Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Until the Latin, KIPP, DC Prep, Two Rivers, and DCI feeders don't have WLs a mile long, we'll continue to need charter middle schools.

I wouldn't suggest shutting them down - they provide special offerings, are available to children from areas not IB to the new and improved middle schools, and probably help to keep DCPS on their toes. But NEW charter middle schools may not be needed - use up the capacity in the DCPS middle schools (including the four new ones) first.

You're not on the charter board. One of the new ones approved to open next year is Washington Global MS. + a new campus at Two Rivers.

And that may well be a mistake given DC's planned investments in middle schools. It will be up to the next mayor to address the issue of coordinating charter and DCPS plans.

Are you kidding me? We need to "protect" DC's investments in its middle school by limiting access to charter schools? What about the actual education of actual children, which, despite financial investment, DCPS seems completely unable to pull off at any middle school with a significant number of non-wealthy students. Lets see some successes and some innovative programming ( not necessarily big financial investments, simply smart and savvy planning anfd management of resources ) before trying to limit access to other public middle school programs that seem to be having success. Having desirable DCPS middle schools is a matter of skill and political will in many cases, not just money

Now's hardly the time to limit access to charters, because demand will only increase. In fact, once the limited "grandfather" pipeline to Deal is sealed off, Oyster and Eaton families will be applying in greater numbers to middle school charters.

I agree. The numbers of students in Ward 6 who are looking for those new charter middle schools is HUGE. And without a massive effort to attract them to Jefferson and/or Eliot-Hine and/or Stuart Hobson; they will leave the public system if those middle/high school charter slots don't materialize.

That won't happen. Schools on the Hill are viewed as an escape hatch for motivated parents in Wards 7 & 8, and the less wealthy parts of Ward 6. No-one in DCPS is remotely interested in recreating the segregated enclaves of upper NW.

Meaning what? Maintain the schools at a "good enough" but not "great" level?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let them be. People should feel free to spend their money however they please.

Yes, but they should not misrepresent the facts about Hardy.

Is it a misrepresentation to acknowledge that Hardy is not up to Deal's level? Really? Honestly, who among us, given the choice, would not choose Deal over Hardy?

The questions still stand.

I would choose Hardy, because it is smaller. I also like the arts program; DC is a budding violinist. I trust that Trish Pride is able to to implement an advanced math program. I have heard great things about one of the math teachers at Hardy.

If Hardy does not live up to its promise, not sure what I would do. But I would not choose Deal. It's far too large.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Eaton parent here.

I think it's great news if students from a feeder school continue onto Hardy, regardless of where they live. It's about solid elementary school preparation not about address. It would be great if larger cohorts of kids who have come through elementary school together with a similar educational background move up to MS to continue together. Makes perfect sense to me.

Seems to me that the "real" IB crowd will never be satisfied. If it's all about addresses, they really won't like the Eaton crowd either even though our kids are well prepared and have great test scores-too many zip codes in our directory.

I respectfully disagree. For one thing, many OOB students in Ward 2/Ward 3 feeders (and if they go on to Hardy) are grateful for their good fortune because they realize that their IB alternatives are of much lesser quality. Since you mention Eaton, some believe this is one reason why they decided to move Eaton to Hardy because many in the majority OOB population would not object too loudly. For an IB population that had expected Deal to be available (because Eaton fed there for decades if not longer), Hardy is seen as a step down.

Also, it would be great if you could take at risk kids and put them into a good elementary school and expect by grade 5 that they are all performing at grade level. Unfortunately in the real world that assumption is not always correct.

All you people who are making this crazy distinction between "real IB" and "IB elementary graduates who lotteried in" sound like a bunch of racists. I'm sorry, but its true. You may not be racists, but your argument basically boils down to "black kids don't count."

This nonsense about playdates with kids who live close by? Come on. Your kid is going to middle school, not kindergarden.

Play the race card, Rev. Al!

Don't try to insult your way out of this one. I'm far from Rev. Al - I'm an old white dude from Ward 3 - but even I can see how racist this "IB kids are not IB kids" nonsense looks.

Not PP, but your race is not the issue; your race-baiting is. White liberals are just as capable at it, as you've proven. There is nothing bad about wanting a neighborhood school, where the student body is mostly from the neighborhood.

Let's say I'm a Stoddert dad considering Hardy. My 5th grader's two best friends at Stoddert live in Glover Park and on H St NE. Both are planning to attend Hardy, and because they all went to Stoddert together, I have no concerns about them being well-prepared. By DCPS's reasoning, both of those kids would be considered "IB" for Hardy because they're coming from Stoddert. By my reasoning, only one of my son's buddies lives close enough to carpool home from an away game.

