Proximity Preference 0.5 mile for charters

[Anonymous]

This defeats the purpose of a city wide charter.

[Anonymous]

Although it defeats the purpose of city wide charters, it goes a long way to promote good will in those residential areas affected by parking and increased trash on their streets. Letting a few children in doesn't completely set off any system currently in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Although it defeats the purpose of city wide charters, it goes a long way to promote good will in those residential areas affected by parking and increased trash on their streets. Letting a few children in doesn't completely set off any system currently in place.

What a totally bizarre and unsubstantiated comment. And there is a way to let a few families in-- apply through the lottery. They have an equal chance. I'll also tell you what would happen with this proposal -a bunch of west of the park charters proposals with neighborhood preference. Maybe a middle school. Hmmm. Is that helpful to the whole city?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although it defeats the purpose of city wide charters, it goes a long way to promote good will in those residential areas affected by parking and increased trash on their streets. Letting a few children in doesn't completely set off any system currently in place.

What a totally bizarre and unsubstantiated comment. And there is a way to let a few families in-- apply through the lottery. They have an equal chance. I'll also tell you what would happen with this proposal -a bunch of west of the park charters proposals with neighborhood preference. Maybe a middle school. Hmmm. Is that helpful to the whole city?

Everyone needs to take a chill pill; this is optional and only if the Charters want to participate. It's not like any of them are short of kids, so how many charters are going to sign up for this? NOT MANY, and NOT probably ANY that folks on DCUM want to apply to. Folks on hear don't even want to take a chance on Bannker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although it defeats the purpose of city wide charters, it goes a long way to promote good will in those residential areas affected by parking and increased trash on their streets. Letting a few children in doesn't completely set off any system currently in place.

What a totally bizarre and unsubstantiated comment. And there is a way to let a few families in-- apply through the lottery. They have an equal chance. I'll also tell you what would happen with this proposal -a bunch of west of the park charters proposals with neighborhood preference. Maybe a middle school. Hmmm. Is that helpful to the whole city?

Many private schools give preferential admissions to nearby kids because it's good neighbor relations. It's not an absurd idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do pur city officials keep trying to break something good that works for dc kids? Big no for proximity pref.

Because it doesn't work for all families. This proposal will help the (few) families who are far from their inbound DCPS and close to a good charter (who, in some cases, took over the building of what used to be the neighborhood DCPS). It may help with neighborhood/charter relations where the neighborhood resents the charter families who clog their streets. It may help with racial diversity at schools like YY, ITS, others in Ward 2 or 5 who sit in a majority-minority neighborhood but draw a lot of white kids from all over the city. But . . . honestly, I think this proposal will not affect that many seats in the schools that want to opt in. Neighborhood preference will likely go below sibling preference. I think it's more of a PR effort by the mayor, trying to throw a bone to the neighborhoods whose inbound school was closed in the past 5 years and who are PO'ed about traffic from a charter school that took its place. For some of those schools in Ward 5 like ITS there is a racial dynamic as well -- a neighborhood school which served almost all black students (Shaed) was closed and now a charter school that serves a lot of white kids sits in that building. The families across the street can't send their kids/grandkids to the charter but they have people double parking in front of their house twice a day. I think Bowser is responding to complaints from those people.

Buildings like Shaed and others that have closed closed because the neighbors weren't attending to begin with. Your premise doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do pur city officials keep trying to break something good that works for dc kids? Big no for proximity pref.

Because it doesn't work for all families. This proposal will help the (few) families who are far from their inbound DCPS and close to a good charter (who, in some cases, took over the building of what used to be the neighborhood DCPS). It may help with neighborhood/charter relations where the neighborhood resents the charter families who clog their streets. It may help with racial diversity at schools like YY, ITS, others in Ward 2 or 5 who sit in a majority-minority neighborhood but draw a lot of white kids from all over the city. But . . . honestly, I think this proposal will not affect that many seats in the schools that want to opt in. Neighborhood preference will likely go below sibling preference. I think it's more of a PR effort by the mayor, trying to throw a bone to the neighborhoods whose inbound school was closed in the past 5 years and who are PO'ed about traffic from a charter school that took its place. For some of those schools in Ward 5 like ITS there is a racial dynamic as well -- a neighborhood school which served almost all black students (Shaed) was closed and now a charter school that serves a lot of white kids sits in that building. The families across the street can't send their kids/grandkids to the charter but they have people double parking in front of their house twice a day. I think Bowser is responding to complaints from those people.

Buildings like Shaed and others that have closed closed because the neighbors weren't attending to begin with. Your premise doesn't make sense.

