Anonymous wrote:Didn't Fenty get preferential placement for the twins in Shepherd way back when?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here's a crazy idea - properly resource all of the schools, including academic offerings, facilities, supports, etc. so parents aren't playing Hunger games over available "good" schools. Everyone knows the affluent schools get more system support in addition to self-funding whatever else they want to have a "public plus" school.
It wouldn't matter. Even if the schools had the exact same buildings, courses, class sizes, extracurriculars, and quality of teachers, a classroom of 20 kids where 18 are poor, most have single parents, some are homeless or in foster care, they live in violent neighborhoods, many parents have less education is going to be different from a classroom of 20 kids where 18 have two-parent households without violence, both parents graduated from college, they can afford to take vacations and do extra classes and tutoring, family can help with homework.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who was the White House official?
Roberto F. Rodriguez. See here for more: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/author/roberto-j-rodr%C3%ADguez
What a hypocrite.
Yeesh, in this context, Roberto's Bio is actually rather funny.
I would hope that if I were unlucky enough to enter the political realm, I still would not be as tone deaf and/or selfish as that dude.
This is the kind of shit you assume goes on all the time, but when it's in your face you still can't help but be disgusted.
Anonymous wrote:Here's a crazy idea - properly resource all of the schools, including academic offerings, facilities, supports, etc. so parents aren't playing Hunger games over available "good" schools. Everyone knows the affluent schools get more system support in addition to self-funding whatever else they want to have a "public plus" school.
Anonymous wrote:Here's a crazy idea - properly resource all of the schools, including academic offerings, facilities, supports, etc. so parents aren't playing Hunger games over available "good" schools. Everyone knows the affluent schools get more system support in addition to self-funding whatever else they want to have a "public plus" school.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So are these kids removed / not allowed to re-enroll?
(Oh no - it would be too disruptive)
These special placements should be treated like a family that moves OOB (under the new rules.) Remain for the rest of this school year. Then either enter the lottery to maintain your seat, move in-boundary by next school year, or enroll in your in-boundary school.
That isn't the rule. The DCPS lottery and enrollment handbook now states that students who move OOB after K can stay with their cohort through the full feeder path. Right to the feeder path is now explicit - not even up to principal discretion.
Please post the cite/link for this policy. Thanks.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL Bowser is obviously worried about the optics here. Her account just tweeted this: https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/865008428116189184
Whatever - too little too late. Her earlier comments tell the truth about what she thinks of this.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So are these kids removed / not allowed to re-enroll?
(Oh no - it would be too disruptive)
These special placements should be treated like a family that moves OOB (under the new rules.) Remain for the rest of this school year. Then either enter the lottery to maintain your seat, move in-boundary by next school year, or enroll in your in-boundary school.
That isn't the rule. The DCPS lottery and enrollment handbook now states that students who move OOB after K can stay with their cohort through the full feeder path. Right to the feeder path is now explicit - not even up to principal discretion.
Please post the cite/link for this policy. Thanks.
Good to know that if DC strikes out in the lottery we can move to the Deal catchment for only a couple of months to game the system.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who was the White House official?
Roberto F. Rodriguez. See here for more: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/author/roberto-j-rodr%C3%ADguez
What a hypocrite.
Yeesh, in this context, Roberto's Bio is actually rather funny.
I would hope that if I were unlucky enough to enter the political realm, I still would not be as tone deaf and/or selfish as that dude.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So are these kids removed / not allowed to re-enroll?
(Oh no - it would be too disruptive)
These special placements should be treated like a family that moves OOB (under the new rules.) Remain for the rest of this school year. Then either enter the lottery to maintain your seat, move in-boundary by next school year, or enroll in your in-boundary school.
That isn't the rule. The DCPS lottery and enrollment handbook now states that students who move OOB after K can stay with their cohort through the full feeder path. Right to the feeder path is now explicit - not even up to principal discretion.
Please post the cite/link for this policy. Thanks.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who was the White House official?
Roberto F. Rodriguez. See here for more: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/author/roberto-j-rodr%C3%ADguez
What a hypocrite.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So are these kids removed / not allowed to re-enroll?
(Oh no - it would be too disruptive)
These special placements should be treated like a family that moves OOB (under the new rules.) Remain for the rest of this school year. Then either enter the lottery to maintain your seat, move in-boundary by next school year, or enroll in your in-boundary school.
That isn't the rule. The DCPS lottery and enrollment handbook now states that students who move OOB after K can stay with their cohort through the full feeder path. Right to the feeder path is now explicit - not even up to principal discretion.