Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current

[Anonymous]

I think significant grandfathering (to make sure no one's child loses access to a good school) (maybe sibling rights would also help), along with a strong case for a quality alternative (once the grandfathering ends) would address the challenge involved with moving boundaries.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My family is totally and completely unaffected by any of the outcomes, which makes it easier to apply an unbiased eye.

It looks like there are two chokepoints, Deal and Wilson. The feeders need to be adjusted for both.

First, Eaton and Oyster need to be eliminated from Deal. Eaton is closer to Hardy, so that's easy. Oyster has Adams, so that's easy. For those at Oyster that don't want SI, they can go to Hardy, which is much closer.

Next, the eastern borders of the Deal catchment need to be rationalized so that they don't zig-zag through different elementaries. Keep Shepherd, there's no other MS for that school, it has always been a good combination of IB and diversity. Divest Bancroft. It's an SI school, those students have other SI options EotP. Send them to Adams or Chec and let Adams feed Chec as well. Whatever portions of Powell are IB for Deal should also be divested. Same as Bancroft: Adams or Chec.

Next, can the rationalized Deal and Hardy both fit into Wilson? If yes, no problem. However, the unholy marriage of Francis Stevens to SWW (or whatever that hot mess is supposed to be) doesn't. That ego driven institution needs to be removed from the mix. Eastern or Cardozo are the logical choices. The previously mentioned Adams is east of the park and logically goes to Chec or Cardozo.

You're welcome.

There are some thoughtful ideas here. The primary issue I have are the cases in which boundaries are being switched to lower-performing schools. There seems to be a belief among many posters in this thread -- not necessarily you -- that if DCPS simply draws a line on the map, parents will meekly adhere to the new boundaries. In fact, if parents are not happy with the new school assignments, they will seek alternatives such as charters, private, or moving. I stand firmly on the principle that no student should be unwillingly assigned to a lower performing school. Similarly, I hold that no plan should be promoted that will like lead to an outflow of students from DCPS. The solution is to wed the ideas you have above to a plan for increasing the performance of the new destination schools and a transition plan for the interim. We need to get beyond solutions which have winners and losers and get to solutions that have winners and winners.

The above bolded is the equivalent of saying "Status Quo". If students can only move in one direction, nobody can move. If nobody moves, there is no way we can solve any of the structural problems that DCPS is facing. Catania speaks in this kind of pabulum and it drives me bonkers.

I can agree with the rest of your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I really wonder where a lot of these posters live, who are talking about "over-crowding" and offering purportedly well-meaning proposals of new MSs and HSs for those of us living in wards other than 3. I suspect many live in Ward 3, and thus would never be required to attend these brave new schools that they are proposing. But I can't know, because they don't disclose it.

I live in Ward 4 and also posted 18:47 above.
My bias is that I don't want to send my kid to Deal or Wilson, but that means we need better options EOTP.

Bancroft parent here, that's great, but it should be a voluntary process and an additive process (to borrow from Catania's lingo). I don't work for Catania but he sums it up best: no-one should be forced into a worse alternative than what they have today.

I don't know which posts you authored so this may not be responding to you, more to the posters who say hey, let's move the Deal/Wilson boundaries west to Rock Creek Parkway, that will solve it.

16:47 again (not who you're responding to here). I appreciate the inclusive nature of an "additive" process, but it just won't work here IMHO. Few families will volunteer to pioneer a new EotP school. Most will just continue to fight like hell to get access to WotP schools, and will only switch after other families have put in lots of sweat equity to build the EotP schools. In essence, too many will free-ride.

I know it's incredibly unpopular, but I think the only way DCPS will get a new school to thrive will be to force strong communities to attend the school. To me, the strong communities poised to build such a school are will have committed parents, above-average income, and lots of racial diversity. The EotP neighborhoods like Mt Pleasant, 16th St Heights, Petworth, etc are the right ones to build a strong set of elementary/middle/high schools in their neighborhood. Again, I know it's unpopular, but I think they need to be pushed out of the Deal/Wilson nest, so they will fly. I also think those neighborhoods could get tons of extra support from DCPS if they volunteer to be zoned out of Deal/Wilson. They could get almost all the elements they want.

practicalExcept that if the student body becomes significantly whiter as a result, then you will have a Civil Rights lawsuit over disparate impact. And DCPS will lose. Again. (For those not in the know, that's EXACTLY what happened the last time DCPS lost a lawsuit because Wilson and Deal were too white.)

