Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fenty kids were OB at Lafayette. It is one of the reasons i voted for Gray.

Aaaaand look how well that has gone for all of us.

Much rather have a mayor with a shadow campaign than one giving no bid contracts to his frat buddies. My anti-Fenty vote was the only DC mayorial election I've voted in. Sending his kids to lafayttee, taking two spots from othre families without connections who played the lottery was just so gross. And then being so arrogant when asked about it and acting like he was doing something amazing even sending his kids to DCPS?!

Jay Mathews needs to be put out to pasture with his Challenge Index and AP for All even if they don't pass mantra. OK, we get it. And Jaime Escalante was the messiah of public education before a little thing called the internet.

Tier 1 charter school lottery fixing or cherry picking speculated, but not proven, by one of Jay's old school friends cannot explain why only about a third of kids attend their IB school.

It's not the chancellor, it's the principals. Or it was the principals before computerized lottery.

To OP's point, the DCPS chancellor has a lot of discretion, but in reality it's the principals who usually decide. Chancellor only needs to step in if the receiving principal is not exactly thrilled. For example, formal Lafayette Principal Main was less than subtle about central office "interference." Michelle Rhee and her now-ex husband were apparently committed to following the boundary rules (at the time) for Oyster. Fenty campaigned on his twins going to public school, which for them at the time was West EC in boundary. Rumor has it he did not confer with his now ex-wife who adamantly opposed West and only grudgingly agreed to Lafayette. Grapevine also says Rhee was not at all happy to have to fix Fenty's problem by going against a veteran principal and undermining one of her self-selected new principals.

Some DCPS schools were infamous for flouting not only boundary but city residency rules before the online lottery.

Nowadays, it's not in a chancellor's or a principal's career interest to make exceptions that don't involve special needs or security. Charters have even less incentive to fiddle around. Priority for expansion is given to existing charters, meaning the ones that can't claim founder preference. The increased penalties for residency fraud have also apparently slowed some, not all, of the overt fraud of not paying out of state tuition.

With a tweaked (WTF?) boundary and feeder plan with who knows what kind of grandfathering, exceptions will likely continue for DCPS with principals exercising discretion for the "overall interests" that maintain their enrollment numbers. Charters, meanwhile, face the opposite pressure. If they want to expand into an unused DCPS building, they have to compete with other established schools. Residency fraud would kill their chances for better buildings.

What's a connected family to do? Apply to private schools and the lottery. Your contact list or diversity status could be worth more to a private school than your bank account. Unlike charters and OOB public schools, there's no pesky residency fraud hotline. But don't forget, a private may have nicer facilities or smaller classes, but that doesn't mean it's a better learning environment for your child. If a school isn't willing to invest in your child, that's their loss.

There's always the lottery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under DC law, the Chancellor has the authority to bypass student assignment procedures and place individual students, if such a placement "would promote the overall interests of the school system. Here is a the relevant section of the DC Code (from http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Notice/DownLoad.aspx?NoticeID=1868916)

2106.6 The Chancellor, and only the Chancellor, is authorized to grant a discretionary transfer and set the duration of the approval of the transfer when the Chancellor determines that the transfer would be in the best interests of the student, and that the transfer would promote the overall interests of the school system.

While this gets mentioned from time to time here, it doesn't seem to get the scrutiny it deserves. Anecdotally, it seems that politically-connected families get into desirable schools OOB more often than chance would predict. If one were cynical, one might say that the "overall interests of the school system" include cozying up to those in a position to influence its outcomes.

I've been thinking about this for a while, but what got me posting was today's Post article by Jay Matthews that accuses charters, in a back-handed way, of manipulating lottery results. What I've heard from charter school administrators -- who had no reason to lie to me -- is that they are under intense scrutiny to take the lottery results and waitlist in exactly the order they receive it. So it seems strange that Matthews is focusing on charters and giving DCPS a pass.

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing what others have to say.

This post brought to you by the folks at FOCUS and DCPSCB, who want you to look that other way from their malfeasance in admitting children of their influential and their staff shenanigans.

OP here. Couldn't be further from the truth.

Anonymous wrote:When I think of "the best interest of the school system placements" I think of avoiding lawsuits by separating bullies and victims, avoiding violence by splitting up gangs, and things like that.

I'm not saying that it isn't also used to give advantage to people who already have advantages, but I also think there are times when it's necessary for a school to have that power.

I believe this is also intended to afford DCPS discretion to place SPED stidents p, as well as those with various types of disabilities such as hearing impairments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under DC law, the Chancellor has the authority to bypass student assignment procedures and place individual students, if such a placement "would promote the overall interests of the school system. Here is a the relevant section of the DC Code (from http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Notice/DownLoad.aspx?NoticeID=1868916)

2106.6 The Chancellor, and only the Chancellor, is authorized to grant a discretionary transfer and set the duration of the approval of the transfer when the Chancellor determines that the transfer would be in the best interests of the student, and that the transfer would promote the overall interests of the school system.

While this gets mentioned from time to time here, it doesn't seem to get the scrutiny it deserves. Anecdotally, it seems that politically-connected families get into desirable schools OOB more often than chance would predict. If one were cynical, one might say that the "overall interests of the school system" include cozying up to those in a position to influence its outcomes.

