Ward 3 - Wilson feeders meeting last night: did anyone attend?

[Anonymous]

NP.

This is on the parents as much as downtown.

Let's take Eastern -- if every IB Eastern parent with a high school student who attends Latin, BASIS, DCI, Walls -- all enrolled at Eastern it would be high performing next year. The numbers of upper middle class students would completely change the school, the teachers are certified to teach them and the specialized curriculum (IB) is there.

There is a critical mass of students, but no one wants to be first. That's got to be frustrating for the folks downtown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP.

This is on the parents as much as downtown.

Let's take Eastern -- if every IB Eastern parent with a high school student who attends Latin, BASIS, DCI, Walls -- all enrolled at Eastern it would be high performing next year. The numbers of upper middle class students would completely change the school, the teachers are certified to teach them and the specialized curriculum (IB) is there.

There is a critical mass of students, but no one wants to be first. That's got to be frustrating for the folks downtown.

Downtown can cry me a river. Nobody wants to be first, sure, because that would mean their kid goes to an inadequate high school for however long it takes for Eastern's faculty and administration to catch up and improve offerings. The price is too high to pay. It takes a lot longer than a year for the school to truly improve. And a cohort of high performing kids would need at least thee years to pull up the test scores. Nobody wants to be first if that means several years at an inadequate school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP.

This is on the parents as much as downtown.

Let's take Eastern -- if every IB Eastern parent with a high school student who attends Latin, BASIS, DCI, Walls -- all enrolled at Eastern it would be high performing next year. The numbers of upper middle class students would completely change the school, the teachers are certified to teach them and the specialized curriculum (IB) is there.

There is a critical mass of students, but no one wants to be first. That's got to be frustrating for the folks downtown.

Downtown can cry me a river. Nobody wants to be first, sure, because that would mean their kid goes to an inadequate high school for however long it takes for Eastern's faculty and administration to catch up and improve offerings. The price is too high to pay. It takes a lot longer than a year for the school to truly improve. And a cohort of high performing kids would need at least thee years to pull up the test scores. Nobody wants to be first if that means several years at an inadequate school.

+1. Downtown is a disorganized mess staffed by morons. I have no confidence in their ability to transform any high school, certainly not without a massive cash infusion. They are frustrated with me, yes, we have been fighting for years because their incompetencr is damaging my kid's Title I elementary. Downtown sucks. Money or no go.

[Anonymous]

If the W3Ed net just agrees to not include particular solutions on the survey, then the survey will not accurately reflect the opinions of the population in ward 3.

I think it is unfortunate that they have put out a survey under the guise of creating consensus and then excluded options on the survey that many parents in ward 3 would choose.

This survey is allowing dcps to pretend they got community input, when the only options given are preordained options by dcps.

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...

4. I'm frustrated that DCPS has unilaterally decided to take some approached "off the table" - specifically (a) the possibility of adjustments to OOB feeder rights, (b) the possibility of adjustments to feeder patterns, and (c) the possibility of adjustments to school boundaries. It's especially frustrating because DCPS has given no explanation for why those approaches - which a very sizable portion of the community seems to favor - cannot even be considered. If DCPS/DME has legitimate reasons not to pursue those approaches, then DCPS/DME should be willing to spell those reasons out and discuss them openly. If there are other limitations that DCPS/DME is putting on the available approaches, then those should be explained as well. Otherwise, community involvement is ineffective and frustrating.

The DCPS staff do openly say they are off the table because of equity. (They acknowledge that it's drop in the bucket and avoids systematic change and harms the best performing schools and over crowds them...). But that's the answer and doesn't budge.

(It can also be code for wanting ward 4 and 5 votes)

Where have they said that openly? Not in any of the materials I have seen. They make passing reference to core concepts they support, like "equity" and others, without explaining specifically what they mean by the term or how it drives their decisions. And then they take certain approaches off the table without explaining how any of the core principles might drive that decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the W3Ed net just agrees to not include particular solutions on the survey, then the survey will not accurately reflect the opinions of the population in ward 3.

