Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John definitely has our votes. We know the Settles slightly and although he favors neighborhood preference, if he is open, then he is open. Also, he has the most common sense solution to housing-buy housing stock (there is more, you'll have to go to the website). He is not a duck and cover kind of person, you will always know where he stands.

I'm sorry, but it is pure insanity to vote for a candidate who has a specific position on something, that I disagree with, but to vote for them anyway because they're "open". The time to be open and do research as a candidate is BEFORE stating the position. Not to say "I'm in favor of this thing which, now I'm realizing a lot more people oppose than I thought, but vote for me anyway and we'll talk after I get elected". I'm only voting for a candidate who opposes neighborhood preference for charters. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John definitely has our votes. We know the Settles slightly and although he favors neighborhood preference, if he is open, then he is open. Also, he has the most common sense solution to housing-buy housing stock (there is more, you'll have to go to the website). He is not a duck and cover kind of person, you will always know where he stands.

I'm sorry, but it is pure insanity to vote for a candidate who has a specific position on something, that I disagree with, but to vote for them anyway because they're "open". The time to be open and do research as a candidate is BEFORE stating the position. Not to say "I'm in favor of this thing which, now I'm realizing a lot more people oppose than I thought, but vote for me anyway and we'll talk after I get elected". I'm only voting for a candidate who opposes neighborhood preference for charters. Period.

As Jeff has mentioned, all candidates favor some sort of neighborhood preference is some cases. Are you not going to vote for at large?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason he believes in a limited percentage of neighborhood slots is that he has spoken with both low income and middle class families who haven't been able to lottery into the nearby charter, and they have expressed difficulty with the time and financial burden of driving or using public transportation to get to a school across town.

First, I think it's great that you're willing to come out from behind anonymity to address this tough crowd. You sound pretty earnest and your support speaks to me as a mother with education issues top of mind.

I can also appreciate an at-large candidate speaking to the needs of low and middle class families on getting access to schools. But I think the position above really underscores a need to bolster the neighborhood offering of DCPS.

We live in Petworth and have proximity to so many great charters that it's painful to be shut out of all of them. But when it gets right down to it, few of them are what I would choose if we simply had a very strong neighborhood school. I understand the trend toward language immersion, but it's not as much a priority in our family as solid reading and math ability at the elementary level. Montessori is also pretty hot right now, but it's not ideal for every kid. We like the expeditonary learning model and it's frustrating to be competing for seats with people who don't know or care what that is.

But the reality is that it's so hard to get into these schools past PK4, and the DCPS options are so suboptimal that it feels irresponsible not to go for every possible shot at every school that's at least decent--which is what diminishes the chances for everyone. It's also what creates the high anxiety at lottery time and the high anguish at results. Many of us can't or won't consider driving across town, making charters an all or nothing proposition. That's crazy, untenable, and puts undue pressure on charters to change what they're all about in order to accomodate.

So I don't want a preference for my neighbors at a nearby charter. i want my neighbors to have a preference for the nearby DCPS. And I want that DCPS to offer a very solid, non-specialized program that's still a responsible choice for those who don't want or need specialized programs.

Maybe John Settles is the one who can start talking about that as a priority that would benefit all wards. Whatever his final position on neighborhood choice, I wish your team all the best. He's a refreshing candidate in a town that's increasingly tough to please, and it seems well on the way to election.

Are you running for anything? I like you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason he believes in a limited percentage of neighborhood slots is that he has spoken with both low income and middle class families who haven't been able to lottery into the nearby charter, and they have expressed difficulty with the time and financial burden of driving or using public transportation to get to a school across town.

First, I think it's great that you're willing to come out from behind anonymity to address this tough crowd. You sound pretty earnest and your support speaks to me as a mother with education issues top of mind.

I can also appreciate an at-large candidate speaking to the needs of low and middle class families on getting access to schools. But I think the position above really underscores a need to bolster the neighborhood offering of DCPS.

We live in Petworth and have proximity to so many great charters that it's painful to be shut out of all of them. But when it gets right down to it, few of them are what I would choose if we simply had a very strong neighborhood school. I understand the trend toward language immersion, but it's not as much a priority in our family as solid reading and math ability at the elementary level. Montessori is also pretty hot right now, but it's not ideal for every kid. We like the expeditonary learning model and it's frustrating to be competing for seats with people who don't know or care what that is.

