Ward 3 - Wilson feeders meeting last night: did anyone attend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 again. I apologize for beating a dead horse on this. I just find the vague and incomplete explanations of why certain solutions are eliminated from consideration to be completely ridiculous. If the simple answer is "Because Mayor Bowser gets a lot of support from EOTP Ward 4, and those solutions would prevent lots of families in EOTP Ward 4 from getting their children into the schools they want," then that should be stated clearly, so people know it's a political favor.

It's the hiding of real reasons behind euphemism and non-transparency that's irritating me.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

Because taking away feeder rights is a can of worms that nobody wants to open. Shepherd and Bancroft today, who tomorrow? Introducing that kind of uncertainty makes things harder for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, who is desperate for the why (which is obvious!) didn't you or someone quote it on the last page of comments? Didn'you you pull this out of one of the slides?: "We are focusing on ideas that preserve and promote equity, excellence, and diversity in schools."

Clearly the solutions presented have been determined not to "promote equity, excellence and diversity in schools."

Yes, but those are vague words that could mean anything. I could easily argue that restricting OOB feeder rights also "promotes equity, excellence and diversity" in schools.

You're precious.

Ok, the problem here is that PP is being willfully obtuse. That's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What solutions is dcps actually proposing then?

The only real proposals seem to be adding more capacity to the Wilson feeder network. (1) add more middle and high schools to absorb all the elementary school students, (2) park more trailers at the existing middle and high schools to absorb more students, or (3) rent extra space to absorb all the elementary school students. Those seem like just delaying and exacerbating the problem, because it just creates more ways to inject additional students into the network.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 again. I apologize for beating a dead horse on this. I just find the vague and incomplete explanations of why certain solutions are eliminated from consideration to be completely ridiculous. If the simple answer is "Because Mayor Bowser gets a lot of support from EOTP Ward 4, and those solutions would prevent lots of families in EOTP Ward 4 from getting their children into the schools they want," then that should be stated clearly, so people know it's a political favor.

It's the hiding of real reasons behind euphemism and non-transparency that's irritating me.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

FYI to anyone else reading, they HAVE stated this clearly, multiple times. They were explicit about this during the big boundary review a few years ago and then again at this recent meeting. They have been consistent on this. The segregation issue in DC is staring everyone in the face. It is passive aggressive to claim you don't understand when really you do understand but you don't agree. If you don't believe desegregation and diversity in schools is important then maybe it's your turn to clearly state your principles and desired solutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 again. I apologize for beating a dead horse on this. I just find the vague and incomplete explanations of why certain solutions are eliminated from consideration to be completely ridiculous. If the simple answer is "Because Mayor Bowser gets a lot of support from EOTP Ward 4, and those solutions would prevent lots of families in EOTP Ward 4 from getting their children into the schools they want," then that should be stated clearly, so people know it's a political favor.

It's the hiding of real reasons behind euphemism and non-transparency that's irritating me.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

FYI to anyone else reading, they HAVE stated this clearly, multiple times. They were explicit about this during the big boundary review a few years ago and then again at this recent meeting. They have been consistent on this. The segregation issue in DC is staring everyone in the face. It is passive aggressive to claim you don't understand when really you do understand but you don't agree. If you don't believe desegregation and diversity in schools is important then maybe it's your turn to clearly state your principles and desired solutions.

Bravo. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, who is desperate for the why (which is obvious!) didn't you or someone quote it on the last page of comments? Didn'you you pull this out of one of the slides?: "We are focusing on ideas that preserve and promote equity, excellence, and diversity in schools."

Clearly the solutions presented have been determined not to "promote equity, excellence and diversity in schools."

Yes, but those are vague words that could mean anything. I could easily argue that restricting OOB feeder rights also "promotes equity, excellence and diversity" in schools.

You're precious.

Ok, the problem here is that PP is being willfully obtuse. That's all.

Nope. Not obtuse. I'm just looking for a clear answer. I keep hearing "oh, c'mon, you know why ..." but no one wants to speak the real reason. I honestly do not know what it is. Here are the possibilities I see ...

1. It's about political favors; Mayor Bowser is protecting her political supporters who want access to Deal and Wilson. If it's really about political favors, then she should say so.

2. It's about racial diversity; we can't let Deal or Wilson have fewer than __% black or Hispanic students. If it's really about a specific racial diversity quota, then say so and tell us what the quota is. At least we'll all know what the quota is, so we can figure out how to meet it.

3. It's about political will; no one wants to be accused of preventing any current or future student from attending Deal or Wilson. If it's really about no one wanting to be subject to criticism, them say so. At least then we'll know we need to design a solution that gives all the decision-makers plausible deniability.

Any other reasons I'm missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, who is desperate for the why (which is obvious!) didn't you or someone quote it on the last page of comments? Didn'you you pull this out of one of the slides?: "We are focusing on ideas that preserve and promote equity, excellence, and diversity in schools."

Clearly the solutions presented have been determined not to "promote equity, excellence and diversity in schools."

Yes, but those are vague words that could mean anything. I could easily argue that restricting OOB feeder rights also "promotes equity, excellence and diversity" in schools.

You're precious.

Ok, the problem here is that PP is being willfully obtuse. That's all.

Nope. Not obtuse. I'm just looking for a clear answer. I keep hearing "oh, c'mon, you know why ..." but no one wants to speak the real reason. I honestly do not know what it is. Here are the possibilities I see ...

1. It's about political favors; Mayor Bowser is protecting her political supporters who want access to Deal and Wilson. If it's really about political favors, then she should say so.

2. It's about racial diversity; we can't let Deal or Wilson have fewer than __% black or Hispanic students. If it's really about a specific racial diversity quota, then say so and tell us what the quota is. At least we'll all know what the quota is, so we can figure out how to meet it.

