Ward 2/3 High School proposal in the NW Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"

I would completely agree that lots of folks who like what they have are happy if they get to keep it. Yes indeed. Though I might add that these folks are voters and participants too, and they can weigh in like everyone else.

But I think you are both attacking a red herring to some extent. I am not saying and have never said that we should not try very hard to create great options so that at the end of this process, many folks most touched by the final proposal will feel like they've been treated fairly and that they have something that could be as good as they currently have. I just don't think many people will truly feel that way, because for better or worse, if they were happy before they will want the certainty of what they had. But if our criterion is every single person has to be happy or at least only moderately pissed off with the final proposal, then guess what? We will never change the boundaries ever. Even in cases where all the options are excellent, many people are pissed off at boundary changes. Everywhere. And many of the choices that we'll have to make here will involve constituencies that want different things and will define what is "as good as we had" differently. We will all work hard, but knowing that honestly at the end of the day we cannot get it right even if we get it a lot closer.

But if you are looking for folks to chip in to try to make something better, limiting your set of folks who can help out to only those you think are worse off in whatever the most likely scenario is at this stage is short-sighted. I know that is not really what you mean, but that is what it feels like.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
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.

So does this goal include ensuring that Southwest remains zoned for Wilson?

[Anonymous]

In recent weeks, I've been thinking (cynically) that DCPS should just say "Screw it!" and build a whole new fancy middle school and high school complex somewhere in Ward 3. That way, everyone can get what they want.

All the Ward 3 families won't face the threat of being forced to drive across town after come goofy lottery. All the OOB families who won't support Roosevelt or any other EotP school for fear it won't be as nice as Deal/Wilson can just keep commuting over to Ward 3 for schooling. DCPS can then consolidate the remaining students in all the other non-Ward 3 schools, and close down whatever is un-utilized.

It would be a complete waste of money, but maybe that's what it takes to make everyone happy.

(OTOH, maybe even this is a complete loser of an idea, because it would stink of DCPS pouring more money into white Ward 3, instead of putting money into other parts of the city. Perhaps DCPS is in a no-win situation here, because any move will allow people to complain about favoritism.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In recent weeks, I've been thinking (cynically) that DCPS should just say "Screw it!" and build a whole new fancy middle school and high school complex somewhere in Ward 3. That way, everyone can get what they want.

All the Ward 3 families won't face the threat of being forced to drive across town after come goofy lottery. All the OOB families who won't support Roosevelt or any other EotP school for fear it won't be as nice as Deal/Wilson can just keep commuting over to Ward 3 for schooling. DCPS can then consolidate the remaining students in all the other non-Ward 3 schools, and close down whatever is un-utilized.

It would be a complete waste of money, but maybe that's what it takes to make everyone happy.

(OTOH, maybe even this is a complete loser of an idea, because it would stink of DCPS pouring more money into white Ward 3, instead of putting money into other parts of the city. Perhaps DCPS is in a no-win situation here, because any move will allow people to complain about favoritism.)

Versus what we have now, which is DC pouring money into ... {fill it in yourself...Eastern, Dunbar, Ballou, Roosevelt}.

Color shouldn't matter, one way or the other. Demand and supply should.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

So does this goal include ensuring that Southwest remains zoned for Wilson?

I personally don't have the opinion that any address in the city should remained eternally zoned for any specific school. My position is that if an address is removed from the Wilson boundary, it should be placed inbounds for an equal or better option. I hold that position for Crestwood and I hold it for Southwest.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
But if you are looking for folks to chip in to try to make something better, limiting your set of folks who can help out to only those you think are worse off in whatever the most likely scenario is at this stage is short-sighted. I know that is not really what you mean, but that is what it feels like.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here, but I would hope that the take away from what I am saying is that if you are happy with your current option, you should work just as hard to ensure that others are happy with their options as you do protecting what you currently have. This is doubly true if your position is that you should keep what you currently have while others should lose what they currently have.

For instance, if you are inbounds for Deal and Wilson and believe that you should remain inbounds while some other inbounds areas are reassigned to, for example, MacFarland (if it were reopened) and Roosevelt, would you support 30% of the best teachers from Deal and Wilson being reassigned to MacFarland and Roosevelt?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

So does this goal include ensuring that Southwest remains zoned for Wilson?