Anonymous wrote:
Meaning what? Maintain the schools at a "good enough" but not "great" level?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Until the Latin, KIPP, DC Prep, Two Rivers, and DCI feeders don't have WLs a mile long, we'll continue to need charter middle schools.

I wouldn't suggest shutting them down - they provide special offerings, are available to children from areas not IB to the new and improved middle schools, and probably help to keep DCPS on their toes. But NEW charter middle schools may not be needed - use up the capacity in the DCPS middle schools (including the four new ones) first.

You're not on the charter board. One of the new ones approved to open next year is Washington Global MS. + a new campus at Two Rivers.

And that may well be a mistake given DC's planned investments in middle schools. It will be up to the next mayor to address the issue of coordinating charter and DCPS plans.

Are you kidding me? We need to "protect" DC's investments in its middle school by limiting access to charter schools? What about the actual education of actual children, which, despite financial investment, DCPS seems completely unable to pull off at any middle school with a significant number of non-wealthy students. Lets see some successes and some innovative programming ( not necessarily big financial investments, simply smart and savvy planning anfd management of resources ) before trying to limit access to other public middle school programs that seem to be having success. Having desirable DCPS middle schools is a matter of skill and political will in many cases, not just money

In other words, when DCPS makes the correct investments in middle schools, then the charter schools won't pose a threat. Otherwise it is simply smoke and mirrors to try to use our kids to improve failing schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Until the Latin, KIPP, DC Prep, Two Rivers, and DCI feeders don't have WLs a mile long, we'll continue to need charter middle schools.

I wouldn't suggest shutting them down - they provide special offerings, are available to children from areas not IB to the new and improved middle schools, and probably help to keep DCPS on their toes. But NEW charter middle schools may not be needed - use up the capacity in the DCPS middle schools (including the four new ones) first.

You're not on the charter board. One of the new ones approved to open next year is Washington Global MS. + a new campus at Two Rivers.

And that may well be a mistake given DC's planned investments in middle schools. It will be up to the next mayor to address the issue of coordinating charter and DCPS plans.

Are you kidding me? We need to "protect" DC's investments in its middle school by limiting access to charter schools? What about the actual education of actual children, which, despite financial investment, DCPS seems completely unable to pull off at any middle school with a significant number of non-wealthy students. Lets see some successes and some innovative programming ( not necessarily big financial investments, simply smart and savvy planning anfd management of resources ) before trying to limit access to other public middle school programs that seem to be having success. Having desirable DCPS middle schools is a matter of skill and political will in many cases, not just money

Now's hardly the time to limit access to charters, because demand will only increase. In fact, once the limited "grandfather" pipeline to Deal is sealed off, Oyster and Eaton families will be applying in greater numbers to middle school charters.

I agree. The numbers of students in Ward 6 who are looking for those new charter middle schools is HUGE. And without a massive effort to attract them to Jefferson and/or Eliot-Hine and/or Stuart Hobson; they will leave the public system if those middle/high school charter slots don't materialize.

That won't happen. Schools on the Hill are viewed as an escape hatch for motivated parents in Wards 7 & 8, and the less wealthy parts of Ward 6. No-one in DCPS is remotely interested in recreating the segregated enclaves of upper NW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Until the Latin, KIPP, DC Prep, Two Rivers, and DCI feeders don't have WLs a mile long, we'll continue to need charter middle schools.

I wouldn't suggest shutting them down - they provide special offerings, are available to children from areas not IB to the new and improved middle schools, and probably help to keep DCPS on their toes. But NEW charter middle schools may not be needed - use up the capacity in the DCPS middle schools (including the four new ones) first.

You're not on the charter board. One of the new ones approved to open next year is Washington Global MS. + a new campus at Two Rivers.

And that may well be a mistake given DC's planned investments in middle schools. It will be up to the next mayor to address the issue of coordinating charter and DCPS plans.

Are you kidding me? We need to "protect" DC's investments in its middle school by limiting access to charter schools? What about the actual education of actual children, which, despite financial investment, DCPS seems completely unable to pull off at any middle school with a significant number of non-wealthy students. Lets see some successes and some innovative programming ( not necessarily big financial investments, simply smart and savvy planning anfd management of resources ) before trying to limit access to other public middle school programs that seem to be having success. Having desirable DCPS middle schools is a matter of skill and political will in many cases, not just money

Now's hardly the time to limit access to charters, because demand will only increase. In fact, once the limited "grandfather" pipeline to Deal is sealed off, Oyster and Eaton families will be applying in greater numbers to middle school charters.

