Continue at current school after moving out of boundary?

[Anonymous]

The biggest point here is not test scores. It is community. Everyone plays musical chairs with dcps as it is: of my child's friends at our highly-rated ib, (which to say out of six kids in an upper grade, for a school zoned for deal), only two are there this year. The rest left for other options.

You all should be doing everything in your power to stop this attrition. Do you think parents get invested in a school after one year? Do you think that's enough time to know everything about a school? Do you think that's good for kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By the way, students who are homeless are considered "at risk" and get priority consideration over people with addresses. Continuity is vital to these kids and they would not be kicked out, nor denied a seat for living somewhere OOB. But you wouldn't know that.

The new rules did not end feeder rights, and the at-risk preference has not yet been implemented. But you wouldn't know that.

Actually, I would know that because good friends fostered and then adopted a child who was considered at risk five years ago. The primary objective was to keep this child close to familiar surroundings, facilities and caregivers, and the family had their choice of DCPS and charters that met the objective. I learned quite a bit about the challenges that DCPS faces with these kids and the efforts to give them a baseline normalcy, falling way short of a basic education.

The at-risk preference bemoaned by so many in Ward 3 has been in place for years, but used relatively little in those schools. It's one of those blanket policies that covers the entire district but isn't really necessary for all schools. At-risk kids can show up any time throughout the year, so the seats are reserved at each school, though they usually go unfilled at JKLM schools. Probably a different story on the Hill where income disparity is block by block and many more kids are in distress, but you can see how more privileged parents are handling their close proximity to poverty in dozens of DCUM threads. It's not pretty. It's fucking ugly and loathsome.

I wish there were a word in the English language for amused disgust or disgusted amusement, because it's what I feel every time I read someone claiming concern for the poor in their quest to rid schools of anyone who can't afford to live in the boundary of their neighborhood school. You are full. of. shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By the way, students who are homeless are considered "at risk" and get priority consideration over people with addresses. Continuity is vital to these kids and they would not be kicked out, nor denied a seat for living somewhere OOB. But you wouldn't know that.

The new rules did not end feeder rights, and the at-risk preference has not yet been implemented. But you wouldn't know that.

Actually, I would know that because good friends fostered and then adopted a child who was considered at risk five years ago. The primary objective was to keep this child close to familiar surroundings, facilities and caregivers, and the family had their choice of DCPS and charters that met the objective. I learned quite a bit about the challenges that DCPS faces with these kids and the efforts to give them a baseline normalcy, falling way short of a basic education.

The at-risk preference bemoaned by so many in Ward 3 has been in place for years, but used relatively little in those schools. It's one of those blanket policies that covers the entire district but isn't really necessary for all schools. At-risk kids can show up any time throughout the year, so the seats are reserved at each school, though they usually go unfilled at JKLM schools. Probably a different story on the Hill where income disparity is block by block and many more kids are in distress, but you can see how more privileged parents are handling their close proximity to poverty in dozens of DCUM threads. It's not pretty. It's fucking ugly and loathsome.

I wish there were a word in the English language for amused disgust or disgusted amusement, because it's what I feel every time I read someone claiming concern for the poor in their quest to rid schools of anyone who can't afford to live in the boundary of their neighborhood school. You are full. of. shit.

Are you the same long-winded PP who stated erroneously upthread that the feeder rights have been discontinued? The fact that those rights ARE continuing was, like, the most hotly debated and most high profile issue last summer, other than the ill-fated proposal for citywide lottery for HS. You enjoy sanctimonious criticism of other parents on the internet but you clearly have no idea of what you are talking about.