I personally don't have the opinion that any address in the city should remained eternally zoned for any specific school. My position is that if an address is removed from the Wilson boundary, it should be placed inbounds for an equal or better option. I hold that position for Crestwood and I hold it for Southwest.

I understand (and support) that sentiment, but what gives if something has to give? If {Deal, Wilson} is overcrowded and DCPS needs to remove students but the "equal or better option" does not yet exist, what should be done? Your position seems to be to do nothing in that case. Again, I understand your stance, but that denies the possibility that something [b]needs [/b]to be done. (This is mostly hypothetical, at this point.)

[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.

+1,000 to all of the above post from Jeff.

To address another poster who said that Catania would have to break his promise if elected, I am not so sure. If you look at his record and what he says, he is very focused on improving school quality and programing options, in all parts of the city.

While it is true that the education and income levels of parents can explain a lot of student achievement, people who actually study and work in education know that programming and teaching can also make a big difference. I think Catania understands this. On DCUM I think the importance of parental "SES" is treated as the be-all-end-all, beyond what actual research and experience would suggest.

For example, did you know that Wards 7 and 8 together account for about 45% of the students in DCPS (yes, almost half), and yet there is not a single dual language school in those wards? There is a lot that can be done to improve options even with the current boundaries more or less as they are. I say more or less because there are parts of the city where schools were closed in the last 5 years and people may need to be newly assigned, but that is about all that really needs doing urgently. The rest is really up for debate and I think Catania has the right idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1,000 to all of the above post from Jeff.

To address another poster who said that Catania would have to break his promise if elected, I am not so sure. If you look at his record and what he says, he is very focused on improving school quality and programing options, in all parts of the city.

While it is true that the education and income levels of parents can explain a lot of student achievement, people who actually study and work in education know that programming and teaching can also make a big difference. I think Catania understands this. On DCUM I think the importance of parental "SES" is treated as the be-all-end-all, beyond what actual research and experience would suggest.

For example, did you know that Wards 7 and 8 together account for about 45% of the students in DCPS (yes, almost half), and yet there is not a single dual language school in those wards? There is a lot that can be done to improve options even with the current boundaries more or less as they are. I say more or less because there are parts of the city where schools were closed in the last 5 years and people may need to be newly assigned, but that is about all that really needs doing urgently. The rest is really up for debate and I think Catania has the right idea.

Genuine challenge: point me to published academic work showing that school instruction matters more than family characteristics. I know that's not what you said, exactly, but you seem to dance close to denying the point (perhaps about to be disproven here) that everything is secondary to family characteristics.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

So does this goal include ensuring that Southwest remains zoned for Wilson?

I personally don't have the opinion that any address in the city should remained eternally zoned for any specific school. My position is that if an address is removed from the Wilson boundary, it should be placed inbounds for an equal or better option. I hold that position for Crestwood and I hold it for Southwest.

I understand (and support) that sentiment, but what gives if something has to give? If {Deal, Wilson} is overcrowded and DCPS needs to remove students but the "equal or better option" does not yet exist, what should be done? Your position seems to be to do nothing in that case. Again, I understand your stance, but that denies the possibility that something [b]needs [/b]to be done. (This is mostly hypothetical, at this point.)

I believe that Deal and Wilson overcrowding can be managed for a sufficient length of time to allow for the development of suitable alternatives. There is also an expression along the lines of "there is nothing like necessity to focus the mind". It's likely that as we get closer to an actual crisis, solutions will become more apparent than they are now. There could also be a bit of self-balancing as families decide that alternatives are preferable to an overcrowded Deal or Wilson.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

My position is that if an address is removed from the Wilson boundary, it should be placed inbounds for an equal or better option. I hold that position for Crestwood and I hold it for Southwest.

Which, if any, high school with a boundary do you consider equal to or better than Wilson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

So does this goal include ensuring that Southwest remains zoned for Wilson?

I personally don't have the opinion that any address in the city should remained eternally zoned for any specific school. My position is that if an address is removed from the Wilson boundary, it should be placed inbounds for an equal or better option. I hold that position for Crestwood and I hold it for Southwest.