I agree. The numbers of students in Ward 6 who are looking for those new charter middle schools is HUGE. And without a massive effort to attract them to Jefferson and/or Eliot-Hine and/or Stuart Hobson; they will leave the public system if those middle/high school charter slots don't materialize.

That won't happen. Schools on the Hill are viewed as an escape hatch for motivated parents in Wards 7 & 8, and the less wealthy parts of Ward 6. No-one in DCPS is remotely interested in recreating the segregated enclaves of upper NW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Until the Latin, KIPP, DC Prep, Two Rivers, and DCI feeders don't have WLs a mile long, we'll continue to need charter middle schools.

I wouldn't suggest shutting them down - they provide special offerings, are available to children from areas not IB to the new and improved middle schools, and probably help to keep DCPS on their toes. But NEW charter middle schools may not be needed - use up the capacity in the DCPS middle schools (including the four new ones) first.

You're not on the charter board. One of the new ones approved to open next year is Washington Global MS. + a new campus at Two Rivers.

And that may well be a mistake given DC's planned investments in middle schools. It will be up to the next mayor to address the issue of coordinating charter and DCPS plans.

Are you kidding me? We need to "protect" DC's investments in its middle school by limiting access to charter schools? What about the actual education of actual children, which, despite financial investment, DCPS seems completely unable to pull off at any middle school with a significant number of non-wealthy students. Lets see some successes and some innovative programming ( not necessarily big financial investments, simply smart and savvy planning anfd management of resources ) before trying to limit access to other public middle school programs that seem to be having success. Having desirable DCPS middle schools is a matter of skill and political will in many cases, not just money

Now's hardly the time to limit access to charters, because demand will only increase. In fact, once the limited "grandfather" pipeline to Deal is sealed off, Oyster and Eaton families will be applying in greater numbers to middle school charters.

I agree. The numbers of students in Ward 6 who are looking for those new charter middle schools is HUGE. And without a massive effort to attract them to Jefferson and/or Eliot-Hine and/or Stuart Hobson; they will leave the public system if those middle/high school charter slots don't materialize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Until the Latin, KIPP, DC Prep, Two Rivers, and DCI feeders don't have WLs a mile long, we'll continue to need charter middle schools.

I wouldn't suggest shutting them down - they provide special offerings, are available to children from areas not IB to the new and improved middle schools, and probably help to keep DCPS on their toes. But NEW charter middle schools may not be needed - use up the capacity in the DCPS middle schools (including the four new ones) first.

You're not on the charter board. One of the new ones approved to open next year is Washington Global MS. + a new campus at Two Rivers.

And that may well be a mistake given DC's planned investments in middle schools. It will be up to the next mayor to address the issue of coordinating charter and DCPS plans.

Are you kidding me? We need to "protect" DC's investments in its middle school by limiting access to charter schools? What about the actual education of actual children, which, despite financial investment, DCPS seems completely unable to pull off at any middle school with a significant number of non-wealthy students. Lets see some successes and some innovative programming ( not necessarily big financial investments, simply smart and savvy planning anfd management of resources ) before trying to limit access to other public middle school programs that seem to be having success. Having desirable DCPS middle schools is a matter of skill and political will in many cases, not just money

Now's hardly the time to limit access to charters, because demand will only increase. In fact, once the limited "grandfather" pipeline to Deal is sealed off, Oyster and Eaton families will be applying in greater numbers to middle school charters.

Eaton, we'll see. Oyster, i am pretty sure they will embrace their own ms. They have their own ms, it's theirs to make what they will of it. Due to the title of this thread there are unlikely to be many oyster parents reading this, but this has been discussed in other threads. I can see why oyster parents would prefer deal over oyster adams ms, for example broader athletics programs, but see no reason why they would choose latin or basis over their own ms. Now that the oyster district is no longer IB for deal, it's likely that most oyster students will continue, and to the extent that demographics matter, they have very good demographics. I predict we will see more retention at oyster through 8 and a great ms as a result.

Yeah, Eaton (at least IB) seems more likely to follow the pattern of Key and Mann.

Probably, but Eaton has never been IB the same way Key and Mann are, so at least it will send well-prepared OOB students to Hardy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Eaton parent here.

I think it's great news if students from a feeder school continue onto Hardy, regardless of where they live. It's about solid elementary school preparation not about address. It would be great if larger cohorts of kids who have come through elementary school together with a similar educational background move up to MS to continue together. Makes perfect sense to me.

