouraging greater collaboration with DCPS is completely counter to this fundamental principle.

And at the same time, why on earth would DCPS want this to succeed?

Trying to force parties to collaborate when it is against their interest is doomed to fail.

The Washington Post's local editorials are a joke. I can't believe anyone takes them seriously.

The whole point if charters was NOT competition. That has been a fundamental misunderstanding. Charters were supposed to be labs for testing new ideas to integrate into public schools.

In a 1988 address, Mr. Shanker outlined an idea for a new kind of public school where teachers could experiment with fresh and innovative ways of reaching students. Mr. Shanker estimated that only one-fifth of American students were well served by traditional classrooms. In charter schools, teachers would be given the opportunity to draw upon their expertise to create high-performing educational laboratories from which the traditional public schools could learn. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/opinion/sunday/albert-shanker-the-original-charter-school-visionary.html?_r=0

Anonymous wrote:See the thing is, if we didn't have charters we'd have a greater number of better neighborhood schools because the many families that flee for HRCS would be forced to put their resources into their "focus" or "rising" schools that a few are already trying to improve. Yeah, some would move, but not all.

We will NEVER have universally good by-right schools if we perpetuate an easy opt-out for families. It will never happen. I'm not suggesting improvement would stretch east of the river immediately, but our Wests and Garrisons and Brookland Middles and Coolidges and Amidon-Bowens and Takomas and Truesdells would be much improved if all the families that go charter were there instead. I'm also not suggesting that we shouldn't have initiated charters when we did; it seems like it was necessary for our failing city schools at the time. But now? We can reevaluate our definition of and path to "excellence for everyone."

The mayor knows this, and to not continue to move us down this separate-but-equal-but-not-really road we are on is the right move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen a DC school of any kind that didn't have brand-new everything. Coming from a different city, it's a real shock how nice everything is. Now, many of those school lack actual, practical resources. Some even lack playgrounds. But the physical facilities are immaculate.

Leave Ward 3 please. Have you seen Garrison? Have you seen any of the schools in Ward 7 or 8?

No really, you and PP should stay in ward 3 and take a long dispassionate looks at the elementary school facilities in Ward 3. There is a true range, from brand new (Janney, Stoddert) to dank crumbling Soviet space (Murch, Eaton, Lafayette)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, in DC they are nonprofits, not private companies. Some contract with a management company to provide some services but I think BASIS is the only one like that that is popular on DCUM. The others are strictly nonprofits.

OK, charters are private non-profit companies that run public schools (even Basis here is non-profit as that's DC law).

The sometimes shady arrangements with for profit management companies is another aspect, but they are all non-public companies. The point is that the public no longer owns them once a charter school does.

Just saying, just because something is publicly funded but privately run doesn't mean it is ineffective, and just because something is publicly/government-run doesn't mean it is effective at its purpose. I'm as liberal as they come but I'm not "anti-corporate" or "anti-private" on principle. For example, I'm a big supporter of Planned Parenthood, which is a "private nonprofit corporation." Doesn't mean it's evil...

Honestly I get a little tired of the "charter schools are evil corporations trying to profit off kids" rhetoric. Yes in SOME states with bad charter oversight there are shady for-profit companies, and we had the Kent Amos scandal here in DC, but I don't think it's far-out to say that *by and large* charters here in DC are run by non-profits with ethical principals and boards, with educators who are trying to do right by kids.

I never said that "charter schools are evil corporations trying to profit off kids", and I don't believe that. I just think that there should be a fundamental public schools system not owned by private (read private, not evil) companies. I like charter schools for experimentation or specialized instruction.
There's a difference between being evil and being publicly accountable. Charter schools are accountable to the DCPCSB (which in turn is not publicly accountable) on performance, but not overall policy and direction. IMO general policy and direction should be set by the government.

It seems like a philosophical disagreement between a centrally controlled system and a free market system... I land on centrally controlled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another incoherent editorial from the Washington Post.

The whole point of charters is that they are forced to compete for students (and thus funding) and that this competitive pressure is what drives the charters to perform.

Encouraging greater collaboration with DCPS is completely counter to this fundamental principle.

And at the same time, why on earth would DCPS want this to succeed?

Trying to force parties to collaborate when it is against their interest is doomed to fail.

The Washington Post's local editorials are a joke. I can't believe anyone takes them seriously.

The whole point if charters was NOT competition. That has been a fundamental misunderstanding. Charters were supposed to be labs for testing new ideas to integrate into public schools.

In a 1988 address, Mr. Shanker outlined an idea for a new kind of public school where teachers could experiment with fresh and innovative ways of reaching students. Mr. Shanker estimated that only one-fifth of American students were well served by traditional classrooms. In charter schools, teachers would be given the opportunity to draw upon their expertise to create high-performing educational laboratories from which the traditional public schools could learn. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/opinion/sunday/albert-shanker-the-original-charter-school-visionary.html?_r=0

Anonymous wrote:another incoherent editorial from the Washington Post.

The whole point of charters is that they are forced to compete for students (and thus funding) and that this competitive pressure is what drives the charters to perform.

Encouraging greater collaboration with DCPS is completely counter to this fundamental principle.

And at the same time, why on earth would DCPS want this to succeed?

Trying to force parties to collaborate when it is against their interest is doomed to fail.

The Washington Post's local editorials are a joke. I can't believe anyone takes them seriously.

See the thing is, if we didn't have charters we'd have a greater number of better neighborhood schools because the many families that flee for HRCS would be forced to put their resources into their "focus" or "rising" schools that a few are already trying to improve. Yeah, some would move, but not all.