I've been thinking about this for a while, but what got me posting was today's Post article by Jay Matthews that accuses charters, in a back-handed way, of manipulating lottery results. What I've heard from charter school administrators -- who had no reason to lie to me -- is that they are under intense scrutiny to take the lottery results and waitlist in exactly the order they receive it. So it seems strange that Matthews is focusing on charters and giving DCPS a pass.

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing what others have to say.

This post brought to you by the folks at FOCUS and DCPSCB, who want you to look that other way from their malfeasance in admitting children of their influential and their staff shenanigans.

Well played. Some folks have a strong interest in keeping the suggestion from today's article "uninvestigated".

Anonymous wrote:Under DC law, the Chancellor has the authority to bypass student assignment procedures and place individual students, if such a placement "would promote the overall interests of the school system. Here is a the relevant section of the DC Code (from http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Notice/DownLoad.aspx?NoticeID=1868916)

2106.6 The Chancellor, and only the Chancellor, is authorized to grant a discretionary transfer and set the duration of the approval of the transfer when the Chancellor determines that the transfer would be in the best interests of the student, and that the transfer would promote the overall interests of the school system.

While this gets mentioned from time to time here, it doesn't seem to get the scrutiny it deserves. Anecdotally, it seems that politically-connected families get into desirable schools OOB more often than chance would predict. If one were cynical, one might say that the "overall interests of the school system" include cozying up to those in a position to influence its outcomes.

I've been thinking about this for a while, but what got me posting was today's Post article by Jay Matthews that accuses charters, in a back-handed way, of manipulating lottery results. What I've heard from charter school administrators -- who had no reason to lie to me -- is that they are under intense scrutiny to take the lottery results and waitlist in exactly the order they receive it. So it seems strange that Matthews is focusing on charters and giving DCPS a pass.

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing what others have to say.

This post brought to you by the folks at FOCUS and DCPSCB, who want you to look that other way from their malfeasance in admitting children of their influential and their staff shenanigans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fenty kids were OB at Lafayette. It is one of the reasons i voted for Gray.

Aaaaand look how well that has gone for all of us.

Aaaand Gray continued the education policies of Fenty. Do you really think Rhee would have conducted things differently?

It's the other way around, actually. Gray pushed mayoral control of schools when Fenty was a ward 4 council member, with kids in really expensive private school, and against it and against supporting charter options.

Despite Adrian's cluelessness and Rhee's scorched earth management approach, we have some improvement pretty much across the city and increased enrollment in charters and DCPS.

Say what you want about Gray, but Bowser is definitely Fenty-lite and will rely even more than he did on the private money powers that be. Who, incidentally, supported Gray over Fenty. Oh wait, you thought poor black folk put Gray in the mayor's office? Of course all that Uncle Earl stuff spooked a lot of DC Dems. A lot of people held back on the primary to see who would float with the least baggage and lowest on Machen's radar. Aaaannnd that was.... Surprise. Most, but clearly not all, DC Dems rallied behind the last Dem standing. (Note to Muriel. Obama and Barry will not be around next time to bail you out. Tony & Co. will be keeping an eye on Kenyan.)

For people who thought a vote for Bowser meant keeping Henderson, pay close attention. When PARCC scores plummet and the battles over boundary grandfathering kick in, don't hold your breath that Henderson, Smith, or anyone who's worked on recent improvement will stick around. Hope I'm wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fenty kids were OB at Lafayette. It is one of the reasons i voted for Gray.

Aaaaand look how well that has gone for all of us.

Aaaand Gray continued the education policies of Fenty. Do you really think Rhee would have conducted things differently?

When I think of "the best interest of the school system placements" I think of avoiding lawsuits by separating bullies and victims, avoiding violence by splitting up gangs, and things like that.

I'm not saying that it isn't also used to give advantage to people who already have advantages, but I also think there are times when it's necessary for a school to have that power.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fenty kids were OB at Lafayette. It is one of the reasons i voted for Gray.

Aaaaand look how well that has gone for all of us.

Ha! +1

Anonymous wrote:Fenty kids were OB at Lafayette. It is one of the reasons i voted for Gray.

Aaaaand look how well that has gone for all of us.

Fenty kids were OB at Lafayette. It is one of the reasons i voted for Gray.

I know a very very well-connected family (locally and nationally) that has been able to shop and try out multiple DCPS schools, none of which were their IB. Haven't yet seen this in my charter.

Under DC law, the Chancellor has the authority to bypass student assignment procedures and place individual students, if such a placement "would promote the overall interests of the school system. Here is a the relevant section of the DC Code (from http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Notice/DownLoad.aspx?NoticeID=1868916)

2106.6 The Chancellor, and only the Chancellor, is authorized to grant a discretionary transfer and set the duration of the approval of the transfer when the Chancellor determines that the transfer would be in the best interests of the student, and that the transfer would promote the overall interests of the school system.

While this gets mentioned from time to time here, it doesn't seem to get the scrutiny it deserves. Anecdotally, it seems that politically-connected families get into desirable schools OOB more often than chance would predict. If one were cynical, one might say that the "overall interests of the school system" include cozying up to those in a position to influence its outcomes.

I've been thinking about this for a while, but what got me posting was today's Post article by Jay Matthews that accuses charters, in a back-handed way, of manipulating lottery results. What I've heard from charter school administrators -- who had no reason to lie to me -- is that they are under intense scrutiny to take the lottery results and waitlist in exactly the order they receive it. So it seems strange that Matthews is focusing on charters and giving DCPS a pass.

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing what others have to say.