Revised Boundary Recommendations to be released on or about June 13

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

Yes, yes. Everyone agrees that some boundary changes were and are necessary. Why do people keep talking about boundary changes and student assignment policies like they are the same thing? THEY ARE NOT. A large majority of the proposals for new student assignment policies would completely do away with the idea of BOUNDARIES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, THere's no question that DCPS boundaries, neglected or manipulated for many years, need to be attended to. The concern is if the boundaries issue is being used to manipulate families against their best interests.

Actually, I would say there is question. The vast majority of kids in DC do not attend an in-boundary school. There is only one high school -- Wilson -- and one middle school -- Deal -- that don't take every kid from anywhere in the city who wants to attend. Changing the attendance boundaries of those schools without either changing their feeder schools or feeder policies will have zero impact on the enrollment of those schools. Boundary reform is a solution in search of a problem. The reason Deal and Wilson are crowded is not because their boundaries are too big, but because there are no comparable options.

I'll go further and say that goes double for changing assignment policies. There's nothing wrong with DCPS's current assignment policies, other than the fact that there just aren't enough spots at desirable schools. The current policies actually do a very good job of making sure that there is 100% utilization of the most desirable schools, in a more-or-less fair way.

Anonymous wrote:

And I remember well the IFF report - the first time I heard (and cringed at) the concept of "performing seats."

You again? For the last time, "seat" in this context doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not referring to a person. It's referring to the physical capacity of a school.

me again - a "seat" without a modifier would refer to only to capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

Yes, yes. Everyone agrees that some boundary changes were and are necessary. Why do people keep talking about boundary changes and student assignment policies like they are the same thing? THEY ARE NOT. A large majority of the proposals for new student assignment policies would completely do away with the idea of BOUNDARIES.

Another good point -- and another good clue that the boundary issue became an excuse to push other concepts that don't have the best interests of children or their families in mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Since my own neighborhood ranks at number 2 on the Top Ten priority clusters, I'm not joining the ranks of protesters. I may not be all that excited by the some of the policies that have been floated thus far, but I'd be MUCH angrier to be stuck with status quo.

This is my position exactly. While I acknowledge that the DME screwed up by allowing stink bombs like city wide lotteries to be put on the table, I don't have much patience for people who want to shut the whole process down and even less for people like Catania who knows better but is using the hysteria as a political strategy.

It sounds more like your families aren't directly hurt by any other this, so while you acknowledge that other families are, you're not going to put yourselves out for them. If the luck of the draw had not come down in your favor, you'd be joining the ranks of protestors.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ha. Here's a quote from the first page of the thread about Cheh's bill:

The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

Exactly. I think that is the strongest argument for something coming out of the current DME process. Gray doesn't care if he takes the heat because he is gone anyway. A lot of folks in this town are going to be interested in making the most of this unique opportunity to avoid political costs.

Take that to mean that if Bowser is elected, we might expect some of this to be implement? She can get the benefit of change without paying a personal price, politically?

I believe Catania's been pretty clear he does not support this. Anyone donated to his campaign recently?

I think two things can happen:

1) The DME will come up with a plan that has enough popularity that both Bowser and Catania will support it;
2) The DME will identify components that are politically unpopular, but can be implemented without Council support and components that are politically popular, but require Council action.

Of these two possibilities, I see the second as most likely. Of possible changes that are both politically unpopular and doable without Council support, boundary changes seem the most obvious. Parts of Janney and Murch can be moved to Hearst, Eaton can be changed to feed Hardy, etc. Cheh, Bowser, Catania can scream and holler, but I doubt they could stop it. Similarly, elementary choice sets could probably be done if they are limited to select parts of the city. The Mayor could just implement these changes and ignore the Council (which, in fact, may be happy to be ignored in this instance).

In addition, the DME can recommend things such as a new Ward 7 application-only middle school and a new Ward 4 middle school. Those would probably require funding from the Council, but since such ideas are popular, the Council would probably support them.

In the end, Gray and Smith would get blamed for the unpopular changes, while Bowser and Catania could take credit for the popular ones. The problem is if there are unpopular, but necessary, changes that require Council support. That's where it gets tricky.

If the "bad" changes only are implemented wotp, DME might be counting on schadenfruede in other parts of the city to quell other dissent -- especially if they get goodies like new/better middle schools.