I think it is unfortunate that they have put out a survey under the guise of creating consensus and then excluded options on the survey that many parents in ward 3 would choose.

This survey is allowing dcps to pretend they got community input, when the only options given are preordained options by dcps.

+2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:23 posting - you can call me "J". Is there something I can call you?

I worry we're misunderstanding each other, so let me spell out my views and my understanding of what you're saying.

1. I'm definitely not angry at Brian or the W3 gang. I think they're doing good work. I am impressed at their stamina in the face of headwinds.

2. I think this overcrowding situation is incredibly complex and difficult to solve in a way that will be productive for DCPS and will make even a plurality of people happy. It's complex because it dredges up issues of school-quality, educational equity, race, funding, and political power.

3. I'm pretty confident there's no one solution that will satisfy everyone. I suspect the best path forward will need to be a mixture of several different initiatives that combine to solve the problem while keeping peace among the various interests.

4. I'm frustrated that DCPS has unilaterally decided to take some approached "off the table" - specifically (a) the possibility of adjustments to OOB feeder rights, (b) the possibility of adjustments to feeder patterns, and (c) the possibility of adjustments to school boundaries. It's especially frustrating because DCPS has given no explanation for why those approaches - which a very sizable portion of the community seems to favor - cannot even be considered. If DCPS/DME has legitimate reasons not to pursue those approaches, then DCPS/DME should be willing to spell those reasons out and discuss them openly. If there are other limitations that DCPS/DME is putting on the available approaches, then those should be explained as well. Otherwise, community involvement is ineffective and frustrating.

5. I suspect DCPS/DME really wants to delay this issue entirely until after the next election, or perhaps indefinitely. I think people need to be active and pushy if they want DCPS to actually address this issue.

The DCPS staff do openly say they are off the table because of equity. (They acknowledge that it's drop in the bucket and avoids systematic change and harms the best performing schools and over crowds them...). But that's the answer and doesn't budge.

(It can also be code for wanting ward 4 and 5 votes)

New poster, just adding the other reason why (a), (b) and (c) are off the table **now during this process**, and it's a process reason. Those solutions would have a big impact on people outside of Ward 3, but this is a small ad hoc process involving primarily (not exclusively) WOTP parents and their political reps. Thus the solutions being considered are those that won't prejudice anyone EOTP. any of the latter solutions are not off the table forever I don't think, but they are off the table until the next citywide boundary review process during which there will be citywide participation and those affected by, for example, ending OOB rights, can have the opportunity to participate and have their councilmembers participate too.

[Anonymous]

That doesn't quite fit with what's happening, 18:59. This is not a W3-only process at all. It's a process that is dealing with the Wilson feeder network as a whole. Brian's group is made up of W3 parents, but they're only a part of the larger process. Nothing about the Wilson feeder process takes boundary adjustments or OOB feeder rights off the table. Indeed, they were formally "on the table" and under consideration as part of the process, until DCPS unilaterally removed them without explanation in June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That doesn't quite fit with what's happening, 18:59. This is not a W3-only process at all. It's a process that is dealing with the Wilson feeder network as a whole. Brian's group is made up of W3 parents, but they're only a part of the larger process. Nothing about the Wilson feeder process takes boundary adjustments or OOB feeder rights off the table. Indeed, they were formally "on the table" and under consideration as part of the process, until DCPS unilaterally removed them without explanation in June.

The larger process you are referring to is a working group that is being convened by DCPS to meet several times over the summer and fall. The working group has representation from the schools in the Wilson pattern. It may feature somewhat broader representation than the Ward 3 Wilson Feeder parent group but still far from a citywide boundary review process. And when you say that these options were formally on the table and then removed in June, it is not clear what you mean by "formally". These options were removed at the first DCPS working group meeting, were they not? In other words at the first formal opportunity.

[Anonymous]

The latest slide deck and notes from the community working group meeting have been posted to DCPS Planning's website.

https://dcpsplanning.wordpress.com/category/wilson-feeder-pattern/

Brian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a new idea: put up a few test-in magnet programs east, and also more east, of Connecticut Avenue. Problem solved to a lot degree then.