We will NEVER have universally good by-right schools if we perpetuate an easy opt-out for families. It will never happen. I'm not suggesting improvement would stretch east of the river immediately, but our Wests and Garrisons and Brookland Middles and Coolidges and Amidon-Bowens and Takomas and Truesdells would be much improved if all the families that go charter were there instead. I'm also not suggesting that we shouldn't have initiated charters when we did; it seems like it was necessary for our failing city schools at the time. But now? We can reevaluate our definition of and path to "excellence for everyone."

The mayor knows this, and to not continue to move us down this separate-but-equal-but-not-really road we are on is the right move.

Anonymous wrote:See the thing is, if we didn't have charters we'd have a greater number of better neighborhood schools because the many families that flee for HRCS would be forced to put their resources into their "focus" or "rising" schools that a few are already trying to improve. Yeah, some would move, but not all.

We will NEVER have universally good by-right schools if we perpetuate an easy opt-out for families. It will never happen. I'm not suggesting improvement would stretch east of the river immediately, but our Wests and Garrisons and Brookland Middles and Coolidges and Amidon-Bowens and Takomas and Truesdells would be much improved if all the families that go charter were there instead. I'm also not suggesting that we shouldn't have initiated charters when we did; it seems like it was necessary for our failing city schools at the time. But now? We can reevaluate our definition of and path to "excellence for everyone."

The mayor knows this, and to not continue to move us down this separate-but-equal-but-not-really road we are on is the right move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen a DC school of any kind that didn't have brand-new everything. Coming from a different city, it's a real shock how nice everything is. Now, many of those school lack actual, practical resources. Some even lack playgrounds. But the physical facilities are immaculate.

Leave Ward 3 please. Have you seen Garrison? Have you seen any of the schools in Ward 7 or 8?

No really, you and PP should stay in ward 3 and take a long dispassionate looks at the elementary school facilities in Ward 3. There is a true range, from brand new (Janney, Stoddert) to dank crumbling Soviet space (Murch, Eaton, Lafayette)

This is a discrediting exaggeration. Lafayette, for example, is alive with the energy of bright kids. The entry (when I saw it 18 months ago) is BREATHTAKING compared to my so-so renovated school. Come on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen a DC school of any kind that didn't have brand-new everything. Coming from a different city, it's a real shock how nice everything is. Now, many of those school lack actual, practical resources. Some even lack playgrounds. But the physical facilities are immaculate.

Leave Ward 3 please. Have you seen Garrison? Have you seen any of the schools in Ward 7 or 8?

No really, you and PP should stay in ward 3 and take a long dispassionate looks at the elementary school facilities in Ward 3. There is a true range, from brand new (Janney, Stoddert) to dank crumbling Soviet space (Murch, Eaton, Lafayette)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen a DC school of any kind that didn't have brand-new everything. Coming from a different city, it's a real shock how nice everything is. Now, many of those school lack actual, practical resources. Some even lack playgrounds. But the physical facilities are immaculate.

Leave Ward 3 please. Have you seen Garrison? Have you seen any of the schools in Ward 7 or 8?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, in DC they are nonprofits, not private companies. Some contract with a management company to provide some services but I think BASIS is the only one like that that is popular on DCUM. The others are strictly nonprofits.

OK, charters are private non-profit companies that run public schools (even Basis here is non-profit as that's DC law).

The sometimes shady arrangements with for profit management companies is another aspect, but they are all non-public companies. The point is that the public no longer owns them once a charter school does.

Just saying, just because something is publicly funded but privately run doesn't mean it is ineffective, and just because something is publicly/government-run doesn't mean it is effective at its purpose. I'm as liberal as they come but I'm not "anti-corporate" or "anti-private" on principle. For example, I'm a big supporter of Planned Parenthood, which is a "private nonprofit corporation." Doesn't mean it's evil...

Honestly I get a little tired of the "charter schools are evil corporations trying to profit off kids" rhetoric. Yes in SOME states with bad charter oversight there are shady for-profit companies, and we had the Kent Amos scandal here in DC, but I don't think it's far-out to say that *by and large* charters here in DC are run by non-profits with ethical principals and boards, with educators who are trying to do right by kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The whole point of charters is that they are forced to compete for students (and thus funding) and that this competitive pressure is what drives the charters to perform.

No. The whole point of charters is not to have a gladiatorial death match, competing with local schools for students. The point of charters SHOULD BE to provide alternative methods of learning, because not every child thrives in the same environment. Another point of charters SHOULD be to bring communities together, by drawing students from all over the city. Those are positive goals. COMPETITION FOR FUNDING is bullshit. And not the point of education.

Now, granted, I've been known to rant myself on how DCPS seems to like lighting money on fire to build underground parking garages, but charters are no better in those circumstances. It's amazing how well-appointed so many of them are.

I'm the PP that you quoted. We may or may not agree about what *should be* the goals of our local educational institutions. But currently, charters are funded on a per student basis. They are competing with DCPS and other charters for students, and by extension, money. To act as though this does not affect the institutional interests of the players here is naïve. And I was so strident in my criticism of the Post's editorial board because they don't address this issue at all in their editorial.

I've got kids in a charter that's looking for space, so believe me, I wish there was a way they could pry away space from DCPS. But I don't expect DCPS to give away space that it may need in the future. The only way DCPS is going to agree to allow a charters to use its buildings is if they are required to do so. For the Post's editorial board to expect otherwise is mystifying to me.

I think the Post's editorial board was trying to pressure the CITY and the MAYOR to make it a priority to get some of those buildings for charters. Some are owned by DCPS, but some are under DGS control. Yes, DCPS won't happily part ways with them... but it is Bowser's responsibility to do what is in best interest of ALL the city's kids, not just DCPS kids.