Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not trying to troll, really, but I don't understand how this can work. Just 20 years ago, white people barely sent their kids to DCPS. Now, many more do. More educated Black people do, too. Many places have reached the critical mass which creates change for all. If you minimize the 'educated parents' families to further the very worthy goal of helping at-risk families, do you really think that they will stay? I can't help thinking that this would facilitate them decamping for the suburbs sooner.

The preference was modeled only for schools with less than 25% at-risk. If 75% is not a critical mass to you, the problem is within you.

But aren't all (or very close to all) the DCPS schools with less than 75% at risk already at or over capacity? My kids were at a JKLM (now graduated) with a very low at risk percentage. The school is currently out of classrooms and is filling its current classes--some with as many as 27 kids--with almost all in boundary kids. If you have 25 kids per class and you need to add in 7 more of at risk kids per class (every class), what happens? Then you get into the more difficult question of what do you with those 7 neighborhood kids you just displaced? How do you decide which kids are displaced? Where do they go to school? Or does the school just run classes of 32 kids?
You can't have "right to attend" neighborhood schools plus a requirement that neighborhood schools take an additional 25% of kids from elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strongly in favor. The modest impact is what makes it politically feasible.

Charters will not do this on their own because, despite their professions of wokeness, it is really hard work and their high-SES parents won't like it. They aren't going to take the hit to their budget, operations, culture, or test scores unless peer schools take it too.

To be fair charters cannot legally add this preference- it has to go through the council.

Doesn't Congress have to make this change for charters? I ask this without any belief that I know the answer, but aren't there aspects of charter law in the city that only Congress can change? Do I remember correctly that they set up the allowable preferences in the law that created charters in the District?

Anonymous wrote:I'm not trying to troll, really, but I don't understand how this can work. Just 20 years ago, white people barely sent their kids to DCPS. Now, many more do. More educated Black people do, too. Many places have reached the critical mass which creates change for all. If you minimize the 'educated parents' families to further the very worthy goal of helping at-risk families, do you really think that they will stay? I can't help thinking that this would facilitate them decamping for the suburbs sooner.

The preference was modeled only for schools with less than 25% at-risk. If 75% is not a critical mass to you, the problem is within you.

I'm not trying to troll, really, but I don't understand how this can work. Just 20 years ago, white people barely sent their kids to DCPS. Now, many more do. More educated Black people do, too. Many places have reached the critical mass which creates change for all. If you minimize the 'educated parents' families to further the very worthy goal of helping at-risk families, do you really think that they will stay? I can't help thinking that this would facilitate them decamping for the suburbs sooner.

Anonymous wrote:I fully support this, although I would not benefit from it. Anything that can help kids in bad situations with motivated parents get onto a new track -- by moving to a school with more support or a more competitive cohort or even just away from violence -- should be supported.

That said, I think it's pretty clearly a bandaid for the bullet wound that is unequal access to educational opportunities in the District.

REALLY!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely, all I see Benefiting these days are white families who moved EOTP jockeying for WOTP schools or good charters. Those are not for them they should be integrating their local schools.

That was us, and I agree, it's not the right priority for the city. It really didn't make sense for us to get that spot.

Absolutely, all I see Benefiting these days are white families who moved EOTP jockeying for WOTP schools or good charters. Those are not for them they should be integrating their local schools.

Also if dcps got their sh$t together and actually improved dcpps schools and the communities life would be better for everyone

Anonymous wrote:Strongly in favor. The modest impact is what makes it politically feasible.

Charters will not do this on their own because, despite their professions of wokeness, it is really hard work and their high-SES parents won't like it. They aren't going to take the hit to their budget, operations, culture, or test scores unless peer schools take it too.

Charters can not do this under the current lottery laws. The only program they could opt into (after setting up a program and setting up their SPED teams/class and other red tape) is for "high level special education students" level 3&4 that require 16-32 hours of SPED class room time or services. This can be through an IEP OR BEHAVIORAL CLASS ROOM. Not impossible for dcps or dcpcs to set up. But it is along term program development not something schools should jump into over night. It really is geared towards kids that at not in a mainstream classroom at least half of the week. I do think more school could and should explore adding a program like this. But only if they are going to do it very well and as inclusively as possible within the school culture.

I do think Charters should be included in the 'early stages' preference and program where they hold 2seats per year for early stages kids entering Prk. It would give those families more opportunities to go to whatever school is closer to home. (Though I am thinking the 90% Spanish /french/etc Prk school might be held for native speakers of the respective languages. Or something to offset that as it might not be a good fit for all SPED kids)

I did read some one post about a military preference. I am not sure if that was an idea or already in place but that would be great even if only a couple seats per grade at each school.

Same as the early stages idea hold a few seats for foster care kids or other at risk kids within the school total or per grade would be great.

But it seems to need to be looked at long term and make sure it looks good on paper and in practice. The dc school system has already done enough things half way. We don't need more half baked, half funded, half supported programs.

Anonymous wrote:Strongly in favor. The modest impact is what makes it politically feasible.

Charters will not do this on their own because, despite their professions of wokeness, it is really hard work and their high-SES parents won't like it. They aren't going to take the hit to their budget, operations, culture, or test scores unless peer schools take it too.

To be fair charters cannot legally add this preference- it has to go through the council.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it seems like the Council would be best placed to legally set this up. Does anyone know if Grosso has stated anything for or against?

I'm pretty sure Grosso is sympathetic. His recent focus has been to try to get a) more transparency as to how designated at-risk funds are being spent across the city and b) hold DCPS accountable for its screwups related to that. Mendelsohn has shared that concern.

I think the first step would need to be a public hearing on this next legislative session. The only cross-sector discussion I'm aware of (not public, but minutes were published) was the one that the MSDC Board had a year or so ago. Since then it's come up a few times in PCSB proceedings.

Yes, it seems like the Council would be best placed to legally set this up. Does anyone know if Grosso has stated anything for or against?

Not a SBOE (or OSSE) issue.

Only the Council can amend the School Reform Act (adding this as an option for charters). The Council can also direct DCPS to do a version of this. The mayor would also have to approve of both actions.

Anonymous wrote:so, what are the steps forward to make sure this doesn't languish under the DME's vague promise to keep analyzing the idea?

It has to be approved by the city council. The education subcommittee is jointly chaired by Grosso and Mendelsohn right now.

Anonymous wrote:so, what are the steps forward to make sure this doesn't languish under the DME's vague promise to keep analyzing the idea?

I dunno. Contact your Council member ans SBOE rep? Push for your school to advocate for it? Letter from the PTA?