Revised Boundary Recommendations to be released on or about June 13

[Anonymous]

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

They are practical ideas, and would really help the kids who need it most -- unlike the DME's proposals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

You can attend more than one meeting since they are on different days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

You can attend more than one meeting since they are on different days.

Right, but the working groups at each of these meetings will focus on a specific set of schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

They are practical ideas, and would really help the kids who need it most -- unlike the DME's proposals.

I'm the PP who asked "Such as?" and Cheh's letter reads well. It doesn't delve into specific solutions, but then that's not her role. She does effectively push back on the DME's proposals.

I'm in Ward 4, my children attend an HRCS, and the direct outcomes don't affect me. Maybe that means I'm a step too removed for a valid opinion? I believe that for charters to be really effective, they should be choices, not just escapes. I believe in both a network of neighborhood schools and a wealth of charter options. I don't want to see the best DCPS schools destroyed and the city set back decades because parents feel they must flee to the suburbs for good schools. By any definition that is not progress.

So, I'm just going to suggest to those of you in the neighborhoods with good neighborhood DCPS options, that when your political advocacy is public, that you think carefully about how it comes across. There are people who will easily take offense to what sounds like you building a moat around your fortress, because you don't want to let them in. Best to continue the tone of building opportunities in all neighborhoods, rather than any tone of exclusivity.

This election has the potential divide sharply on racial and class lines (as they often do). "One City" worked (among other reasons) because it suggested we're all in this together. Please don't advocate for solutions that suggest two cities, because that raises the fear factor, and unnecessarily so.

[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.

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.

There's no luck of any draw here.

I don't think you understand what Top Ten priority status means. We are among the clusters of greatest need for change.. Not merely because there is a high number of schools that have been closed in my cluster (#18 - Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth), nor because it is one of the most diverse clusters, but because its projected growth of school aged children is among the highest in the city over the next decade.

As it's been over the last decade, this high number of kids will go to school in their own neighborhoods, or in yours. Which do you prefer?

I'm glad Jeff posted the DME research report that started this whole process, because I hadn't heard of it nor read it. http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

Too long? Skip to page 42 with the recommendations. This is an issue of demand for quality education grossly out-pacing supply. If you think the DME has ulterior motives, you're right! Skim through the subtitles to see what they are.

[Anonymous]

DCPS is proposing the narrowing of boundaries to eliminate access for children who are in some cases live less than one block from their neighborhood school. So to the poster 17:05 the only "fortresses being built," are by DCPS as they kick families out of neighborhood schools. In Ward 3 I am specifically referring to the proposed boundaries for families close to Murch and Janney. However, talk to parents in Ward 7 and they will tell you that proximity to a quality neighborhood school is simply not a priority for DCPS. In part because I think DCPS feels that charters are easier to establish than good neighborhood schools. The DME is from the DC Charter School Board and will likely return in less than six months, Henderson is also a huge supporter of charters. The status quo has a clear and common sense approach to proximity for neighborhood schools. Proximity is important for sustainable schools. Eliminating proximity as a criteria for boundaries and admittance, particularly at the elementary school level, paves the way for policies like a city-wide elementary lottery or city-wide elementary charters.

The boundary discussion seems to be a major distraction. According to the report referenced above "the methodology is based on the premise that all students should have the choice of a performing school in their neighborhood." Is this criteria for success being met?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS is proposing the narrowing of boundaries to eliminate access for children who are in some cases live less than one block from their neighborhood school. So to the poster 17:05 the only "fortresses being built," are by DCPS as they kick families out of neighborhood schools. In Ward 3 I am specifically referring to the proposed boundaries for families close to Murch and Janney. However, talk to parents in Ward 7 and they will tell you that proximity to a quality neighborhood school is simply not a priority for DCPS. In part because I think DCPS feels that charters are easier to establish than good neighborhood schools. The DME is from the DC Charter School Board and will likely return in less than six months, Henderson is also a huge supporter of charters. The status quo has a clear and common sense approach to proximity for neighborhood schools. Proximity is important for sustainable schools. Eliminating proximity as a criteria for boundaries and admittance, particularly at the elementary school level, paves the way for policies like a city-wide elementary lottery or city-wide elementary charters.

