Revised Boundary Recommendations to be released on or about June 13

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really I wouldn't be complaining at all. Sometimes it is better to do no harm than to act without a clear goal, plan, or support.

Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

DCPS (specifically the DME Abigail Smith), what was the goal of this exercise? Yes, I participated in several of the focus groups asked the question and never got an answer beyond "well boundaries haven't changed in 40 years, so we are making changes," for the sake of change. Never a good reason for me particularly when looking at educational reform, where you need empirical evidence, pilots, and a long-term horizon on how modifications impact long-term outcomes for children.

The proposals were in a word radical to shake things up so that families would be softened up. Abolish neighborhood schools and create a city-wide lottery at all grades (the most radical); lose predictability through choice sets (so people don't know which school their child would actually attend); or keep a predictable elementary school, with strangely redrawn boundaries in several neighborhoods throughout the city, but lotteries for all high schools. In my experience following these discussions it seems that nobody really likes these proposals, the strongest endorsement I have heard is "that something needs to be done," or "at least they are trying to do something." The city-wide parents who don't like the proposals and boundaries have written letters, signed petitions, and started protesting on the street. The reaction has been so strong in my neighborhood that many parents have gone beyond list-serves and are organizing door-to-door and sending fliers.

For green development and creating sustainable schools proximity is important. The initial proposals A,B, and C removed proximity preference and the proposed boundary redrawing did not consider proximity to schools. Note that there is even one proposal (C) that actually gives a preference to teachers, but not neighbors.

This process is not credible, has no mandate and is ignoring the voices of families and children.

good points -- the boundary issue is being used like other school issues (e.g., low scores dwindling population in some schools, poor middle school options) to shake up the system and specifically to shake up neighborhood schools to make way for more charters. It s the shock doctrine applied to public schools. New Orleans had a natural disaster to move things along. DCPS has "school reform" and boundary changes.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

Yes, THere's no question that DCPS boundaries, neglected or manipulated for many years, need to be attended to. The concern is if the boundaries issue is being used to manipulate families against their best interests.

And I remember well the IFF report - the first time I heard (and cringed at) the concept of "performing seats."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

Ha. Here's a quote from the first page of the thread about Cheh's bill:

The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Ha. Here's a quote from the first page of the thread about Cheh's bill:

The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

Exactly. I think that is the strongest argument for something coming out of the current DME process. Gray doesn't care if he takes the heat because he is gone anyway. A lot of folks in this town are going to be interested in making the most of this unique opportunity to avoid political costs.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ha. Here's a quote from the first page of the thread about Cheh's bill:

The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

Exactly. I think that is the strongest argument for something coming out of the current DME process. Gray doesn't care if he takes the heat because he is gone anyway. A lot of folks in this town are going to be interested in making the most of this unique opportunity to avoid political costs.

Maybe Gray cares about his legacy -- dunno, but maybe.

Also, does this mean DME takes the fall? -- but not too hard, because the charter system is ready to snap her up -- along with Henderson.

So it's likely that they are not worried about losing their jobs -- they are actually doing their jobs right now!

And they can delude themselves telling themselves that they are doing it for the children.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ha. Here's a quote from the first page of the thread about Cheh's bill:

The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

Exactly. I think that is the strongest argument for something coming out of the current DME process. Gray doesn't care if he takes the heat because he is gone anyway. A lot of folks in this town are going to be interested in making the most of this unique opportunity to avoid political costs.

Take that to mean that if Bowser is elected, we might expect some of this to be implement? She can get the benefit of change without paying a personal price, politically?

I believe Catania's been pretty clear he does not support this. Anyone donated to his campaign recently?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

In a recent letter to the DME, Mary Cheh expressed strong opposition to the current process and its specific plans for lotteries, choice sets and specific boundary re-draws like the expansion of Hearst to incorporate streets very close to Janney and Murch. So has her position evolved since 2012? Or are you really suggesting that her current opposition is insincere and that they are just posturing to have Gray and Smith take the heat for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

In a recent letter to the DME, Mary Cheh expressed strong opposition to the current process and its specific plans for lotteries, choice sets and specific boundary re-draws like the expansion of Hearst to incorporate streets very close to Janney and Murch. So has her position evolved since 2012? Or are you really suggesting that her current opposition is insincere and that they are just posturing to have Gray and Smith take the heat for this?

The study that she initiated in 2012 would have inevitably led to technical changes like Murch->Hearst. So yes, she is full of, ahem, she is being insincere now. IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

In a recent letter to the DME, Mary Cheh expressed strong opposition to the current process and its specific plans for lotteries, choice sets and specific boundary re-draws like the expansion of Hearst to incorporate streets very close to Janney and Murch. So has her position evolved since 2012? Or are you really suggesting that her current opposition is insincere and that they are just posturing to have Gray and Smith take the heat for this?

The study that she initiated in 2012 would have inevitably led to technical changes like Murch->Hearst. So yes, she is full of, ahem, she is being insincere now. IMO.

She has evolved. (I've emailed with her, fwiw.) Her initial quote in the NW Current said residents want diversity. They want good schools, too, but diversity is important to Ward 3 residents. She heard an earful: quality trumps diversity each and every day. Predictability trumps diversity each and every day. She heard the uproar and she changed her tune.