But the reality is that it's so hard to get into these schools past PK4, and the DCPS options are so suboptimal that it feels irresponsible not to go for every possible shot at every school that's at least decent--which is what diminishes the chances for everyone. It's also what creates the high anxiety at lottery time and the high anguish at results. Many of us can't or won't consider driving across town, making charters an all or nothing proposition. That's crazy, untenable, and puts undue pressure on charters to change what they're all about in order to accomodate.

So I don't want a preference for my neighbors at a nearby charter. i want my neighbors to have a preference for the nearby DCPS. And I want that DCPS to offer a very solid, non-specialized program that's still a responsible choice for those who don't want or need specialized programs.

Maybe John Settles is the one who can start talking about that as a priority that would benefit all wards. Whatever his final position on neighborhood choice, I wish your team all the best. He's a refreshing candidate in a town that's increasingly tough to please, and it seems well on the way to election.

Are you running for anything? I like you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John definitely has our votes. We know the Settles slightly and although he favors neighborhood preference, if he is open, then he is open. Also, he has the most common sense solution to housing-buy housing stock (there is more, you'll have to go to the website). He is not a duck and cover kind of person, you will always know where he stands.

I'm sorry, but it is pure insanity to vote for a candidate who has a specific position on something, that I disagree with, but to vote for them anyway because they're "open". The time to be open and do research as a candidate is BEFORE stating the position. Not to say "I'm in favor of this thing which, now I'm realizing a lot more people oppose than I thought, but vote for me anyway and we'll talk after I get elected". I'm only voting for a candidate who opposes neighborhood preference for charters. Period.

As Jeff has mentioned, all candidates favor some sort of neighborhood preference is some cases. Are you not going to vote for at large?

Anonymous wrote:Mundo verde and creative minds are two examples of charters located in neighborhoods with low income families. Inspired Teaching as well. For the Pp who believes that this exact situation can't exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mundo verde and creative minds are two examples of charters located in neighborhoods with low income families. Inspired Teaching as well. For the Pp who believes that this exact situation can't exist.

I think you haven't been to Bloomimgdale recently. Also, neighborhood preference would destroy Mundo Verde, or at least diminish it greatly. You really need to buy into the philosophy, not just live nearby and not have other options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mundo verde and creative minds are two examples of charters located in neighborhoods with low income families. Inspired Teaching as well. For the Pp who believes that this exact situation can't exist.

I think you haven't been to Bloomimgdale recently. Also, neighborhood preference would destroy Mundo Verde, or at least diminish it greatly. You really need to buy into the philosophy, not just live nearby and not have other options.

Anonymous wrote:Mundo verde and creative minds are two examples of charters located in neighborhoods with low income families. Inspired Teaching as well. For the Pp who believes that this exact situation can't exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason he believes in a limited percentage of neighborhood slots is that he has spoken with both low income and middle class families who haven't been able to lottery into the nearby charter, and they have expressed difficulty with the time and financial burden of driving or using public transportation to get to a school across town.

First, I think it's great that you're willing to come out from behind anonymity to address this tough crowd. You sound pretty earnest and your support speaks to me as a mother with education issues top of mind.

I can also appreciate an at-large candidate speaking to the needs of low and middle class families on getting access to schools. But I think the position above really underscores a need to bolster the neighborhood offering of DCPS.

We live in Petworth and have proximity to so many great charters that it's painful to be shut out of all of them. But when it gets right down to it, few of them are what I would choose if we simply had a very strong neighborhood school. I understand the trend toward language immersion, but it's not as much a priority in our family as solid reading and math ability at the elementary level. Montessori is also pretty hot right now, but it's not ideal for every kid. We like the expeditonary learning model and it's frustrating to be competing for seats with people who don't know or care what that is.

But the reality is that it's so hard to get into these schools past PK4, and the DCPS options are so suboptimal that it feels irresponsible not to go for every possible shot at every school that's at least decent--which is what diminishes the chances for everyone. It's also what creates the high anxiety at lottery time and the high anguish at results. Many of us can't or won't consider driving across town, making charters an all or nothing proposition. That's crazy, untenable, and puts undue pressure on charters to change what they're all about in order to accomodate.

So I don't want a preference for my neighbors at a nearby charter. i want my neighbors to have a preference for the nearby DCPS. And I want that DCPS to offer a very solid, non-specialized program that's still a responsible choice for those who don't want or need specialized programs.

Maybe John Settles is the one who can start talking about that as a priority that would benefit all wards. Whatever his final position on neighborhood choice, I wish your team all the best. He's a refreshing candidate in a town that's increasingly tough to please, and it seems well on the way to election.

Are you running for anything? I like you!

+1