Seems to me that the "real" IB crowd will never be satisfied. If it's all about addresses, they really won't like the Eaton crowd either even though our kids are well prepared and have great test scores-too many zip codes in our directory.

I respectfully disagree. For one thing, many OOB students in Ward 2/Ward 3 feeders (and if they go on to Hardy) are grateful for their good fortune because they realize that their IB alternatives are of much lesser quality. Since you mention Eaton, some believe this is one reason why they decided to move Eaton to Hardy because many in the majority OOB population would not object too loudly. For an IB population that had expected Deal to be available (because Eaton fed there for decades if not longer), Hardy is seen as a step down.

Also, it would be great if you could take at risk kids and put them into a good elementary school and expect by grade 5 that they are all performing at grade level. Unfortunately in the real world that assumption is not always correct.

All you people who are making this crazy distinction between "real IB" and "IB elementary graduates who lotteried in" sound like a bunch of racists. I'm sorry, but its true. You may not be racists, but your argument basically boils down to "black kids don't count."

This nonsense about playdates with kids who live close by? Come on. Your kid is going to middle school, not kindergarden.

Play the race card, Rev. Al!

Don't try to insult your way out of this one. I'm far from Rev. Al - I'm an old white dude from Ward 3 - but even I can see how racist this "IB kids are not IB kids" nonsense looks.

Not PP, but your race is not the issue; your race-baiting is. White liberals are just as capable at it, as you've proven. There is nothing bad about wanting a neighborhood school, where the student body is mostly from the neighborhood.

Except that you'd be totally happy with Alice Deal and the Deal IB neighborhoods are all miles and miles apart, from AU Park to Mt. Pleasant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Until the Latin, KIPP, DC Prep, Two Rivers, and DCI feeders don't have WLs a mile long, we'll continue to need charter middle schools.

I wouldn't suggest shutting them down - they provide special offerings, are available to children from areas not IB to the new and improved middle schools, and probably help to keep DCPS on their toes. But NEW charter middle schools may not be needed - use up the capacity in the DCPS middle schools (including the four new ones) first.

You're not on the charter board. One of the new ones approved to open next year is Washington Global MS. + a new campus at Two Rivers.

And that may well be a mistake given DC's planned investments in middle schools. It will be up to the next mayor to address the issue of coordinating charter and DCPS plans.

Are you kidding me? We need to "protect" DC's investments in its middle school by limiting access to charter schools? What about the actual education of actual children, which, despite financial investment, DCPS seems completely unable to pull off at any middle school with a significant number of non-wealthy students. Lets see some successes and some innovative programming ( not necessarily big financial investments, simply smart and savvy planning anfd management of resources ) before trying to limit access to other public middle school programs that seem to be having success. Having desirable DCPS middle schools is a matter of skill and political will in many cases, not just money

Now's hardly the time to limit access to charters, because demand will only increase. In fact, once the limited "grandfather" pipeline to Deal is sealed off, Oyster and Eaton families will be applying in greater numbers to middle school charters.

Eaton, we'll see. Oyster, i am pretty sure they will embrace their own ms. They have their own ms, it's theirs to make what they will of it. Due to the title of this thread there are unlikely to be many oyster parents reading this, but this has been discussed in other threads. I can see why oyster parents would prefer deal over oyster adams ms, for example broader athletics programs, but see no reason why they would choose latin or basis over their own ms. Now that the oyster district is no longer IB for deal, it's likely that most oyster students will continue, and to the extent that demographics matter, they have very good demographics. I predict we will see more retention at oyster through 8 and a great ms as a result.

Yeah, Eaton (at least IB) seems more likely to follow the pattern of Key and Mann.

Anonymous wrote:pp, he/she is talking about the fact that people in any neighborhood are more invested in their community because it is, well, their community-I am IB for hardy and have one DC there have 3 kids, one of whom goes to a catholic school that is not in my neighborhood, and I am not catholic-as a result, I do less than I do at Hardy, and less than I do at my JKLM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Eaton parent here.

I think it's great news if students from a feeder school continue onto Hardy, regardless of where they live. It's about solid elementary school preparation not about address. It would be great if larger cohorts of kids who have come through elementary school together with a similar educational background move up to MS to continue together. Makes perfect sense to me.

Seems to me that the "real" IB crowd will never be satisfied. If it's all about addresses, they really won't like the Eaton crowd either even though our kids are well prepared and have great test scores-too many zip codes in our directory.

