Charters essentially allow, without forcing, bussing (without the bus). If not for the lack of neighborhood priority, these poverty-stricken children would have no opportunity for a good education.

Anonymous wrote:This would be an absolute nightmare and would bar many low income students from quality education and exposure to diversity. Only way a ward 8 kid would have at a good school would be of/when there are decent charters that move to that ward (aside from Kipp) and even then what diversity would that kid be exposed to?

+1

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, I meant that sibling preferences for students already in the charter should not be granted. If they were, it would take years to see the benefit of neighborhood preference.

Can't imagine why a school would go for that. It's not DCPS. There is no benefit to the school for neighborhood preference, on the contrary it only benefits the neighbors. Siblings are more important and their preference - like founders - is already current law. I'm a charter school and I'm allowed to offer neighborhood preference? I might, but not if it affects my current population.

Now, this proposition might make sense for some schools, but there are others that have no compelling reason to opt in. For example, I can't see Yu Ying wanting to do it. They want families who are serious about Chinese, not families who happen to live near Catholic University. Same story for IT. They want families who are drawn to their mission, not necessarily families in Columbia Heights/U St.

Anonymous wrote:This would be a disaster for the desirable charter schools.

Duh! Their scores would drop and they would called "crappy" on this forum.

This would be an absolute nightmare and would bar many low income students from quality education and exposure to diversity. Only way a ward 8 kid would have at a good school would be of/when there are decent charters that move to that ward (aside from Kipp) and even then what diversity would that kid be exposed to? The city is doing toouch to bend over backwards to cater to middle class and upper middle class families. Shame on you Kwame Brown.

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, I meant that sibling preferences for students already in the charter should not be granted. If they were, it would take years to see the benefit of neighborhood preference.

This is almost always an absolutely horrible idea. If you don't give sibling preference, families need to split their time, attention, commitment, resources, and assistance between multiple schools. Unless the individual kids need things that can only be provided by different schools, this fails the children and the schools. I am a parent of an only, and there is absolutely no way I would support such a short-sighted idea.

This would be a disaster for the desirable charter schools.

I was kidding.

17:32 they can't be forced to stay if their lease runs out. The
mobile nature of many charters would make this difficult.

16:44-understood but disagree even though I have an only. Too disruptive to families.

They would be FORCED to stay, by Mary Cheh, and they would also have to serve breakfast in the classroom!

What happens when a charter moves?

To be clear, I meant that sibling preferences for students already in the charter should not be granted. If they were, it would take years to see the benefit of neighborhood preference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a parent- why would you chose to send your child to a commercial space along CT as opposed to Deal?

Not all of Ward 3 is zoned for Deal, as anyone who lives south of Massachusetts Avenue will be quick to tell you.

But the thread of conversation was where space was available. A response was ct ave. I would assume only children who lived near ct would get proximity preference in a lottery

If they did this, charter schools would lose their "modest but discernible record of outperforming­­ traditional public schools in some academic categories..."