The boundary discussion seems to be a major distraction. According to the report referenced above "the methodology is based on the premise that all students should have the choice of a performing school in their neighborhood." Is this criteria for success being met?

I'm afraid the magic word here is "choice" -- meaning as long as there is a charter nearby, it doesn't matter if the neighborhood school is "performing." Of course yo may not get lucky in the lottery for the convenient charter school, but at least you'll have the choice (that is, chance) to apply there. If you strike out, there will be another charter school somewhere else that you can "choose."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS is proposing the narrowing of boundaries to eliminate access for children who are in some cases live less than one block from their neighborhood school. So to the poster 17:05 the only "fortresses being built," are by DCPS as they kick families out of neighborhood schools. In Ward 3 I am specifically referring to the proposed boundaries for families close to Murch and Janney. However, talk to parents in Ward 7 and they will tell you that proximity to a quality neighborhood school is simply not a priority for DCPS. In part because I think DCPS feels that charters are easier to establish than good neighborhood schools. The DME is from the DC Charter School Board and will likely return in less than six months, Henderson is also a huge supporter of charters. The status quo has a clear and common sense approach to proximity for neighborhood schools. Proximity is important for sustainable schools. Eliminating proximity as a criteria for boundaries and admittance, particularly at the elementary school level, paves the way for policies like a city-wide elementary lottery or city-wide elementary charters.

The boundary discussion seems to be a major distraction. According to the report referenced above "the methodology is based on the premise that all students should have the choice of a performing school in their neighborhood." Is this criteria for success being met?

DME and KH have had their way as parents have scrambled to do the best they can for their kids education. The boundary issue messed them up, as more parents perceive that good neighborhood schools are not a priority for DME and KH - Charters are. Parents were dancing so nicely to their tune, they assumed it would continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS is proposing the narrowing of boundaries to eliminate access for children who are in some cases live less than one block from their neighborhood school. So to the poster 17:05 the only "fortresses being built," are by DCPS as they kick families out of neighborhood schools. In Ward 3 I am specifically referring to the proposed boundaries for families close to Murch and Janney. However, talk to parents in Ward 7 and they will tell you that proximity to a quality neighborhood school is simply not a priority for DCPS. In part because I think DCPS feels that charters are easier to establish than good neighborhood schools. The DME is from the DC Charter School Board and will likely return in less than six months, Henderson is also a huge supporter of charters. The status quo has a clear and common sense approach to proximity for neighborhood schools. Proximity is important for sustainable schools. Eliminating proximity as a criteria for boundaries and admittance, particularly at the elementary school level, paves the way for policies like a city-wide elementary lottery or city-wide elementary charters.

The boundary discussion seems to be a major distraction. According to the report referenced above "the methodology is based on the premise that all students should have the choice of a performing school in their neighborhood." Is this criteria for success being met?

It could be that families reluctant to switch from a one block walk to a one mile drive will be subtly or blatantly characterized by DMW as not open to "diversity" or "equitably" in an effort to incite dissent among parents from different parts of town who ultimately all want good educations for their kids - and would prefer to have them in nearby schools, but are willing, if they have to, to travel great distances. DME wants more movement around the city, because this means more charters, whereas parents have their own priorities.

Who will be successful in doing what's best for kids and families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There's no luck of any draw here.

I don't think you understand what Top Ten priority status means. We are among the clusters of greatest need for change.. Not merely because there is a high number of schools that have been closed in my cluster (#18 - Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth), nor because it is one of the most diverse clusters, but because its projected growth of school aged children is among the highest in the city over the next decade.

As it's been over the last decade, this high number of kids will go to school in their own neighborhoods, or in yours. Which do you prefer?

I'm glad Jeff posted the DME research report that started this whole process, because I hadn't heard of it nor read it. http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

Too long? Skip to page 42 with the recommendations. This is an issue of demand for quality education grossly out-pacing supply. If you think the DME has ulterior motives, you're right! Skim through the subtitles to see what they are.

