Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Central office has no interest in removing Principal discretion. To think they will continuously get reports from MSDC about waitlist # and then check enrollment # is laughable.

Agreed. Adding more levels of bureaucracy that will slow down schools that are trying to be fully enrolled by count day is just not happening.

Not to mention that it's a back door way of taking care of politicians' and appointees' friends and supporters.

Is this real or just a rumor? Please name the politicians or appointees whose kids got into a school through connections.

OK, I know one, Adrian Fenty.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like DCPS and charters all use their discretion first before waitlist

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Central office has no interest in removing Principal discretion. To think they will continuously get reports from MSDC about waitlist # and then check enrollment # is laughable.

Agreed. Adding more levels of bureaucracy that will slow down schools that are trying to be fully enrolled by count day is just not happening.

Not to mention that it's a back door way of taking care of politicians' and appointees' friends and supporters.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like DCPS and charters all use their discretion first before waitlist

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, CH = Columbia Heights, please stop using it for the Hill as it's confusing. the Hill is short enough already.

Second, given the complaints I hear from teachers on the Hill who have been unable to get their kids into their own school (despite sibling and proximity) I doubt it's true.

Columbia Heights is Columbia Heights, and nobody cared about it until the Target opened so please don't tell everyone what we must or must not say. As far as I know, Capitol Hill, the Hill or CH has been important in this city since its inception. In any event, it's had a metro stop with it's own name since the blue/orange opened as opposed to 2000.

No, I don't live in either one.

Maybe Columbia Heights could be called COH, for COLOMBIA Heights.

"nobody"? By "nobody" do you mean rich white people? Because I can assure you that people have been living in and caring about Columbia Heights since long before the Target opened. There is NO history outside of DCUM of calling the Hill "CH". Friggin ridiculous. Now go back to your sheltered little all white enclave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Central office has no interest in removing Principal discretion. To think they will continuously get reports from MSDC about waitlist # and then check enrollment # is laughable.

Agreed. Adding more levels of bureaucracy that will slow down schools that are trying to be fully enrolled by count day is just not happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted on MOTH that there are (to paraphrase) sketchy things going on with the wait lists at some schools. For example, this person said that there have been waivers approved for non-inbound children without enrolled siblings ahead of inbound children with or without enrolled siblings on the wait list. And that some of these children were accepted outside the lottery (their parents didn't participate in the lottery).

This person also said that children of DCPS staff who wouldn't otherwise receive preference have been accepted ahead of children of the general public with inbound preference and who have a valid wait list number.

Anyone know if there is any truth to this?

In DCPS? Absolutely.

Definitely doesn't happen in our HRCS though. Considering how much people want in, I almost wish there was a preference system.

Everyone knows DCPS gets to cheat and charters don't.

Because everyone knows that charters would never enroll PG residents to reap the benefits of per pupil funding. Spare us the sanctimony.

Wrong. DCPS schools (especially on the Hill) are famous for allowing residency cheaters, but charters can't. The documentation is stricter and there's no "Principal discretion."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB indicated that they were trying to balance the number of 3 year olds and 4 year olds in the classroom. So most likely no new 4 year olds, period.

Insert sad face.

Does their charter allow them to handpick 3 year-olds? Is there a provision that allows them to skip over 4 year-olds on the top of the waitlist?

A charter can definitely set exact counts for each age that it admits. Each age has it's own waitlist. So they can decide to admit say, 5 four year olds and 20 three year olds if that's how they want to set up their classes. Since each age has it's own waitlist it's easy to make it work. This is the way that charters control enrollment, and they are very careful about it.

DCPS principals can also determine how they want to allocate their mixed 3/4 year old classes too.