Kaya Leaving; John Davis in as interim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the problem with the boundary review process that Abigail Smith presided over was that it was far too susceptible to objections that were based on individual rather than collective interest. The idea that people's personal real estate choices must be validated by the education system was outrageous to me then and it remains outrageous now. When you buy a particular house, you assume certain things, but they are not guarantees. That a particular school will ALWAYS be tied to a particular address is a ridiculous assumption, and the idea that that is a "right" is even more ridiculous.

The system we have now sets up enclaves of success that motivated students hope to get into, while leaving an educational quality desert surrounding them. If posters want to sit there and pretend that their objections to things like boundary revisions that redistrict people from Deal to Hardy or the construction of homeless shelters in boundary for a high performing elementary are NOT motivated by person reasons, frankly, I don't believe you.

You send your children to a low-performing school and work tirelessly to solve problems within the school thst are impossible for the school to solve, right?

That's exactly the opposite of the PP's point, which is that this is not an individual problem; it's a group, collective-action problem. Something like choice sets (especially in Capitol Hill) could likely result in equalizing the situation without prejudicing the "enclaves". Breaking down the enclaves is the only way to get to an acceptable MS option on the Hill as well. Would I want to send my child to Eliot-Hine as is? No. Would I try out a Ward 6 unified middle school, feeding from Tyler, Miner, Maury, Payne, Brent, Van Ness, etc, where the administration had made a committment to appropriate academic offerings? Almost certainly I would consider it.

NP. The difficulty though is in identifying what's truly in the best interest of the "collective" versus what's just benefiting a different group of individuals.

For example, you can paint certain residents of Capitol Hill as bad by claiming they are only interested in preserving their individual local school quality against the greater needs of the collective. Or alternatively, you can paint the people whose kids are not currently at that school as individuals who are trying to undermine the successful school the collective neighborhood has created.

Or as another example, when people discuss the process of redistricting from Deal to Hardy, which side represents the "selfish individuals"?: Is it the individuals fighting to keep a spot at Deal despite to negative impact of overcrowding on everyone, or is it the individuals trying to push other families out of Deal to make it less overcrowded for their own kids? I can understand and appreciate both sides of that fight, but neither has a clear claim on the moral high ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bye, Kaya!

But why wait until October? Why not leave now? Transition Davis in this summer and let the District begin the new school year with the new interim Chancellor instead of another (avoidable) post-school start exit and transition--especially one that's so huge.

The only reason to wait until October would be to give Bowser the time to conduct her national search and find a new replacement. Otherwise, you're just creating more turmoil.

Leave now.

No one will miss you.

You're out of your mind if you think you speak for everyone. You certainly don't speak for me, so stop claiming to.

Ask that other poster for a Quaalude. Like really, no one assumed you were being spoken for.

UN.CLENCH. Then BREATHE.

You're funny. You like to imagine people are all hot and bothered, just because they speak clearly. You're the one shouting "unclench and breathe" in all caps... Maybe just because you disagree with someone don't assume they can only think that way because they're unreasonably upset.

Oh yeah, and the word "no one" is all inclusive, so from a literal point, yes, that PP was presuming to speak for everyone. Aaaah, but having that pointed out to you no doubt strikes you as being about clenching too hard. You're funny!

You are seriously damaged.

A dissertation and drawn out explanation for what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the problem with the boundary review process that Abigail Smith presided over was that it was far too susceptible to objections that were based on individual rather than collective interest. The idea that people's personal real estate choices must be validated by the education system was outrageous to me then and it remains outrageous now. When you buy a particular house, you assume certain things, but they are not guarantees. That a particular school will ALWAYS be tied to a particular address is a ridiculous assumption, and the idea that that is a "right" is even more ridiculous.

The system we have now sets up enclaves of success that motivated students hope to get into, while leaving an educational quality desert surrounding them. If posters want to sit there and pretend that their objections to things like boundary revisions that redistrict people from Deal to Hardy or the construction of homeless shelters in boundary for a high performing elementary are NOT motivated by person reasons, frankly, I don't believe you.

You send your children to a low-performing school and work tirelessly to solve problems within the school thst are impossible for the school to solve, right?

PP here. For starters, yes, I send my child to our inbounds school that is low performing and volunteer there in a variety of ways that solves some of the problems. For example, if the problem is that the school needs to have a supply of uniforms for children who can't afford them or forget them at home, that is a problem I can solve by raising money to buy a supply of uniforms. If the problem is that the school needs volunteers to supervise field trips or recess, that is a problem I can solve using my own time and the time of others who I recruit.

