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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simply wrong. The affluent schools get fewer resources. You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

PP who just posted the same thing here. Do you honestly think that if you put the bottom 10% of DCPS kids into Janney they would suddenly improve?? NO. My kids go to this school. I will tell you that it has all the ups and downs of being in a large public school, and if your child has all the challenges of being poor they are not going to suddenly thrive at Janney. Janney and the other high performing ES in DCPS do well because of the high SES cohort and family support the kids have -- I promise there is nothing special about being in those 4 walls.

Lafayette until the renovation was in a horribly dumpy building, with no walls (open classroom), rats, etc. Parents uniformly said that being in trailer city was a VAST improvement over the building. Yet, you had people like FENTY gaming the system to get their kids in. (Same can be said for Murch, pre renovation). This has nothing to do with the facilities.

and yet those schools had no trouble getting to the front of the line for modernization funding unlike other schools with less connected parents. Aside from Eaton, every non-modernized school in the pipeline serves a largely low income/at risk community.

Murch waited in line for a renovation of its decrepit building for nearly 20 years. In fact, it got pushed to the BACK of the line, repeatedly, to the point where it became borderline dangerous for kids to go to school there.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your screed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simply wrong. The affluent schools get fewer resources. You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

PP who just posted the same thing here. Do you honestly think that if you put the bottom 10% of DCPS kids into Janney they would suddenly improve?? NO. My kids go to this school. I will tell you that it has all the ups and downs of being in a large public school, and if your child has all the challenges of being poor they are not going to suddenly thrive at Janney. Janney and the other high performing ES in DCPS do well because of the high SES cohort and family support the kids have -- I promise there is nothing special about being in those 4 walls.

Lafayette until the renovation was in a horribly dumpy building, with no walls (open classroom), rats, etc. Parents uniformly said that being in trailer city was a VAST improvement over the building. Yet, you had people like FENTY gaming the system to get their kids in. (Same can be said for Murch, pre renovation). This has nothing to do with the facilities.

and yet those schools had no trouble getting to the front of the line for modernization funding unlike other schools with less connected parents. Aside from Eaton, every non-modernized school in the pipeline serves a largely low income/at risk community.

Murch waited in line for a renovation of its decrepit building for nearly 20 years. In fact, it got pushed to the BACK of the line, repeatedly, to the point where it became borderline dangerous for kids to go to school there.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your screed.

Only on DCUM could you take a legitimate, documented case of corruption by school officials and turn it into an argument about WOTP schools not getting enough resources and who should have gotten modernized when ... I'm not mad I'm impressed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is something I just don't understand. Even the cruddy apartments in the Deal boundary are not cheap. Nor is the house on Capitol Hill or in Wesley Heights. If you have the money to live in those places and rent a secondary apartment, you can afford by far a house in Deal's boundary. And, as a bonus, you don't have to schlep a kid(s) from Capitol Hill to upper NW, which sounds like a twice a day nightmare. Why would you choose the path of most resistance rather than just moving?

[Anonymous]

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

Half-right. He got them into Lafayette.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simply wrong. The affluent schools get fewer resources. You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

PP who just posted the same thing here. Do you honestly think that if you put the bottom 10% of DCPS kids into Janney they would suddenly improve?? NO. My kids go to this school. I will tell you that it has all the ups and downs of being in a large public school, and if your child has all the challenges of being poor they are not going to suddenly thrive at Janney. Janney and the other high performing ES in DCPS do well because of the high SES cohort and family support the kids have -- I promise there is nothing special about being in those 4 walls.

Lafayette until the renovation was in a horribly dumpy building, with no walls (open classroom), rats, etc. Parents uniformly said that being in trailer city was a VAST improvement over the building. Yet, you had people like FENTY gaming the system to get their kids in. (Same can be said for Murch, pre renovation). This has nothing to do with the facilities.

and yet those schools had no trouble getting to the front of the line for modernization funding unlike other schools with less connected parents. Aside from Eaton, every non-modernized school in the pipeline serves a largely low income/at risk community.

Murch waited in line for a renovation of its decrepit building for nearly 20 years. In fact, it got pushed to the BACK of the line, repeatedly, to the point where it became borderline dangerous for kids to go to school there.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your screed.

Only on DCUM could you take a legitimate, documented case of corruption by school officials and turn it into an argument about WOTP schools not getting enough resources and who should have gotten modernized when ... I'm not mad I'm impressed

+! -- and DCPS school modernization effort is on its 12th year after Fenty began prioritizing. 20 years is just the prolonged sense of entitlment and outrage at a handfull of OOB students getting undeserved preference.

[Anonymous]

Funny, we have been at Murch since 2006. We really didn't need a chancellor placement of a District official to think the school was worthy or attending. Sheesh. She is such an idiot.

[Anonymous]

I honestly think the 7 cases the IG found are just the tip of the iceberg with Kaya. I met a family with not-very-powerful parents that said the chancellor helped them get a placement at Lafayette and that it wasn't uncommon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simply wrong. The affluent schools get fewer resources. You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

PP who just posted the same thing here. Do you honestly think that if you put the bottom 10% of DCPS kids into Janney they would suddenly improve?? NO. My kids go to this school. I will tell you that it has all the ups and downs of being in a large public school, and if your child has all the challenges of being poor they are not going to suddenly thrive at Janney. Janney and the other high performing ES in DCPS do well because of the high SES cohort and family support the kids have -- I promise there is nothing special about being in those 4 walls.

