Catania's Statement on Boundary/Feeder Changes

[jsteele]

http://www.councilmembercatania.com/catania_releases_statement_on_final_school_boundary_recommendations

I would like to thank Mayor Vincent Gray, Deputy Mayor for Education Abigail Smith, her staff, the Advisory Committee on Student Assignment, and the members of the technical research and analysis team for their incredible efforts and diligence over the last several months in undertaking the important work of reviewing the District’s public school boundaries. I would also like to thank the parents, guardians and community members who have dedicated their time to participating in the review process, whether through attending community meetings, communicating with elected representatives, or other avenues of public engagement.

The Mayor’s recommendations are sweeping in scope. They propose wide-ranging changes to our current public school system, including adjustments to elementary school attendance zones, redefined feeder patterns, opening of new middle schools, and student assignment policies that impact school access rights. For the reasons described below, I cannot support implementation of the recommendations at this time.

There are many aspects of the Mayor’s recommendations that I support. I appreciate that the proposal maintains the District’s system of matter-of-right neighborhood schools. However, our students need more than predictable pathways through elementary, middle, and high school. They must have high-quality schools at every level, in every neighborhood. I have maintained all along that I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones. Yet the final recommendations do just that. In addition, the recommendations are silent as to how we intend to improve those lower performing schools. Asking parents and guardians to take this leap of faith without more is asking too much. In order to secure the confidence of our public school families, we must focus on the issue of school quality in tandem with the proposed recommendations so that all our students – regardless of where they live – can succeed. Among other things, we must work with the community to create open and transparent school-specific quality improvement plans. Much more work is needed in this regard.

In addition to issues surrounding school quality, I am not persuaded that the final recommendations can be effectively executed by the start of the next school year, the timetable proposed by the Mayor. Successful implementation will require substantial operational planning, additional financial resources and an effective communication strategy. Yet the recommendations are once again silent. If not properly executed, the proposed changes will undermine the fragile confidence that parents and guardians have in our public school system. I believe that thoughtfulness and thoroughness should trump haste.

For these reasons, among others, I intend to take action to delay implementation of the recommendations until at least school year 2016-2017. Again, while I agree with the direction of many of the recommendations, others I cannot support at this time. With that said, this proposal will serve as an important foundation for work over the next year to address school quality citywide. Bottom line, I believe that any changes to the school boundary and student assignment policies must be made in a manner that instills confidence among students, parents and guardians.

My overarching goal has always been to build a system of high-quality schools in every neighborhood. Over the past 20 months and 144 school visits, I have heard directly from students, parents and guardians, and school leaders, as to what our students need to succeed. Together we have made great progress, resulting in transformative legislative actions to improve school quality. Among others, my Focused Student Achievement Act ended the outdated and harmful practice of social promotion. The Parent and Student Empowerment Act, which I authored, provides parents and students with an advocate and a voice within the public education system. My Comprehensive Planning and Utilization of School Facilities Act takes critical steps to improve facility planning in the future and the physical space in which students are learning. And just today, the first day of the 2014-2015 school year, over 36,000 students will benefit from my Fair Funding Act, which invested $80 million in our public schools to help close the achievement gap. I believe that developing a well-resourced boundary and student assignment plan that addresses issues of school quality will build on these achievements and serve all our students as we work towards improving public education across the city.

I want to again extend my appreciation to the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor for Education and all who participated in the boundary review process.

###

[jsteele]

tl;dr version: He wants a one year delay.

[Anonymous]

I would actually have faith that in a year, a Mayor Catania could pull off a modification to this that would be much better than the existing version.

Bowser would probably... well... I have no idea.

[Anonymous]

I don't see how a single year's delay will resolve my neighborhood's concerns, but at least he repeated his position that he "cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones".

[Anonymous]

"I have maintained all along that I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones."

So, "never", as he's maintained from the start. But he took 700 words to say it so it makes him look smart to some people.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:"I have maintained all along that I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones."

So, "never", as he's maintained from the start. But he took 700 words to say it so it makes him look smart to some people.

Look at this part more closely:

"In order to secure the confidence of our public school families, we must focus on the issue of school quality in tandem with the proposed recommendations so that all our students – regardless of where they live – can succeed. Among other things, we must work with the community to create open and transparent school-specific quality improvement plans. Much more work is needed in this regard."

He is saying that if you want to move families to lower performing schools, you must work with them to address the issue of school quality. He wants school-specific quality improvement plans. He will support moving students to a lower performing school if the school has a realistic chance of improving. That's the only realistic way to address the chicken and egg problem of getting high-performing kids into a lower-performing school.

[Anonymous]

"I have maintained all along that I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones. "

Will it be certain, one year from now, that McFarland not only will be built, but will be at least as high a performing school as Deal?

