Anonymous wrote:You mean the push to re-open Van Ness. More power to the SW parents battling to get it done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we agree that the goal is to get more "involved and motivated" parents choosing and investing in their neighborhood schools - as opposed to opting for OOB, charter or private?

Meeting that objective would require DCPS to match parental investment with funds and programming that raise quality. One investment without the other - parents and DCPS - just won't work.

IMO, that's what's missing in the DME policy examples. I can see a choice set that includes SWS as appealing, because a smaller lottery pool would increase the chances of neighboring families who want in. But then if a family ends up with L-T, Miner or J.O. Wilson, they need more to know that their investment in a neighborhood school is worthwhile. Significant changes, including middle school feeder predictability, are needed.

If that's the direction we're going in - and what other constructive direction can there be? - then parents need to say what they want - and need - to make it happen. What programmatic changes do you want? What destination middle schools?

If we all throw up our hands and say start from scratch, we're going to get what we get. I'm no fan of Bowser, but all those putting great faith in Catania to send us back to the Start Line make me nervous. No matter what he's talked about up to this point, he can't come up with a plan to meet the broad and diverse needs of families who are now or soon-to-be-entering the schools race. YOU are the ones who know what's needed, not the legions of new families who are counting on charters and reform.

Whose goal are you saying this is? Generally everyone's or are you referred to the DME? Who? Because I do not agree with your stated universal goal/premise. We do not attend charter, but I'm all for families having the opportunity to invest in school with something unique to offer, whether it's immersion or whatever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new mayor needs to decide which model the city wants to run with for the sake of the kids inside DCPS schools. Boundary changes will mean little without a strong committment to a model.

Does DC want a San Fran model, without neighborhood schools, or a Boston model, with neighborhood cluster sets, or a NYC or Denver model with neighborhood schools cum test-in gifted programs and speciality programs, or a charter-centric New Orleans model? Fidelity to the model seems more important than the model itself.

If the new mayor and city council want to keep more neighborhood schools from dying on the vine, political leaders need to push DCPS to attract and retain neighborhood families. DCPS could, for example, start providing admins with the same sort of incentives given for raising test scores. Think about the change that could come from offering elementary schools a five-figure bonus for each in-boundary 5th grader enrolled.

DC also needs to cap charter enrollment, offer true GT programs, test-in middle school programs and more serious test-in high school magnet programs.

What problem are you trying to solve? What is wrong with the current assignment method that would be fixed by a new model?

Anonymous wrote:Can we agree that the goal is to get more "involved and motivated" parents choosing and investing in their neighborhood schools - as opposed to opting for OOB, charter or private?

Meeting that objective would require DCPS to match parental investment with funds and programming that raise quality. One investment without the other - parents and DCPS - just won't work.

IMO, that's what's missing in the DME policy examples. I can see a choice set that includes SWS as appealing, because a smaller lottery pool would increase the chances of neighboring families who want in. But then if a family ends up with L-T, Miner or J.O. Wilson, they need more to know that their investment in a neighborhood school is worthwhile. Significant changes, including middle school feeder predictability, are needed.

If that's the direction we're going in - and what other constructive direction can there be? - then parents need to say what they want - and need - to make it happen. What programmatic changes do you want? What destination middle schools?

If we all throw up our hands and say start from scratch, we're going to get what we get. I'm no fan of Bowser, but all those putting great faith in Catania to send us back to the Start Line make me nervous. No matter what he's talked about up to this point, he can't come up with a plan to meet the broad and diverse needs of families who are now or soon-to-be-entering the schools race. YOU are the ones who know what's needed, not the legions of new families who are counting on charters and reform.

Anonymous wrote:Can we agree that the goal is to get more "involved and motivated" parents choosing and investing in their neighborhood schools - as opposed to opting for OOB, charter or private?

Meeting that objective would require DCPS to match parental investment with funds and programming that raise quality. One investment without the other - parents and DCPS - just won't work.

IMO, that's what's missing in the DME policy examples. I can see a choice set that includes SWS as appealing, because a smaller lottery pool would increase the chances of neighboring families who want in. But then if a family ends up with L-T, Miner or J.O. Wilson, they need more to know that their investment in a neighborhood school is worthwhile. Significant changes, including middle school feeder predictability, are needed.

If that's the direction we're going in - and what other constructive direction can there be? - then parents need to say what they want - and need - to make it happen. What programmatic changes do you want? What destination middle schools?

If we all throw up our hands and say start from scratch, we're going to get what we get. I'm no fan of Bowser, but all those putting great faith in Catania to send us back to the Start Line make me nervous. No matter what he's talked about up to this point, he can't come up with a plan to meet the broad and diverse needs of families who are now or soon-to-be-entering the schools race. YOU are the ones who know what's needed, not the legions of new families who are counting on charters and reform.

Anonymous wrote:The new mayor needs to decide which model the city wants to run with for the sake of the kids inside DCPS schools. Boundary changes will mean little without a strong committment to a model.

Does DC want a San Fran model, without neighborhood schools, or a Boston model, with neighborhood cluster sets, or a NYC or Denver model with neighborhood schools cum test-in gifted programs and speciality programs, or a charter-centric New Orleans model? Fidelity to the model seems more important than the model itself.

If the new mayor and city council want to keep more neighborhood schools from dying on the vine, political leaders need to push DCPS to attract and retain neighborhood families. DCPS could, for example, start providing admins with the same sort of incentives given for raising test scores. Think about the change that could come from offering elementary schools a five-figure bonus for each in-boundary 5th grader enrolled.

DC also needs to cap charter enrollment, offer true GT programs, test-in middle school programs and more serious test-in high school magnet programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new mayor needs to decide which model the city wants to run with for the sake of the kids inside DCPS schools. Boundary changes will mean little without a strong committment to a model.

Does DC want a San Fran model, without neighborhood schools, or a Boston model, with neighborhood cluster sets, or a NYC or Denver model with neighborhood schools cum test-in gifted programs and speciality programs, or a charter-centric New Orleans model? Fidelity to the model seems more important than the model itself.

If the new mayor and city council want to keep more neighborhood schools from dying on the vine, political leaders need to push DCPS to attract and retain neighborhood families. DCPS could, for example, start providing admins with the same sort of incentives given for raising test scores. Think about the change that could come from offering elementary schools a five-figure bonus for each in-boundary 5th grader enrolled.

DC also needs to cap charter enrollment, offer true GT programs, test-in middle school programs and more serious test-in high school magnet programs.

Rhee tried this and wrong-to-right erasuregate was the resulting.

The reality is in a city with so much urban poverty, administrators have little effect without vastly more resources. Test scores are not going to improve without radically shifting the resources so that ratios in high-poverty schools go student:teacher ratios of 10:1 or 8:1

Agreed, but administrators have little interest in this approach -- too hard and no rush of glory for getting student scores to rise exponentially due to hotshot administrators' crazy program of teacher and principal intimidation. They can't be heroes, so they settle for getting a paycheck, and with any luck, getting a job in the charter industry --- if they continue to help charters expand in DC

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new mayor needs to decide which model the city wants to run with for the sake of the kids inside DCPS schools. Boundary changes will mean little without a strong committment to a model.

Does DC want a San Fran model, without neighborhood schools, or a Boston model, with neighborhood cluster sets, or a NYC or Denver model with neighborhood schools cum test-in gifted programs and speciality programs, or a charter-centric New Orleans model? Fidelity to the model seems more important than the model itself.

If the new mayor and city council want to keep more neighborhood schools from dying on the vine, political leaders need to push DCPS to attract and retain neighborhood families. DCPS could, for example, start providing admins with the same sort of incentives given for raising test scores. Think about the change that could come from offering elementary schools a five-figure bonus for each in-boundary 5th grader enrolled.

DC also needs to cap charter enrollment, offer true GT programs, test-in middle school programs and more serious test-in high school magnet programs.

Rhee tried this and wrong-to-right erasuregate was the resulting.

The reality is in a city with so much urban poverty, administrators have little effect without vastly more resources. Test scores are not going to improve without radically shifting the resources so that ratios in high-poverty schools go student:teacher ratios of 10:1 or 8:1

Anonymous wrote:The new mayor needs to decide which model the city wants to run with for the sake of the kids inside DCPS schools. Boundary changes will mean little without a strong committment to a model.

Does DC want a San Fran model, without neighborhood schools, or a Boston model, with neighborhood cluster sets, or a NYC or Denver model with neighborhood schools cum test-in gifted programs and speciality programs, or a charter-centric New Orleans model? Fidelity to the model seems more important than the model itself.

If the new mayor and city council want to keep more neighborhood schools from dying on the vine, political leaders need to push DCPS to attract and retain neighborhood families. DCPS could, for example, start providing admins with the same sort of incentives given for raising test scores. Think about the change that could come from offering elementary schools a five-figure bonus for each in-boundary 5th grader enrolled.

DC also needs to cap charter enrollment, offer true GT programs, test-in middle school programs and more serious test-in high school magnet programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Meh. NP, but my neighborhood school is/was/will be godawful, and was closed a few years ago. So, then the boundaries were changed - and that school closed. Then it happened again. 3 times? 4 times? I can't keep up with the bathos.

My rapidly gentrifying neighborhood is great, but if we were expecting anything from DCPS? We would have moved out 6 years ago. As far as I'm concerned, DCPS outside of upper NW could and should die on the vine. It deserves to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:21, responding to 15:04.

1. I'm not sure why you keep calling it "forced diversity" or suggesting anyone here have some "fear" of diversity. As the system stands now, most of the schools are pretty darn diverse. For example, Wilson High School is 45% African American, 25% white, 17% Latino, and 8% Asian. No one's afraid of diversity.

2. The big difference between the A/B/C proposals and the current situation is that despite preferences, they suggest more students will be pushed out of their local neighborhood schools.

3. It seems a little silly to expand the choice options for DCPS schools, and try to improve all of them. Given that DCPS has many more schools than necessary right now, it seems a better approach to funnel students to a limited number of schools where DCPS can focus its efforts on improvement. In essence, less than open choice.

15:04 here.

On your first point, I was responding to this paragraph:

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.

Maybe I should have just asked you why you think promoting diversity is the objective of policy examples A-C. Each of them says what they are trying to do and that's to give a number of options to where families have a right to enroll. In fact, "right to enroll" is the most over-used phrase in A, B and C. I can't figure out how they're being perceived as promoting diversity. And I'm not being facetious, just wondering where and how you're getting the diversity angle.

On your second point, you can only be worried about losing your neighborhood school if you've already got a good one. That's understandable, but look at it from the perspective of families in one of those Top Ten priority clusters, where the options are limited or nil - they're already pushed out of their neighborhood schools. Even if they're willing to try it for PS-K, they're ready to bail at the first opportunity to get into a school that feeds Deal. And as we know, all these OOB students are crowding families with proximity to desirable schools. Choice sets is one idea - just an idea - for providing some post-elementary predictability. It's not a good idea for Ward 3 schools, but maybe it is for one of those priority clusters.

On the third point, it's a little unfair to value your own neighborhood school and then cavalierly say that others should be closed. Closing a school is something that brings just as much uproar and protest as the boundary proposals have brought to Ward 3. Some of the failing schools probably will be closed, and it's one of the recommendations in the policy brief linked up thread, but that only means an increased demand for seats in other schools. And parents in those areas would need a reason to choose alternatives that aren't already near or over capacity.