Proposal is up!

[Anonymous]

Parent here whose child would feed into the new center city MS if this proposal pans out. Does anyone know why Marie Reed & Cleveland would feed into the new center city MS when Columbia Heights offers dual language? I thought one of the goals for the new proposal was to have specialized ES feed into specialized MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parent here whose child would feed into the new center city MS if this proposal pans out. Does anyone know why Marie Reed & Cleveland would feed into the new center city MS when Columbia Heights offers dual language? I thought one of the goals for the new proposal was to have specialized ES feed into specialized MS.

The main goal is to simplify and strengthen geographical by-right feeder patterns.

The proposal does create a dual-language track at MacFarland and Roosevelt which will be an option for all DCPS dual language schools, in addition to their geographical feeds which vary based on location of course.

Instead of building CHEC as the dual language option, the DME proposal has minimized CHEC's role and instead proposed this new program at MacFarland/Roosevelt. I won't get into the reasons why in this thread, but you can do a quick search for "CHEC" in this forum and I think you'll find a lot of info.

Marie Reed and Cleveland are strong schools by the way, and improving fast, so you should be happy they will be joining you at City Center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here whose child would feed into the new center city MS if this proposal pans out. Does anyone know why Marie Reed & Cleveland would feed into the new center city MS when Columbia Heights offers dual language? I thought one of the goals for the new proposal was to have specialized ES feed into specialized MS.

The main goal is to simplify and strengthen geographical by-right feeder patterns.

The proposal does create a dual-language track at MacFarland and Roosevelt which will be an option for all DCPS dual language schools, in addition to their geographical feeds which vary based on location of course.

Instead of building CHEC as the dual language option, the DME proposal has minimized CHEC's role and instead proposed this new program at MacFarland/Roosevelt. I won't get into the reasons why in this thread, but you can do a quick search for "CHEC" in this forum and I think you'll find a lot of info.

Marie Reed and Cleveland are strong schools by the way, and improving fast, so you should be happy they will be joining you at City Center.

I forgot to mention, both Marie Reed and Cleveland have a dual-track but also an English-only track.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know why there is an asterisk next to the proximity preference in the new proposal? The asterisk is suppose to signal that this is a new feature for preferences. I get that the 10% set aside for at-risk is a new preference category (and thus the asterisk), but proximity preference is not new. Am I missing something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why there is an asterisk next to the proximity preference in the new proposal? The asterisk is suppose to signal that this is a new feature for preferences. I get that the 10% set aside for at-risk is a new preference category (and thus the asterisk), but proximity preference is not new. Am I missing something?

It just signals that the definition of proximity is new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why there is an asterisk next to the proximity preference in the new proposal? The asterisk is suppose to signal that this is a new feature for preferences. I get that the 10% set aside for at-risk is a new preference category (and thus the asterisk), but proximity preference is not new. Am I missing something?

It just signals that the definition of proximity is new.

So proximity preference itself is not new, but how proximity is determined is new. Is that right? What is the new definition? I may have missed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why there is an asterisk next to the proximity preference in the new proposal? The asterisk is suppose to signal that this is a new feature for preferences. I get that the 10% set aside for at-risk is a new preference category (and thus the asterisk), but proximity preference is not new. Am I missing something?

It just signals that the definition of proximity is new.

So proximity preference itself is not new, but how proximity is determined is new. Is that right? What is the new definition? I may have missed it.

It is a more restrictive def. not sure exactly what it is, but something like if your IB elem school is more than a like away and you have a closer school that you are OOB for, then you get proximity preference there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why there is an asterisk next to the proximity preference in the new proposal? The asterisk is suppose to signal that this is a new feature for preferences. I get that the 10% set aside for at-risk is a new preference category (and thus the asterisk), but proximity preference is not new. Am I missing something?

It just signals that the definition of proximity is new.

So proximity preference itself is not new, but how proximity is determined is new. Is that right? What is the new definition? I may have missed it.

It is a more restrictive def. not sure exactly what it is, but something like if your IB elem school is more than a like away and you have a closer school that you are OOB for, then you get proximity preference there.

That should read "more than a mile away"