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Wash%20Post%20Articles%20on%20Zone%20Changes%20131026.pdf

What would be the disparate impact if DCPS were to make the quality and programming variety of an EOTP school the equivalent of Deal/Wilson?

The whole city would be delighted. Show us the proof.

Obviously, that's the rub. But we'll never get there if we're not even allowed to speak about alternatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My family is totally and completely unaffected by any of the outcomes, which makes it easier to apply an unbiased eye.

It looks like there are two chokepoints, Deal and Wilson. The feeders need to be adjusted for both.

First, Eaton and Oyster need to be eliminated from Deal. Eaton is closer to Hardy, so that's easy. Oyster has Adams, so that's easy. For those at Oyster that don't want SI, they can go to Hardy, which is much closer.

Next, the eastern borders of the Deal catchment need to be rationalized so that they don't zig-zag through different elementaries. Keep Shepherd, there's no other MS for that school, it has always been a good combination of IB and diversity. Divest Bancroft. It's an SI school, those students have other SI options EotP. Send them to Adams or Chec and let Adams feed Chec as well. Whatever portions of Powell are IB for Deal should also be divested. Same as Bancroft: Adams or Chec.

Next, can the rationalized Deal and Hardy both fit into Wilson? If yes, no problem. However, the unholy marriage of Francis Stevens to SWW (or whatever that hot mess is supposed to be) doesn't. That ego driven institution needs to be removed from the mix. Eastern or Cardozo are the logical choices. The previously mentioned Adams is east of the park and logically goes to Chec or Cardozo.

You're welcome.

There are some thoughtful ideas here. The primary issue I have are the cases in which boundaries are being switched to lower-performing schools. There seems to be a belief among many posters in this thread -- not necessarily you -- that if DCPS simply draws a line on the map, parents will meekly adhere to the new boundaries. In fact, if parents are not happy with the new school assignments, they will seek alternatives such as charters, private, or moving. I stand firmly on the principle that no student should be unwillingly assigned to a lower performing school. Similarly, I hold that no plan should be promoted that will like lead to an outflow of students from DCPS. The solution is to wed the ideas you have above to a plan for increasing the performance of the new destination schools and a transition plan for the interim. We need to get beyond solutions which have winners and losers and get to solutions that have winners and winners.

The above bolded is the equivalent of saying "Status Quo". If students can only move in one direction, nobody can move. If nobody moves, there is no way we can solve any of the structural problems that DCPS is facing. Catania speaks in this kind of pabulum and it drives me bonkers.

I can agree with the rest of your post.

Sadly, I have to agree. It would be nice if no one had to be reassigned to a spot that they deemed less desirable, but some schools just don't have space for everyone who has rights for them currently. Love Catania, but on this point, we do need to do something. I expect that if he actually got elected, he would have to break his promise almost immediately and hope folks got over it (or claim that the alternative being offered was just as good even if folks didn't actually think so). But right now, he needs support and harnessing an angry community is one way to try to get elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But in the meantime, we want to go to Deal and, more important than our own family's preferences, there are broader moral, political and legal issues with which to contend, which I explained above.

I am surprised at how often "broader moral, political and legal issues" coincide with our own family's preferences. An amazing number of DCUM posters are strongly committed to a host of ethical principles which -- purely coincidentally, mind you -- support their personal preferences. I'm not claiming to be completely innocent of this myself and I'll concede that opposing red lining is an easier sell than touting the purchase of expensive real estate as a justification. But, regardless of the justice of your cause, this is simply one more fight over pieces of the same pie.

The idea of adding a Ward 2 or 3 high school is at least an attempt to increase the size of the pie. My issue with it is that it may not be the optimal method of achieving that goal. My preference is to look at expanding EotP opportunities. I can foresee a day when high-performing, ethnically and socio-economicly diverse EotP schools are considered preferable to homogeneous WotP schools. That day is not tomorrow and certainly communities cannot be abandoned during the transition, but the day may not be that far off either.

The corollary is how often it just happens to coincide with a poster's family preference when a claim is made that a certain change would be politically impossible, political suicide, DOA, touching the third rail, illegal, violating the Constitution, violating the Home Rule Charter or all of the above.

My family is totally and completely unaffected by any of the outcomes, which makes it easier to apply an unbiased eye.

It looks like there are two chokepoints, Deal and Wilson. The feeders need to be adjusted for both.

First, Eaton and Oyster need to be eliminated from Deal. Eaton is closer to Hardy, so that's easy. Oyster has Adams, so that's easy. For those at Oyster that don't want SI, they can go to Hardy, which is much closer.