But also, like the PP said, you are missing my point, which was that improving a dysfunctional system requires contributions AND sacrifices from everyone participating in that system. I don't know how to fix the system, but what I do know is that at this point, most elementary schools are pronounced to be "acceptable" in preschool at the very least and there are not enough out of bounds spaces for every high achieving child to flee their local school. Something has to change, and refusing to even consider kinds of change that would require disruption of certain kinds of status quo is crazy to me.

What is the solution? I don't know, but I would guess that it starts with considering all ideas in depth before discarding any of them. I'm as unthrilled as the next person about a citywide lottery, but if a citywide lottery caused schools to improve, that's something I'd learn to live with. We have charter parents responding to concerns about long commutes saying, "If you were really committed to the school, you'd have no problem making the trip." I feel similarly about high quality public education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the problem with the boundary review process that Abigail Smith presided over was that it was far too susceptible to objections that were based on individual rather than collective interest. The idea that people's personal real estate choices must be validated by the education system was outrageous to me then and it remains outrageous now. When you buy a particular house, you assume certain things, but they are not guarantees. That a particular school will ALWAYS be tied to a particular address is a ridiculous assumption, and the idea that that is a "right" is even more ridiculous.

The system we have now sets up enclaves of success that motivated students hope to get into, while leaving an educational quality desert surrounding them. If posters want to sit there and pretend that their objections to things like boundary revisions that redistrict people from Deal to Hardy or the construction of homeless shelters in boundary for a high performing elementary are NOT motivated by person reasons, frankly, I don't believe you.

You send your children to a low-performing school and work tirelessly to solve problems within the school thst are impossible for the school to solve, right?

That's exactly the opposite of the PP's point, which is that this is not an individual problem; it's a group, collective-action problem. Something like choice sets (especially in Capitol Hill) could likely result in equalizing the situation without prejudicing the "enclaves". Breaking down the enclaves is the only way to get to an acceptable MS option on the Hill as well. Would I want to send my child to Eliot-Hine as is? No. Would I try out a Ward 6 unified middle school, feeding from Tyler, Miner, Maury, Payne, Brent, Van Ness, etc, where the administration had made a committment to appropriate academic offerings? Almost certainly I would consider it.

Spoken like someone not currently in boundary for SH. You know what's funny about your type? You omitted two of th three schoosl that feed into the only MS on the Hill that has promise. Good luck to you, my myopic self centered friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the problem with the boundary review process that Abigail Smith presided over was that it was far too susceptible to objections that were based on individual rather than collective interest. The idea that people's personal real estate choices must be validated by the education system was outrageous to me then and it remains outrageous now. When you buy a particular house, you assume certain things, but they are not guarantees. That a particular school will ALWAYS be tied to a particular address is a ridiculous assumption, and the idea that that is a "right" is even more ridiculous.

The system we have now sets up enclaves of success that motivated students hope to get into, while leaving an educational quality desert surrounding them. If posters want to sit there and pretend that their objections to things like boundary revisions that redistrict people from Deal to Hardy or the construction of homeless shelters in boundary for a high performing elementary are NOT motivated by person reasons, frankly, I don't believe you.

You send your children to a low-performing school and work tirelessly to solve problems within the school thst are impossible for the school to solve, right?

That's exactly the opposite of the PP's point, which is that this is not an individual problem; it's a group, collective-action problem. Something like choice sets (especially in Capitol Hill) could likely result in equalizing the situation without prejudicing the "enclaves". Breaking down the enclaves is the only way to get to an acceptable MS option on the Hill as well. Would I want to send my child to Eliot-Hine as is? No. Would I try out a Ward 6 unified middle school, feeding from Tyler, Miner, Maury, Payne, Brent, Van Ness, etc, where the administration had made a committment to appropriate academic offerings? Almost certainly I would consider it.

NP. The difficulty though is in identifying what's truly in the best interest of the "collective" versus what's just benefiting a different group of individuals.

For example, you can paint certain residents of Capitol Hill as bad by claiming they are only interested in preserving their individual local school quality against the greater needs of the collective. Or alternatively, you can paint the people whose kids are not currently at that school as individuals who are trying to undermine the successful school the collective neighborhood has created.

Or as another example, when people discuss the process of redistricting from Deal to Hardy, which side represents the "selfish individuals"?: Is it the individuals fighting to keep a spot at Deal despite to negative impact of overcrowding on everyone, or is it the individuals trying to push other families out of Deal to make it less overcrowded for their own kids? I can understand and appreciate both sides of that fight, but neither has a clear claim on the moral high ground.

Original PP here.

I think that the Deal example illustrates perfectly how personally people take this. I don't think it's appropriate. No one is looking at Family X and saying, "Let's kick Family X to the curb so that it's less crowded for Family Y." Rationally, one would look at the physical capacities of schools and adjust the boundaries in order to make sure that no school is over-enrolled. It's not personal!