Lafayette until the renovation was in a horribly dumpy building, with no walls (open classroom), rats, etc. Parents uniformly said that being in trailer city was a VAST improvement over the building. Yet, you had people like FENTY gaming the system to get their kids in. (Same can be said for Murch, pre renovation). This has nothing to do with the facilities.

and yet those schools had no trouble getting to the front of the line for modernization funding unlike other schools with less connected parents. Aside from Eaton, every non-modernized school in the pipeline serves a largely low income/at risk community.

Funny you should bring that up. Eaton is jumping to the front of the line in this next year's budget past a bunch of schools that are higher priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simply wrong. The affluent schools get fewer resources. You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

PP who just posted the same thing here. Do you honestly think that if you put the bottom 10% of DCPS kids into Janney they would suddenly improve?? NO. My kids go to this school. I will tell you that it has all the ups and downs of being in a large public school, and if your child has all the challenges of being poor they are not going to suddenly thrive at Janney. Janney and the other high performing ES in DCPS do well because of the high SES cohort and family support the kids have -- I promise there is nothing special about being in those 4 walls.

Lafayette until the renovation was in a horribly dumpy building, with no walls (open classroom), rats, etc. Parents uniformly said that being in trailer city was a VAST improvement over the building. Yet, you had people like FENTY gaming the system to get their kids in. (Same can be said for Murch, pre renovation). This has nothing to do with the facilities.

and yet those schools had no trouble getting to the front of the line for modernization funding unlike other schools with less connected parents. Aside from Eaton, every non-modernized school in the pipeline serves a largely low income/at risk community.

Murch waited in line for a renovation of its decrepit building for nearly 20 years. In fact, it got pushed to the BACK of the line, repeatedly, to the point where it became borderline dangerous for kids to go to school there.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your screed.

Only on DCUM could you take a legitimate, documented case of corruption by school officials and turn it into an argument about WOTP schools not getting enough resources and who should have gotten modernized when ... I'm not mad I'm impressed

+! -- and DCPS school modernization effort is on its 12th year after Fenty began prioritizing. 20 years is just the prolonged sense of entitlment and outrage at a handfull of OOB students getting undeserved preference.

The Murch poster was simply correctly an ill-informed screed about prioritization of WOTP school renovation. But sorry, I forgot, WOTP schools are supposed to allow half truths to persist so that people can continue to think that WOTP schools are being disproportionately favored by DCPS (which was the original point that had been made).


Anyway, back to the original topic: if Kaya is not in DCPS anymore I doubt anything can happen to her officially. This doesn't seem like it was criminal. But I assume this will affect her ability to get another job? I hope?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly think the 7 cases the IG found are just the tip of the iceberg with Kaya. I met a family with not-very-powerful parents that said the chancellor helped them get a placement at Lafayette and that it wasn't uncommon.

Yes. Remember this was only for 2015 can the IG's mandate be expanded to include the years she was Chancellor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simply wrong. The affluent schools get fewer resources. You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

PP who just posted the same thing here. Do you honestly think that if you put the bottom 10% of DCPS kids into Janney they would suddenly improve?? NO. My kids go to this school. I will tell you that it has all the ups and downs of being in a large public school, and if your child has all the challenges of being poor they are not going to suddenly thrive at Janney. Janney and the other high performing ES in DCPS do well because of the high SES cohort and family support the kids have -- I promise there is nothing special about being in those 4 walls.

Lafayette until the renovation was in a horribly dumpy building, with no walls (open classroom), rats, etc. Parents uniformly said that being in trailer city was a VAST improvement over the building. Yet, you had people like FENTY gaming the system to get their kids in. (Same can be said for Murch, pre renovation). This has nothing to do with the facilities.

and yet those schools had no trouble getting to the front of the line for modernization funding unlike other schools with less connected parents. Aside from Eaton, every non-modernized school in the pipeline serves a largely low income/at risk community.

Funny you should bring that up. Eaton is jumping to the front of the line in this next year's budget past a bunch of schools that are higher priority.

of course - just becuae the Council has tried to create a fair system to prioritize doesn't mean the Mayor has to give a s*!@ She's owned by the kind of families advocating for Eaton above those advocating for Drew.

[Anonymous]

News of this report is going to make things so weird for the children of the cheater parents. I feel badly for them. Those kids have their friends and buddies but it's totally natural and reasonable that the parents of their buddies will feel pretty negative towards the cheater families. It's terrible that these people have put their kids in this position.

[Anonymous]

Its funny to me how the same people who are often against "school choice" and FOR economic equity and opportunity (i.e. liberal Democratic policy makers) would skip to the front of the line for their own children.

Skip skip skip

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is something I just don't understand. Even the cruddy apartments in the Deal boundary are not cheap. Nor is the house on Capitol Hill or in Wesley Heights. If you have the money to live in those places and rent a secondary apartment, you can afford by far a house in Deal's boundary. And, as a bonus, you don't have to schlep a kid(s) from Capitol Hill to upper NW, which sounds like a twice a day nightmare. Why would you choose the path of most resistance rather than just moving?

I thought it was crazy, too, but think about it. Middle school is 3 years out of your life (assuming one child) or maybe 5 if you have 2 kids. It's a drop in the bucket to spend $15k/year for a studio apt or condo in Tenleytown vs. $40K/year for GDS. If you're really crafty, there are all kinds of ways you can make $ with the apt during those years, while claiming to live there for 3-5 years.

Also, most parents of public middle schoolers aren't (one hopes) schlepping their kids across town. By 6th or certainly 7th grade, most children can get themselves back and forth to school via metro and/or bus.

[Anonymous]

I just checked out Rashad Young's FB page...you have to be friends to see messages, etc. But I find his banner hilarious. He uses what I assume is a Mayor Bowser banner with reads Pathways to the Middle Class. Guess we know what path he took...