Of course it does. Shaed didn't close because NO students were attending it. It closed because the enrollment was too low to sustain its operations - in the 2010-11 year, its enrollment was 146 students with 63% in-boundary. Those are 90+ real kids in the neighborhood who were attending their neighborhood school, which closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do pur city officials keep trying to break something good that works for dc kids? Big no for proximity pref.

Because it doesn't work for all families. This proposal will help the (few) families who are far from their inbound DCPS and close to a good charter (who, in some cases, took over the building of what used to be the neighborhood DCPS). It may help with neighborhood/charter relations where the neighborhood resents the charter families who clog their streets. It may help with racial diversity at schools like YY, ITS, others in Ward 2 or 5 who sit in a majority-minority neighborhood but draw a lot of white kids from all over the city. But . . . honestly, I think this proposal will not affect that many seats in the schools that want to opt in. Neighborhood preference will likely go below sibling preference. I think it's more of a PR effort by the mayor, trying to throw a bone to the neighborhoods whose inbound school was closed in the past 5 years and who are PO'ed about traffic from a charter school that took its place. For some of those schools in Ward 5 like ITS there is a racial dynamic as well -- a neighborhood school which served almost all black students (Shaed) was closed and now a charter school that serves a lot of white kids sits in that building. The families across the street can't send their kids/grandkids to the charter but they have people double parking in front of their house twice a day. I think Bowser is responding to complaints from those people.

Buildings like Shaed and others that have closed closed because the neighbors weren't attending to begin with. Your premise doesn't make sense.

Of course it does. Shaed didn't close because NO students were attending it. It closed because the enrollment was too low to sustain its operations - in the 2010-11 year, its enrollment was 146 students with 63% in-boundary. Those are 90+ real kids in the neighborhood who were attending their neighborhood school, which closed.

Those kids didn't necessarily live under 0.5 mile. Also, those kids are in middle or high school. Nobody knows that stat now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guys, my understanding is that this is being done at the request of some ward 7 and 8 charter schools that have been requesting this for years and are expected to invoke this as soon as they are able. My understanding is that leadership at "hrcs"s are philosophically opposed to neighborhood preference and have always opposed this, which is why it is optional and not forced on any charters.

Anyone at LAMB YY etc can confirm this? Presumably school admins are making statements about whether they will or will not make use of this option.

This makes absolutely no sense. What Ward 7 or 8 charters have any waiting lists at all, or long ones, that would even make this an issue? What Ward 7 or 8 charters have so many families commuting from elsewhere that they'd even need this policy?

Seriously, name some. They don't exist. This proposal is pushed by families living close to LAMB, YY, CMI, Stokes, Inspired Teaching, who want in and are frustrated and furious that their proximity doesn't help them. This proposal ONLY makes sense for schools that have long waiting lists and that are really hard to get into. For schools with little to no waiting list, there's nothing stopping determined families who live close by from attending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Ward 4 and there are five charters within .5 mile from my house. The closest DCPS school (my inbound school) is over a mile away.

I am very much in favor of this. The amount of traffic generated by parents driving their children to school is ridiculous.

Sorry, your convenience and your traffic challenges are NOT reasons to change a basic rule of equal opportunity to all applicants that charter rules in DC were founded upon. I understand why you want it, but it is wrong in so many ways for the Mayor to propose it and for it to be passed. I hope it gets nixed again, that would be the right thing to do.

NP, who is not affected by the proposal at all in Ward 6. I think you are wrong. I think the PP's convenience, to be more specific, PP's child's convenience and others similarly situated are exactly the reason IN FAVOR of the preference. The by-right school is not walkable and therefore getting the same right to walkability by a preference to a nearby charter is worthwhile, exactly for the convenience factor and so an already disadvantaged child (in terms of walkability to by-right school) isn't further inconvenienced because of traffic challenges.

Riiiiiight. But somehow I suspect that the INABILITY TO GET IN because the few spots at HRCSs are taken by proximity residents might be a bit of a disadvantage to the disadvantaged child whose parents are willing to trek across DC for the better education. But you would deny them that ability and say it's not an inconvenience.

The city-wide option was created for a reason, to serve students whose choices in an IB/OOB system suck. City-wide means everyone has an equal chance to get in. Walkability was NEVER part of the plan, because - drumroll please - no matter how you try to dress it up or disguise it, it still just replicates the class challenges that the IB/OOB system creates, especially for schools with few spaces for brand new families. You can try to rationalize it or deny impact on underserved families all you want - you're still screwing the families with least choices in favor of those who can afford to live close enough to walk to higher/highest demand schools.

[Anonymous]

No charter in a decent neighborhood will offer this preference. It would look bad.