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][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.

[b]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.[/b]

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]

The policy examples that have been up for discussion (and derision) are just that - [i]examples [/i]of policy that [i]could [/i] achieve the primary objective of closing the gap between supply and demand of performing seats.  If you go back and read those examples again, much of what's in them is already in practice here in DC.  The unified lottery is a city-wide lottery. You're free to try your lot at any of the schools in the city.  As proposed in DME examples A and B, you also currently have preference for siblings and proximity. Choice sets sounds crazy until you realize that it's pretty similar to what we have now, which is a system that has several elementary schools feeding into one designated middle school; the only difference with choice sets is that you can go to any one of those elementary schools while still maintaining preference for the one closest to your house. Policy example C is the most contentious in its proposal for city-wide lottery (at middle and high school only), but critics have missed the fact that this example is modeled after the current charter system.  That example calls for each school to have some specialized programming, such as IB, dual language or STEM.  It doesn't sound so crazy when you remember that the [i]most sought after [/i]high schools in DCPS, excepting Wilson, are application schools open to students city-wide - just like charters.  No one seems to think charter lotteries are radical; rather it's the fairest way to give everyone access to a particular form of learning.
 
As for the speculation about forced diversity, there's nothing in the policy briefs or examples that says it's a priority.  Forced diversity is simply reality unless you really do want to cut off Ward 3 from the rest of the city. It's worth remembering that if more families start choosing their neighborhood schools, they're going to have to expect and accept diversity because there is no getting around the demographics of this city.  The set-asides that have been discussed are a necessity because many families still have unacceptable neighborhood schools and federal law says they have to be given access to performing schools. And pure politics says you'd never get acceptance of a policy that locks families into one school or feeder pattern.  If you're seeing a few op-eds touting the benefits of diversity as sign of a social engineering agenda from the DME, then you're conflating your fears about diversity with the reality that most of the city's children are black or Hispanic.  [/quote]

No one expressing fear of the proposed changes is fearful of diversity.  The fear you're seeing is fear of losing a high-performing neighborhood school (from those who have access to such a dwindling commodity in this city).  Respectfully, your mis-diagnosis of the cause for the fear is clouding your assessment of the fearful crowd.[/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