Mayor Bowser to Make Education Policy and Personnel Announcement - Boundary Decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If people are "not clamoring" to come wotp, why did Bowser just "tweak" the grandfathering?

I live wotp not in a million dollar house (nor anywhere close to that), so bragging about your million dollar house does not give me much sympathy for you.

Clamoring as in moving WOTP. Bowser made it right for a group of her constituents that we're going to Deal already for over 20 years. She didn't save them forever. She made a transition a little easier. And no, there is not a clear distinction between Crestwood and AU Park. PP didn't say culturally (how does one measure cultural differences? And why would havering cultural differences be a big deal?), PP said "demographics", so it's agreed there's no huge SES difference, so any reasonable person would confer that PP meant Crestwood has brown people and AU park has white people.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that it was political pandering. Will there be a real article in the Post questioning this policy? Are the parents of Deal and Wilson going to just sit back and watch the schools become more overcrowded??

I don't think anyone has denies that Mayor Bowser has done a favor for her constituents. If you remember, during the DME process Bowser was the Ward 4 Council Member. Crestwood and 16th Street Heights are in Ward 4. Surely you are not suggesting that we should not prevail upon our elected official? The difference between "pandering" and "constituent service" in this case is pretty gray. Other neighborhoods were able to have their concerns addressed at other stages of the process. Should the Post be writing about that as well?

Also, I was a pretty vocal supporter of Bowser's opponent. One of my main criticisms of her was that she didn't seem to stand for anything. However, I believe that this issue of the park not being a boundary is something that she felt strongly about. I wouldn't discount her own principles having an important role in these changes.

Expanding on this point in bold, there was a small area that was reassigned from Janney that was reinstated after a lobbying effort. Oyster was reassigned from Wilson but then back to Wilson after a lobbying effort. There were other changes made between the two main DME committee drafts, due in large part to neighborhood lobbying. Plus, this Kelly Miller issue that was addressed by Bowser. I do not understand this obsession with Crestwood.

And as for the statement underlined, yes, Bowser also believes that the river should not be a boundary, hence the Miller/Eastern decision. I think this stance of the park/river not being a boundary is a respectable one, and shared by others too, including members of the DME committee. It was obvious in their final draft. Some DCUM posters like to argue that the Deal boundary looks gerrymandered, but it's obvious what's behind it: a belief that the city's best by-right middle school should be shared across the park and by a racially and economically diverse set of families.

[Anonymous]

Well, enjoy the overcrowded schools then.

[Anonymous]

What do people suggest for the overcrowded schools, if not changing boundaries? Actual suggestions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, enjoy the overcrowded schools then.

You too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do people suggest for the overcrowded schools, if not changing boundaries? Actual suggestions.

Feeder rights. Plain and simple. Deal is 31% OOB. Are people ok with that? Even if you're not willing to cut feeder rights the elementaries should cap the OOB enrollment even if it means cutting funding.

[Anonymous]

That can also be fixed with boundaries, make the boundaries so they fill the schools.

Next question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people suggest for the overcrowded schools, if not changing boundaries? Actual suggestions.

Feeder rights. Plain and simple. Deal is 31% OOB. Are people ok with that? Even if you're not willing to cut feeder rights the elementaries should cap the OOB enrollment even if it means cutting funding.

So, let me get this straight, are you arguing for eotp feeder rights to Deal, but that otherwise OOB families should not be allowed to go to Deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kelly Miller retains Wilson access, too. Great, so the problems all remain.

How? For the 80 families?

WOODSON, not Wilson. There is a big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, enjoy the overcrowded schools then.

And you enjoy the mediocre instruction and lack of extracurriculars.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I don't think anyone has denies that Mayor Bowser has done a favor for her constituents. If you remember, during the DME process Bowser was the Ward 4 Council Member. Crestwood and 16th Street Heights are in Ward 4. Surely you are not suggesting that we should not prevail upon our elected official? The difference between "pandering" and "constituent service" in this case is pretty gray.

