Catania's Statement on Boundary/Feeder Changes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

I believe he is going to try to stop the changes via legislative means. At least, that's how I interpret this:

"I intend to take action to delay implementation of the recommendations until at least school year 2016-2017."

I don't think he has a whole lot of goodwill built up on the Council, and I imagine it would be hard to get support for stopping a lottery that's already in progress and going back to the old system. How much would that cost? Where would the money come from? How many charter schools would opt out of the combined lottery if they knew it was going to be a sh*tshow?

There will also be some families that like aspects of the new plan (at-risk set-asides, guaranteed PK in Title I schools) and will fight hard to keep them for 2015-6.

And while some Van Ness parents don't like the new boundaries, I think they'd be even more pissed to stay in-bounds for Amidon-Bowen.

He doesn't have to stop any of the aspects people might like from occurring, he just has to stop the boundary redraw until there's a more concrete plan for people. I'm not effected by the MS feeder component, I'm still fed to a crap school and I was before... But more people in ward 6 are starting to worry about that than will attend van ness.

Oh, so he's going to make Wilson accept anyone who lives in SW, Navy Yard, Crestwood, Shepherd Park, etc. AND everyone who attends Deal or Hardy or Adams until Eastern, Roosevelt, and Coolidge are on par with it? He better start planning a budget that allows for an expansion. Or does he just mean that he'll do that for one more year while those schools develop improvement plans (not like they've never had any improvement plans before...haven't we been through over a decade of No Child Left Behind) and then implement boundary changes after that, whether the schools improve much or not?

I don't see how this could happen in 5 or 10 years. Catania just needs to accept the proposal as is and be done with it. He doesn't have "dirty" hands in this situation. Gray is out so let him take the blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:blah blah bliddly belch...Catania is handing out platitudes for everyone, with no firm road map for how to carry it out. Perhaps he will issue the necessary clarifications in due course; but if not, a long-winded statement like this could be politically dangerous. Bowser could come out with a more explicit statement and look more of a leader.

And in due course pigs will fly.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh, so he's going to make Wilson accept anyone who lives in SW, Navy Yard, Crestwood, Shepherd Park, etc. AND everyone who attends Deal or Hardy or Adams until Eastern, Roosevelt, and Coolidge are on par with it? He better start planning a budget that allows for an expansion. Or does he just mean that he'll do that for one more year while those schools develop improvement plans (not like they've never had any improvement plans before...haven't we been through over a decade of No Child Left Behind) and then implement boundary changes after that, whether the schools improve much or not?

If your goal is simply to relieve overcrowding by any means necessary with no concern with what happens to those who lose access, Catania is probably not your man. I'm not sure Bowser will be your woman, for that matter. But, if you think that confidence-building measures that gain community buy-in for boundary changes will achieve the same goal without causing widespread alienation from DCPS, then I suggest you take a closer look at Catania.

I believe that the confidence building measures will achieve buy in from a few, including yourself, but will still leave many complaining (accurately, if not justifiably) that they are being moved from a higher performing school to a lower performing school. That may well be a marginal improvement over implementing the DME proposal right away, though it will come with costs. I can well see why someone who wants that appraoch (and who thinks Catania will better able to insure those confidence building measures are really solid plans) would choose Catania on this basis - but I do not think it augurs the kind of clean break in DC politics that would make Catania appealing to the large number of voters who are not harmed by the DME proposal, or who have little direct stake in DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, based on this statement, I'm definitely voting for Bowser.

I wouldn't go as far...but Catania is rapidly losing his main edge, in my mind of course, vs Bowser as an independent, policy-oriented reformer. Bowser now has a clear opening to persuade many of us in the middle.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh, so he's going to make Wilson accept anyone who lives in SW, Navy Yard, Crestwood, Shepherd Park, etc. AND everyone who attends Deal or Hardy or Adams until Eastern, Roosevelt, and Coolidge are on par with it? He better start planning a budget that allows for an expansion. Or does he just mean that he'll do that for one more year while those schools develop improvement plans (not like they've never had any improvement plans before...haven't we been through over a decade of No Child Left Behind) and then implement boundary changes after that, whether the schools improve much or not?

If your goal is simply to relieve overcrowding by any means necessary with no concern with what happens to those who lose access, Catania is probably not your man. I'm not sure Bowser will be your woman, for that matter. But, if you think that confidence-building measures that gain community buy-in for boundary changes will achieve the same goal without causing widespread alienation from DCPS, then I suggest you take a closer look at Catania.

I probably will vote for Catania. I think he's mean but smart, and Bowser is nice[r] but dumb. I'll choose smart. They're probably equally corrupt.

I have a lot of concern for people who lose access to Wilson. I'm one of them and I am PISSED, though I feel fortunate to have the financial resources to move to Wilson's new boundary or out of DC should I feel it necessary in the future. However, I have absolutely no hope in Catania's ability to "gain community buy-in for boundary changes....without causing widespread alienation from DCPS." Rhee, Abby Smith, Gray, Kaya, etc. etc. have tried to sell Ward 6 on Eastern and most people aren't having it; what makes Catania think he can get buy-in?

