Reply to Revised Boundary Recommendations to be released on or about June 13

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Revised Boundary Recommendations to be released on or about June 13"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms. 
[/quote]

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

[/quote]

So I took the time to read that DME document.  Interestingly, its recommendations bear very very little relationship to the latest recommendations from the DME.  The only connection I can see is that some of the recommendations contain the proposal to "increase access to performing seats" in Tier 1 and Tier 2 schools (it begs the question why they didn't just state, "increase capacity" in Tier 1 and 2 schools).  I suppose, from those recommendations, you can see where the DME now is proposing set-asides for OOB students within capacity at those same "performing" schools.  But the rest of the current proposals are a big stretch from this thing.

Also interestingly, the second paragraph of the document contains the same logical flaw we've been seeing throughout the entire DME process:  "By identifying where the greatest number of students need performing
schools, these studies have guided stakeholders in strategic prioritization."  From here you see the premise that students in need of performing schools will THEMSELVES become performing if you just route them over to a "performing seat" at a "performing school."  Completely ignoring the reality that schools are under-performing because the students at those schools are under-performing; and that "performing schools" are performing because the students at those schools are capable of performing.  DME is almost completely ignoring the need for proposals to tailor its educational tools to the needs of under-performing kids; and instead is behaving as if increasing capacity at "performing schools" will solve the problem of under-performing students.  It's just a gigantic dodge.  And some people are buying it.  Just nuts.  Crackers to bits.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics