Anonymous wrote:Ward 6 parent who has posted many times about lack of a middle school in my neighborhood here -- I totally agree with Jeff. While the Ward 3 parents seem excessively hysterical to me, I can't see how any of these plans address the issues faced by my neighborhood schools, and honestly don't see why Ward 3 should have to make any changes other than those few small boundary changes needed to redistribute kids from overcrowded schools to schools that have traditionally been seen as less desirable (Hearst).

The city-wide lottery for HS seems like crazy talk.

We need magnet programs in HS and MS that will draw reluctant parents in to a neighborhood school with a bad reputation -- specialized programs in larger schools that serve all students. I went to a school like this when I was growing up. HS with a terrible reputation, added AP and IB curriculum, and managed to draw in parents who were afraid to come to the dangerous part of town.

Ward 3 parent here. YES. You have nailed it.

Many of the options discussed talk about opening all these "specialized" schools - IB, Montessori, etc. as part of the solution. GREAT! Do it! But why not do that piece of it FIRST and then, after all the "incentive" schools are opened (and PS, how is THAT going to happen by August 2015?) then lets look at forced redistribution. Lets also offer the wrap around services needed for the schools that need them. I would be happy to support those efforts both with my voice and my wallet.

Sure. But will the proposals the DME has suggested actually make things significantly better for kids at Drew (to use your example)?

They might be in a choice set with Houston (another Priority school) and Burrville (a Developing school) so arguably they'd have some shot at attending a better school...but 2/3 of the kids in the choice set are still going to end up in Priority schools. Also, only 54% of Burrville kids are inbound and the school is only 89% utilized, so a lot of the Drew cohort could probably already be attending it anyway if they wanted to.

They might get priority at better-performing schools. That is a benefit to the kids who get in, but it also comes with costs--the literal cost of having to travel across town (kids get free bus rides, but their parents don't) and the cost of losing the families most able to figure out the lottery and get their kids to a better school.

So yes, I want there to be better schools for all kids. But I'm not convinced this is how we do it. What about having this process make some minor boundary changes and eliminating the rule that once you're in a school you have rights to its destination school (which removes involved families from schools in less-desired feeder patterns). Solve the problem of neighborhoods having rights to multiple schools and schools having boundaries that leave them too empty or too full.

THEN let's have a conversation as big as the one on boundaries and feeder patterns on how to make schools better for low-income kids. Do we need more nurses and social workers? Extended school days? Year-round schools? More science/art/music/phys ed/cooking/etc. throughout the school day? Higher TANF rates? More housing vouchers? Shuttle vans to take poor kids from their home to school each day? More per-pupil funding at lower-performing schools? Let's do it!! But let's not do it through the boundary and feeder pattern process.

OP, I agree with you. Things need to be improved. The problems are that those proposals don't seem to do much to really improve the schools. There are also no data to back up their proposals explaining why it could work.
The proposals are one size fits all, while bad schools, OK schools who could get better in a few years and good schools have very different needs.
Actually by offering spots to set asides, it would make the bad schools even worse, because all of the kids who want better options will enter the lottery and do long commute while the kids/parents who don't care will remain in these bad schools. I am surprise there is no proposals targeted specifically to the needs of those bad schools, like created a magnet track for the best students make smaller classes, adding teachers etc...Those solutions have been implemented in other countries with success, they should look into them.

Ward 6 parent who has posted many times about lack of a middle school in my neighborhood here -- I totally agree with Jeff. While the Ward 3 parents seem excessively hysterical to me, I can't see how any of these plans address the issues faced by my neighborhood schools, and honestly don't see why Ward 3 should have to make any changes other than those few small boundary changes needed to redistribute kids from overcrowded schools to schools that have traditionally been seen as less desirable (Hearst).

The city-wide lottery for HS seems like crazy talk.

We need magnet programs in HS and MS that will draw reluctant parents in to a neighborhood school with a bad reputation -- specialized programs in larger schools that serve all students. I went to a school like this when I was growing up. HS with a terrible reputation, added AP and IB curriculum, and managed to draw in parents who were afraid to come to the dangerous part of town.

Also, "low-performing schools" are a moving target--what could be a low-performing school now could be the next Maury in a few years. And would students at that school still get preference for OOB seats in Ward 3 schools? Given the pace of gentrification EOTP, the current dedicated spaces at WOTP schools would no longer make sense in a relatively short period of time.

Anonymous wrote:I know the conventional wisdom here is change very little, just make my good school less crowded and let me get into whatever school I want to, but for most of DC, the options are not very good. The current system is not working NOW, and it makes sense to move on everything we can move on as soon as possible, not wait until Drew Elementary has 70% proficiency or something. I hope that people realize that there are problems now and that big-picture solutions are needed NOW for most of the city. The underserved students today are tomorrow's missed opportunities - criminals, the unemployable, people in need of social services. People who have kids before they have the income and security to take care of them well.

I want a system that works for everyone. Most people here want a system that works for them, and that makes me sad.

So, scream away, and I'm sorry to occasion a bunch of crazy responses, but I felt like I had to offer just one counterpoint to the "who moved my cheese?" vibe often permeating this forum, especially during this time of boundary and feeder discussions. I want change for the good of all our city, and not just "predictability" for part of it.

Fine, but who is to say that any of these policy examples will achieve change for the good of most of the city? No one, that's who -- just like all of the reform efforts up to now -- dreamed up out of heads of people eager to make a name for themselves.

And let's not call it "big picture" implying that any other ideas are "small picture" and therefore selfish thinking. That is a false dichotomy. Don't fall for it.

Anonymous wrote:Note that DCPS has not even defined what a low performing/underperforming school is and has not identified clear metrics or goals for all DCPS schools. How can you have a plan if you have not defined the problem and have not established the goal. Initially the goal was to prevent overcrowding, it has now morphed into something else.

I agree that they have gone well beyond their mandate. I also think if they want to move forward with some of these far-reaching school assignment proposals (as opposed to just adjusting boundaries/feeder patterns), there are way too many details to be worked out for it to be in place for the 2015-2016 school year, and thus I think the assignment process will not be completed until a new mayor comes in. And I would assume that at least under Catania (who has my vote), they would be DOA.

Note that DCPS has not even defined what a low performing/underperforming school is and has not identified clear metrics or goals for all DCPS schools. How can you have a plan if you have not defined the problem and have not established the goal. Initially the goal was to prevent overcrowding, it has now morphed into something else.

The problem as I see it takes the totally opposite view - most of the proposals being circulated about boundaries are "your school works, mine doesn't - therefore I'm going to change the boundaries and make sure that neither your school nor mine works."

Anonymous wrote:At the Coolidge meeting last night, everyone agreed that there are big picture solutions that are needed now for most of the city, and most posters on DCUM seem to agree with that. The question is whether the offered solutions will attack the problem, which they will not. They are immediate action with a detrimental short and long term result.

I agree completely. The proposed solutions take the few good classroom seats and redistribute them. While things might get better for some, they get worse or stay the same for others. Only solutions which increase the number of good seats should be considered.

At the Coolidge meeting last night, everyone agreed that there are big picture solutions that are needed now for most of the city, and most posters on DCUM seem to agree with that. The question is whether the offered solutions will attack the problem, which they will not. They are immediate action with a detrimental short and long term result.

The problem with your position is that the 3 proposed policy options were not crafted based on either sound research or sound policy considerations.

I completely appreciate this perspective. Thanks for putting it out there.

Thank you, I feel the same way.

I know the conventional wisdom here is change very little, just make my good school less crowded and let me get into whatever school I want to, but for most of DC, the options are not very good. The current system is not working NOW, and it makes sense to move on everything we can move on as soon as possible, not wait until Drew Elementary has 70% proficiency or something. I hope that people realize that there are problems now and that big-picture solutions are needed NOW for most of the city. The underserved students today are tomorrow's missed opportunities - criminals, the unemployable, people in need of social services. People who have kids before they have the income and security to take care of them well.

I want a system that works for everyone. Most people here want a system that works for them, and that makes me sad.

So, scream away, and I'm sorry to occasion a bunch of crazy responses, but I felt like I had to offer just one counterpoint to the "who moved my cheese?" vibe often permeating this forum, especially during this time of boundary and feeder discussions. I want change for the good of all our city, and not just "predictability" for part of it.