I respectfully disagree. For one thing, many OOB students in Ward 2/Ward 3 feeders (and if they go on to Hardy) are grateful for their good fortune because they realize that their IB alternatives are of much lesser quality. Since you mention Eaton, some believe this is one reason why they decided to move Eaton to Hardy because many in the majority OOB population would not object too loudly. For an IB population that had expected Deal to be available (because Eaton fed there for decades if not longer), Hardy is seen as a step down.

Also, it would be great if you could take at risk kids and put them into a good elementary school and expect by grade 5 that they are all performing at grade level. Unfortunately in the real world that assumption is not always correct.

All you people who are making this crazy distinction between "real IB" and "IB elementary graduates who lotteried in" sound like a bunch of racists. I'm sorry, but its true. You may not be racists, but your argument basically boils down to "black kids don't count."

This nonsense about playdates with kids who live close by? Come on. Your kid is going to middle school, not kindergarden.

Play the race card, Rev. Al!

Don't try to insult your way out of this one. I'm far from Rev. Al - I'm an old white dude from Ward 3 - but even I can see how racist this "IB kids are not IB kids" nonsense looks.

Not PP, but your race is not the issue; your race-baiting is. White liberals are just as capable at it, as you've proven. There is nothing bad about wanting a neighborhood school, where the student body is mostly from the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Eaton parent here.

I think it's great news if students from a feeder school continue onto Hardy, regardless of where they live. It's about solid elementary school preparation not about address. It would be great if larger cohorts of kids who have come through elementary school together with a similar educational background move up to MS to continue together. Makes perfect sense to me.

Seems to me that the "real" IB crowd will never be satisfied. If it's all about addresses, they really won't like the Eaton crowd either even though our kids are well prepared and have great test scores-too many zip codes in our directory.

I respectfully disagree. For one thing, many OOB students in Ward 2/Ward 3 feeders (and if they go on to Hardy) are grateful for their good fortune because they realize that their IB alternatives are of much lesser quality. Since you mention Eaton, some believe this is one reason why they decided to move Eaton to Hardy because many in the majority OOB population would not object too loudly. For an IB population that had expected Deal to be available (because Eaton fed there for decades if not longer), Hardy is seen as a step down.

Also, it would be great if you could take at risk kids and put them into a good elementary school and expect by grade 5 that they are all performing at grade level. Unfortunately in the real world that assumption is not always correct.

All you people who are making this crazy distinction between "real IB" and "IB elementary graduates who lotteried in" sound like a bunch of racists. I'm sorry, but its true. You may not be racists, but your argument basically boils down to "black kids don't count."

This nonsense about playdates with kids who live close by? Come on. Your kid is going to middle school, not kindergarden.

Play the race card, Rev. Al!

Don't try to insult your way out of this one. I'm far from Rev. Al - I'm an old white dude from Ward 3 - but even I can see how racist this "IB kids are not IB kids" nonsense looks.

Not PP, but your race is not the issue; your race-baiting is. White liberals are just as capable at it, as you've proven. There is nothing bad about wanting a neighborhood school, where the student body is mostly from the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Eaton parent here.

I think it's great news if students from a feeder school continue onto Hardy, regardless of where they live. It's about solid elementary school preparation not about address. It would be great if larger cohorts of kids who have come through elementary school together with a similar educational background move up to MS to continue together. Makes perfect sense to me.

Seems to me that the "real" IB crowd will never be satisfied. If it's all about addresses, they really won't like the Eaton crowd either even though our kids are well prepared and have great test scores-too many zip codes in our directory.

I respectfully disagree. For one thing, many OOB students in Ward 2/Ward 3 feeders (and if they go on to Hardy) are grateful for their good fortune because they realize that their IB alternatives are of much lesser quality. Since you mention Eaton, some believe this is one reason why they decided to move Eaton to Hardy because many in the majority OOB population would not object too loudly. For an IB population that had expected Deal to be available (because Eaton fed there for decades if not longer), Hardy is seen as a step down.

Also, it would be great if you could take at risk kids and put them into a good elementary school and expect by grade 5 that they are all performing at grade level. Unfortunately in the real world that assumption is not always correct.

All you people who are making this crazy distinction between "real IB" and "IB elementary graduates who lotteried in" sound like a bunch of racists. I'm sorry, but its true. You may not be racists, but your argument basically boils down to "black kids don't count."

This nonsense about playdates with kids who live close by? Come on. Your kid is going to middle school, not kindergarden.

Play the race card, Rev. Al!

Don't try to insult your way out of this one. I'm far from Rev. Al - I'm an old white dude from Ward 3 - but even I can see how racist this "IB kids are not IB kids" nonsense looks.