Divide and conquer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

So I took the time to read that DME document. Interestingly, its recommendations bear very very little relationship to the latest recommendations from the DME. The only connection I can see is that some of the recommendations contain the proposal to "increase access to performing seats" in Tier 1 and Tier 2 schools (it begs the question why they didn't just state, "increase capacity" in Tier 1 and 2 schools). I suppose, from those recommendations, you can see where the DME now is proposing set-asides for OOB students within capacity at those same "performing" schools. But the rest of the current proposals are a big stretch from this thing.

Also interestingly, the second paragraph of the document contains the same logical flaw we've been seeing throughout the entire DME process: "By identifying where the greatest number of students need performing
schools, these studies have guided stakeholders in strategic prioritization." From here you see the premise that students in need of performing schools will THEMSELVES become performing if you just route them over to a "performing seat" at a "performing school." Completely ignoring the reality that schools are under-performing because the students at those schools are under-performing; and that "performing schools" are performing because the students at those schools are capable of performing. DME is almost completely ignoring the need for proposals to tailor its educational tools to the needs of under-performing kids; and instead is behaving as if increasing capacity at "performing schools" will solve the problem of under-performing students. It's just a gigantic dodge. And some people are buying it. Just nuts. Crackers to bits.

[Anonymous]

^^^You have nailed it. Flawed public policy results from the failure to recognize unpleasant ( politically difficult) truths. It is a distinct lack of courage to not face the root problems.

A bit of a tangent, but in my mind, Michelle Rhee had the courage to face a root problem of a messed up central office and some seriously dead wood among the teacher corp. She also had the courage to close schools where needed.

Not that more schools closings are the answer or that closing schools that were left to "die on the vine" by DCPS officials themselves is what is required now, but some of it was necessary.

I saw the courage of our city officials die when they refused to face the cheating scandal head on and dole out justice. Yes, Justice. For the students and teachers caught up in that mess. From then on, I have seen a lack of forthright, courageous and truthful problem solving. Just smoke and mirrors. Spinning NAEP scores and the like.

Catania is the only one I have heard face the hard truths, look behind the spin and statistics and suggest solutions that come from the schools up.

[Anonymous]

The first page says The Walton Family Fund funded the DME's report. That alone seems problematic.

[Anonymous]

As I understand it, although I agree her position is evolved, Mary Cheh's purpose in proposing a boundary reform process to address overcrowding was to create a record to add new schools to Ward 3 with a focus on middle and high school. And to look at decreasing the boundary for Deal and Wilson because those boundaries are extra-ordinarily large. It was certainly not to redraw the elementary school boundaries in Ward 3 in a manner that undermines healthy communities by cutting her constituents off from their neighborhood schools when they are happily attending and the schools are performing well; or to shrink boundaries to exclude the school's own neighborhood. The fact that the legislation could now lead to the Mayor imposing something that results in those outcomes for Ward 3 constituents and yet do nothing to alieviate Deal and Wilson's situations is terrible. Every resident, Councilmember, and Mayoral candidate should oppose the unsupported and opaque redrawing of every school boundaries. From what I've heard Cheh say, she understands this. As I understand it, she has now called for more creative solutions to overcrowding that don't look like the DME's proposals for Ward 3. I would urge people to demand better outcomes for your existing communities then the ones in the boundary proposals and not to be satisfied if DME just takes lotteries off the table but pushes the rest through.

[Anonymous]

Maybe this has been discussed upthread, don't have time to look... We just got this notice from our school about meetings the week of June 15 to discuss the plans for three sets of high schools and their feeder schools. How are parents who don't know how the feeders will change supposed to choose a meeting? We are at Bancroft which might nor might not be cutoff from Deal/Wilson. I'm not even sure where else we might end up--Cardozo? Roosevelt?

Meetings notice:

DCPS and the Deputy Mayor for Education are hosting the next round of community meetings to present and discuss proposed recommendations to student assignment policies, including school boundary and feeder pattern revisions. Please join us and send the attached "DCPS June Meetings" flier home with students. Additional information and translated fliers can be found on the DCPS website here: http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Parents+and+Community/Community+Initiatives/Boundaries+and+Feeders. Please contact [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> with questions.