Will Hardy be as a high a performing school as Deal? Will Eastern be as high a performing school as Wilson? etc, etc?

If so that would be a dramatic change. If not, and all that happens is delay (and at SOME point crowding at Deal needs to be addressed, right?) then this is just a lot of words to cover what really comes down to " we will delay long enough for McFarland plans to be somewhat more clear"

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I have maintained all along that I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones."

So, "never", as he's maintained from the start. But he took 700 words to say it so it makes him look smart to some people.

Look at this part more closely:

"In order to secure the confidence of our public school families, we must focus on the issue of school quality in tandem with the proposed recommendations so that all our students – regardless of where they live – can succeed. Among other things, we must work with the community to create open and transparent school-specific quality improvement plans. Much more work is needed in this regard."

He is saying that if you want to move families to lower performing schools, you must work with them to address the issue of school quality. He wants school-specific quality improvement plans. He will support moving students to a lower performing school if the school has a realistic chance of improving. That's the only realistic way to address the chicken and egg problem of getting high-performing kids into a lower-performing school.

Thats nice (though it makes the whole proposal dependent on a lot of moving parts of DCPS IIUC) but it is not consistent with

" I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones."


A lower performing school with a plan is still a lower performing school.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I have maintained all along that I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones."

So, "never", as he's maintained from the start. But he took 700 words to say it so it makes him look smart to some people.

Look at this part more closely:

"In order to secure the confidence of our public school families, we must focus on the issue of school quality in tandem with the proposed recommendations so that all our students – regardless of where they live – can succeed. Among other things, we must work with the community to create open and transparent school-specific quality improvement plans. Much more work is needed in this regard."

He is saying that if you want to move families to lower performing schools, you must work with them to address the issue of school quality. He wants school-specific quality improvement plans. He will support moving students to a lower performing school if the school has a realistic chance of improving. That's the only realistic way to address the chicken and egg problem of getting high-performing kids into a lower-performing school.

Thats nice (though it makes the whole proposal dependent on a lot of moving parts of DCPS IIUC) but it is not consistent with

" I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones."


A lower performing school with a plan is still a lower performing school.

"Cannot" is present tense. The rest of the statement makes clear that the future is not the present.

[Anonymous]

Catania is very knowledgable and sensible on education, which is why this Democratic household plans to vote for him.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I have maintained all along that I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones."

So, "never", as he's maintained from the start. But he took 700 words to say it so it makes him look smart to some people.

Look at this part more closely:

"In order to secure the confidence of our public school families, we must focus on the issue of school quality in tandem with the proposed recommendations so that all our students – regardless of where they live – can succeed. Among other things, we must work with the community to create open and transparent school-specific quality improvement plans. Much more work is needed in this regard."

He is saying that if you want to move families to lower performing schools, you must work with them to address the issue of school quality. He wants school-specific quality improvement plans. He will support moving students to a lower performing school if the school has a realistic chance of improving. That's the only realistic way to address the chicken and egg problem of getting high-performing kids into a lower-performing school.

Thats nice (though it makes the whole proposal dependent on a lot of moving parts of DCPS IIUC) but it is not consistent with

" I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones."


A lower performing school with a plan is still a lower performing school.

"Cannot" is present tense. The rest of the statement makes clear that the future is not the present.

That could mean that either he is capable of changing his mind (which is banal, and is hardly a resounding statement of resolve - I cannot tell a lie, but don't hold me to that tomorrow) or it means He currently can support a plan to move kids from higher performing schools to low performing schools that will become higher performing schools. The latter is not expressed properly (that is not what his words actually mean in English) and even reading his words as you do, its vague - do they have to actually be a higher performing, or is a solid plan enough? Does McFarland's plan have to actually make is high performing as Deal? Is that realistic? Over what time frame?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I have maintained all along that I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones."

So, "never", as he's maintained from the start. But he took 700 words to say it so it makes him look smart to some people.

Look at this part more closely:

"In order to secure the confidence of our public school families, we must focus on the issue of school quality in tandem with the proposed recommendations so that all our students – regardless of where they live – can succeed. Among other things, we must work with the community to create open and transparent school-specific quality improvement plans. Much more work is needed in this regard."

He is saying that if you want to move families to lower performing schools, you must work with them to address the issue of school quality. He wants school-specific quality improvement plans. He will support moving students to a lower performing school if the school has a realistic chance of improving. That's the only realistic way to address the chicken and egg problem of getting high-performing kids into a lower-performing school.

Mental exercise: We maintain our current patchwork system. How many bushels of "school improvement plans" does it take for another middle school to equalize Deal to the point where it would acceptable to adjust Deal's boundaries? At the rate BASIS, Latin, DCI, KIPP, etc. are growing, will there even be any high or mid SES students left by then? Doubtful. So all he is saying is "never" in a fancy way.

The proposed plan obviously has huge gaps, but the clean slate of 1 to 4 new middle schools offers a chance for DCPS to do something right from the start. Why not start now?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
That could mean that either he is capable of changing his mind (which is banal, and is hardly a resounding statement of resolve - I cannot tell a lie, but don't hold me to that tomorrow) or it means He currently can support a plan to move kids from higher performing schools to low performing schools that will become higher performing schools. The latter is not expressed properly (that is not what his words actually mean in English) and even reading his words as you do, its vague - do they have to actually be a higher performing, or is a solid plan enough? Does McFarland's plan have to actually make is high performing as Deal? Is that realistic? Over what time frame?

The words are pretty clear. I'm not sure why you are not understanding. But, I see if I can explain it better:

"Asking parents and guardians to take this leap of faith without more is asking too much. In order to secure the confidence of our public school families, we must focus on the issue of school quality in tandem with the proposed recommendations so that all our students – regardless of where they live – can succeed. Among other things, we must work with the community to create open and transparent school-specific quality improvement plans. "

First:

"Asking parents and guardians to take this leap of faith without more is asking too much." -- This is the reason he can't support moving kids to lower-performing schools.

Then:

"In order to secure the confidence of our public school families, we must focus on the issue of school quality in tandem with the proposed recommendations..." -- The DME makes recommendations in a vacuum. Catania wants to focus on school quality along with the recommendations.

Therefore:

"we must work with the community to create open and transparent school-specific quality improvement plans" -- School-specific quality improvement plans are one component of confidence-building.

To put it another way. The DME wants to move students. End of story. Catania can't support that. In contrast, he proposes working with communities to create school-improvement plans in which the community has confidence and which have a realistic chance of improving the school. Parents who have confidence in the new schools will more willingly attend them. In that case, Catania would support the changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I have maintained all along that I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones."

So, "never", as he's maintained from the start. But he took 700 words to say it so it makes him look smart to some people.

Look at this part more closely:

"In order to secure the confidence of our public school families, we must focus on the issue of school quality in tandem with the proposed recommendations so that all our students – regardless of where they live – can succeed. Among other things, we must work with the community to create open and transparent school-specific quality improvement plans. Much more work is needed in this regard."

He is saying that if you want to move families to lower performing schools, you must work with them to address the issue of school quality. He wants school-specific quality improvement plans. He will support moving students to a lower performing school if the school has a realistic chance of improving. That's the only realistic way to address the chicken and egg problem of getting high-performing kids into a lower-performing school.

Mental exercise: We maintain our current patchwork system. How many bushels of "school improvement plans" does it take for another middle school to equalize Deal to the point where it would acceptable to adjust Deal's boundaries? At the rate BASIS, Latin, DCI, KIPP, etc. are growing, will there even be any high or mid SES students left by then? Doubtful. So all he is saying is "never" in a fancy way.

The proposed plan obviously has huge gaps, but the clean slate of 1 to 4 new middle schools offers a chance for DCPS to do something right from the start. Why not start now?

A year is long enough to create exactly what he says: "school specific plans." Unicorn school actually becomes a school, with an open date, and an address, and a PLAN. And, to assuage those getting cut out of deal, it should also be TEST IN. The DME and her fairy-tale advisory committee, with their set asides and feeders that split up some of the best schools in the city, will not stop the charter/suburb bleed of high-quality students (and the funding and invested parents that usually come along with them.) This plan only maintains the status quo - people going charter, bailing for the burbs or buying into the overcrowded Deal. Test-in is a such a political hot-potato, but I guarantee if you gave one to every ward the bleed would stop overnight. THAT'S specific, if Catania has the balls to make it happen, he's got my vote.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Mental exercise: We maintain our current patchwork system. How many bushels of "school improvement plans" does it take for another middle school to equalize Deal to the point where it would acceptable to adjust Deal's boundaries? At the rate BASIS, Latin, DCI, KIPP, etc. are growing, will there even be any high or mid SES students left by then? Doubtful. So all he is saying is "never" in a fancy way.

The proposed plan obviously has huge gaps, but the clean slate of 1 to 4 new middle schools offers a chance for DCPS to do something right from the start. Why not start now?

None of the 4 proposed middle schools has any sort of plan to open it. None has a budget. DCPS has not started focusing on any of them. Those middle schools are completely aspirational. They are almost a charade, an illusion to fool people. How can you have confidence that any of those middle schools will become a reality? There is really no rational basis to believe that the proposed schools will have any impact on overcrowding at Deal because there is no rational basis at this point to believe those schools will ever exist. It takes more than a single document to build a school.

Catania is saying that until you have the necessary components to turn an idea into reality, you shouldn't take steps that do nothing but undermine confidence in the school system.