Of course, this is besides the point of whether she is being insincere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

In a recent letter to the DME, Mary Cheh expressed strong opposition to the current process and its specific plans for lotteries, choice sets and specific boundary re-draws like the expansion of Hearst to incorporate streets very close to Janney and Murch. So has her position evolved since 2012? Or are you really suggesting that her current opposition is insincere and that they are just posturing to have Gray and Smith take the heat for this?

The study that she initiated in 2012 would have inevitably led to technical changes like Murch->Hearst. So yes, she is full of, ahem, she is being insincere now. IMO.

She has evolved. (I've emailed with her, fwiw.) Her initial quote in the NW Current said residents want diversity. They want good schools, too, but diversity is important to Ward 3 residents. She heard an earful: quality trumps diversity each and every day. Predictability trumps diversity each and every day. She heard the uproar and she changed her tune.

Of course, this is besides the point of whether she is being insincere.

Does anyone have a link to Cheh's "diversity comment" -- I didn't see it in the NW current link above.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

For me, the first few sentences in the Recommendations section of that plan confirm what I've believed from the start - that the none of the various policy examples would be implemented city-wide, but rather cherry-picked and tailored to meet needs of various areas of the city. What Cleveland Park needs is different from Brightwood and more different still from Congress Heights. From page 42, emphasis mine:

To accelerate performance in the District, add 27,070 performing seats in the Top Ten priority neighborhood clusters by 2016. Closing the service gap necessitates a coordinated effort between the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) and the Public Charter School Board (PCSB) as well as a focused implementation strategy. IFF recommends the development of cluster specific strategic plans. To develop each strategic plan, consult the detailed analysis for each of the Top Ten clusters in the Profiles section, immediately following this section. Because of the distinct characteristics of each neighborhood, each Top Ten cluster will have a separate strategy that accounts for local variation.

Since my own neighborhood ranks at number 2 on the Top Ten priority clusters, I'm not joining the ranks of protesters. I may not be all that excited by the some of the policies that have been floated thus far, but I'd be MUCH angrier to be stuck with status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, THere's no question that DCPS boundaries, neglected or manipulated for many years, need to be attended to. The concern is if the boundaries issue is being used to manipulate families against their best interests.

Actually, I would say there is question. The vast majority of kids in DC do not attend an in-boundary school. There is only one high school -- Wilson -- and one middle school -- Deal -- that don't take every kid from anywhere in the city who wants to attend. Changing the attendance boundaries of those schools without either changing their feeder schools or feeder policies will have zero impact on the enrollment of those schools. Boundary reform is a solution in search of a problem. The reason Deal and Wilson are crowded is not because their boundaries are too big, but because there are no comparable options.

I'll go further and say that goes double for changing assignment policies. There's nothing wrong with DCPS's current assignment policies, other than the fact that there just aren't enough spots at desirable schools. The current policies actually do a very good job of making sure that there is 100% utilization of the most desirable schools, in a more-or-less fair way.

Anonymous wrote:

And I remember well the IFF report - the first time I heard (and cringed at) the concept of "performing seats."

You again? For the last time, "seat" in this context doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not referring to a person. It's referring to the physical capacity of a school.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ha. Here's a quote from the first page of the thread about Cheh's bill:

The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

Exactly. I think that is the strongest argument for something coming out of the current DME process. Gray doesn't care if he takes the heat because he is gone anyway. A lot of folks in this town are going to be interested in making the most of this unique opportunity to avoid political costs.

Take that to mean that if Bowser is elected, we might expect some of this to be implement? She can get the benefit of change without paying a personal price, politically?

I believe Catania's been pretty clear he does not support this. Anyone donated to his campaign recently?

I think two things can happen:

1) The DME will come up with a plan that has enough popularity that both Bowser and Catania will support it;
2) The DME will identify components that are politically unpopular, but can be implemented without Council support and components that are politically popular, but require Council action.

Of these two possibilities, I see the second as most likely. Of possible changes that are both politically unpopular and doable without Council support, boundary changes seem the most obvious. Parts of Janney and Murch can be moved to Hearst, Eaton can be changed to feed Hardy, etc. Cheh, Bowser, Catania can scream and holler, but I doubt they could stop it. Similarly, elementary choice sets could probably be done if they are limited to select parts of the city. The Mayor could just implement these changes and ignore the Council (which, in fact, may be happy to be ignored in this instance).

In addition, the DME can recommend things such as a new Ward 7 application-only middle school and a new Ward 4 middle school. Those would probably require funding from the Council, but since such ideas are popular, the Council would probably support them.

In the end, Gray and Smith would get blamed for the unpopular changes, while Bowser and Catania could take credit for the popular ones. The problem is if there are unpopular, but necessary, changes that require Council support. That's where it gets tricky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Since my own neighborhood ranks at number 2 on the Top Ten priority clusters, I'm not joining the ranks of protesters. I may not be all that excited by the some of the policies that have been floated thus far, but I'd be MUCH angrier to be stuck with status quo.

This is my position exactly. While I acknowledge that the DME screwed up by allowing stink bombs like city wide lotteries to be put on the table, I don't have much patience for people who want to shut the whole process down and even less for people like Catania who knows better but is using the hysteria as a political strategy.