Council Member David Grosso's Statement on Latest School Boundaries Proposal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know the DME does not have an easy job, so I'm sorry to express distrust, but i do have to question why the DME's proposal is so hands off charters. I'm not insinuating that their autonomy be taken or that neighborhood preference be applied (I'm completely against that). I just question why the proposal practically acts as if the charters aren't a prominent part of our educational landscape in DC. And all I'm left with is that perhaps the DME is so far in the charter camp that she is loathe to do anything to rock their boats. She did choose charter for her own kids, right?

I see this often - speculation about the DME'S personal bias toward charters and I find it just as baffling as the oblique reference to DCPS "coordinating" with charters.

The DME proposals are about school boundaries and school assignment. Neither of these things apply nor has anything at all to do with charters. You cannot be assigned to a charter and none of them has a boundary. They are each their own entity and don't even coordinate with each other.

Since I raised the question about coordinating, I'm dying to know what the DME-charter conspiracy theorists would like to have seen in the boundary review process with regard to charters. And for the record, my child does not attend a charter.

[Anonymous]

Grosso's an empty suit. No innovation there.

[Anonymous]

I loved Grosso's statement and I hope other CMs issue similar ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I loved Grosso's statement and I hope other CMs issue similar ones.

I want statements that say, "I support adding $x to the capital budget to build/reconfigure these four middle schools."

[Anonymous]

This new proposal doesn't improve neighborhood schools, but then offers no alternatives for middle class families who will be shut out of the lotteries because they are not at-risk. In this sense it is far more disruptive than the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No plan in place to improve the quality of neighborhood schools will de facto force families into charters. With this new proposal the most at-risk kids will be given priority at the best schools, while the wealthiest will for the most part continue to access the best schools in the city, EVERYONE, and I mean everyone else will be forced into lottery-based charters.

Charters are conspicuously absent from the proposal because they will ultimately become the solution for DCPS. The only thing these proposals are doing is making an opening for charters to save the day.

How can a discussion of school reform not include how to improve the quality of DCPS? I think the DME will throw her hands up and say that the charters are better equipped at handling issues of quality. After all Kaya Henderson has already said this at least once.

Charter capacity is woefully inadequate to absorb the sheer number of kids that are coming...this is the only way to save DCPS: sandbag the charter approval and expansion process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This new proposal doesn't improve neighborhood schools, but then offers no alternatives for middle class families who will be shut out of the lotteries because they are not at-risk. In this sense it is far more disruptive than the status quo.

What do you recommend is a better way? Also, at risk is a pretty narrow definition, do you think the families of at risk kids in general will be in a position to take advantage of this opportunity? Said another way, will at risk families be able to cross the city daily to get their children to the WOTP schools? At middle school and up likely yes because the kids can take public transportation, elementary school is harder. This may create more open seats at some schools in practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new proposal doesn't improve neighborhood schools, but then offers no alternatives for middle class families who will be shut out of the lotteries because they are not at-risk. In this sense it is far more disruptive than the status quo.

What do you recommend is a better way? Also, at risk is a pretty narrow definition, do you think the families of at risk kids in general will be in a position to take advantage of this opportunity? Said another way, will at risk families be able to cross the city daily to get their children to the WOTP schools? At middle school and up likely yes because the kids can take public transportation, elementary school is harder. This may create more open seats at some schools in practice.

PP seems interested in preserving the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know the DME does not have an easy job, so I'm sorry to express distrust, but i do have to question why the DME's proposal is so hands off charters. I'm not insinuating that their autonomy be taken or that neighborhood preference be applied (I'm completely against that). I just question why the proposal practically acts as if the charters aren't a prominent part of our educational landscape in DC. And all I'm left with is that perhaps the DME is so far in the charter camp that she is loathe to do anything to rock their boats. She did choose charter for her own kids, right?

I see this often - speculation about the DME'S personal bias toward charters and I find it just as baffling as the oblique reference to DCPS "coordinating" with charters.

The DME proposals are about school boundaries and school assignment. Neither of these things apply nor has anything at all to do with charters. You cannot be assigned to a charter and none of them has a boundary. They are each their own entity and don't even coordinate with each other.

Since I raised the question about coordinating, I'm dying to know what the DME-charter conspiracy theorists would like to have seen in the boundary review process with regard to charters. And for the record, my child does not attend a charter.

For the record I don't think that speculation that DME has a bias towards charters has to be a "conspiracy theory" -- it's a possibility, that I feel shouldn't be overlooked, given the growth of charters, the closing of numerous DCPS schools and the chancellor publicly deferring to Charters as knowing how to do middle schools (presumably better than DCPS)

I do think she heard loud and clear that parents want good DCPS neighborhood school options -- something that wasn't immediately clear before the boundary meetings. I do speculate that her job security is attached to keeping real-estate owning/gentrifying parents in DC and so will try to do whatever possible to achieve that. Of course it's much easier to open charters around town than to improve neighborhood schools - an achievement that has eluded them. At some level, I hope they now accept that SES is the strongest factor in school success. But what can a school district do about that?

[Anonymous]

The DME introduced charters into the mix as part of the short-lived "choice set" proposal, but otherwise has no skin in the DCPS part of the educational big picture. So, as far as I can tell, charters are off the table, finding ways to actually improve schools is off the table, and the only thing left are mythical middle and high schools which have no realistic funding prospects, OOB set asides at already overcrowded higher performing schools, and a few minor boundary tweaks. Awesome job!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This new proposal doesn't improve neighborhood schools, but then offers no alternatives for middle class families who will be shut out of the lotteries because they are not at-risk. In this sense it is far more disruptive than the status quo.

Neighborhood schools will improve when more middle-class families start going to them. If DME could facilitate this in a politically feasible way, all would be well -- the way it it is the the upper NW schools now.

It also involves providing special programs (and funding) for schools that don't have a lot of middle-class families in the neighborhood. For this to happen DCPS has to admit that what they've done so far (e.g., teacher evaluations, principal threats) hasn't worked and never will - it was wrong from the beginning. That will be hard for them - giving up the dogma they've lived by.

I can hear it now: "You're saying our poor children can't learn!"

No --it's just that your browbeating method won't work. It's harder and more nuanced than that, and if there are any heroes in it, they aren't young hotshots intent on making a name for themselves.