Secret report shows ‘special’ treatment for public officials in D.C. school lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are these kids removed / not allowed to re-enroll?

(Oh no - it would be too disruptive)

These special placements should be treated like a family that moves OOB (under the new rules.) Remain for the rest of this school year. Then either enter the lottery to maintain your seat, move in-boundary by next school year, or enroll in your in-boundary school.

That isn't the rule. The DCPS lottery and enrollment handbook now states that students who move OOB after K can stay with their cohort through the full feeder path. Right to the feeder path is now explicit - not even up to principal discretion.

Please post the cite/link for this policy. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who was the White House official?

Roberto F. Rodriguez. See here for more: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/author/roberto-j-rodr%C3%ADguez

What a hypocrite.

Yeesh, in this context, Roberto's Bio is actually rather funny.

I would hope that if I were unlucky enough to enter the political realm, I still would not be as tone deaf and/or selfish as that dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are these kids removed / not allowed to re-enroll?

(Oh no - it would be too disruptive)

These special placements should be treated like a family that moves OOB (under the new rules.) Remain for the rest of this school year. Then either enter the lottery to maintain your seat, move in-boundary by next school year, or enroll in your in-boundary school.

That isn't the rule. The DCPS lottery and enrollment handbook now states that students who move OOB after K can stay with their cohort through the full feeder path. Right to the feeder path is now explicit - not even up to principal discretion.

Please post the cite/link for this policy. Thanks.

Good to know that if DC strikes out in the lottery we can move to the Deal catchment for only a couple of months to game the system.

[Anonymous]

I never cared for Kaya, but I had nobidea that she was such an elistist. Just gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who was the White House official?

Roberto F. Rodriguez. See here for more: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/author/roberto-j-rodr%C3%ADguez

What a hypocrite.

Yeesh, in this context, Roberto's Bio is actually rather funny.

I would hope that if I were unlucky enough to enter the political realm, I still would not be as tone deaf and/or selfish as that dude.

This is the kind of shit you assume goes on all the time, but when it's in your face you still can't help but be disgusted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are these kids removed / not allowed to re-enroll?

(Oh no - it would be too disruptive)

These special placements should be treated like a family that moves OOB (under the new rules.) Remain for the rest of this school year. Then either enter the lottery to maintain your seat, move in-boundary by next school year, or enroll in your in-boundary school.

That isn't the rule. The DCPS lottery and enrollment handbook now states that students who move OOB after K can stay with their cohort through the full feeder path. Right to the feeder path is now explicit - not even up to principal discretion.

Please post the cite/link for this policy. Thanks.

Good to know that if DC strikes out in the lottery we can move to the Deal catchment for only a couple of months to game the system.

Or you can do what many regular old rich people do: rent a cruddy studio apartment in the Deal boundary for the 3 years of middle school, and use that address while continuing to live in the cushy house in Wesley Heights or Capitol Hill. You would be shocked by the number of families doing this and by how open they are about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL Bowser is obviously worried about the optics here. Her account just tweeted this: https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/865008428116189184

Whatever - too little too late. Her earlier comments tell the truth about what she thinks of this.

Agree with the need for guidelines, but it's unfortunate if it prevents real cases of need, such as bullying. I know of some instances where a child was subjected to well substantiated abuse and provided a 'safety' placement. This should continue as needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are these kids removed / not allowed to re-enroll?

(Oh no - it would be too disruptive)

These special placements should be treated like a family that moves OOB (under the new rules.) Remain for the rest of this school year. Then either enter the lottery to maintain your seat, move in-boundary by next school year, or enroll in your in-boundary school.

That isn't the rule. The DCPS lottery and enrollment handbook now states that students who move OOB after K can stay with their cohort through the full feeder path. Right to the feeder path is now explicit - not even up to principal discretion.

Please post the cite/link for this policy. Thanks.

There's another thread about it if you search. I'm still not convinced it's not a typo/misunderstanding, because the statutes it cites have nothing to do with the policy articulated. But OO is right that that's what the 2017-2018 DCPS handbook currently says (you can also just search for t on google).

[Anonymous]

Here's a crazy idea - properly resource all of the schools, including academic offerings, facilities, supports, etc. so parents aren't playing Hunger games over available "good" schools. Everyone knows the affluent schools get more system support in addition to self-funding whatever else they want to have a "public plus" school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a crazy idea - properly resource all of the schools, including academic offerings, facilities, supports, etc. so parents aren't playing Hunger games over available "good" schools. Everyone knows the affluent schools get more system support in addition to self-funding whatever else they want to have a "public plus" school.

Too much of the difference happens outside if school hours to make a meaningful impact.

Put differently, to get a 5% proficient school up to Janney's level, all the students would need to be reborn to wealthy reeducated parents. Money alone cant fix 5 years of living with non-educated parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a crazy idea - properly resource all of the schools, including academic offerings, facilities, supports, etc. so parents aren't playing Hunger games over available "good" schools. Everyone knows the affluent schools get more system support in addition to self-funding whatever else they want to have a "public plus" school.

It wouldn't matter. Even if the schools had the exact same buildings, courses, class sizes, extracurriculars, and quality of teachers, a classroom of 20 kids where 18 are poor, most have single parents, some are homeless or in foster care, they live in violent neighborhoods, many parents have less education is going to be different from a classroom of 20 kids where 18 have two-parent households without violence, both parents graduated from college, they can afford to take vacations and do extra classes and tutoring, family can help with homework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who was the White House official?

Roberto F. Rodriguez. See here for more: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/author/roberto-j-rodr%C3%ADguez

What a hypocrite.

Yeesh, in this context, Roberto's Bio is actually rather funny.

I would hope that if I were unlucky enough to enter the political realm, I still would not be as tone deaf and/or selfish as that dude.

This is the kind of shit you assume goes on all the time, but when it's in your face you still can't help but be disgusted.

Right- this guy has been in DC for a long time. I think his transfer was to Murch. So just move there! These people are NOT poor. Privacy concerns aside, I'd love to know the neighborhoods where these people live. Some homes in Crestwood, Mt. Pleasant cost more than a dumpy 3BR colonial in upper NW.

[Anonymous]

Didn't Fenty get preferential placement for the twins in Shepherd way back when?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a crazy idea - properly resource all of the schools, including academic offerings, facilities, supports, etc. so parents aren't playing Hunger games over available "good" schools. Everyone knows the affluent schools get more system support in addition to self-funding whatever else they want to have a "public plus" school.

It wouldn't matter. Even if the schools had the exact same buildings, courses, class sizes, extracurriculars, and quality of teachers, a classroom of 20 kids where 18 are poor, most have single parents, some are homeless or in foster care, they live in violent neighborhoods, many parents have less education is going to be different from a classroom of 20 kids where 18 have two-parent households without violence, both parents graduated from college, they can afford to take vacations and do extra classes and tutoring, family can help with homework.

What on earth do you mean by this? The affluent schools actually get less in hard resources due to the fact that they aren't getting the extra $$ for Title I. (I'm not arguing that they should be getting more, but this is just a fact.). All the schools are underfunded- the Janneys/Lafayettes AND the underperforming schools. This is not the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Fenty get preferential placement for the twins in Shepherd way back when?

No- I think he lived in Crestwood, so wouldn't their school be Shepherd anyway? I thought it was to Oyster.