I understand (and support) that sentiment, but what gives if something has to give? If {Deal, Wilson} is overcrowded and DCPS needs to remove students but the "equal or better option" does not yet exist, what should be done? Your position seems to be to do nothing in that case. Again, I understand your stance, but that denies the possibility that something [b]needs [/b]to be done. (This is mostly hypothetical, at this point.)

This assumption should at least be examined. The high school I attended was excellent, and we had some classrooms in temporary prefab buildings (somewhat like mobile homes or construction site offices) that became long term solutions until the school could be expanded and re-built many years later.

Most people would rather attend a slightly over-crowded excellent school than a half-empty poor performing one.

If we are going to be so adamant that Deal/Wilson are overcrowded and that this requires re-assigning people to lower quality schools, we should at least make an effort to demonstrate that the over-crowding is a serious, urgent problem versus a mere inconvenience. It sounds to me like the problem is over-stated, and it may resolve on its own in the case of Deal as more families choose Hardy. At the end of the day part of the answer may be to build more classrooms at both schools, or set up temporary ones, at least while all of these other proposed schools are being built/boosted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1,000 to all of the above post from Jeff.

To address another poster who said that Catania would have to break his promise if elected, I am not so sure. If you look at his record and what he says, he is very focused on improving school quality and programing options, in all parts of the city.

While it is true that the education and income levels of parents can explain a lot of student achievement, people who actually study and work in education know that programming and teaching can also make a big difference. I think Catania understands this. On DCUM I think the importance of parental "SES" is treated as the be-all-end-all, beyond what actual research and experience would suggest.

For example, did you know that Wards 7 and 8 together account for about 45% of the students in DCPS (yes, almost half), and yet there is not a single dual language school in those wards? There is a lot that can be done to improve options even with the current boundaries more or less as they are. I say more or less because there are parts of the city where schools were closed in the last 5 years and people may need to be newly assigned, but that is about all that really needs doing urgently. The rest is really up for debate and I think Catania has the right idea.

Genuine challenge: point me to published academic work showing that school instruction matters more than family characteristics. I know that's not what you said, exactly, but you seem to dance close to denying the point (perhaps about to be disproven here) that everything is secondary to family characteristics.

Do you know any teachers or school admins? Are you familiar with DC Prep or KIPP or the other schools working wonders with demographics that other people just write off as hopeless?

I never said school instruction mattered more, I just said that it was significant. Maybe parents account for 50% and instruction 30%, who knows. But that's enough to work on improving programming, as Catania suggests.

What do you think was the point behind charters, Teach for America? If educational outcomes are 100% determined by family then we're wasting all our money on a public school system. Let's just all homeschool.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

My position is that if an address is removed from the Wilson boundary, it should be placed inbounds for an equal or better option. I hold that position for Crestwood and I hold it for Southwest.

Which, if any, high school with a boundary do you consider equal to or better than Wilson?

Today I don't consider any of the DCPS general admission high schools to be equal or better than Wilson. I believe with the proper application of effort and resources, that doesn't need to be the case a few years from now.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

So does this goal include ensuring that Southwest remains zoned for Wilson?

I personally don't have the opinion that any address in the city should remained eternally zoned for any specific school. My position is that if an address is removed from the Wilson boundary, it should be placed inbounds for an equal or better option. I hold that position for Crestwood and I hold it for Southwest.

I understand (and support) that sentiment, but what gives if something has to give? If {Deal, Wilson} is overcrowded and DCPS needs to remove students but the "equal or better option" does not yet exist, what should be done? Your position seems to be to do nothing in that case. Again, I understand your stance, but that denies the possibility that something [b]needs [/b]to be done. (This is mostly hypothetical, at this point.)

I believe that Deal and Wilson overcrowding can be managed for a sufficient length of time to allow for the development of suitable alternatives. There is also an expression along the lines of "there is nothing like necessity to focus the mind". It's likely that as we get closer to an actual crisis, solutions will become more apparent than they are now. There could also be a bit of self-balancing as families decide that alternatives are preferable to an overcrowded Deal or Wilson.

Agreed - this is what I was trying to say at 14:39. It seems to me that the crowding is not ideal but nor is it a crisis that should lead to people being re-assigned to a struggling MS/HS.