Anonymous wrote:Brent is an amazing school yet people think its failing because there aren't enough poor kids. Um that's one of the reasons is such a successful school with high test scores. Personally I want my kid at a top notch school academically and I am less concerned with social engineering. This whole boundary endeavor sounds like and attempt to make all schools average/mediocre.

Who are these people who think that Brent is failing?

The groupings in Option A are absurd. It would pretty much seal DCPS not a single SWS family. CHM already expanded to 8th and shouldn't neet an MS option. SWS, LT, Miner and Wilson ... Hello charters/private!

Brent is an amazing school yet people think its failing because there aren't enough poor kids. Um that's one of the reasons is such a successful school with high test scores. Personally I want my kid at a top notch school academically and I am less concerned with social engineering. This whole boundary endeavor sounds like and attempt to make all schools average/mediocre.

You mean The Maples? LMFAO

http://themaplescapitolhill.com/#1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brent has been singled out for discipline because of the "flip" from lower income to higher income, and from black to white.

Brent gets a failing mark for the category "maintaining socio-economic diversity" and therefore must be shaken up. Actually, I am fine with OOB set-asides for kids from failing schools. But since the school is already full to the gills with in boundary families ( it is a tiny school ), the boundaries will need to be shrunk to fit in those OOB students. SO Brent, here are your choices: shrink your boundaries and accept some mandatory OOB students OR get in the choice set.

That is hardly Brent's/DCPS's fault-- DC zoning and planing could make more of an effort to create low-income housing in Brent's area. We have the Ellen Wilson place, but can't think of any other mixed income housing developments. Any plans in the works? What about that Friendship house development right by Eastern Market metro?

Anonymous wrote:14:03 here, my post was the playing by the rules post. I have no idea if wheeling and dealing is occurring behind the scenes, but it seems premature as none of the policy scenarios have been chosen. And, a new mayor may take things in completely different direction.

These points are true, but this is the time to be thinking about things, getting involved, and making our voices heard. While waiting until the policy scenario is chosen and they are working on integrating it into the lottery may not be too late, it might be.

Anonymous wrote:One more thing, the Payne boundaries don't touch either the Tyler or Brent boundaries. The schools would make an odd grouping.

Are you sure there's anything to this other than unsubstantiated rumor?

Yeah, there's gerrymandering, and there's gerrymandering. But I can't think of any justification for geographic justification for lumping Payne with Brent/Tyler rather than Peabody/Watkins which abut it.

One more thing, the Payne boundaries don't touch either the Tyler or Brent boundaries. The schools would make an odd grouping.

Are you sure there's anything to this other than unsubstantiated rumor?

Anonymous wrote:Because Brent has been singled out for discipline because of the "flip" from lower income to higher income, and from black to white.

Brent gets a failing mark for the category "maintaining socio-economic diversity" and therefore must be shaken up. Actually, I am fine with OOB set-asides for kids from failing schools. But since the school is already full to the gills with in boundary families ( it is a tiny school ), the boundaries will need to be shrunk to fit in those OOB students. SO Brent, here are your choices: shrink your boundaries and accept some mandatory OOB students OR get in the choice set.

14:03 here, my post was the playing by the rules post. I have no idea if wheeling and dealing is occurring behind the scenes, but it seems premature as none of the policy scenarios have been chosen. And, a new mayor may take things in completely different direction.

When I read that, I assumed that Payne was going to be closed and turned over to a charter.

OP here. I was simply seeking information concerning whether the DME moved the goalposts on the Brent choice set within just a day or two of releasing the policy proposal. For example, did the Cluster somehow prevail on Abagail Smith's shop to offer up shifting Payne out of the Peabody-Watkins choice set? Who proposed the Brent-Tyler-Payne pairing? Why has there been no public notice that a Brent-Tyler-Payne pairing is on the table? What is the quid pro quo?

Brent was likely paired with Tyler due to geographic proximity, and the fact that Tyler has a Spanish program. The "choice sets" are not final. Neither are any of the policy options. If you have opinions as to why the policy scenarios may or may not work, now is the time to speak up. If your focus is on the test scores of the grouped schools or Brent being punished, you're concerns are less likely to be heard because all students deserve good schools and even if DME were trying to punish Brent, they would never admit to it. Instead, useful feedback for DME would focus on why the scenario would not be good for the CH or the city as a whole, such as how commuting would be difficult, how combining to unequally sized facilities would likely require disproportionately long commutes for the eastern edge of the zone, what if you don't want Spanish Immersion but lottery into it (would that also dilute the quality of the program if the parents don't buy into it), etc.

Because Brent has been singled out for discipline because of the "flip" from lower income to higher income, and from black to white.

After reviewing the Policy Option documents over the weekend and learning that the DME envisioned a "choice set" for Brent that included Tyler, another parent mentioned hearing about a discussion at the Working Group meeting in which it seemed that Brent could actually be paired with Tyler and Payne unde Set J, even though the latter is listed as being part of Choice Set M with Maury ((Reward), Peabody (NA) and Watkins (Rising). Thus, the reconstituted Set M would have ESEA scores of 67 and 63, while the reconstituted Group J would have ESEA scores of 78 (Brent), 46 (Tyler), and 36 (Payne). Can anyone shed any further light on this or the rationale for focusing the bulls-eye on Brent?

Also, does anyone know if ANC 6B SMD representatives have been engaged by DME? I vaguely recall that there is a provision in the DC Code mandating consultation with the ANC and that ANC input be accorded substantial weight.

Thanks.