Community Meetings Dates/Times:

Monday, 6/16, 6-8pm, Savoy ES

Tuesday, 6/17, 6-8pm, Dunbar HS

Thursday, 6-19, 6-8pm, Takoma EC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, although I agree her position is evolved, Mary Cheh's purpose in proposing a boundary reform process to address overcrowding was to create a record to add new schools to Ward 3 with a focus on middle and high school. And to look at decreasing the boundary for Deal and Wilson because those boundaries are extra-ordinarily large. It was certainly not to redraw the elementary school boundaries in Ward 3 in a manner that undermines healthy communities by cutting her constituents off from their neighborhood schools when they are happily attending and the schools are performing well; or to shrink boundaries to exclude the school's own neighborhood. The fact that the legislation could now lead to the Mayor imposing something that results in those outcomes for Ward 3 constituents and yet do nothing to alieviate Deal and Wilson's situations is terrible. Every resident, Councilmember, and Mayoral candidate should oppose the unsupported and opaque redrawing of every school boundaries. From what I've heard Cheh say, she understands this. As I understand it, she has now called for more creative solutions to overcrowding that don't look like the DME's proposals for Ward 3. I would urge people to demand better outcomes for your existing communities then the ones in the boundary proposals and not to be satisfied if DME just takes lotteries off the table but pushes the rest through.

Such as?

How do you reconcile "creative solutions" with 10% - 20% OOB set-asides, shrinking boundaries, and re-routing feeder patterns?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Since my own neighborhood ranks at number 2 on the Top Ten priority clusters, I'm not joining the ranks of protesters. I may not be all that excited by the some of the policies that have been floated thus far, but I'd be MUCH angrier to be stuck with status quo.

This is my position exactly. While I acknowledge that the DME screwed up by allowing stink bombs like city wide lotteries to be put on the table, I don't have much patience for people who want to shut the whole process down and even less for people like Catania who knows better but is using the hysteria as a political strategy.

It sounds more like your families aren't directly hurt by any other this, so while you acknowledge that other families are, you're not going to put yourselves out for them. If the luck of the draw had not come down in your favor, you'd be joining the ranks of protestors.

Nope, our school is right on the firing line, but I also have hands on experience as a volunteer at an at risk school, so I understand that what works fine for JKLM might not work in other parts of town. So let's at least think about doing some things a different way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, although I agree her position is evolved, Mary Cheh's purpose in proposing a boundary reform process to address overcrowding was to create a record to add new schools to Ward 3 with a focus on middle and high school. And to look at decreasing the boundary for Deal and Wilson because those boundaries are extra-ordinarily large. It was certainly not to redraw the elementary school boundaries in Ward 3 in a manner that undermines healthy communities by cutting her constituents off from their neighborhood schools when they are happily attending and the schools are performing well; or to shrink boundaries to exclude the school's own neighborhood. The fact that the legislation could now lead to the Mayor imposing something that results in those outcomes for Ward 3 constituents and yet do nothing to alieviate Deal and Wilson's situations is terrible. Every resident, Councilmember, and Mayoral candidate should oppose the unsupported and opaque redrawing of every school boundaries. From what I've heard Cheh say, she understands this. As I understand it, she has now called for more creative solutions to overcrowding that don't look like the DME's proposals for Ward 3. I would urge people to demand better outcomes for your existing communities then the ones in the boundary proposals and not to be satisfied if DME just takes lotteries off the table but pushes the rest through.

Such as?

How do you reconcile "creative solutions" with 10% - 20% OOB set-asides, shrinking boundaries, and re-routing feeder patterns?

Cheh has a number of solutions -- I'd rather call them practical and reality-based solutions than "creative," though they are certainly creative in comparison to the DME's proposed shuffleboard games -- as detailed in a letter she sent to Smith a few weeks ago:

http://marycheh.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-05-14-Abigail-Smith.pdf

Among Cheh's ideas are increased specialized programming across the city, expanded pre-K especially in low-income communities, and community centers for at-risk kids. That is refreshing stuff considering the DME is focusing little on targeted education for at-risk students, which is what the great majority of kids in this city really need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^You have nailed it. Flawed public policy results from the failure to recognize unpleasant ( politically difficult) truths. It is a distinct lack of courage to not face the root problems.

A bit of a tangent, but in my mind, Michelle Rhee had the courage to face a root problem of a messed up central office and some seriously dead wood among the teacher corp. She also had the courage to close schools where needed.

Not that more schools closings are the answer or that closing schools that were left to "die on the vine" by DCPS officials themselves is what is required now, but some of it was necessary.

I saw the courage of our city officials die when they refused to face the cheating scandal head on and dole out justice. Yes, Justice. For the students and teachers caught up in that mess. From then on, I have seen a lack of forthright, courageous and truthful problem solving. Just smoke and mirrors. Spinning NAEP scores and the like.

Catania is the only one I have heard face the hard truths, look behind the spin and statistics and suggest solutions that come from the schools up.

Interesting that you tagged the courageous actions of Rhee by name, but the negative actions of Rhee became "city officials".

[Anonymous]

Mary Cheh called them "creative" not me. She also has described her approach as more practical.