How would this controlled choice nonsense actually work on Capitol Hill?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
No, I accounted for what economists call "information asymmetry" (compounded here by another notorious problem called "uncertainty" and yet another one called "conspicuous consumption"). Home buying is fraught with information asymmetry because it's a good you purchase rarely (once a decade maybe) and about which the average (even if educated) consumer has very little true insight. If that average consumer does nothing but rely on real estate agents (who incidentally have an interest in increasing home prices) and diffuse signals, you end up with people vastly overpaying what the home (accounted for those asymmetries and uncertainties) is truly worth. That many new urban dwellers arrive from places around the country that don't happen to offer a vast network of open boundary charter schools (decreasing said uncertainty re IB school) makes those financial literacy problems worse, certainly when it comes to judging the true value of buying in-bounds for any particular school. (But, hey, I'm not complaining about the windfall!) |
Anonymous
|
Yes, people who don't make their 5 year olds walk a mile to school uphill both ways are not to be tolerated... I'm against controlled choice because I don't want to live in the same boundary with people like this poster. What does this mean? Speak to me like I have an allergic reaction to double negatives. So you would trust someone that makes their 5 year olds walk a mile to school? And if one did want to live in the same boundry with that poster, then they would be for controlled choice? Do I have that right? Anyway, the poster's point was that Brent's boundry is not arbitrary. If you do not agree, what evidence do you have that it is arbitrary? It makes sense to me, although I suppose one could say that Penn Ave would make a better northern boundry than North Capitol since Penn is a wider and busier street, but North Cap has the whole unit block thing going for it. Anyway, it isn't gerrymandered like Wilson's. What strikes you as arbitrary about it? |
Anonymous
| oops-- East Capitol is Brent's northern boundry, not north Capitol. North Capitol is Brent's west boundry, I think. |
Anonymous
|
This makes perfect sense for families who live IB to the less desirable schools on or near Capitol Hill and is very unappealing to people in bounds for Brent and Maury.
|
Anonymous
| My children both walk/walk a mile to school -- takes 20 minutes, even in K. What does this have to do with anything? |
Anonymous
Yes, people who don't make their 5 year olds walk a mile to school uphill both ways are not to be tolerated... I'm against controlled choice because I don't want to live in the same boundary with people like this poster. What does this mean? Speak to me like I have an allergic reaction to double negatives. So you would trust someone that makes their 5 year olds walk a mile to school? And if one did want to live in the same boundry with that poster, then they would be for controlled choice? Do I have that right? Anyway, the poster's point was that Brent's boundry is not arbitrary. If you do not agree, what evidence do you have that it is arbitrary? It makes sense to me, although I suppose one could say that Penn Ave would make a better northern boundry than North Capitol since Penn is a wider and busier street, but North Cap has the whole unit block thing going for it. Anyway, it isn't gerrymandered like Wilson's. What strikes you as arbitrary about it? Boundaries reflect a balancing of factors based on decision making that took place several decades ago. While Pennsylvania Avenue might be "better" from an objective viewpoint when viewed as a barrier to walkability, particularly in the face of DDOT's unwillingness or inability to time lights such that pedestrians can actually cross the median and traffic lanes, the boundaries have resulted inBrent being slightly above capacity for a number of years, with the "travesty" of IB students gradually supplanting OOB students. Brent would need many more OOB students if the northern boundary ended at Pennsylvania, some of whom would still be IB for schools like Ludlow-Taylor, Tyler, Watkins, Miner, and Payne. Families to the north of Pennsylvania would then presumably feed to Ludlow-Taylor or Watkins, with a possible proximity preference for Brent. Take away: all the handwringing about changing boundaries at Brent would accmplish little more than reshuffling the deck for a few IB three and four-year olds. None of this remedies the fact that nonrigid the Hill middle schools are desirable. |
Anonymous
| Nonrigid = none |