tired of "diversity for Deal and Wilson" as an argument

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
The Supreme Court's PICS (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)) ruling might have fundamentally altered the landscape here.

If the boundaries of Deal or Wilson are redrawn to preserve AA enrollment a the expense of non-AA kids who live closer to the schools, those boundaries can and should be challenged by neighborhood families, and those families will likely prevail.

While the PICS case certainly makes things more complicated, I am not sure that I come to the came conclusion you have. A majority of the court recognized that the state has a compelling interest in seeking diversity in schools. However, the court ruled that plans to promote diversity have to be narrowly tailored. In the case of Deal and Wilson, a narrowly-tailered solution that preserves diversity would be fairly easy to develop. Defending a solution that did not preserve diversity, on the other hand, would be difficult given the compelling state interest in promoting diversity.

[Anonymous]

PP, Who are you to make you so sure that this no-boundary thing isn't being considered? When I read the announcement of the STUDENT ASSIGNMENT and Boundary Review process, it leaves the door open for many possibilities and does not seem limited to boundary changes only.


Student Assignment and School Boundaries Review Process

Overview
School choice and student assignment policies establish the access rights that students have to public schools in the District of Columbia. School choice and student assignment policies determine who gets to go to which school, where and how parents and students apply to school, what rights students have to remain in a school they have chosen, and what rights students have to transfer between schools.

The District has not undertaken a comprehensive review of its student assignment policies, including school attendance boundaries and feeder patterns, in over three decades. Meanwhile, District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) and public charter schools have opened and closed, neighborhoods have changed, and the city’s population has shifted.

Over the next eleven months, the DME will lead the effort to review current policies and practices, identify challenges, analyze data, and recommend solutions.

Goals and Initiatives
To develop fair and clear school choice and assignment policies in an effort to establish clarity, predictability, and continuity for families. Specifically,

To clarify what rights and responsibilities families and schools have regarding access to public schools;
To update feeder relationships between schools to ensure that schools are aligned to provide a robust pipeline of students into the middle and high schools;
To ensure that the boundaries align to the DCPS facility capacity and projected population of students;
To explore opportunities to bridge student-assignment and choice policies across DCPS and charter schools.

DC Advisory Committee on Student Assignment
As part of this process, the DME established the DC Advisory Committee on Student Assignment. The Advisory Committee, co-chaired by Deputy Mayor Smith and long-time District leader John Hill, will incorporate public discussion, research, and analysis to provide the DME with fair minded, thoughtful, and informed policy recommendations.

The Advisory Committee will:

Review current citywide policies on attendance zones, feeder patterns and school choice;
Formulate guidelines and principles for public school assignment and choice policies and practices;
Listen to the community and serve as insightful interpreters of public sentiment, concerns, and questions;
Develop recommendations and scenarios for revised DCPS attendance zone and feeder patterns;
Make recommendations on how to bridge student-assignment and choice policies across DCPS and charter schools.
Members of the Advisory Committee were selected by the DME and include members of varied perspectives who are strongly invested in the success of the public education system and the future of our City. Members include parents from both charter and DCPS schools, as well as individuals with a deep knowledge of schools, neighborhoods, DC history, and urban planning, or with legal and policy experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the more exclusionary Ward 3 parents become, and the more they wage war on OOB families (who earned their spots at WotP school through established policies and enabled those schools to maximize their budgets) will push the Chancellor towards a solution of no boundaries. Turning "OOB" into a dirty word will necessitate getting rid of it altogether.

I think you are misinterpreting how IB parents see the OOB issue. Basically, it is an issue of capacity. What are we supposed to do when the school is full? Rather than continuing to shoehorn more and more students into a few schools, DCPS needs to make more schools acceptable to DCPS parents. If I were an OOB parent, I would resent the hell out of the fact that I had to drive across town to make sure my DC had a good education. Instead, people feel lucky that they made it into a good school. Demand quality in your own neighborhood. Demand that DCPS do its job.

That's a great argument ("demand quality in your own neighborhood")....for maybe 5-10 years from now. The point you're missing is the children who earned OOB spots at WotP elementary schools are for all intents and purposes considered "in-boundary" for middle and high school. There is and should be no distinction. That is the system and policy that DCPS has established and is essentially the "promise" they have given those families (trust me, I have printed and saved several references to this). DCPS has preached about pathways for educating those children that ensure continuity. Deal doesn't accept any "OOB" children anymore. If they accepted any last year, it was very few. Of course in your mind, Deal does because they allow those children who attended a feeder elementary as an OOB in. But that's how it should be.