Next, the eastern borders of the Deal catchment need to be rationalized so that they don't zig-zag through different elementaries. Keep Shepherd, there's no other MS for that school, it has always been a good combination of IB and diversity. Divest Bancroft. It's an SI school, those students have other SI options EotP. Send them to Adams or Chec and let Adams feed Chec as well. Whatever portions of Powell are IB for Deal should also be divested. Same as Bancroft: Adams or Chec.

Next, can the rationalized Deal and Hardy both fit into Wilson? If yes, no problem. However, the unholy marriage of Francis Stevens to SWW (or whatever that hot mess is supposed to be) doesn't. That ego driven institution needs to be removed from the mix. Eastern or Cardozo are the logical choices. The previously mentioned Adams is east of the park and logically goes to Chec or Cardozo.

You're welcome.

+1

[Anonymous]

what if Roosevelt were reopened with the guarantee of 15 AP classes available, no matter how small the cohort? Eliminate the minimum 8 or whatever registrants to hold a class? And provide buses similar to the Wilson bus?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My family is totally and completely unaffected by any of the outcomes, which makes it easier to apply an unbiased eye.

It looks like there are two chokepoints, Deal and Wilson. The feeders need to be adjusted for both.

First, Eaton and Oyster need to be eliminated from Deal. Eaton is closer to Hardy, so that's easy. Oyster has Adams, so that's easy. For those at Oyster that don't want SI, they can go to Hardy, which is much closer.

Next, the eastern borders of the Deal catchment need to be rationalized so that they don't zig-zag through different elementaries. Keep Shepherd, there's no other MS for that school, it has always been a good combination of IB and diversity. Divest Bancroft. It's an SI school, those students have other SI options EotP. Send them to Adams or Chec and let Adams feed Chec as well. Whatever portions of Powell are IB for Deal should also be divested. Same as Bancroft: Adams or Chec.

Next, can the rationalized Deal and Hardy both fit into Wilson? If yes, no problem. However, the unholy marriage of Francis Stevens to SWW (or whatever that hot mess is supposed to be) doesn't. That ego driven institution needs to be removed from the mix. Eastern or Cardozo are the logical choices. The previously mentioned Adams is east of the park and logically goes to Chec or Cardozo.

You're welcome.

There are some thoughtful ideas here. The primary issue I have are the cases in which boundaries are being switched to lower-performing schools. There seems to be a belief among many posters in this thread -- not necessarily you -- that if DCPS simply draws a line on the map, parents will meekly adhere to the new boundaries. In fact, if parents are not happy with the new school assignments, they will seek alternatives such as charters, private, or moving. I stand firmly on the principle that no student should be unwillingly assigned to a lower performing school. Similarly, I hold that no plan should be promoted that will like lead to an outflow of students from DCPS. The solution is to wed the ideas you have above to a plan for increasing the performance of the new destination schools and a transition plan for the interim. We need to get beyond solutions which have winners and losers and get to solutions that have winners and winners.

The above bolded is the equivalent of saying "Status Quo". If students can only move in one direction, nobody can move. If nobody moves, there is no way we can solve any of the structural problems that DCPS is facing. Catania speaks in this kind of pabulum and it drives me bonkers.

I can agree with the rest of your post.

Sadly, I have to agree. It would be nice if no one had to be reassigned to a spot that they deemed less desirable, but some schools just don't have space for everyone who has rights for them currently. Love Catania, but on this point, we do need to do something. I expect that if he actually got elected, he would have to break his promise almost immediately and hope folks got over it (or claim that the alternative being offered was just as good even if folks didn't actually think so). But right now, he needs support and harnessing an angry community is one way to try to get elected.

Okay, so it looks like we have two volunteer families to attend lower performing schools. It's nice to see people being part of the solution instead part of the problem.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:what if Roosevelt were reopened with the guarantee of 15 AP classes available, no matter how small the cohort? Eliminate the minimum 8 or whatever registrants to hold a class? And provide buses similar to the Wilson bus?

I have previously suggested exactly that idea. I believe this is the type of thinking needed to revitalize schools like Roosevelt. It would require ending the per-pupil funding mechanism and turning to a program-oriented funding strategy. Currently, DCPS takes a "built it and they will come" attitude toward building renovations. That thinking needs to be extended to programs and staff.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My family is totally and completely unaffected by any of the outcomes, which makes it easier to apply an unbiased eye.

It looks like there are two chokepoints, Deal and Wilson. The feeders need to be adjusted for both.

