Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put a citywide school in overcrowded Ward 3. Maybe a magnet STEM school.

Do you even understand the purpose of "magnet" in "magnet schools"? No. Ward 3 doesn't need a magnet, because it already is a magnet. Put the magnet in Ward 7 or 8.

Duh.

It's funny. The point of a magnet is to concentrate the good students to attract more good students. Of course academic performance is highly correlated with socioeconomic status, so what you're really talking about is concentrating the better-off kids to attract more better off kids. At the same time there's another very active thread on this forum with 25+ pages of responses about how the at-risk kids in DCPS are too concentrated and that DCPS needs to do a better job of dispersing at-risk kids into the schools where the well-off kids are concentrated.

So I'm confused: Is the solution for DCPS concentrating the well-off kids, or diluting them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put a citywide school in overcrowded Ward 3. Maybe a magnet STEM school.

Do you even understand the purpose of "magnet" in "magnet schools"? No. Ward 3 doesn't need a magnet, because it already is a magnet. Put the magnet in Ward 7 or 8.

Duh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could do that today. Eaton and Hearst in Ward 3 still have very large OOB enrollments. DCPS could say, “No - stop! We are not going to lose these schools, not going to let them flip to IB. They will never become like Janney. They must remain jewels accessible on the basis of equality and inclusion to the entire community of DC!”

Same with Maury and Van Ness in capitol hill which are going to be all white and high SES within the next 5-10 years most likely

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could do that today. Eaton and Hearst in Ward 3 still have very large OOB enrollments. DCPS could say, “No - stop! We are not going to lose these schools, not going to let them flip to IB. They will never become like Janney. They must remain jewels accessible on the basis of equality and inclusion to the entire community of DC!”

Same with Maury and Van Ness in capitol hill which are going to be all white and high SES within the next 5-10 years most likely

Anonymous wrote:You could do that today. Eaton and Hearst in Ward 3 still have very large OOB enrollments. DCPS could say, “No - stop! We are not going to lose these schools, not going to let them flip to IB. They will never become like Janney. They must remain jewels accessible on the basis of equality and inclusion to the entire community of DC!”

Anonymous wrote:And the Secret Service had a say, I expect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capital Hill Montessori isn't good? That's a DCPS.

It is not good, sorry. I guess some people find it acceptable but not me.

I mean, it's good if your alternatives are Miner or Payne or Tyler English Language or Amidon-Bowen... but there's no doubt it's not good for those schools. I know of 3 kids in my DD's private preschool class who are IB for Miner and lottery-ed into CHML (one knew she would b/c she is a sibling). All 3 families would have used Miner otherwise. All 3 are very education-focused families who would have been valuable members of the Miner community, but are instead off to CHML. I don't blame them at all, in their position I would have done exactly the same thing. But there is not question that citywide schools in wards hurt the worse-performing IB schools in that Ward. It's one thing when it's a charter w/ a specific mission offering a different kind of choice. But purposely placing "standard curriculum" citywides in each ward? Why would that be in DCPS' interest? What purpose would that serve other than a few lucky winners getting to opt-out of worse-performing IBs?

That's the whole premise of school choice . . . i.e., school chance

Yawn.

The "premise" of school choice is exactly what it sounds like. Getting to choose between schools, perhaps something better than the low quality offerings your union-vote-beholden "betters" are foistin on you.

Nobody was outraged when Obama opted out of the neighborhood schools for his children. Choice shouldn't be merely the prerogative of the wealthy.

You may be fine with whatever you're offered, but some of us are not. I demand better for my children, and I will get it via one path or another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Citywide schools do not = charter. Charters are wholly separate from city administration. I would like to see more experimentation within the DCPS structure, like magnet schools. STEM focused schools, gifted and talented programs etc. Locate these programs in schools that are under enrolled and offer to in bound families as well as OOB. To some degree this is already being done wth language immersion and a couple of Montessori programs, but I’d like a more diverse offerings.