You are treating a regulation that has been in effect for all of four years as sacrosanct. Getting OOB pathways under Rhee was an unexpected boon. Now it's a right? If a school is going to allow OOB in elementary, I think they should allow pathways when possible. The cohort effect is a net positive and not having to apply to a new school for MS and HS creates stability in the system and reassures parents. Grandfather existing kids in if you'd like but at some point something's gotta give. BTW, doesn't it make you upset that your kid has to go to some other neighborhood to attend a good school? Don't you feel let down by the system? A little used by DCPS?

[Anonymous]

PP who thinks the no boundaries idea is simple-minded fails to recognize that it's not only upper NW that has seen skyrocketing property values. We live in Petworth. Bought 12 years ago for $200K...our house is not worth $600K. I'm not convinced your "plummeting home values" argument and move out of the district argument hold water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sick of people that overpaid for their homes in Ward 3 trying to kick out anyone that doesn't look like their little snowflake. Let's be real, historically whites have never wanted to go to Deal or Wilson. You can't go house poor and decide you can no longer afford private and want to kick out the kids that have been there for generations. Especially when there is another perfectly fine middle school in Ward 3 that is severely under enrolled.

No kid has been at Deal or Wilson for "generations." Their FAMILIES may have been there for generations - but that doesn't give the current students any rights. Are you seriously suggesting that an OOB student whos mother went to Deal and Wilson has a greater "right" to go there than a kid who lives IB?

No, I wasn't suggesting OOB should be able to get there before IB. I was suggesting that the current diverse IB neighborhoods should not be carved out.

So what you're saying is that Crestwood and Mt. Pleasant should remain in the catchment area, and other neighborhoods should be moved out. But you're fine with elimnating OOB feeder rights. That sum it up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^I think this is where the gaping hole is in the city's and DCPSs' educational policy and planning. For political reasons around race and SES, they try to push educationally ambitious parents into scenarios that will help less fortunate/less involved families RATHER THAN doing what it takes to entice those families into the situation.

I agree 100% that enticements are crucial. There can be some restrictions and limits, absolutely. Boundaries for who is in-bounds being a main one. But the main thrust has to be toward enticing people and allowing them to realize they have options.

Can you create a gifted and talented program in Petworth, Columbia Heights, or Shaw? Can you offer a chance to continue dual-language education? Can an IB Middle Years program be set up in an existing school that has space to grow at grades 6-8? Can DCPS offer Chinese to people who can't drive their kids out to a school way up off North Capitol? Can there be academies that start at 6th or 9th and continue as small cohorts in larger schools? Can Montessori method schools go past elementary grades? Could you have certain DCPS programs have a preference to feed into certain charter programs at middle or high school based on the skills they come with, like language? Application-only middle school?

I mean, there is a grab bag of ideas out there for enticements - the idea now is to take them and start offering them up. Clearly, charters show that people respond to choices. They also respond to the idea that their child will be able to learn without being dragged down by existing negative culture.

And the truth is, if DCPS gets these people in the door, they can work with them to shape the system. The worst they can do is just demand that people just take seats in whatever their neighborhood school is, regardless of lack of current demand.

DCPS can step up its game, and they'll be rewarded with interest and buy-in in many parts of the city, and it will create momentum within the system.

Like others have said before, I would focus on two areas. The string of neighborhoods just east of the Park and on Capitol Hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP who thinks the no boundaries idea is simple-minded fails to recognize that it's not only upper NW that has seen skyrocketing property values. We live in Petworth. Bought 12 years ago for $200K...our house is not worth $600K. I'm not convinced your "plummeting home values" argument and move out of the district argument hold water.

Yes, and a similar house in Janney is worth over $1 million, at least in part because of the certainty in school options. Remove that, and value goes down. This is not rocket science.

Some of you seem to think that because the notice didn't specifically say that eliminating boundaries is not an option, it is on the table. That's ridiculous, but moving on - the political and practical realities are such that it is not an option. Period.

But maybe you are all right, and they will do away with boundaries. If that's the case, I'll come back and admit my error, and you can all call me simple-minded.

[Anonymous]

Like others have said before, I would focus on two areas. The string of neighborhoods just east of the Park and on Capitol Hill.

This is a key point. Starting a magnet school in Ward 8 just won't work, because it's too difficult to get to, and, rightly or wrongly, many nid/high SES families will be afraid to go there. But schools on the Hill, and in Columbia Heights, Petworth, 16th St. Heights, etc. are accessible to Wards 1 and 4 families, (plus families WotP), and ar not perceived to be as dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Like others have said before, I would focus on two areas. The string of neighborhoods just east of the Park and on Capitol Hill.

This is a key point. Starting a magnet school in Ward 8 just won't work, because it's too difficult to get to, and, rightly or wrongly, many nid/high SES families will be afraid to go there. But schools on the Hill, and in Columbia Heights, Petworth, 16th St. Heights, etc. are accessible to Wards 1 and 4 families, (plus families WotP), and ar not perceived to be as dangerous.

I see two prime pieces of real estate, I don't know what others can think of: the Shaw Middle School building and the McFarland building.

If someone can propose real winners for those sites, you've got something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the more exclusionary Ward 3 parents become, and the more they wage war on OOB families (who earned their spots at WotP school through established policies and enabled those schools to maximize their budgets) will push the Chancellor towards a solution of no boundaries. Turning "OOB" into a dirty word will necessitate getting rid of it altogether.

Can we stop with this nonsense? They're not getting rid of boundaries. On the heels of a much-touted inprovement in test scores, they're not going to completely change the system (and torpedo many property values, at that). There is overcrowding at some schools, and underenrollment at others - that needs to be addressed.

Good grief, people. I can't figure out is many of you are so simple-minded that you actually believe this fairy tale, or if there is a concentrated campaign to instill fear in the community so that when a less drastic solution is proposed, people welcome it as better than the alternative.

Check that. I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories, and I AM a believer in Occam's Razor. So we'll go with simple-minded.

+100. DCUM is full of Chicken Littles. Somebody heard about San Francisco's model and has been continuously posting the possibility of DC adopting the model to the point where others are starting to believe this inane fairy tale. Good grief!!! Stop perpetuating this myth!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Supreme Court's PICS (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)) ruling might have fundamentally altered the landscape here.

If the boundaries of Deal or Wilson are redrawn to preserve AA enrollment a the expense of non-AA kids who live closer to the schools, those boundaries can and should be challenged by neighborhood families, and those families will likely prevail.

While the PICS case certainly makes things more complicated, I am not sure that I come to the came conclusion you have. A majority of the court recognized that the state has a compelling interest in seeking diversity in schools. However, the court ruled that plans to promote diversity have to be narrowly tailored. In the case of Deal and Wilson, a narrowly-tailered solution that preserves diversity would be fairly easy to develop. Defending a solution that did not preserve diversity, on the other hand, would be difficult given the compelling state interest in promoting diversity.

DCPS runs a school system and can promote diversity without preserving the racial balances at Deal or Wilson. It's not that narrow and strict a test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the more exclusionary Ward 3 parents become, and the more they wage war on OOB families (who earned their spots at WotP school through established policies and enabled those schools to maximize their budgets) will push the Chancellor towards a solution of no boundaries. Turning "OOB" into a dirty word will necessitate getting rid of it altogether.

Can we stop with this nonsense? They're not getting rid of boundaries. On the heels of a much-touted inprovement in test scores, they're not going to completely change the system (and torpedo many property values, at that). There is overcrowding at some schools, and underenrollment at others - that needs to be addressed.

Good grief, people. I can't figure out is many of you are so simple-minded that you actually believe this fairy tale, or if there is a concentrated campaign to instill fear in the community so that when a less drastic solution is proposed, people welcome it as better than the alternative.

Check that. I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories, and I AM a believer in Occam's Razor. So we'll go with simple-minded.

+100. DCUM is full of Chicken Littles. Somebody heard about San Francisco's model and has been continuously posting the possibility of DC adopting the model to the point where others are starting to believe this inane fairy tale. Good grief!!! Stop perpetuating this myth!

Well I guess the Mayors PR team better dispel this myth right away because so far all public utterances and announcements on the subject give the impression that a major change in the way students are assigned. Listen to smith and the rest of the panel on the Kojo Nnamdi show and read between their lines

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Supreme Court's PICS (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)) ruling might have fundamentally altered the landscape here.

If the boundaries of Deal or Wilson are redrawn to preserve AA enrollment a the expense of non-AA kids who live closer to the schools, those boundaries can and should be challenged by neighborhood families, and those families will likely prevail.

While the PICS case certainly makes things more complicated, I am not sure that I come to the came conclusion you have. A majority of the court recognized that the state has a compelling interest in seeking diversity in schools. However, the court ruled that plans to promote diversity have to be narrowly tailored. In the case of Deal and Wilson, a narrowly-tailered solution that preserves diversity would be fairly easy to develop. Defending a solution that did not preserve diversity, on the other hand, would be difficult given the compelling state interest in promoting diversity.

That's not how it works. The government has no affirmative obligation to "preserve diversity." In fact, the Court reaffirmed that, "the Constitution is not violated by racial imbalance in the schools, without more." That there is a compelling state interest in diversity simply means that the government can act to remedy a lack of diversity IF the remedies withstand strict scrutiny (in other words, are narrowly tailored). Applied here, there is no obligation to preserve diversity at Deal/Wilson. If they want to do so, fine - as long as the solution is narrowly tailored. But they certainly don't have to (absent some other court-imposed requirement).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's a great argument ("demand quality in your own neighborhood")....for maybe 5-10 years from now. The point you're missing is the children who earned OOB spots at WotP elementary schools are for all intents and purposes considered "in-boundary" for middle and high school. There is and should be no distinction. That is the system and policy that DCPS has established and is essentially the "promise" they have given those families (trust me, I have printed and saved several references to this). DCPS has preached about pathways for educating those children that ensure continuity. Deal doesn't accept any "OOB" children anymore. If they accepted any last year, it was very few. Of course in your mind, Deal does because they allow those children who attended a feeder elementary as an OOB in. But that's how it should be.

Remind me again how OOB kids at WotP elementary schools "earned" their spots?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Supreme Court's PICS (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)) ruling might have fundamentally altered the landscape here.

If the boundaries of Deal or Wilson are redrawn to preserve AA enrollment a the expense of non-AA kids who live closer to the schools, those boundaries can and should be challenged by neighborhood families, and those families will likely prevail.

While the PICS case certainly makes things more complicated, I am not sure that I come to the came conclusion you have. A majority of the court recognized that the state has a compelling interest in seeking diversity in schools. However, the court ruled that plans to promote diversity have to be narrowly tailored. In the case of Deal and Wilson, a narrowly-tailered solution that preserves diversity would be fairly easy to develop. Defending a solution that did not preserve diversity, on the other hand, would be difficult given the compelling state interest in promoting diversity.

It's not clear that a state has a compelling interest in seeking diversity in middle and high schools, though. Again, from the Wikipedia article,

Second, "the interest in diversity in higher education", as upheld in Grutter v. Bollinger.
But Roberts distinguished Grutter from this case, and argued that this case was more similar to Gratz v. Bollinger. In Grutter, the interest was student body diversity "in the context of higher education," and was not focused on race alone but encompassed "all factors that may contribute to student body diversity".[13] The Grutter Court quoted the articulation of diversity from Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, noting that "it is not an interest in simple ethnic diversity, in which a specified percentage of the student body is in effect guaranteed to be members of selected ethnic groups, that can justify the use of race." [14] What was upheld in Grutter was consideration of "a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element." [15] "The entire gist of the analysis in Grutter was that the admissions program at issue there focused on each applicant as an individual, and not simply as a member of a particular racial group." As the Grutter Court explained, "[t]he importance of this individualized consideration in the context of a race-conscious admissions program is paramount." The point of the narrow tailoring analysis in which the Grutter Court engaged was to ensure that the use of racial classifications was indeed part of a broader assessment of diversity, and not simply an effort to achieve racial balance, which the Court explained would be "patently unconstitutional."[16] In the present cases, by contrast, race is not considered as part of a broader effort to achieve "exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints," ibid.; race, for some students, is determinative standing alone. Even when it comes to race, the plans here employ only a limited notion of diversity, viewing race exclusively in white/nonwhite terms in Seattle and black/"other" terms in Jefferson County. "The way Seattle classifies its students bears this out. Upon enrolling their child with the district, parents are required to identify their child as a member of a particular racial group. If a parent identifies more than one race on the form, "[t]he application will not be accepted and, if necessary, the enrollment service person taking the application will indicate one box.""[17] Furthermore, Roberts wrote:[9]

In upholding the admissions plan in Grutter ... this Court relied upon considerations unique to institutions of higher education, noting that in light of "the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition."[18] The Court explained that "[c]ontext matters" in applying strict scrutiny, and repeatedly noted that it was addressing the use of race "in the context of higher education." [19] The Court in Grutter expressly articulated key limitations on its holding—defining a specific type of broad-based diversity and noting the unique context of higher education—but these limitations were largely disregarded by the lower courts in extending Grutter to uphold race-based assignments in elementary and secondary schools. The present cases are not governed by Grutter.