DCPS doesn't like magnets because some view them as not "equitable." God forbid, that some kids get in because they perform better and worker harder than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That doesn't quite fit with what's happening, 18:59. This is not a W3-only process at all. It's a process that is dealing with the Wilson feeder network as a whole. Brian's group is made up of W3 parents, but they're only a part of the larger process. Nothing about the Wilson feeder process takes boundary adjustments or OOB feeder rights off the table. Indeed, they were formally "on the table" and under consideration as part of the process, until DCPS unilaterally removed them without explanation in June.

The larger process you are referring to is a working group that is being convened by DCPS to meet several times over the summer and fall. The working group has representation from the schools in the Wilson pattern. It may feature somewhat broader representation than the Ward 3 Wilson Feeder parent group but still far from a citywide boundary review process. And when you say that these options were formally on the table and then removed in June, it is not clear what you mean by "formally". These options were removed at the first DCPS working group meeting, were they not? In other words at the first formal opportunity.

Yes, I'm well aware of the working group. It's not city-wide, because it's focused on those associated with Wilson. Therefore, everyone who has a stake is involved. Also, you are simply incorrect about the feeder pattern and OOB options being removed "at the first DCPS working group meeting." You can review the slide decks from the prior meetings to see those options on the list of possibilities, and then you can see they were cut in the June meeting. Do you need me to post links for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That doesn't quite fit with what's happening, 18:59. This is not a W3-only process at all. It's a process that is dealing with the Wilson feeder network as a whole. Brian's group is made up of W3 parents, but they're only a part of the larger process. Nothing about the Wilson feeder process takes boundary adjustments or OOB feeder rights off the table. Indeed, they were formally "on the table" and under consideration as part of the process, until DCPS unilaterally removed them without explanation in June.

The larger process you are referring to is a working group that is being convened by DCPS to meet several times over the summer and fall. The working group has representation from the schools in the Wilson pattern. It may feature somewhat broader representation than the Ward 3 Wilson Feeder parent group but still far from a citywide boundary review process. And when you say that these options were formally on the table and then removed in June, it is not clear what you mean by "formally". These options were removed at the first DCPS working group meeting, were they not? In other words at the first formal opportunity.

Yes, I'm well aware of the working group. It's not city-wide, because it's focused on those associated with Wilson. Therefore, everyone who has a stake is involved. Also, you are simply incorrect about the feeder pattern and OOB options being removed "at the first DCPS working group meeting." You can review the slide decks from the prior meetings to see those options on the list of possibilities, and then you can see they were cut in the June meeting. Do you need me to post links for you?

PP again. See pages 25-26. It was "on the table" in the May meeting. https://dcpsplanning.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/050217-w3ednet-deck1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That doesn't quite fit with what's happening, 18:59. This is not a W3-only process at all. It's a process that is dealing with the Wilson feeder network as a whole. Brian's group is made up of W3 parents, but they're only a part of the larger process. Nothing about the Wilson feeder process takes boundary adjustments or OOB feeder rights off the table. Indeed, they were formally "on the table" and under consideration as part of the process, until DCPS unilaterally removed them without explanation in June.

The larger process you are referring to is a working group that is being convened by DCPS to meet several times over the summer and fall. The working group has representation from the schools in the Wilson pattern. It may feature somewhat broader representation than the Ward 3 Wilson Feeder parent group but still far from a citywide boundary review process. And when you say that these options were formally on the table and then removed in June, it is not clear what you mean by "formally". These options were removed at the first DCPS working group meeting, were they not? In other words at the first formal opportunity.

Yes, I'm well aware of the working group. It's not city-wide, because it's focused on those associated with Wilson. Therefore, everyone who has a stake is involved. Also, you are simply incorrect about the feeder pattern and OOB options being removed "at the first DCPS working group meeting." You can review the slide decks from the prior meetings to see those options on the list of possibilities, and then you can see they were cut in the June meeting. Do you need me to post links for you?

Lol, not everyone who has a stake is involved. If they are talking about making changes or investments at other schools, those schools should be involved.