Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DME released analysis today showing this proposal would have most impact in Wards 5 and 9.
https://www.scribd.com/document/338904118/Analysis-Charter-Walkability-Preference-FINAL-1
Oops - meant ward 5 and 8!
Anonymous wrote:DME released analysis today showing this proposal would have most impact in Wards 5 and 9.
https://www.scribd.com/document/338904118/Analysis-Charter-Walkability-Preference-FINAL-1

Anonymous wrote:This is going to affect nearly nobody. It will only affect people who meet all of the following criteria:
- Live w/i .05 mile of a charter.
-Do not live w/1 .05 mile of a DCPC
-The charter you live near participates and gives the "walkability preference
-The charter gives the walkability preference and either puts the preference ahead of sibling or other preferences - or there are still slots that are not taken by sibling or other preferences.
-The charter you live near is a charter that you actually would like to go to.
Is this correct?
This proposal is either:
-a political stunt aimed at looking like the mayor cares about walkability, or
-It is aimed to satisfy one or two wealthy donors to whom this would apply. or
-It is aimed to satisfy one particular charter school located in a low income neighborhood - that aims to serve poor children but ends up with a high percentage high income kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Everybody should oppose this. People who want fair lotteries. People who want good neighborhood schools.
Write to Jennie Niles and your State Board rep to tell them this is awful.
Who is our state board rep? I'll contact Jennie niles today. Also I contacted my council member but he's useless.
Anonymous wrote:Everybody should oppose this. People who want fair lotteries. People who want good neighborhood schools.
Write to Jennie Niles and your State Board rep to tell them this is awful.
Anonymous wrote:Everybody should oppose this. People who want fair lotteries. People who want good neighborhood schools.
Write to Jennie Niles and your State Board rep to tell them this is awful.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is utterly ludicrous. How are immersion schools supposed to survive? They already can only get native speakers via recruitment only, and now that's gone too?
The strong schools will survive, though target language instruction will suffer. But then who really cares about that in the DC charter realm? Yu Ying has thrived with a handful of native speakers, literally a handful out of 540 students.
I know LAMB isn't in the common lottery so this may be moot. But LAMB's Missouri Avenue campus is surrounded by homes and apartment buildings full of native speakers whose children attend Brightwood or Center City PCS on Georgia. If they were to offer this preference it would absolutely increase the percentage of native speakers.
Even if LAMB was eligible and decided to apply this preference (LAMB parents on this board has mentioned recruiting efforts for the school lottery throughout the neighborhood), all of those apartments are less than .5 miles from their IB school.
This isn't true. I live in a house near these apartments. While the closest to LAMB would be ineligible, there are several apts a little further north (near me) where they would because Brightwood campus is .6M away and LAMB is under .5.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Bowsers going to announce a proximity preference for families living 0.5 mile from a charter. Will start in SY 18.
As if schools like YY and Basis aren't hard enough to get into already.
This will benefit the families in gentrifying neighborhoods East of the Park and West of the Anacostia. It won't help poorer students at all.