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 "New opposition petition to the Maury-Miner boundary proposal from DME"
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][quote=Anonymous]I know this is unpopular, but I actually think the 2027 timing does make sense. It gives the principal time to get to know the Miner community and figure out the stakeholders, etc. This will make the WG better. It also allows there to be at least one year of data on how the at-risk set asides change demographics at Maury/Miner. So it potentially answers questions about whether that’s a viable equity enhancing alternative. If you figure the set asides are implemented for the first time in the 25-26 lottery, spring 27 seems like a reasonable time to start evaluation of how that went. [/quote] At risk set-asides are going to make a minimal difference. [/quote] If they’re applied District-wide to all schools with less than 30% at risk students (as they should be), it will definitely have an impact on Miner. If it’s applied just at Maury - which doesn’t make any sense policy-wise - then it won’t have any impact. [/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