Yes but the Montessori dcps schools are terrible. The only reason the immersion ones are semi successful (emphasis on semi) has to do with motivated parents. There is not one immersion dcps I’d consider.

Not Oyster?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capital Hill Montessori isn't good? That's a DCPS.

It is not good, sorry. I guess some people find it acceptable but not me.

I mean, it's good if your alternatives are Miner or Payne or Tyler English Language or Amidon-Bowen... but there's no doubt it's not good for those schools. I know of 3 kids in my DD's private preschool class who are IB for Miner and lottery-ed into CHML (one knew she would b/c she is a sibling). All 3 families would have used Miner otherwise. All 3 are very education-focused families who would have been valuable members of the Miner community, but are instead off to CHML. I don't blame them at all, in their position I would have done exactly the same thing. But there is not question that citywide schools in wards hurt the worse-performing IB schools in that Ward. It's one thing when it's a charter w/ a specific mission offering a different kind of choice. But purposely placing "standard curriculum" citywides in each ward? Why would that be in DCPS' interest? What purpose would that serve other than a few lucky winners getting to opt-out of worse-performing IBs?

That's the whole premise of school choice . . . i.e., school chance

Yawn.

The "premise" of school choice is exactly what it sounds like. Getting to choose between schools, perhaps something better than the low quality offerings your union-vote-beholden "betters" are foistin on you.

Nobody was outraged when Obama opted out of the neighborhood schools for his children. Choice shouldn't be merely the prerogative of the wealthy.

You may be fine with whatever you're offered, but some of us are not. I demand better for my children, and I will get it via one path or another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capital Hill Montessori isn't good? That's a DCPS.

It is not good, sorry. I guess some people find it acceptable but not me.

I mean, it's good if your alternatives are Miner or Payne or Tyler English Language or Amidon-Bowen... but there's no doubt it's not good for those schools. I know of 3 kids in my DD's private preschool class who are IB for Miner and lottery-ed into CHML (one knew she would b/c she is a sibling). All 3 families would have used Miner otherwise. All 3 are very education-focused families who would have been valuable members of the Miner community, but are instead off to CHML. I don't blame them at all, in their position I would have done exactly the same thing. But there is not question that citywide schools in wards hurt the worse-performing IB schools in that Ward. It's one thing when it's a charter w/ a specific mission offering a different kind of choice. But purposely placing "standard curriculum" citywides in each ward? Why would that be in DCPS' interest? What purpose would that serve other than a few lucky winners getting to opt-out of worse-performing IBs?

That's the whole premise of school choice . . . i.e., school chance

Yawn.

The "premise" of school choice is exactly what it sounds like. Getting to choose between schools, perhaps something better than the low quality offerings your union-vote-beholden "betters" are foistin on you.

Nobody was outraged when Obama opted out of the neighborhood schools for his children. Choice shouldn't be merely the prerogative of the wealthy.

You may be fine with whatever you're offered, but some of us are not. I demand better for my children, and I will get it via one path or another.

Anonymous wrote:Put a citywide school in overcrowded Ward 3. Maybe a magnet STEM school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capital Hill Montessori isn't good? That's a DCPS.

It is not good, sorry. I guess some people find it acceptable but not me.

I mean, it's good if your alternatives are Miner or Payne or Tyler English Language or Amidon-Bowen... but there's no doubt it's not good for those schools. I know of 3 kids in my DD's private preschool class who are IB for Miner and lottery-ed into CHML (one knew she would b/c she is a sibling). All 3 families would have used Miner otherwise. All 3 are very education-focused families who would have been valuable members of the Miner community, but are instead off to CHML. I don't blame them at all, in their position I would have done exactly the same thing. But there is not question that citywide schools in wards hurt the worse-performing IB schools in that Ward. It's one thing when it's a charter w/ a specific mission offering a different kind of choice. But purposely placing "standard curriculum" citywides in each ward? Why would that be in DCPS' interest? What purpose would that serve other than a few lucky winners getting to opt-out of worse-performing IBs?

That's the whole premise of school choice . . . i.e., school chance