First, Eaton and Oyster need to be eliminated from Deal. Eaton is closer to Hardy, so that's easy. Oyster has Adams, so that's easy. For those at Oyster that don't want SI, they can go to Hardy, which is much closer.

Next, the eastern borders of the Deal catchment need to be rationalized so that they don't zig-zag through different elementaries. Keep Shepherd, there's no other MS for that school, it has always been a good combination of IB and diversity. Divest Bancroft. It's an SI school, those students have other SI options EotP. Send them to Adams or Chec and let Adams feed Chec as well. Whatever portions of Powell are IB for Deal should also be divested. Same as Bancroft: Adams or Chec.

Next, can the rationalized Deal and Hardy both fit into Wilson? If yes, no problem. However, the unholy marriage of Francis Stevens to SWW (or whatever that hot mess is supposed to be) doesn't. That ego driven institution needs to be removed from the mix. Eastern or Cardozo are the logical choices. The previously mentioned Adams is east of the park and logically goes to Chec or Cardozo.

You're welcome.

There are some thoughtful ideas here. The primary issue I have are the cases in which boundaries are being switched to lower-performing schools. There seems to be a belief among many posters in this thread -- not necessarily you -- that if DCPS simply draws a line on the map, parents will meekly adhere to the new boundaries. In fact, if parents are not happy with the new school assignments, they will seek alternatives such as charters, private, or moving. I stand firmly on the principle that no student should be unwillingly assigned to a lower performing school. Similarly, I hold that no plan should be promoted that will like lead to an outflow of students from DCPS. The solution is to wed the ideas you have above to a plan for increasing the performance of the new destination schools and a transition plan for the interim. We need to get beyond solutions which have winners and losers and get to solutions that have winners and winners.

The above bolded is the equivalent of saying "Status Quo". If students can only move in one direction, nobody can move. If nobody moves, there is no way we can solve any of the structural problems that DCPS is facing. Catania speaks in this kind of pabulum and it drives me bonkers.

I can agree with the rest of your post.

Sadly, I have to agree. It would be nice if no one had to be reassigned to a spot that they deemed less desirable, but some schools just don't have space for everyone who has rights for them currently. Love Catania, but on this point, we do need to do something. I expect that if he actually got elected, he would have to break his promise almost immediately and hope folks got over it (or claim that the alternative being offered was just as good even if folks didn't actually think so). But right now, he needs support and harnessing an angry community is one way to try to get elected.

Okay, so it looks like we have two volunteer families to attend lower performing schools. It's nice to see people being part of the solution instead part of the problem.

As one of the folks posting, I think that is being a little harsh, don't you think Jeff? I am just acknowledging the reality that some folks will be cut out of options that people currently deem as being desirable. We should be working create better options around the city and believe it or not I am. But I have to admit to myself that whatever my small contribution helps come up with, people are more likely going to grudgingly accept rather than openly embrace. The new ideas will be just that at the start. Ideas. And they will require a lot of additional hard work to make them reality during which time we'll still have a lot of uncertainty.

[Anonymous]

Except that if the student body becomes significantly whiter as a result, then you will have a Civil Rights lawsuit over disparate impact. And DCPS will lose. Again. (For those not in the know, that's EXACTLY what happened the last time DCPS lost a lawsuit because Wilson and Deal were too white.)

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme...%20Zone%20Changes%20131026.pdf

One thing struck me while reading these articles from the 60s-era boundary changes. The third article says that parents were less concerned about race than they were about the quality of the schools that were predominantly black. It says, "Statistics presented to the court by civil rights leader Julius W. Hobson and his attorneys show that schools with a majority of poor Negro children have been cheated for years."

And then, as now, there's absolutely no further talk about that disparity in quality. Then, as now, we're settled on the belief that the only way to raise quality is mixing by race and SES.

But look at the results of decades of substandard schools. I watched Abby Smith at a meeting for Ward 4 MS and HS awhile back and kept wondering, why is it so hard to put the same programs at Deal into a new MacFarland Middle School?

Seriously - what are the barriers?

You can say that all the kids in poor areas are below grade level by the time they reach MS, so then that leads to the question, what are the barriers to quality programming in elementary schools?

One proposal in the DME policy examples calls for right to neighborhood schools at prekindergarten. Everyone should support that, because we haven't tried it yet and if every kid is starting their learning at this crucial age they're more prepared by testing age.