I am sympathetic to everyone trying to find solid education options for their kids, but I'm also sympathetic to the macro issue at play, which is that many individuals are not willing to invest in the collective, wherever or however that's defined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Original PP here.

I think that the Deal example illustrates perfectly how personally people take this. I don't think it's appropriate. No one is looking at Family X and saying, "Let's kick Family X to the curb so that it's less crowded for Family Y." Rationally, one would look at the physical capacities of schools and adjust the boundaries in order to make sure that no school is over-enrolled. It's not personal!

I am sympathetic to everyone trying to find solid education options for their kids, but I'm also sympathetic to the macro issue at play, which is that many individuals are not willing to invest in the collective, wherever or however that's defined.

I'm the poster you responded to, and I think we agree on the general problem and on the need to make decisions without letting personal or neighborhood bias control. But I still don't think it's so easy. Here's one really concrete example ...

Deal is overcrowded despite the boundary changes, and is projected to get significantly more overcrowded in the coming years. Some say the Deal boundaries should shrink further, which likely means at least one of the feeder elementary schools gets removed from Deal. Rationally, one would say Shepherd or Bancroft is the logical choice for removal, because they're farthest away from Deal and closest to other middle school options. But many parents in those neighborhoods will believe - just as fervently - that the rational choice is just an excuse to benefit other neighborhoods and block their children from attending Deal. They will offer various rational reasons for their position, such as claiming that DCPS needs to keep those elementary schools in the Deal feeder pattern to add to diversity, or by claiming there aren't very many students coming to Deal from those neighborhoods anyway.

So how do you decide which side is more rational?

[Anonymous]

11:53 again. Another "rational" option people may propose for Deal: Let's just add more trailer classrooms. Isn't it arguably rational to do as much as we can to enable as many students as physically possible to attend the highest-ranked middle school in DCPS?

As is probably obvious, I have my own view on what the logical choice is. But I also know other people will fiercely argue - and even believe - that their opposing viewpoint is just as rational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What changes have been made to the Early Childhood division?

The division has been split into two offices. The instructional portion of the division is now under the Office of Instructional Practice which is headed by Jason Kamras, the creator of LEAP. All Title 1 Early Childhood classrooms are under Head Start but the movement of the Instructional Team to Jason's office means that the focus of the work is solely on LEAP as opposed to everything laid out in the Head Start grant. Additionally, the director of the division who has overseen its growth and progress for the past 6 years, has handed in her resignation. This in and of itself is a huge blow for the direction of ECE in the District. Very unfortunate situation all round.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the problem with the boundary review process that Abigail Smith presided over was that it was far too susceptible to objections that were based on individual rather than collective interest. The idea that people's personal real estate choices must be validated by the education system was outrageous to me then and it remains outrageous now. When you buy a particular house, you assume certain things, but they are not guarantees. That a particular school will ALWAYS be tied to a particular address is a ridiculous assumption, and the idea that that is a "right" is even more ridiculous.

The system we have now sets up enclaves of success that motivated students hope to get into, while leaving an educational quality desert surrounding them. If posters want to sit there and pretend that their objections to things like boundary revisions that redistrict people from Deal to Hardy or the construction of homeless shelters in boundary for a high performing elementary are NOT motivated by person reasons, frankly, I don't believe you.

You send your children to a low-performing school and work tirelessly to solve problems within the school thst are impossible for the school to solve, right?

That's exactly the opposite of the PP's point, which is that this is not an individual problem; it's a group, collective-action problem. Something like choice sets (especially in Capitol Hill) could likely result in equalizing the situation without prejudicing the "enclaves". Breaking down the enclaves is the only way to get to an acceptable MS option on the Hill as well. Would I want to send my child to Eliot-Hine as is? No. Would I try out a Ward 6 unified middle school, feeding from Tyler, Miner, Maury, Payne, Brent, Van Ness, etc, where the administration had made a committment to appropriate academic offerings? Almost certainly I would consider it.

Spoken like someone not currently in boundary for SH. You know what's funny about your type? You omitted two of th three schoosl that feed into the only MS on the Hill that has promise. Good luck to you, my myopic self centered friend.

Ha. I deliberately left out SH feeders because of the view that Cluster parents would freak out at any changes in their feeder pattern. But yes, the best idea would be to consolidate all the middle schools. However, if the Cluster (and perhaps LT and JOW) are going to freak out then I don't think we actually meed them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What changes have been made to the Early Childhood division?

The division has been split into two offices. The instructional portion of the division is now under the Office of Instructional Practice which is headed by Jason Kamras, the creator of LEAP. All Title 1 Early Childhood classrooms are under Head Start but the movement of the Instructional Team to Jason's office means that the focus of the work is solely on LEAP as opposed to everything laid out in the Head Start grant. Additionally, the director of the division who has overseen its growth and progress for the past 6 years, has handed in her resignation. This in and of itself is a huge blow for the direction of ECE in the District. Very unfortunate situation all round.

