Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
What would you do?
This new proposal takes my child from one of the BEST performing schools in my Ward to the WORST performing. The proposed school is twice the distance from my home and is the third farthest elementary from my home. My child loses proximity preference under the new proposal because we don't have to travel further than one mile (Proposal 12 in the document released this week), but we will have to drive opposed to walk (there is no public transit option), and will more than double our commute in the car. This new school will be forced to take mostly at-risk OOB kids (foster care, homeless, welfare). It is heavily OOB already (over 80%) and will now have to grapple with the most challenging kids the city offers. The families who attend the school do not live in my neighborhood so I will lose all of the neighborhood elements of close-in play dates and walking my child to school. Livid doesn't begin to describe how angry and disgruntled I am with this process led by the DME. |
Anonymous
| Please provide specific names of schools. |
Anonymous
| I'd do nothing. I dont see the proposals going anywhere for a long time. |
Anonymous
| Is your child already in school? If yes, really don't worry about it. If not, then if the proposals do go through, you really might consider moving. |
Anonymous
| My guess is you are going from Murch to Hearst? If not, please clarify. |
Anonymous
| Also, I was where you are with the last round of boundary change proposals. We were moved from Murch, two blocks from our house, to Hearst, over a mile from our house. Hearst is the lowest performing elementary school in Ward 3 (I think) and the commute would have been awful. I still don't have confidence in the DME, because I think the review process has been opaque and alarmist, but I'm happy they reconsidered changing our boundary because that was ridiculous. |
Anonymous
|
The overall DME proposal may go nowhere but you are right to be concerned that boundaries will be redone. The new proposal talks about walkability so keep fighting changes that would turn walkers into drivers. DC is pushing a car reduction plan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/in-the-district-a-transportation-planthat-boosts-transit-and-discourages-driving/2014/06/03/c7721ac8-eb17-11e3-b98c-72cef4a00499_story.html so it is an embarrassment if a new school policy would undercut this. Make that known. The left hand and the right hand should coordinate for city planning. In the same vein, while it is good that the proposal focuses on at-risk kids, realistically how are going to move people around town? How are you really going to get families who are already dealing with all the stuff that makes them "at risk" in the first place to get it together every morning to get a kid to another neighborhood for school? Have they thought this through? Or is this proposal just lip service and they really don't see at-risk kids moving to different schools? |
Anonymous
| Jesus, school names are not top secret information. |
Anonymous
| I would attend Thursday's dME meeting, testify at the hearing next week, and write letter to all the council members making clear my position. I would also try to offer alternatives--if you offer an OOB set-aside, it should not be tied to income level--it should be tied to something else instead (low-performing school, or perhaps just an OOB set-aside not tied to anything). I would emphasize the walkability argument as well. Good luck. |
Anonymous
Good point. Children who are homeless tend to also be carless. How are they supposed to get to school? It's not like any of the upper NW schools are walkable from a homeless shelter. |
Anonymous
This. This. This. Thank you! A lot of this "at risk" baloney is just to make the DME feel better and not genuine at all. |
Anonymous
|
It is such a no-brainer to me that if DME got rid of OOB rights entirely and aligned elementary boundaries with neighborhoods, that a good chunk of the city's schools would be in good shape. Those that are not are the ones where resources could be invested in smart ways - like saturday hours, free, enhanced after-school programs, extended morning hours, etc.
|
Anonymous
This would cause a firestorm. During Rhee's tenure I recall her quote a statistic that about 1/3 of the city's public school children were in charters (obviously that has risen to 44%) 1/3 were OOB at schools not in their neighborhood, and only 1/3 were in their IB school. Point being if only 1/3 of families like their IB school, the consequences of removing OOB would be enormous and severe. |
Anonymous
\ Right, but if you "force" every child to go to their neighborhood school, many of those schools will get better instantly, as in the very first year. Then resources could be used to really address the failing schools, not the schools that are failing because of low enrollment. |
dcmom
Member Offline
Member Offline
There is no way to force people in the schools--if they don't get into a charter, they will go outside DCPS. |