Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a completely fair question, if only to set the record straight. No one likes to be manipulated and the public was manipulated here. Outside of the merits of changing school assignment policies in DC that is not what the general public was led to believe was happening with this process or this committee. For evidence, just to back to original announcements and communications and you can see that even the name of the committee and process morphed over the last year. Read the archived news stories.

It was a classic fly under the radar maneuver by government to push through difficult changes on an unsuspecting public. It leaves many of us with a bad taste in our mouths. It would help to have clarify on the part of our leaders that this mission creep actual happened. Otherwise I, for one, continue to feel manipulated by the process and distrustful.

I guess it depends on your perspective. DCPS school assignment and boundaries are royally screwed up. The idea of changing boundaries without addressing the larger question doesn't make much sense. Moving a line from one side of Connecticut Ave to the other and leaving the mess in place would be worse than the three plans they put out there, and I don't support any if those.

Grow the pie.

But the proposals aren't about growing the pie, they're about slicing it differently.

I'm aware of that. But the plans contain elements that would be necessary to grow the pie (i.e. new stand alone middle schools). Admittedly there's slim chance they get all right, but slim is better than none.

Outgoing Mayor Gray's DME has blown it. Whatever sensible ideas may be buried in this jumble of a process are squandered because this mayor and deputy mayor have lost the trust of many if not most DCPS parents. The mayoral campaign should be the place to debate education policy along with other issues. Then the voters will speak and a new mayor and a new DME can implement what was voted for. This is a sham to ram through their vision in the next months. And if Henderson wants to keep her job in DC she should make clear what her long-term vision is regarding school assignments.

Pretty much every school boundary review across the nation has some parents up in arms from beginning to end. Look at Fairfax County or even Loudoun County where parents are fighting to keep absurdly small, early 20th century schools when that district has to open multiple schools per year just to keep up with enrollment. It's a messy process, no matter how you slice it.

Anonymous wrote:When I was at the early focus groups, the emphasis was that this is about school assignment. I think that was always on the table.

Oh, so only the 400 people or whatever who attend focus groups get "the real scoop"? The rest of us bozos are deceived by newspaper headlines and discussions of "feeder pattern and boundary changes". That's BS. I think you all know what that acronym stands for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a completely fair question, if only to set the record straight. No one likes to be manipulated and the public was manipulated here. Outside of the merits of changing school assignment policies in DC that is not what the general public was led to believe was happening with this process or this committee. For evidence, just to back to original announcements and communications and you can see that even the name of the committee and process morphed over the last year. Read the archived news stories.

It was a classic fly under the radar maneuver by government to push through difficult changes on an unsuspecting public. It leaves many of us with a bad taste in our mouths. It would help to have clarify on the part of our leaders that this mission creep actual happened. Otherwise I, for one, continue to feel manipulated by the process and distrustful.

I guess it depends on your perspective. DCPS school assignment and boundaries are royally screwed up. The idea of changing boundaries without addressing the larger question doesn't make much sense. Moving a line from one side of Connecticut Ave to the other and leaving the mess in place would be worse than the three plans they put out there, and I don't support any if those.

Grow the pie.

But the proposals aren't about growing the pie, they're about slicing it differently.

I'm aware of that. But the plans contain elements that would be necessary to grow the pie (i.e. new stand alone middle schools). Admittedly there's slim chance they get all right, but slim is better than none.

Outgoing Mayor Gray's DME has blown it. Whatever sensible ideas may be buried in this jumble of a process are squandered because this mayor and deputy mayor have lost the trust of many if not most DCPS parents. The mayoral campaign should be the place to debate education policy along with other issues. Then the voters will speak and a new mayor and a new DME can implement what was voted for. This is a sham to ram through their vision in the next months. And if Henderson wants to keep her job in DC she should make clear what her long-term vision is regarding school assignments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a completely fair question, if only to set the record straight. No one likes to be manipulated and the public was manipulated here. Outside of the merits of changing school assignment policies in DC that is not what the general public was led to believe was happening with this process or this committee. For evidence, just to back to original announcements and communications and you can see that even the name of the committee and process morphed over the last year. Read the archived news stories.

It was a classic fly under the radar maneuver by government to push through difficult changes on an unsuspecting public. It leaves many of us with a bad taste in our mouths. It would help to have clarify on the part of our leaders that this mission creep actual happened. Otherwise I, for one, continue to feel manipulated by the process and distrustful.

I guess it depends on your perspective. DCPS school assignment and boundaries are royally screwed up. The idea of changing boundaries without addressing the larger question doesn't make much sense. Moving a line from one side of Connecticut Ave to the other and leaving the mess in place would be worse than the three plans they put out there, and I don't support any if those.

Grow the pie.

But the proposals aren't about growing the pie, they're about slicing it differently.

I'm aware of that. But the plans contain elements that would be necessary to grow the pie (i.e. new stand alone middle schools). Admittedly there's slim chance they get all right, but slim is better than none.

How can something be an under the radar maneuver when they invite the public to multiple meetings and hundreds show up? I was actually annoyed this week by three robocalls asking me to attend.