3. It's about political will; no one wants to be accused of preventing any current or future student from attending Deal or Wilson. If it's really about no one wanting to be subject to criticism, them say so. At least then we'll know we need to design a solution that gives all the decision-makers plausible deniability.

Any other reasons I'm missing?

Nobody likes the idea that a feeder could be kicked out of a school. It is Wilson today, Hardy and Stuart-Hobson tomorrow. People like stability and the boundary process was so recent that it is disruptive to make drastic changes so soon after

[Anonymous]

There is not a specific quota. But nobody wants it to get less diverse than it already is.

And yes, you are being willfully obtuse. Maybe try to be a little more realistic about politics, a little more circumspect in your remarks, and you could actually help instead of being a pain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

FYI to anyone else reading, they HAVE stated this clearly, multiple times. They were explicit about this during the big boundary review a few years ago and then again at this recent meeting. They have been consistent on this. The segregation issue in DC is staring everyone in the face. It is passive aggressive to claim you don't understand when really you do understand but you don't agree. If you don't believe desegregation and diversity in schools is important then maybe it's your turn to clearly state your principles and desired solutions.

Thanks for your clear response. I don't think DCPS ever states that clearly; saying DCPS wants solutions that "promote equity, excellence and diversity" is not saying clearly that solutions cannot restrict access for black and Hispanic students.

To be clear, I don't have any problem with racial diversity and desegregation; I'm all for it. But we need to be clear about what our true goals are, and what our available tools are.

Solving a complex problem like this doesn't happen if people aren't clear about the limits. Using vague language and hidden parameters just makes it harder. Also, we ought to ask ourselves if the true goal of all this is to decrease overcrowding in Deal-Wilson, or if the true goal is to desegregate the city. The solutions may be very different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

FYI to anyone else reading, they HAVE stated this clearly, multiple times. They were explicit about this during the big boundary review a few years ago and then again at this recent meeting. They have been consistent on this. The segregation issue in DC is staring everyone in the face. It is passive aggressive to claim you don't understand when really you do understand but you don't agree. If you don't believe desegregation and diversity in schools is important then maybe it's your turn to clearly state your principles and desired solutions.

Thanks for your clear response. I don't think DCPS ever states that clearly; saying DCPS wants solutions that "promote equity, excellence and diversity" is not saying clearly that solutions cannot restrict access for black and Hispanic students.

To be clear, I don't have any problem with racial diversity and desegregation; I'm all for it. But we need to be clear about what our true goals are, and what our available tools are.

Solving a complex problem like this doesn't happen if people aren't clear about the limits. Using vague language and hidden parameters just makes it harder. Also, we ought to ask ourselves if the true goal of all this is to decrease overcrowding in Deal-Wilson, or if the true goal is to desegregate the city. The solutions may be very different.

The language is clear to anyone who isn't trying to be a pain, like you.

Is it so hard to believe that segregation and overcrowding are both legitimate problems, and we should try to find a solution that helps with both?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is not a specific quota. But nobody wants it to get less diverse than it already is.

And yes, you are being willfully obtuse. Maybe try to be a little more realistic about politics, a little more circumspect in your remarks, and you could actually help instead of being a pain.

Calling people names isn't going to help move the process forward.

I frankly think this problem (and most problems) requires people to be less circumspect and more transparent in their language. If this is all really about race, then it's unhelpful to use code words to hide that. It sounds like we both appreciated the woman at the May 3 meeting who commented openly that we need to consider race and the fact that the city is largely segregated in evaluating the situation. I applaud her for saying it openly, and think that's how the conversation needs to move forward. I am frustrated that DCPS seems to be making decisions based on race, but won't say so.

[Anonymous]

If we are dealing with both Deal and Wilson being overcrowded, why not make Deal for 6th and 7th grade only, and Hardy for 8th and 9th grade? Make it one big pool of students with the current feeders and make better use of Hardy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is not a specific quota. But nobody wants it to get less diverse than it already is.

And yes, you are being willfully obtuse. Maybe try to be a little more realistic about politics, a little more circumspect in your remarks, and you could actually help instead of being a pain.

Calling people names isn't going to help move the process forward.

I frankly think this problem (and most problems) requires people to be less circumspect and more transparent in their language. If this is all really about race, then it's unhelpful to use code words to hide that. It sounds like we both appreciated the woman at the May 3 meeting who commented openly that we need to consider race and the fact that the city is largely segregated in evaluating the situation. I applaud her for saying it openly, and think that's how the conversation needs to move forward. I am frustrated that DCPS seems to be making decisions based on race, but won't say so.

You seem intent on imputing bad and oversimplified motives. What is code about "diversity"? It means diversity. It isn't just about race, we want many different kinds of diversity. Economic diversity, language diversity, diversity of culture, etc. It isn't as simple as you seem to think and it is much more than just race.

[Anonymous]

3. It's about political will; no one wants to be accused of preventing any current or future student from attending Deal or Wilson. If it's really about no one wanting to be subject to criticism, them say so. At least then we'll know we need to design a solution that gives all the decision-makers plausible deniability.

Any other reasons I'm missing?

Look, you are just being a pain here. Wanting current students to have the feeder to which they are currently entitled is a policy choice. It isn't just wanting to avoid criticism! A good school system offers stability and predictability, and more choice rather than less. Kicking feeder schools out does not serve those policy goals. You have a very cynical and simplistic view of the political process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we are dealing with both Deal and Wilson being overcrowded, why not make Deal for 6th and 7th grade only, and Hardy for 8th and 9th grade? Make it one big pool of students with the current feeders and make better use of Hardy.

How does that reduce overcrowding? I guess it shifts some of the excess students from Deal to soak up space at Hardy, but it doesn't do anything for Wilson, does it?