Many of the problems in DCPS are self-created. Does this shift open DCPS to the possibility of losing the grant? What is Kamras's background in ECE? Prior to his elevation by Rhee, his only experience was in the classroom in the role of MS mathematics teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Original PP here.

I think that the Deal example illustrates perfectly how personally people take this. I don't think it's appropriate. No one is looking at Family X and saying, "Let's kick Family X to the curb so that it's less crowded for Family Y." Rationally, one would look at the physical capacities of schools and adjust the boundaries in order to make sure that no school is over-enrolled. It's not personal!

I am sympathetic to everyone trying to find solid education options for their kids, but I'm also sympathetic to the macro issue at play, which is that many individuals are not willing to invest in the collective, wherever or however that's defined.

I'm the poster you responded to, and I think we agree on the general problem and on the need to make decisions without letting personal or neighborhood bias control. But I still don't think it's so easy. Here's one really concrete example ...

Deal is overcrowded despite the boundary changes, and is projected to get significantly more overcrowded in the coming years. Some say the Deal boundaries should shrink further, which likely means at least one of the feeder elementary schools gets removed from Deal. Rationally, one would say Shepherd or Bancroft is the logical choice for removal, because they're farthest away from Deal and closest to other middle school options. But many parents in those neighborhoods will believe - just as fervently - that the rational choice is just an excuse to benefit other neighborhoods and block their children from attending Deal. They will offer various rational reasons for their position, such as claiming that DCPS needs to keep those elementary schools in the Deal feeder pattern to add to diversity, or by claiming there aren't very many students coming to Deal from those neighborhoods anyway.

So how do you decide which side is more rational?

of course everyone believes the solution that benefits them the most is the most rational. again, that is the point: these decisions should be made on a macro level, not based on special pleading from small groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Original PP here.

I think that the Deal example illustrates perfectly how personally people take this. I don't think it's appropriate. No one is looking at Family X and saying, "Let's kick Family X to the curb so that it's less crowded for Family Y." Rationally, one would look at the physical capacities of schools and adjust the boundaries in order to make sure that no school is over-enrolled. It's not personal!

I am sympathetic to everyone trying to find solid education options for their kids, but I'm also sympathetic to the macro issue at play, which is that many individuals are not willing to invest in the collective, wherever or however that's defined.

I'm the poster you responded to, and I think we agree on the general problem and on the need to make decisions without letting personal or neighborhood bias control. But I still don't think it's so easy. Here's one really concrete example ...

Deal is overcrowded despite the boundary changes, and is projected to get significantly more overcrowded in the coming years. Some say the Deal boundaries should shrink further, which likely means at least one of the feeder elementary schools gets removed from Deal. Rationally, one would say Shepherd or Bancroft is the logical choice for removal, because they're farthest away from Deal and closest to other middle school options. But many parents in those neighborhoods will believe - just as fervently - that the rational choice is just an excuse to benefit other neighborhoods and block their children from attending Deal. They will offer various rational reasons for their position, such as claiming that DCPS needs to keep those elementary schools in the Deal feeder pattern to add to diversity, or by claiming there aren't very many students coming to Deal from those neighborhoods anyway.

So how do you decide which side is more rational?

of course everyone believes the solution that benefits them the most is the most rational. again, that is the point: these decisions should be made on a macro level, not based on special pleading from small groups.

Well, we definitely agree on the need for objective, macro-level decision-making. But the really hard part is that in most places - and certainly in DC - such decisions are inherently political. Every mayor and councilmember knows she will catch blowback from neighborhood constituents and other special interest groups if their viewpoints don't prevail, and every DME/Chancellor knows she needs to support the mayor's agenda.

Maybe the mayor will hire you and me to work together to develop the strategy for improving DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Which is why in most places the school system is run by a school board -- separate from a mayor.

Oh wait, we tried that and it didn't work either because they had no pressure from anyone to change anything.

[Anonymous]

Volunteering at a school is great, but it's not going to help the root of the problem which is the backgrounds of where some of these kids come from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bye, Kaya!

But why wait until October? Why not leave now? Transition Davis in this summer and let the District begin the new school year with the new interim Chancellor instead of another (avoidable) post-school start exit and transition--especially one that's so huge.

The only reason to wait until October would be to give Bowser the time to conduct her national search and find a new replacement. Otherwise, you're just creating more turmoil.

Leave now.

No one will miss you.

You're out of your mind if you think you speak for everyone. You certainly don't speak for me, so stop claiming to.

+100%