There is nothing about this exercise that will please everyone. Instead of the open-ended question about what is to be accomplished, you're better off asking what do YOU want out of it and delivering that feedback.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a completely fair question, if only to set the record straight. No one likes to be manipulated and the public was manipulated here. Outside of the merits of changing school assignment policies in DC that is not what the general public was led to believe was happening with this process or this committee. For evidence, just to back to original announcements and communications and you can see that even the name of the committee and process morphed over the last year. Read the archived news stories.

It was a classic fly under the radar maneuver by government to push through difficult changes on an unsuspecting public. It leaves many of us with a bad taste in our mouths. It would help to have clarify on the part of our leaders that this mission creep actual happened. Otherwise I, for one, continue to feel manipulated by the process and distrustful.

I guess it depends on your perspective. DCPS school assignment and boundaries are royally screwed up. The idea of changing boundaries without addressing the larger question doesn't make much sense. Moving a line from one side of Connecticut Ave to the other and leaving the mess in place would be worse than the three plans they put out there, and I don't support any if those.

Grow the pie.

But the proposals aren't about growing the pie, they're about slicing it differently.

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a completely fair question, if only to set the record straight. No one likes to be manipulated and the public was manipulated here. Outside of the merits of changing school assignment policies in DC that is not what the general public was led to believe was happening with this process or this committee. For evidence, just to back to original announcements and communications and you can see that even the name of the committee and process morphed over the last year. Read the archived news stories.

It was a classic fly under the radar maneuver by government to push through difficult changes on an unsuspecting public. It leaves many of us with a bad taste in our mouths. It would help to have clarify on the part of our leaders that this mission creep actual happened. Otherwise I, for one, continue to feel manipulated by the process and distrustful.

I guess it depends on your perspective. DCPS school assignment and boundaries are royally screwed up. The idea of changing boundaries without addressing the larger question doesn't make much sense. Moving a line from one side of Connecticut Ave to the other and leaving the mess in place would be worse than the three plans they put out there, and I don't support any if those.

Grow the pie.

Anonymous wrote:I was at Coolidge and had my hand up but didn't get picked. So here's my question:

It seems that the task force took a sharp turn. It was originally tasked with looking at boundaries and feeder patterns, and all of a sudden we're seeing radical proposals to change assignment policies. What's wrong with our current assignment policies? Can you give specific examples of problems under our current policies that would be fixed by one of the three scenarios?

Follow-up question, if the answer is along the lines of nothing specific but it would make DCPS more attractive: Do you have any evidence to support that, or is it just your hunch?

Something very close to your first question was asked at the first Coolidge meeting. I don't remember the answer exactly but I think it was along the lines of "We have changed the boundaries in 40 years and we don't want to have to keep doing it, so we want to make sure we are making the best changes now." But, big caveat that I've had a lot of conversations about education since that meeting and I could be getting that answer completely wrong. If someone with a better memory can help out, that would be great.

Two specific problems that would be addressed by these proposals are overcrowding at some schools and the lack of assigned schools in areas where schools have been closed. There are neighborhoods that have no assigned school and others that have multiple assigned schools. Obviously, these issues could have been addressed more discretely and without overhauling the entire system, but that gets back to your first question.

When I was at the early focus groups, the emphasis was that this is about school assignment. I think that was always on the table.

I think it is a completely fair question, if only to set the record straight. No one likes to be manipulated and the public was manipulated here. Outside of the merits of changing school assignment policies in DC that is not what the general public was led to believe was happening with this process or this committee. For evidence, just to back to original announcements and communications and you can see that even the name of the committee and process morphed over the last year. Read the archived news stories.

It was a classic fly under the radar maneuver by government to push through difficult changes on an unsuspecting public. It leaves many of us with a bad taste in our mouths. It would help to have clarify on the part of our leaders that this mission creep actual happened. Otherwise I, for one, continue to feel manipulated by the process and distrustful.

Anonymous wrote:My question is this:

How do any of these proposals specifically make poorly performing schools more attractive and stronger?

Follow up: How do these proposals provide equal access to the best schools in DC?

On your second question, I suspect she'd answer that a full lottery provides equal chance for everyone. On your first question, I agree none of the current proposals does anything. It seems crazy to me that if the root problem is that there aren't enough quality seats, then our solution is not aimed at increasing the number of quality seats. We cannot reallocate our way out of this shortage; we need to grow a way out.

My question is this:

How do any of these proposals specifically make poorly performing schools more attractive and stronger?

Follow up: How do these proposals provide equal access to the best schools in DC?

The issue has always been school assignment. Boundaries are just part of that equation.

In a nutshell, the majority of the city sees one middle school and one high school as the only worthwhile options in a city with several thousand school aged children. It was fine for awhile, when parents either put up with what DCPS provided or moved on to greener pastures.

Now, no matter your income level or where you live in DC, the situation is untenable.

I think it is fair to not like any of the proposals, but this is not a serious question at this point.

I was at Coolidge and had my hand up but didn't get picked. So here's my question:

It seems that the task force took a sharp turn. It was originally tasked with looking at boundaries and feeder patterns, and all of a sudden we're seeing radical proposals to change assignment policies. What's wrong with our current assignment policies? Can you give specific examples of problems under our current policies that would be fixed by one of the three scenarios?

Follow-up question, if the answer is along the lines of nothing specific but it would make DCPS more attractive: Do you have any evidence to support that, or is it just your hunch?