Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
DC Public and Public Charter Schools
Reply to "Proposal is up!"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I was just looking at the selective/city-wide section in the proposal and it looks like there will be selective admissions high schools (so test/audition in), specialized programs within neighborhood schools (so admission is with boundaries (except possibly set asides and native language preferences), and city-wide elementary schools (so admission is lottery based.) Does that mean that the city-wide schools (the two that exist now and the ones that are rumored to be planned for the future) are really not going to be an option for most people in the district? The lottery preferences go IB/sibling (not applicable), IB (not applicable), OOB/sibling (1), OOB/at risk (2), OOB (with proximity, but only if DCPS chooses), OOB. It seems to me like the first two categories (OOB/sibling and OOB/at risk) will be sufficient to fill any city-wide school. So, most of us just won't be able to get a seat at these schools. It kind of makes the arguments that have been going on about proximity preference at these school obsolete since no one who does not fall into the at risk category has a prayer of getting into these schools, regardless of where they live. What is going to happen to schools like SWS and CHML once the sibling pipeline dries up and they are filled almost exclusively with at risk kids? [/quote] The DME needs to clarify the city-wide lottery component. Since everyone has a fair shot at admittance into a citywide school, does it make sense that the city-wide lotteries will reflect the city's natural balance of at-risk/higher SES families that the set-aside is attempting to address? They may actually be limiting access by capping the at-risk population. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics