Mary Cheh's letter about school boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any thoughts on why Cheh specifically mentioned Lafayette and Deal in the letter? Is it because there was another article written about these 2 schools in the same paper? Or because the parents at Lafayette are already getting feisty/motivated over the discussion?

From Cheh: "My bill does not propose any substantive changes to boundaries or feeders for any school, including Lafayette Elementary School and Deal Middle School."

Yes, Lafayette families who might be rezoned are worried about where their kids would go and the impact on home values. Bowser mostly represents those that would be affected and she has indicated that she will fight to keep the feeder. Bowsers ward (4) ends at Lafayette (broad branch rd) but includes a large part east of the park.

But what middle school would the Lafayette kids go to if it's not Deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: It's numerically impossible for Hardy to become a neighborhood school.

Please give us your definition of "neighborhood school", I always thought it meant "the school in your neighborhood".

Does it have to be at least 75% ib for KSM to deem it acceptable?

Deal is 65% IB and it seems that most KSM parents would kill for the chance for their kids to go there.

Looking at the size of the "catchments," if the same percentage of IB families continued to Hardy as continue to Deal, Hardy would be about 25% IB. But they don't, Hardy has about 55% of the rate of Deal and thus gets about 15% IB.

How about this for a theory: families that are in-bounds for Deal are pretty much the same as those that are in-bounds for Hardy. Within each group, there are three types: those who would never go public for middle school, those who would go public no matter what, and those who would only go public if the school was right. Does it stretch belief to conclude that the third group represents about 45% of the families? And that one of the things that third group looks at is the IB/OOB composition? And that over the past four years, as Deal has attracted more IB families, it has become more attractive to those third groupers? And that the same dynamic can't play out at Hardy, because there just aren't enough IB families? And that there can't be more IB families, because the feeder schools are all overstuffed as it is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

I think this is likely too. But if certain neighborhoods get cut out of Deal, perhaps a test-in middle and high school would soften the blow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

I think this is likely too. But if certain neighborhoods get cut out of Deal, perhaps a test-in middle and high school would soften the blow.

What do you mean with "southern Ward 3"? Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Palisades? Would be a bit crazy for Cheh to do so - unless of course Ward 3 itself becomes rezoned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city.

Couldn't agree more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

I think this is likely too. But if certain neighborhoods get cut out of Deal, perhaps a test-in middle and high school would soften the blow.

What do you mean with "southern Ward 3"? Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Palisades? Would be a bit crazy for Cheh to do so - unless of course Ward 3 itself becomes rezoned.

Not the ppp but I think the poster is suggesting that elementary schools located in the southern part of Ward 3 might get cut out of the Wilson and Deal feeder. School boundaries have nothing to do with ward boundaries and at this point (as I understand it) only DCPS has the power to redraw school boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

You can call it being scared still or the realization of what is good for her ward is bad for the city. Frankly further segregating the schools as would happen if the EOTP schools were cut out or the elimination of the feeder for OOB parents is not good for a city that needs to make sure that non-white kids have educational opportunity, even if it suits her Ward 3 constituents not to deal with the non super high SES in the rest of the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

I think this is likely too. But if certain neighborhoods get cut out of Deal, perhaps a test-in middle and high school would soften the blow.

What do you mean with "southern Ward 3"? Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Palisades? Would be a bit crazy for Cheh to do so - unless of course Ward 3 itself becomes rezoned.

Not the ppp but I think the poster is suggesting that elementary schools located in the southern part of Ward 3 might get cut out of the Wilson and Deal feeder. School boundaries have nothing to do with ward boundaries and at this point (as I understand it) only DCPS has the power to redraw school boundaries.

Well, Cheh seems to be part of the process leading to potential change - that's why she wrote the letter to start with, and she is providing specific reassurances. So, my point is, she will no longer win Ward 3 elections if she is hurting the interests of a broad group of ward 3 parents. Unless, somehow Ward 3 gets rezoned too to exclude those parents from ward 3 voting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

That would be "a good thing."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

I think this is likely too. But if certain neighborhoods get cut out of Deal, perhaps a test-in middle and high school would soften the blow.

What do you mean with "southern Ward 3"? Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Palisades? Would be a bit crazy for Cheh to do so - unless of course Ward 3 itself becomes rezoned.

Not the ppp but I think the poster is suggesting that elementary schools located in the southern part of Ward 3 might get cut out of the Wilson and Deal feeder. School boundaries have nothing to do with ward boundaries and at this point (as I understand it) only DCPS has the power to redraw school boundaries.

Well, Cheh seems to be part of the process leading to potential change - that's why she wrote the letter to start with, and she is providing specific reassurances. So, my point is, she will no longer win Ward 3 elections if she is hurting the interests of a broad group of ward 3 parents. Unless, somehow Ward 3 gets rezoned too to exclude those parents from ward 3 voting.

So cute.

You realize she can propose and vote in favor of something that will never pass, right? Not even a snowball's chance in Hell? Yet, that way, Ward 3 is happy that "Cheh is fighting for us!" and the rest of the city is happy that "Upper NW doesn't get its own school system. One city!"

Everybody wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, Cheh seems to be part of the process leading to potential change - that's why she wrote the letter to start with, and she is providing specific reassurances. So, my point is, she will no longer win Ward 3 elections if she is hurting the interests of a broad group of ward 3 parents. Unless, somehow Ward 3 gets rezoned too to exclude those parents from ward 3 voting.

When the brouhaha over Hardy was going on 2-3 years ago, Cheh refused to take the side of her constituents and voted in favor of the resolution calling for the reinstatement of the Hardy principal. In the 2010 election she did very poorly south of Massachusetts and lost Spring Valley outright to a very weak candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, Cheh seems to be part of the process leading to potential change - that's why she wrote the letter to start with, and she is providing specific reassurances. So, my point is, she will no longer win Ward 3 elections if she is hurting the interests of a broad group of ward 3 parents. Unless, somehow Ward 3 gets rezoned too to exclude those parents from ward 3 voting.

When the brouhaha over Hardy was going on 2-3 years ago, Cheh refused to take the side of her constituents and voted in favor of the resolution calling for the reinstatement of the Hardy principal. In the 2010 election she did very poorly south of Massachusetts and lost Spring Valley outright to a very weak candidate.

Exactly. And getting south ward 3 out of Deal and Wilson boundaries would mobilize many more parents than the Hardy principal affair. Parents who, btw, wouldn't be fooled as 15.31 seems to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, Cheh seems to be part of the process leading to potential change - that's why she wrote the letter to start with, and she is providing specific reassurances. So, my point is, she will no longer win Ward 3 elections if she is hurting the interests of a broad group of ward 3 parents. Unless, somehow Ward 3 gets rezoned too to exclude those parents from ward 3 voting.

When the brouhaha over Hardy was going on 2-3 years ago, Cheh refused to take the side of her constituents and voted in favor of the resolution calling for the reinstatement of the Hardy principal. In the 2010 election she did very poorly south of Massachusetts and lost Spring Valley outright to a very weak candidate.

Exactly. And getting south ward 3 out of Deal and Wilson boundaries would mobilize many more parents than the Hardy principal affair. Parents who, btw, wouldn't be fooled as 15.31 seems to believe.

Doesn't matter. DC is not going to present an image that reminds everyone of the little girls who died in Birmingham just because they wanted to attend a white school. Eaton and Hearst will be the mostly likely to get flushed. After that, Lafayette is ripe for re-districting.

What shouldn't, can't, and won't happen is the all-white middle school of the people-who-should-just-move-to-the-suburbs' dreams. Maybe you can get away with that in Alabama? But not in DC. Some white kids will be getting kicked out of Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Eaton and Hearst will be the mostly likely to get flushed. After that, Lafayette is ripe for re-districting.

What shouldn't, can't, and won't happen is the all-white middle school of the people-who-should-just-move-to-the-suburbs' dreams. Maybe you can get away with that in Alabama? But not in DC. Some white kids will be getting kicked out of Deal.

But if the kids from Eaton and Hearst "get flushed" Deal gets a lot closer to the "all-white middle school". "Flushing" those particular schools plays right into the "all white" school that you describe. JKLM (and Mary Cheh) are probably strategizing to offer up those exact Ward 3 schools as some sort of bogus concession when it is exactly what they want to happen. Not enough Ward 3 parents in those schools for Mary Cheh to care about them but that may not be well known throughout the system. To the EOTP schools, they seem like two more upper NW ward 3 schools.