Anonymous wrote:Stupid idea, how would you weight this. A charter school will just become a run down neighborhood school
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Meridian is on U. Inspired Teaching is near U. DC Bilingual, Mundo Verde, Creative Minds - all Ward 1.
And? I don't want my kid going to any of those schools, and someone else out of ward 1 may want their kid to go there. Why should either of us be forced to stay in our neighborhood?
Wow. That's amazing! You don't want your kids going to the large number of quality PCSs in your own neighborhood, and you don't want anyone else to be able to go to a quality PCS in their own neighborhood. How incredibly selfish. The reality is that the IFF report details a large service gap in Wards 4, 5, 7, and 8. No such gap in Wards 1-3, 6. So.....we need to encourage new charters to open up in their areas with the service gaps -not Ward 1-3. If the high-performing charters in your neighborhood are not good enough for Jasper and Zoe, send them to privates. Having a ward preference will allow new charters to serve the underserved (which doesn't mean FARMs per se - only means aren't enough schools in neighborhood clusters) because it gives them a built-in list of student candidates. Reducing commute time helps families and children spend more quality time with each other. Go Tommy!
Anonymous wrote:So what. They take prep courses. The only person I know who never took a prep course and went Ivy for college, grad schools, law, etc is my DH and that's b/c he's in his fifties. Prep courses are pretty much standard nowadays for everyone. I'm sure kids take prep courses for TJ.
.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some charters---such as Latin---have an express mission to serve all areas of the City. And by the maps contained in the link posted on the prior page, Latin seems to be doing a good job at doing just that. So who is Tommy Wells to declare that a charter should no longer be allowed to have that goal?
Is that what Tommy Wells is proposing?
Why is everyone so quick to assume that what is being proposed is a duplication of the in-boundary system that DCPS has? Upthread there have been at least two proposals for forms of modified in-boundary preference that wouldn't be like what DCPS does. One is to allow charter schools to declare whether they are neighborhood schools or all-areas schools. The other is simply to set aside a portion of the seats for neighborhood kids, but still have some available by city-wide lottery.
All other things equal, it's good for schools to have their kids geographically concentrated. It makes the logistics easier for parents, takes strain off of the transportation system, and makes it easier to build community.
Why is everyone so quick to assume that there will only be losers in this?
But all other things are not equal. Certain charters and future charters have significant appeal across the city, and that kind of diversity is a very good thing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some charters---such as Latin---have an express mission to serve all areas of the City. And by the maps contained in the link posted on the prior page, Latin seems to be doing a good job at doing just that. So who is Tommy Wells to declare that a charter should no longer be allowed to have that goal?
Is that what Tommy Wells is proposing?
Why is everyone so quick to assume that what is being proposed is a duplication of the in-boundary system that DCPS has? Upthread there have been at least two proposals for forms of modified in-boundary preference that wouldn't be like what DCPS does. One is to allow charter schools to declare whether they are neighborhood schools or all-areas schools. The other is simply to set aside a portion of the seats for neighborhood kids, but still have some available by city-wide lottery.
All other things equal, it's good for schools to have their kids geographically concentrated. It makes the logistics easier for parents, takes strain off of the transportation system, and makes it easier to build community.
Why is everyone so quick to assume that there will only be losers in this?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[
I was with you until you revealed yourself to be an idiot in the second paragraph.
This isn't about YY families; you're fruitlessly complaining about one of the most diverse public schools in the entire city. Furthermore, even if pigs flew and you were correct, who in Chinatown do you suppose is going to give up a gorgeous 40,000 sq. ft. facility + 3 acre lot for an outdoor nature center and classrooms?
Neighborhood preference sounds good only if it's an opt-in situation.
Not idiotic to think in terms of neighborhood charter preferences benefitting Hill families in particular -just talk to parents IB for Ludlow-Taylor, Payne and Miner but landed waaay down the waiting lists for YY, SWS, Logan Montesorri, 2 Rivers etc.
An opt-in situation meaning what? Charter school boards decide if they want the neighorhood preference? Surely that's how Wells will frame the law. He's among the pols who doen't want to fix neighborhood schools the only way you can outside a few high-SES enclaves (Brent District, north Lincoln Park area zoned for Maury). That is to stay stop busing in Ward 8 kids in droves, stop letting in PG County kids and add GT test-in programs. Schools could also be allowed to decide admissions policies, e.g. preferential admissions for native speakers of target languages like DCPS uses. But no, all that would work too well.
Anonymous wrote:I buy that it has to start in middle school to be most effective. High school too late.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who, by name, is blocking the creation of exam schools like Stuyvestant in Washington, D.C.?
Good question, anyone? Technically, as politicians are quick to point out, we already have several high school exams schools - Banneker, Ellington and Walls. What we don't have are highly competitive admissions for these schools, like Stuyvesant, or great rigor at them, mainly because we don't have test-in elementary or middle-school G/T programs feeding said exam high schools. All evidence suggests that you can't create "exam schools like Stuyvesant" without first creating well-run (meaning broad-based efforts to draw in and nurture low-SES talent) and well-funded G/T programs, and running them for at least a decade.
Let us confront directly those who on these boards say that real exam schools such as Bronx Science and Stuyvesant are a political "non starter" in DC. Who made that call? Tommy Wells? I would like to hear real names from the current political life of DC.
Population of NYC that draws into Bronx Sci and Stuy: 8 million
Population of DC: 600,000
Stuy is huge. Ours can br smaller. We do not need as many exam schools as New York but we need a new exam school to get peoplr to stay in DC.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who, by name, is blocking the creation of exam schools like Stuyvestant in Washington, D.C.?
Good question, anyone? Technically, as politicians are quick to point out, we already have several high school exams schools - Banneker, Ellington and Walls. What we don't have are highly competitive admissions for these schools, like Stuyvesant, or great rigor at them, mainly because we don't have test-in elementary or middle-school G/T programs feeding said exam high schools. All evidence suggests that you can't create "exam schools like Stuyvesant" without first creating well-run (meaning broad-based efforts to draw in and nurture low-SES talent) and well-funded G/T programs, and running them for at least a decade.
Let us confront directly those who on these boards say that real exam schools such as Bronx Science and Stuyvesant are a political "non starter" in DC. Who made that call? Tommy Wells? I would like to hear real names from the current political life of DC.