I'm probably more willing than the average person in my neighborhood to try out sub-par schools and see how things go, so if he can't convert me, he's going to have a tough time with most of my neighbors. And there is nothing he can do to make me feel that Eastern is a better option than Wilson, except possibly solve poverty, economic inequality, and generational patterns of trauma and abuse throughout DC. He might be a smart guy, but he ain't that smart. Given that, I say let's rip off the bandaid and make the changes starting in 2015-6, as scheduled. Don't rebuild and restart the lottery in February or something. Let it run and then tweak the boundaries in a year or two using the guidelines in the DME's plan.

[Anonymous]

He is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Why not propose keeping proposal in place but adding an addendum that any families slated to attend a new MS that is not yet open will have seats at the table with design etc. Furthermore, these families will have a 2 year grandfather clause to remain at current school or projected MS once the school actually opens.

[Anonymous]

i would extend the clause to 10 years after a school opens which is when the next boundary review will have to happen.i also would ask that middle schools only start with a sixth grade class and guid each year and same for hs start with oe grade (9th grade only) like eastern did. a hs like roosevelt that is being modernized only has 18% IB and only 350 kids--and no middle school to feed into it. it can and will take a long time and parents who currently have access to high performing schools should not lose them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i would extend the clause to 10 years after a school opens which is when the next boundary review will have to happen.i also would ask that middle schools only start with a sixth grade class and guid each year and same for hs start with oe grade (9th grade only) like eastern did. a hs like roosevelt that is being modernized only has 18% IB and only 350 kids--and no middle school to feed into it. it can and will take a long time and parents who currently have access to high performing schools should not lose them

Why not make it a round 20 years so that no kid currently alive has to change schools boundaries...

[Anonymous]

OP I said 10 years AFTER a school opens--so for these unknown middle schools folks can maintain a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, based on this statement, I'm definitely voting for Bowser.

I wouldn't go as far...but Catania is rapidly losing his main edge, in my mind of course, vs Bowser as an independent, policy-oriented reformer. Bowser now has a clear opening to persuade many of us in the middle.

I have never had this impression of Bowser. To me, her position on the latest proposal is consistent with her position on the prior ones: silent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, based on this statement, I'm definitely voting for Bowser.

I wouldn't go as far...but Catania is rapidly losing his main edge, in my mind of course, vs Bowser as an independent, policy-oriented reformer. Bowser now has a clear opening to persuade many of us in the middle.

I have never had this impression of Bowser. To me, her position on the latest proposal is consistent with her position on the prior ones: silent.

I never saw her that way either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

I believe he is going to try to stop the changes via legislative means. At least, that's how I interpret this:

"I intend to take action to delay implementation of the recommendations until at least school year 2016-2017."

I don't think he has a whole lot of goodwill built up on the Council, and I imagine it would be hard to get support for stopping a lottery that's already in progress and going back to the old system. How much would that cost? Where would the money come from? How many charter schools would opt out of the combined lottery if they knew it was going to be a sh*tshow?

There will also be some families that like aspects of the new plan (at-risk set-asides, guaranteed PK in Title I schools) and will fight hard to keep them for 2015-6.

And while some Van Ness parents don't like the new boundaries, I think they'd be even more pissed to stay in-bounds for Amidon-Bowen.

He doesn't have to stop any of the aspects people might like from occurring, he just has to stop the boundary redraw until there's a more concrete plan for people. I'm not effected by the MS feeder component, I'm still fed to a crap school and I was before... But more people in ward 6 are starting to worry about that than will attend van ness.

Oh, so he's going to make Wilson accept anyone who lives in SW, Navy Yard, Crestwood, Shepherd Park, etc. AND everyone who attends Deal or Hardy or Adams until Eastern, Roosevelt, and Coolidge are on par with it? He better start planning a budget that allows for an expansion. Or does he just mean that he'll do that for one more year while those schools develop improvement plans (not like they've never had any improvement plans before...haven't we been through over a decade of No Child Left Behind) and then implement boundary changes after that, whether the schools improve much or not?

I don't see how this could happen in 5 or 10 years. Catania just needs to accept the proposal as is and be done with it. He doesn't have "dirty" hands in this situation. Gray is out so let him take the blame.

That would be the typical DC politician's -- i.e., the Bowser -- way out. But the DME proposal is half-baked poor public policy and Catania is t afraid to say we can do better.

[Anonymous]

People, please. Saying he "can't support a plan that moves students into a lower-performing school" is a safe statement for him since his support of the plan is now unnecessary. A statement that might have committed him to something would have been "I will undo any plan that moves students into lower performing schools."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Why not propose keeping proposal in place but adding an addendum that any families slated to attend a new MS that is not yet open will have seats at the table with design etc. Furthermore, these families will have a 2 year grandfather clause to remain at current school or projected MS once the school actually opens.

+1

We can't keep kicking this can down the road.

[Anonymous]

He's basically saying that if elected he will avoid making most hard choices by deferring to lame duck mayor and his advisory committee, but delay implementation for a year so he can be be bold and decisive, because he's that kind of guy.