CM Mary Cheh plays the role of an old-fashioned academic bureaucrat with a few fairly conventional "new" ideas about technology. She is no friend of change in the educational arena. Ward 3 residents must seek out others for collaboration and reform.

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea what this means . . . . how can they alleviate overcrowding if all children currently slated to attend Deal and Wilson, retain the right to do so?

Exactly. It's magical thinking.

Basically this is like the Brac Commissions and Deficit commissions that allow someone else to make the decision other than our elected officials and they will be "forced" to accept that decision. Result a lot of people will pissed no matter what happens and they can claim no responsiblity. I reallly wish Cheh would admit up front that there will be some people not happy with the results, but this is what has to happen to get xx result.

We will have to compensate Ward 3 for school re-districting. 10% of home value in affected districts should work. Let's establish a fund under CM Cheh and and the incoming education committee chairperson through the Office of Tax and Revenue using their assessment process and electronic disbursement system.

That letter sounds like a whole lot of nothing.

Issue: overcrowding

Action: create an independent non-political process to examine boundaries

Solution: do nothing, assure people boundaries aren't changing, grandfather in kids at existing schools (and any rising siblings)

Result: overcrowding

Not sure how this is helpful at all. The main purpose of the bill is to focus attention on overcrowding in DC schools? Um, we already know that. Cannot believe we pay this woman to put out stuff like this.

I have no idea what this means . . . . how can they alleviate overcrowding if all children currently slated to attend Deal and Wilson, retain the right to do so?

Time to invest in popcorn.

even if kids currently attending and their sibling are grandfathered it is going to create a big mess, because redrawing boundaries is going to affect home values - poeple bought a home because it is zoned for a greact school - boundaries change and the new school is not that good, the value of the home goes down, so poeple will fight

Anonymous wrote:The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

Or maybe because of current an assessment there is a major rethinking of school lines.

Maybe it makes sense for the line for Mann to shift so that some of those towards the South of the boundary move into Stoddert and they would pick up some from Janney?
Maybe there is a Janney / Murch / Eaton / Hearst redraw for greater balance?

Without even opening it up to explore you will never find out if there is a relatively simple answer.

The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

Anonymous wrote:
Provisions in the bill would ensure that students cur- rently enrolled in a school would be able to remain in that school and its current feeder pattern — even if they no longer live in the school’s boundary after any redrawing. Siblings of students already enrolled in a school would be similarly grandfathered.

This I really don't get. Yes, I understand why people want it. But isn't the point of redistricting to be able to respond to demographic shifts? With this provision you're guaranteeing that any response will be so incredibly slow that it can't have effect. As an example, imagine that this law had been in effect forever, and that redrawing had been done in 2005, 1995, 1985, 1975, and so forth. The only kids who would be affected by the 2005 redrawing would be those who entered in 2006 or later -- today's fifth graders and younger -- who were the oldest member of their family attending. The rest of the kids would be using the 1995 map. Even since 2005 everything has changed. In 2005, Wilson and Deal had not been renovated, and they were not at capacity. Pretty much everyone who wanted to could get in out of boundary. Just about all of the Ward 3 elementary schools were under-enrolled then too. It's hard to imagine that anything would really be any different in this scenario.

I understand why redrawing hasn't been done since the 1970's -- nobody wants to be impacted by it. But Cheh's plan just makes permanent the idea that redrawing never actually affects anyone -- which is just like not having redrawing, only worse.

Its a good starting point, but that's about it.

The problem is, it provides no insight at all. Cheh is just restating what we already know.

The sentence in the last paragraph "In the end, this bill might not be the answer" says to me that this proposed bill really means nothing and was only put out there to push DCPS to reexamine boundaries.

The real mystery is, what is DCPS going to do about it? What are the boundary options? How can overcrowding be alleviated? The same NW Current ran an article about how successful Lafayette and Deal have been despite having large numbers of children.

Thanks for posting, PP. Good to gain a tiny bit of insight into what's in store. Maybe good will come of the impending shake-up, focusing DCPS attention on gaps and meeting gentrification needs across a broader spectrum of schools.

See the text copied below, you can find it in the Northwest Current. I think it is thoughtful and descriptive, and also clearly aware of the potential firestorm. The point about an independent board like those for Ward boundaries and ANC boundaries makes it palatable.



In consideration of D.C. school boundaries
The Northwest Current
By Mary Cheh
December 5, 2012

There have been numerous important discussions over the past few weeks concerning school boundaries and a bill I introduced some months ago that recently had two hearings. I am pleased that so many members of our community are considering this issue. It has vast implications for the future of our city. Some of the points raised, however, have been quite in error, and I write now to provide the correct information.

In the last three years, enrollment in Ward 3 public schools has increased by 23 percent. Now, all 10 D.C. public schools in Ward 3 are over capacity — even the ones that we just modernized and expanded. Although this is a great endorsement of our school reform move- ment, this enrollment surge is already starting to nega- tively affect the quality of instruction in these schools. One way to address this enrollment surge is to re-exam- ine school boundaries and feeder patterns — something that has not happened since the 1970s.

Earlier this year, I introduced the School Boundary Review Act, which would create an independent, non- political process to re-examine school boundaries every 10 years, just like the District has with ward and advi- sory neighborhood commission boundaries. Under this legislation, the mayor would appoint a commission every decade to review school boundaries and feeder patterns, taking into account school capacities, population changes, projected development and other relevant factors. The commission would operate in the open, hold public hearings and be required to invite feedback from the public. It would then present recommended changes to the mayor, who would finalize and publish them at least 15 months before they would take effect.

Provisions in the bill would ensure that students cur- rently enrolled in a school would be able to remain in that school and its current feeder pattern — even if they no longer live in the school’s boundary after any redrawing. Siblings of students already enrolled in a school would be similarly grandfathered.

The bill itself would only create a process to exam- ine school boundaries and feeder patterns. It does not propose any substantive changes. Let me repeat that part: My bill does not propose any substantive changes to boundaries or feeders for any school, including Lafayette Elementary School and Deal Middle School.

The main purpose of this bill is to focus our atten- tion on the issues of boundaries and overcrowding. In the end, this bill might not be answer, but we still need to confront the problem in some way. Indeed, the bill may have already succeeded in that the chancellor has now agreed to examine school boundaries this spring.