Today's Post OpEd from DCPS consultants

Anonymous
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-dc-schools-can-ward-off-the-big-flip/2014/01/24/90548788-8479-11e3-9dd4-e7278db80d86_story.html

So what I gathered from this article is that DCPS has decided that they don't want to fight the battle with Ward 3 over moving to a SF model but that they are going to try to force it on all the higher SES neighborhoods EOTP---i.e., force all EOTP parents to attend a school that is at least 50% FARMS by economic gerrymandering of school populations and elimination of the right to attend your closest IB school. AND, because they have figured out that higher SES EOTP parents will just decamp to charters if forced to attend a school that is 50% FARMS and over---they want to force economic gerrymandering onto the charter school system as well.

I love the fundamental assumption of the consultants that "maximizing socioeconomic integration" is a "shared civic goal." It may be the goal of the consultants---but to assume that it is also the goal of everyone who lives in the neighborhoods identified in the article is just Big Brother arrogance. Rather---what they are really saying is "Hey, educated, involved parents EOTP---we advocate foreclosing all of your public and charter educational options in an attempt to force you into currently failing schools and use you, your parental involvement, and your children as the guinea pigs in our personal vision of a socially-engineered utopia."



From WaPo article: The first strategy we propose is to create controlled-choice zones in strategic parts of the city (namely, Capitol Hill, Columbia Heights, Mount Pleasant, Adams Morgan, Dupont/Logan Circle and Petworth). In these neighborhoods, school attendance zones would eventually go away, as they have in a number of other districts across the country that use the controlled-choice model. Parents would express preferences among a cluster of schools, and an algorithm would make matches by balancing personal preferences with the shared civic goal of maximizing socioeconomic integration. Ideally, this list of options would include both district schools and public charter schools. Neighborhood schools in these zones that are disproportionately low-income would be reformed as magnet schools with attractive educational programs and themes to appeal to more middle-income families. Because all of the school options would be in the general neighborhood, no one would be forced to trek across town.

The second strategy we propose is to allow public charter schools and magnet schools to use weighted lotteries to create or maintain socioeconomic diversity. With a weighted lottery, charter schools could ensure that their proportion of poor students served never drops below 50 percent, even if a large number of middle-class families enters the lottery.

Anonymous
And don't underestimate the influence these "thinkers" have on the actual outcome of school assignment policy. Abby Smith is probably salivating to do this kind of thing. But I imagine if she said that publicly. Gray would be out and Catania would be our next mayor.

Anonymous
I do think that whatever comes out of the boundary process, it needs to consider charters and DCPS schools as part of an integrated, coordinated school system. So I do like their suggestion of attendance cluster zones that include both Charter and DCPS schools. This would also afford parents some 'real' choice in terms of access to different educational approaches.

And if this model applied across the city, I would be for it. I would not be for it if implemented in select parts of the city.
Anonymous
I don't think the author of this piece really thought this out.

- Changing IB preference and boundaries, and restricting choices stands to seriously impact property values.

- Changing IB preference and boundaries, and restricting choices could easily backfire and cause a backlash of "white flight"

- "maximizing socioeconomic diversity" is pretty much the total opposite of having neighborhood schools

- placing magnets in low-income neighborhoods will probably just mean it's the "neighborhood school" for the low-income neighborhood rather than being a magnet school, unless they are test-in.

- also, there is a legal problem with commingling DCPS and charters where it comes to lotteries, boundaries and choices. Those have separate mandates under the law and I don't think there is any legal authority to make some of the changes that the article describes.

- and ultimately, the idea that "diversity" will somehow magically the system's ills is mistaken. It's not the job of one kid to solve the problems of another kid. The idea that having a handful of kids who value education and good behavior for others to model after is seriously misguided - it will never happen until there is a sufficient critical mass and a majority of kids that already share those values.
Anonymous
That article was a horror show of casual racism and bigotry.
Anonymous
I fully support requiring charters like Mundo Verde and Yu Ying to have at least 50% FARMS.
Anonymous
Just another looks -good-on-paper-on idea!
Anonymous
Yeah, I am in favor of integrated schools and improving neighborhood schools, but I don't think destroying neighborhood schools is the way to go! Weighted charter school lotteries would be better, but I am still not sure of the implications of that. Would be more in favor of rapid expansion of successful schools (neighborhood or charter) and expanding OOB admissions, plus more intensive support of poor performon neighborhood schools.
Anonymous
There are times when I think our politicians want a city where young rich people spend a few years paying taxes and then flee when they have kids so we have to spend any money improving schools for them. New young people take there place and we rinse and repeat.
Anonymous
If you want to "maximize socioeconomic diversity" then you apply it to WOTP neighborhoods as well. Why does a school like Lafayette or Stoddert get a pass on being forced to carry a certain percentage of FARMs students under this proposal while Brent or Ross would not?

Do any of the authors of this article actually HAVE children in DCPS---or is this just ivory tower theorizing?
Anonymous
Ok, I just read this a bit more carefully. I actually think the cluster approach could work on the Hill, where I live, where there are many schools in walking distance and a rather random seeming disparity in some based in great part on boundaries and a huge and growing supply of high ses kids (eg, Hines vs Hobson; miner vs Maury.) and presumably as the success of brent spreads out to all the Hill schools, soaces will open up in charters as Hill familys now opt to stay put.

but I agree with the PP who pointed out the giant hole: why the hell does wotp get a pass???

Also not sure how this helps neighborhoods far removed from gentrification in anacostia etc.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:If you want to "maximize socioeconomic diversity" then you apply it to WOTP neighborhoods as well. Why does a school like Lafayette or Stoddert get a pass on being forced to carry a certain percentage of FARMs students under this proposal while Brent or Ross would not?

Do any of the authors of this article actually HAVE children in DCPS---or is this just ivory tower theorizing?


No. Ivory Tower thing.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Ok, I just read this a bit more carefully. I actually think the cluster approach could work on the Hill, where I live, where there are many schools in walking distance and a rather random seeming disparity in some based in great part on boundaries and a huge and growing supply of high ses kids (eg, Hines vs Hobson; miner vs Maury.) and presumably as the success of brent spreads out to all the Hill schools, soaces will open up in charters as Hill familys now opt to stay put.

but I agree with the PP who pointed out the giant hole: why the hell does wotp get a pass???

Also not sure how this helps neighborhoods far removed from gentrification in anacostia etc.



They seemed to be weakly suggesting magnet schools in that case but not sure how that works
Anonymous
I dislike the implication in the article that there was something wrong or unfair in parents organizing to improve their neighborhood school and encourage each other to send their kids there (presumably they are talking about Brent?)
Just rubs me the wrong way not to recognize the virtue of this kind of civic engagement.
Anonymous
I think it helps in general that there is a web site where we can laugh at how stupid the writers of that article sound.

I can tell they are impressed by themselves, so it helps to have an outlet to reflect that many. many of us know they are idiots.
post reply Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools
Message Quick Reply
Go to: