Option B best for Ward 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the concept of "neighborhood schools" were a person, it would have reported a case of "rape" to the police department by now. An investigation would be under way. Prosecutors will be making charges soon.

agree, except up to now the victims have pretty much stayed quiet, perhaps thinking things would be better for them over all that way.

Now, it seems like those who haven't been raped (ward 3 parents) are standing up to the would-be rapists, who think based on past history, that they can overtake their latest chosen victims. Let's hope the prior victims don't identify with the aggressor and instead call for an end to all the aggression.

[Anonymous]

ugh - you guys really need to tone down the drama

[Anonymous]

Ward 3 's preferred solution to overcrowding, abolishing OOB feeder rights, probasbly won't fix the problem. The latest lottery data for the feeders indicates that in the current entering classes, most of the kids are IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OOB set aside is bullshit - how much do you want to bet that is Central Office folks setting aside seats for their kids, so they can be sent to good schools while keeping their low mortgages in other parts of the city. Great way to fund a Mercedes.

I would have laughed at this but at least one of the options gives preference to DCPS employees. I think they have to work at the school, though.

Unbelievable! Option B sucks. All the options do. I'm not supporting the least sucky option. I'd rather leave things as is and start over with more competent people at the helm.

What about option b isn't good? What exactly are you hoping for?

The poster said explicitly what s/he is hoping for. All of options infect the expectation of neighborhood schools; so the options, as presented so far, are unacceptable. Start over. Try again.

Basically, don't say you're going to work on boundaries and instead change the entire system for feeding the schools. That's real easy to understand as a criticism of what's going on.

This. The proposal was a waste of money.

1) I don't think the proposal is very good, but they were explicit from the get-go about reviewing feeder patterns and not just boundaries.

2) I happen to think option B is a balanced approach, though clearly in need of some revision for details like whether the set asides are additive. For those who want everyone to go back to the drawing board, what will that achieve? Spending millions more for Muriel Bowser's buds to re-do all this with the same outcome? I don't see the benefit of years and years of more hand-wringing with option B on the table.

First you get rid of Muriel Bowser and her buds. Why would we let them have a second bite at the apple? They tried and failed. Next!

[Anonymous]

This will be a big election issue and Catania needs to seize on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ugh - you guys really need to tone down the drama

Hard to admit you've been abused by the school system?

If so, the solution is not to allow further abuse, even if you don't particularly like the people about to be abused.

Schools all over the city that need to be strengthened should be strengthened, according to their individual needs. Those that are already strong, should not be weakened. That makes no sense.

every student should get a better deal, or be able to keep the good deal they already have. no one should get a worse deal. that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Policy Example B: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/policy-example-b/920/

Geographical preference comes first, so if you live near the school you have have a right to attend. Next comes feeder preference. Whether you're IB or OOB, you have a right to attend the MS and HS if you attended the feeder elementary school, ditto for MS to HS.

Then comes the 10% set aside for OOB families and here's where it gets murky. They say the 10% (thats 15% for MS) is specifically for students from low performing schools. Later they say those students will also have to compete with siblings first, then twins or "multiples" admitted to the school, and it would seem that whatever is left over after that goes to the low performing refugees.

But the bottom line is that no one from Ward 3 is going to get kicked out of Wilson. More than that, many of the OOB kids who would have otherwise attended Deal, Hardy and/or Wilson will now have very limited access to those schools. Perhaps they'll have other options in other parts of the city, perhaps not, but Option B is net positive for Ward 3.

True. Option B hands Ward 3 an even bigger schools premium on home values. Unless you are IB for a failing school, the only way to get access to Deal and Wilson is to live in bounds, and with the new boundaries, the number of homes inbounds falls substantially. The lottery options start to look pretty good.

SF has a similar system, and real estate agents now tout proximity to housing projects as selling points to UMC families. The UMC families buy places near failing schools, and then do really well in the lottery. Poorer families can't take advantage of the spots, since the city doesn't provide transportation.

That is screwed up! We should not model after SF.

This is almost a Soviet-style broken system where people figure out work arounds. No wonder, it is invested by ideological bureaucrats who would have a natural affinity with a centrally planned system.

-- A liberal Democrat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't seem to be aware that your school is part of a school system and that that school system is part of a political system. If the only issue was crowding at a small set of schools wotp you would be right, but it's not.

I am aware of that. Making our schools worse, isn't the answer. The problems in Ward 3 schools aren't the same as the problems at Ward 8 schools, so why try to fix both of them with the same solution? It's not going to work.

the fix requires some pain WOTP because the solutions for the WOTP schools (a mix of expansions, boundary reductions and reductions in OOB admissions) are not politically palitable outside Ward 3.

The fix doesn't require pain to ward 3 schools. Thinking that is just mean spirited. That's one of the things that's bothering me. Some of this feels like a mean spirited chipping away at our neighborhood schools. We have OOB lotteries. Great. OOB kids are welcomed as long as their is space. Not a problem. But as soon as neighborhood kids start filling the schools, there's an outcry. Now we have to be forced into having 10-20% of the seats at schools set aside for kids from failing schools. Where does it end?

[Anonymous]

No not hard to admit. I just think all the rape talk should be saved for actual victims of actual sexual assault and violent crime. Kind of silly like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 's preferred solution to overcrowding, abolishing OOB feeder rights, probasbly won't fix the problem. The latest lottery data for the feeders indicates that in the current entering classes, most of the kids are IB.

Fine, then end OOB feeder rights and expand where necessary.

[Anonymous]

The problem is a misguided notion that "central planning" will fix a school system with regional problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is a misguided notion that "central planning" will fix a school system with regional problems.

Explain, please?

[Anonymous]

If you don't like your local schools in your cool neighborhood, then get a some new lenses in your hipster glasses, focus on what needs to change at your local school, even if it means that you get to spend spend less time at Le Diplomate or that craft bourbon bar that opened up the street. Join with other young parents, roll up your sleeves and change your neighborhood schools. It's what others did before you, with schools that were languishing in the 80s and today are considered top performing. Oh, ok. That's not your priority? I guess you're used to getting instant gratification now, so let's just move away from a local school centered system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't seem to be aware that your school is part of a school system and that that school system is part of a political system. If the only issue was crowding at a small set of schools wotp you would be right, but it's not.

I am aware of that. Making our schools worse, isn't the answer. The problems in Ward 3 schools aren't the same as the problems at Ward 8 schools, so why try to fix both of them with the same solution? It's not going to work.

the fix requires some pain WOTP because the solutions for the WOTP schools (a mix of expansions, boundary reductions and reductions in OOB admissions) are not politically palitable outside Ward 3.

The fix doesn't require pain to ward 3 schools. Thinking that is just mean spirited. That's one of the things that's bothering me. Some of this feels like a mean spirited chipping away at our neighborhood schools. We have OOB lotteries. Great. OOB kids are welcomed as long as their is space. Not a problem. But as soon as neighborhood kids start filling the schools, there's an outcry. Now we have to be forced into having 10-20% of the seats at schools set aside for kids from failing schools. Where does it end?

Mean spirited or not, people have been chipping away at neighborhood schools since the first charter came to town. Those families who win the lottery and live near the "sought-after charter" are OK. Those who can afford to live where there are already good neighborhood schools are OK. Everyone else is not OK, but remember -- it's not the fault of those other families -- it's the fault of the system. Go after the system -- not other parents.

[Anonymous]

^^The system is making decisions based on complaints from families ib for 'bad' schools. wotp is outnumbered. it creates an us vs them mentality that didn't start with us (wotp).