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=Anonymous]@ 10:26:  what's more interesting is why the recommendations you highlight, contained in the DME's "Final Report"  from 2012, are not mirrored by the DME's current proposals A-C.  The ideas you cut out from the 2012 report look a lot more like Cheh's ideas than what is presently coming out of DME (before we see the final recommendations, that is).[/quote]
Different poster here.  I wonder if part of what was going on with the boundary proposals is that they're not directly linked to the goals in the IFF report.

The IFF report was providing a strategic plan for upgrading schools to improve DCPS offerings to students.  If basically suggests using resources to improve certain promising Tier 2 schools in high-impact areas.  And it notes as a side benefit that improving those Tier 2 schools will lessen overcrowding at other Tier 1 schools.

By contrast, the boundary review project is aimed at lessening the crowding at oversubscribed schools.  Changing the boundaries is one possible solution.  And consistent with the IFF report, improving other schools to attract students will help lessen the overcrowding too.

But why were some of the original A-C proposals targeted so differently (citywide lottery & choice sets)?  I think it's because those alternatives have been used by some other cities, and they are really favored by some of the consultants working for DME, as methods to increase racial & economic diversity in schools.  Some of these consultants have written various posts and op-ed pieces promoting lottery & choice-set approaches as ways to promote diversity.  Given that some of her key advisors are pushing diversity models as a goal, it makes sense that those kind of proposals were offered as possible alternatives.

However, as we've all seen from the data, while most people support diversity in general, the primary focus parents have is on improved educational opportunities for their children.  And most people don't seem to see lotteries or choice-sets as doing much to accomplish that primary goal of improved educational opportunities.

So IMHO what [i]should[/i] happen is for DME to focus on adjusting the boundaries + improving Tier 2 schools in high-impact areas.  And this talk of lotteries and choice-sets will fall by the wayside.  But if the consultants & DME decide promoting diversity is actually a [i]primary[/i] goal of theirs (even though it's not the primary goal of the process as described by the DME's briefs), then we may be headed in a different direction.  If so, we will have some cognitive dissonance, because the DME will be doing things (lotteries & choice-sets) that are inconsistent with her stated goals, and inconsistent with public opinion.[/quote]

Excellent analysis.  Those parts certainly fit together in explaining our current situation.[/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