Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people are assholes.

That last paragraph about what Kaya said (teacher's child getting a placement) is disgusting when you think of the parent with the deaf child who was denied a placement. I wonder where that child is now.

We are at one of the schools listed. Cold shoulder happening pronto. We pay a ton of money in rent (can't afford to buy) to have our kids in the school. Really makes me mad.

I must say, I was somewhat taken aback by this request and your endorsement of it,” Henderson wrote in an email to the school’s principal, who had followed up on the teacher’s request.

“Is there some reason that I don’t know about that makes you think I should intervene in this particular case, but not in any other case of teachers or parents who don’t get the result they want in the lottery?” Henderson wrote in an email that was quoted in the investigative report. “How would I explain to other teachers or to anyone why [this] child deserves a spot over any other parent who followed the rules that we all agreed on for enrollment in a limited number of seats? What am I missing here?”

Kaya's about to find out that karma is a bitch.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simply wrong. The affluent schools get fewer resources. You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

You've honestly never vistied any of the schools which have never been modernized. None of them have the multi-million dollar rennovations and expansions common in Ward 3 schools.

The affluent schools DON'T get fewer resources -- they NEED fewer resources. They don't serve populations of need and don't require the same degree of social supports which are funded through Title I. SPED and at risk funding should not be confused with any funding disparity

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people are assholes.

That last paragraph about what Kaya said (teacher's child getting a placement) is disgusting when you think of the parent with the deaf child who was denied a placement. I wonder where that child is now.

We are at one of the schools listed. Cold shoulder happening pronto. We pay a ton of money in rent (can't afford to buy) to have our kids in the school. Really makes me mad.

I must say, I was somewhat taken aback by this request and your endorsement of it,” Henderson wrote in an email to the school’s principal, who had followed up on the teacher’s request.

“Is there some reason that I don’t know about that makes you think I should intervene in this particular case, but not in any other case of teachers or parents who don’t get the result they want in the lottery?” Henderson wrote in an email that was quoted in the investigative report. “How would I explain to other teachers or to anyone why [this] child deserves a spot over any other parent who followed the rules that we all agreed on for enrollment in a limited number of seats? What am I missing here?”

Kaya's about to find out that karma is a bitch.

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:

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.

This is simply wrong. The affluent schools get fewer resources. You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

PP who just posted the same thing here. Do you honestly think that if you put the bottom 10% of DCPS kids into Janney they would suddenly improve?? NO. My kids go to this school. I will tell you that it has all the ups and downs of being in a large public school, and if your child has all the challenges of being poor they are not going to suddenly thrive at Janney. Janney and the other high performing ES in DCPS do well because of the high SES cohort and family support the kids have -- I promise there is nothing special about being in those 4 walls.

Lafayette until the renovation was in a horribly dumpy building, with no walls (open classroom), rats, etc. Parents uniformly said that being in trailer city was a VAST improvement over the building. Yet, you had people like FENTY gaming the system to get their kids in. (Same can be said for Murch, pre renovation). This has nothing to do with the facilities.

and yet those schools had no trouble getting to the front of the line for modernization funding unlike other schools with less connected parents. Aside from Eaton, every non-modernized school in the pipeline serves a largely low income/at risk community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Fenty get preferential placement for the twins in Shepherd way back when?

No- I think he lived in Crestwood, so wouldn't their school be Shepherd anyway? I thought it was to Oyster.

He lived in Crestwood and got the twins into Lafayette.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simply wrong. The affluent schools get fewer resources. You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

PP who just posted the same thing here. Do you honestly think that if you put the bottom 10% of DCPS kids into Janney they would suddenly improve?? NO. My kids go to this school. I will tell you that it has all the ups and downs of being in a large public school, and if your child has all the challenges of being poor they are not going to suddenly thrive at Janney. Janney and the other high performing ES in DCPS do well because of the high SES cohort and family support the kids have -- I promise there is nothing special about being in those 4 walls.

Lafayette until the renovation was in a horribly dumpy building, with no walls (open classroom), rats, etc. Parents uniformly said that being in trailer city was a VAST improvement over the building. Yet, you had people like FENTY gaming the system to get their kids in. (Same can be said for Murch, pre renovation). This has nothing to do with the facilities.

Anonymous wrote:These people are assholes.

That last paragraph about what Kaya said (teacher's child getting a placement) is disgusting when you think of the parent with the deaf child who was denied a placement. I wonder where that child is now.

We are at one of the schools listed. Cold shoulder happening pronto. We pay a ton of money in rent (can't afford to buy) to have our kids in the school. Really makes me mad.

I must say, I was somewhat taken aback by this request and your endorsement of it,” Henderson wrote in an email to the school’s principal, who had followed up on the teacher’s request.

“Is there some reason that I don’t know about that makes you think I should intervene in this particular case, but not in any other case of teachers or parents who don’t get the result they want in the lottery?” Henderson wrote in an email that was quoted in the investigative report. “How would I explain to other teachers or to anyone why [this] child deserves a spot over any other parent who followed the rules that we all agreed on for enrollment in a limited number of seats? What am I missing here?”

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.

This is simply wrong. The affluent schools get fewer resources. You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simply wrong. The affluent schools get fewer resources. You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

PP who just posted the same thing here. Do you honestly think that if you put the bottom 10% of DCPS kids into Janney they would suddenly improve?? NO. My kids go to this school. I will tell you that it has all the ups and downs of being in a large public school, and if your child has all the challenges of being poor they are not going to suddenly thrive at Janney. Janney and the other high performing ES in DCPS do well because of the high SES cohort and family support the kids have -- I promise there is nothing special about being in those 4 walls.

Lafayette until the renovation was in a horribly dumpy building, with no walls (open classroom), rats, etc. Parents uniformly said that being in trailer city was a VAST improvement over the building. Yet, you had people like FENTY gaming the system to get their kids in. (Same can be said for Murch, pre renovation). This has nothing to do with the facilities.

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.

This is simply wrong. The affluent schools get fewer resources. You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

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:Didn't Fenty get preferential placement for the twins in Shepherd way back when?

No- I think he lived in Crestwood, so wouldn't their school be Shepherd anyway? I thought it was to Oyster.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right- this guy has been in DC for a long time. I think his transfer was to Murch. So just move there! These people are NOT poor. Privacy concerns aside, I'd love to know the neighborhoods where these people live. Some homes in Crestwood, Mt. Pleasant cost more than a dumpy 3BR colonial in upper NW.