And I'm not saying that mixing middle class kids with low-income won't also be a help. This opinion article from the NYTimes on the "The Benefits of Mixing Rich and Poor" makes a strong case for broadening Head Start to include middle class: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/10/the-benefits-of-mixing-rich-and-poor/?_php=true&_type=blogs&hp&rref=opinion&_r=0. I think the debate on Mundo Verde's aftercare offering supports the idea that middle class parents need help, too.

But it still leaves the question of what prevents stronger investment and much better programming for schools in low-income neighborhoods? It's about time we admit there's a huge disparity in what's offered.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what if Roosevelt were reopened with the guarantee of 15 AP classes available, no matter how small the cohort? Eliminate the minimum 8 or whatever registrants to hold a class? And provide buses similar to the Wilson bus?

I have previously suggested exactly that idea. I believe this is the type of thinking needed to revitalize schools like Roosevelt. It would require ending the per-pupil funding mechanism and turning to a program-oriented funding strategy. Currently, DCPS takes a "built it and they will come" attitude toward building renovations. That thinking needs to be extended to programs and staff.

A much briefer version of my lament at 11:11.

It drives me crazy that there's so much talk about quality, but little about how to get quality.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
As one of the folks posting, I think that is being a little harsh, don't you think Jeff? I am just acknowledging the reality that some folks will be cut out of options that people currently deem as being desirable. We should be working create better options around the city and believe it or not I am. But I have to admit to myself that whatever my small contribution helps come up with, people are more likely going to grudgingly accept rather than openly embrace. The new ideas will be just that at the start. Ideas. And they will require a lot of additional hard work to make them reality during which time we'll still have a lot of uncertainty.

I think it is harsh to cavalierly expect other families to be moved around like chess pieces on a board while not expecting the same for yourself. If you start with the goal that no boundary should be shifted to a lower performing school, you may not achieve that goal. But, you will come a lot closer than you will if you don't even try.

I am not saying that everyone needs to happily embrace their new boundaries. But, if the change is not one that you would find acceptable to yourself, I'm not sure you should be recommending it for others.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what if Roosevelt were reopened with the guarantee of 15 AP classes available, no matter how small the cohort? Eliminate the minimum 8 or whatever registrants to hold a class? And provide buses similar to the Wilson bus?

I have previously suggested exactly that idea. I believe this is the type of thinking needed to revitalize schools like Roosevelt. It would require ending the per-pupil funding mechanism and turning to a program-oriented funding strategy. Currently, DCPS takes a "built it and they will come" attitude toward building renovations. That thinking needs to be extended to programs and staff.

Different poster. I agree with this line of thinking. The families who will be most tempted to attend a revitalized school like Roosevelt (most likely those in the nearby neighborhoods, but perhaps others too) should be thinking about what they'd want to see at Roosevelt. Dream big. Maybe even sell it to DCPS as a "laboratory" for new school ideas: guaranteed AP classes, extra per-pupil funding, language immersion, an IB program, mini-academies within the school, an on-site professional whose whole job is to dream up new programs and lobby DCPS, etc. If you can get these things in Roosevelt, and have a lot of parents ready and excited to attend Roosevelt, then DCPS can more easily handle the messy boundary fights.

Jeff, you were reaching out to Roosevelt's principal and others, weren't you? Any success?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As one of the folks posting, I think that is being a little harsh, don't you think Jeff? I am just acknowledging the reality that some folks will be cut out of options that people currently deem as being desirable. We should be working create better options around the city and believe it or not I am. But I have to admit to myself that whatever my small contribution helps come up with, people are more likely going to grudgingly accept rather than openly embrace. The new ideas will be just that at the start. Ideas. And they will require a lot of additional hard work to make them reality during which time we'll still have a lot of uncertainty.

I think it is harsh to cavalierly expect other families to be moved around like chess pieces on a board while not expecting the same for yourself. If you start with the goal that no boundary should be shifted to a lower performing school, you may not achieve that goal. But, you will come a lot closer than you will if you don't even try.

I am not saying that everyone needs to happily embrace their new boundaries. But, if the change is not one that you would find acceptable to yourself, I'm not sure you should be recommending it for others.

Yes indeed. And if you look at the raw data from the ourdcschools survey you will see plenty of people giving feedback to DME/DCPS along the lines of "I applaud you for moving someone else (but not me) out of my crowded school"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what if Roosevelt were reopened with the guarantee of 15 AP classes available, no matter how small the cohort? Eliminate the minimum 8 or whatever registrants to hold a class? And provide buses similar to the Wilson bus?

That would be a good start.