To me, the big difference here is that Mayor Bowser's constituents are now a much broader group than just Ward 4. She's mayor now, so she should be representing the interests of the whole city, not just her old Ward 4. It was a great "tweak" for Ward 4, but pretty unhelpful for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And as for the statement underlined, yes, Bowser also believes that the river should not be a boundary, hence the Miller/Eastern decision. I think this stance of the park/river not being a boundary is a respectable one, and shared by others too, including members of the DME committee. It was obvious in their final draft. Some DCUM posters like to argue that the Deal boundary looks gerrymandered, but it's obvious what's behind it: a belief that the city's best by-right middle school should be shared across the park and by a racially and economically diverse set of families.

I have no problem with the idea that the park or river should not be a de facto boundary. But the simple fact is that the boundaries need to change because they're currently drawn too broadly, and result in too many children attending Deal and Wilson. The park is a convenient boundary marker, because it avoids the common problem of people complaining that when two sides of a street are zoned differently. But if it makes you happy to avoid the park as a boundary, then we can set the boundary precisely one block east of the park, and the children of Crestwood (or whatever neighborhood) can be split between two schools. FWIW, I think Bowser is just using this "park is not a boundary" line to justify a favor she wants to give her Ward 4 supporters.

What really offends me about your post though is the casual accusations of racism that you and some others like to level at anyone who disagrees with you. You don't know me, or anything about me besides the fact that I disagree with you on this one issue. And yet you think my disagreement gives you the right to make all sorts of wrong assumptions about me and my views on race and economic diversity. But I live far further east than Crestwood, and my family has no rights to Deal or Wilson, no matter how this turns out. So screw you. Check your damn assumptions.

[Anonymous]

It's been said before but it's worth mentioning again, Janney is overcrowded. Why weren't the boundaries drawn to remove some kids from Janney? Is ot because its a different game when it impacts your family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people suggest for the overcrowded schools, if not changing boundaries? Actual suggestions.

Feeder rights. Plain and simple. Deal is 31% OOB. Are people ok with that? Even if you're not willing to cut feeder rights the elementaries should cap the OOB enrollment even if it means cutting funding.

So, let me get this straight, are you arguing for eotp feeder rights to Deal, but that otherwise OOB families should not be allowed to go to Deal?

NP. I agree. I do not think its fair for Eaton to lose Deal and Hearst and others have 80% OOB to make Deal, the "overcrowded" school have 30% OOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And as for the statement underlined, yes, Bowser also believes that the river should not be a boundary, hence the Miller/Eastern decision. I think this stance of the park/river not being a boundary is a respectable one, and shared by others too, including members of the DME committee. It was obvious in their final draft. Some DCUM posters like to argue that the Deal boundary looks gerrymandered, but it's obvious what's behind it: a belief that the city's best by-right middle school should be shared across the park and by a racially and economically diverse set of families.

I have no problem with the idea that the park or river should not be a de facto boundary. But the simple fact is that the boundaries need to change because they're currently drawn too broadly, and result in too many children attending Deal and Wilson. The park is a convenient boundary marker, because it avoids the common problem of people complaining that when two sides of a street are zoned differently. But if it makes you happy to avoid the park as a boundary, then we can set the boundary precisely one block east of the park, and the children of Crestwood (or whatever neighborhood) can be split between two schools. FWIW, I think Bowser is just using this "park is not a boundary" line to justify a favor she wants to give her Ward 4 supporters.

What really offends me about your post though is the casual accusations of racism that you and some others like to level at anyone who disagrees with you. You don't know me, or anything about me besides the fact that I disagree with you on this one issue. And yet you think my disagreement gives you the right to make all sorts of wrong assumptions about me and my views on race and economic diversity. But I live far further east than Crestwood, and my family has no rights to Deal or Wilson, no matter how this turns out. So screw you. Check your damn assumptions.

+1 I agree with this reasoned PP.

The point is more that, in regards to appropriate governance, the mayor of a city should make decisions with the big picture in mind. She should be embarrassed to have her first prominent schools issue be an FAQ about "tweaks".

Crestwood is getting a NEW school built for it and refuses to go there even when it is built --they are the people with the problem, no one else.