Another outsider who thinks Controlled-choice zones are what DC needs

[Anonymous]

Can someone please relay publicly what a bad idea this is? People who have no real understanding of the situation and no real stake in the outcome keep trying to shove this idea forward.


http://greatergreatereducation.org/post/21514/worried-about-redrawing-school-boundaries-why-not-try-controlled-choice-zones-instead/

[Anonymous]

So, instead of buying into a certain neighborhood, you would buy into a certain zone? This accomplishes nothing in the long run.

[Anonymous]

FORWARD!

[Anonymous]

But the zone is big enough to have enough poor families in it to make sure no one school had too many non-poor families. That's why the geniuses who propose this don't propose it for ward 3 ( not enough poor people ) or ward 7 ( not enough non-poor people, I guess. )

[Anonymous]

So, to avoid this model, I need to downsize on space and move to a condo in Ward 3. People will do everything in their power to have what they deem as an excellent education for their children.

Why not make schools in the poorer wards more attractive. No one would have considered Powell a few years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why not make schools in the poorer wards more attractive. No one would have considered Powell a few years ago.

This. There isn't a boundary problem. There is a lack of attractive schools option. If every school in DC was attractive to its in-boundary families there would only be a handful in the entire system that were overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

What percentage of poor kids is acceptable?

Personally, I think the title one standard is too high. I would say 30%

Not sure if that is possible outside of ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Acceptable is a loaded word. It's more like "beyond what percentage of students eligible for Free and Reduced Meals does a school begin to show declines in educational quality for all of the students there?"

Answer according to studies is 30%. And that is in functional school districts ( ahem).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Acceptable is a loaded word. It's more like "beyond what percentage of students eligible for Free and Reduced Meals does a school begin to show declines in educational quality for all of the students there?"

Answer according to studies is 30%. And that is in functional school districts ( ahem).

Ever since this story in The Onion I've never been able to hear the word "acceptable" the same way:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-vows-to-get-church-pedophilia-down-to-accepta,17201/

[jsteele]

Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions posted above. First, Ken Archer is not really an "outsider" as the thread topic would have it. He lives in DC and has been active on education issues for some time. I don't always agree with him, but I respect his knowledge of the topic. While he doesn't currently have a child enrolled in DCPS, that is only because his child is too young. I believe that will change next year.

Also, contrary to the post that says controlled choice plans are not being proposed for Wards 3 and 8, Archer's proposal does exactly that. It's notable that given where he lives, strict neighborhood school boundaries would be personally advantageous to him. So, the fact that he proposes controlled-choice even for his own neighborhood shows a certain willingness to make his own sacrifice.

[Anonymous]

I really wish this crazy train of social engineering and demanding overnight changes would slow down so that we could all get past this next lottery and see how it shakes out. I really think that there will be a fair jump in the number of families who are satisfied with their lottery results based on the incremental changes that have been made in the last couple of years (requiring rankings in lottery picks, dropping folks from waitlists for schools ranked behind any they got into, the move towards a unified lottery, etc.). Plus, there are schools quietly making gains--and I don't mean in testing scores so much as I do in reputation, trustability, being welcoming to higher SES families (ie: Powell). Why can't we allow those schools to continue their upward trend and assist them further through resources...not by ramming it down throats. Does My School DC plan to do a survey of lottery recipients to see how they feel about their result? Could we please get a good assessment of the state of things NOW before making enormous changes? Who are all these pundits coming out of the woodwork and writing about what my child needs while sitting smugly from their home offices in Bethesda or wherever?! Whose payroll are these people on? What committees, task forces, or boards of directors are they sitting on that are influencing what they are preaching. I have to unplug from all of this crazy talk for a while.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions posted above. First, Ken Archer is not really an "outsider" as the thread topic would have it. He lives in DC and has been active on education issues for some time. I don't always agree with him, but I respect his knowledge of the topic. While he doesn't currently have a child enrolled in DCPS, that is only because his child is too young. I believe that will change next year.

Also, contrary to the post that says controlled choice plans are not being proposed for Wards 3 and 8, Archer's proposal does exactly that. It's notable that given where he lives, strict neighborhood school boundaries would be personally advantageous to him. So, the fact that he proposes controlled-choice even for his own neighborhood shows a certain willingness to make his own sacrifice.

what area are you speaking of? Or perhaps you could just say generally what DC neighborhood school families are most at risk with this proposal? As I read his proposal, you are limited by the controlled-choice to certain neighborhoods, rather than guaranteed a specific school. But since so many DC neighborhoods lack diversity, I don't see how much diversity in the schools you are really adding in exchange for giving up the right to attend your closest school.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions posted above. First, Ken Archer is not really an "outsider" as the thread topic would have it. He lives in DC and has been active on education issues for some time. I don't always agree with him, but I respect his knowledge of the topic. While he doesn't currently have a child enrolled in DCPS, that is only because his child is too young. I believe that will change next year.

Also, contrary to the post that says controlled choice plans are not being proposed for Wards 3 and 8, Archer's proposal does exactly that. It's notable that given where he lives, strict neighborhood school boundaries would be personally advantageous to him. So, the fact that he proposes controlled-choice even for his own neighborhood shows a certain willingness to make his own sacrifice.

He is no education expert and has no kids in public school in DC, nor has he ever. When someone with actual knowledge and experience speaks up yay or nay on this issue it will be valuable. In the meantime, more people weighing in on things they don't really understand is not helpful. Lets just be clear when bloggers are simply, bloggers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the zone is big enough to have enough poor families in it to make sure no one school had too many non-poor families. That's why the geniuses who propose this don't propose it for ward 3 ( not enough poor people ) or ward 7 ( not enough non-poor people, I guess. )

The "geniuses" here referred to in the plural are the original authors of the op-ed pice in the post: Kahlenberg, Chaltain and Pertrilli

[Anonymous]

The Greater Greater Washington house style of advocating a policy by assuming only the rosy projections regarding potential benefits and ignoring the best arguments of any opponent can be pretty grating.