I took the time to read the report. Unfortunately, it has the same problems as the DME's proposed non-solutions. There is little to no analysis of what makes a high-performing school perform well. This is a document to find reasons to close under-performing schools with no ideas about how to encourage better-performing schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BOUNDARIES did not come down off the mountain with Moses, they are just a tool. And in this public school landscape with nearly half of the students attending charter schools, it might be okay to ask if they even make sense in all cases. If you plot where kids EOTP actually attend school, it would look like someone shot the boundary map with a load of buckshot.

Charters and OOB are the reality for the foreseeable future. So why should the schools be tied down to a nearly obsolete convention?

None of this precludes or excuses DCPS from making neighborhood schools that people actually want to send their children to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I took the time to read the report. Unfortunately, it has the same problems as the DME's proposed non-solutions. There is little to no analysis of what makes a high-performing school perform well. This is a document to find reasons to close under-performing schools with no ideas about how to encourage better-performing schools.

Could be because the only goal is to to close DCPS schools and open charters in their place The improved performance will come from the engaged/middle class/gentrifying/high SES parents who are forced to dance to the tune of the charter operators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There's no luck of any draw here.

I don't think you understand what Top Ten priority status means. We are among the clusters of greatest need for change.. Not merely because there is a high number of schools that have been closed in my cluster (#18 - Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth), nor because it is one of the most diverse clusters, but because its projected growth of school aged children is among the highest in the city over the next decade.

As it's been over the last decade, this high number of kids will go to school in their own neighborhoods, or in yours. Which do you prefer?

I'm glad Jeff posted the DME research report that started this whole process, because I hadn't heard of it nor read it. http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

Too long? Skip to page 42 with the recommendations. This is an issue of demand for quality education grossly out-pacing supply. If you think the DME has ulterior motives, you're right! Skim through the subtitles to see what they are.

I took the time to read the report. Unfortunately, it has the same problems as the DME's proposed non-solutions. There is little to no analysis of what makes a high-performing school perform well. This is a document to find reasons to close under-performing schools with no ideas about how to encourage better-performing schools.

Actually, we do know what works: refurbished facilities + large numbers of high SES families. Sadly, we can't easily replicate the second ingredient of the formula.

[Anonymous]

All of this may be part of a Walton family plan to create private school vouchers for DC residents. I mean, why not? The Charter schools are getting the equivalent of a voucher. If parents lose access to neighborhood schools, and they don't like their selection of neighborhood charters, then they are going to cry out for the right to get that same voucher to attend a more neighborhood-y private school.

So, The Plan is to: destroy neighborhood schools in DC; create ok-to-good alternatives by increasing funds for charters in DC; create incentive for parents to demand the really good alternatives that exist in private schools. Once you get private school vouchers, the Waltons get what they wanted all along.

The real genius inherent in The Plan is to convince the lefty wonks who favor social engineering that publicly funded charters are the sole purpose of the movement. The DME and her likeminded friends think they are getting what they're promoting -- forced diversity across SES lines -- while in the long run we'll see more independent schools established which are the opposite of diverse across SES and race lines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS is proposing the narrowing of boundaries to eliminate access for children who are in some cases live less than one block from their neighborhood school. So to the poster 17:05 the only "fortresses being built," are by DCPS as they kick families out of neighborhood schools. In Ward 3 I am specifically referring to the proposed boundaries for families close to Murch and Janney. However, talk to parents in Ward 7 and they will tell you that proximity to a quality neighborhood school is simply not a priority for DCPS. In part because I think DCPS feels that charters are easier to establish than good neighborhood schools. The DME is from the DC Charter School Board and will likely return in less than six months, Henderson is also a huge supporter of charters. The status quo has a clear and common sense approach to proximity for neighborhood schools. Proximity is important for sustainable schools. Eliminating proximity as a criteria for boundaries and admittance, particularly at the elementary school level, paves the way for policies like a city-wide elementary lottery or city-wide elementary charters.

The boundary discussion seems to be a major distraction. According to the report referenced above "the methodology is based on the premise that all students should have the choice of a performing school in their neighborhood." Is this criteria for success being met?

The Murch boundary has to shrink. Instead of shrinking it towards two other over-capacity zones which would force dozens if not hundreds of additional families to move, the plan shrinks it toward the "under capacity" zone. A computer would do it that way every time. Clearly this sucks for those affected families, but I don't think this has anything to do with charter schools or Ward 7.