Anonymous wrote:If we are dealing with both Deal and Wilson being overcrowded, why not make Deal for 6th and 7th grade only, and Hardy for 8th and 9th grade? Make it one big pool of students with the current feeders and make better use of Hardy.

3. It's about political will; no one wants to be accused of preventing any current or future student from attending Deal or Wilson. If it's really about no one wanting to be subject to criticism, them say so. At least then we'll know we need to design a solution that gives all the decision-makers plausible deniability.

Any other reasons I'm missing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is not a specific quota. But nobody wants it to get less diverse than it already is.

And yes, you are being willfully obtuse. Maybe try to be a little more realistic about politics, a little more circumspect in your remarks, and you could actually help instead of being a pain.

Calling people names isn't going to help move the process forward.

I frankly think this problem (and most problems) requires people to be less circumspect and more transparent in their language. If this is all really about race, then it's unhelpful to use code words to hide that. It sounds like we both appreciated the woman at the May 3 meeting who commented openly that we need to consider race and the fact that the city is largely segregated in evaluating the situation. I applaud her for saying it openly, and think that's how the conversation needs to move forward. I am frustrated that DCPS seems to be making decisions based on race, but won't say so.

Anonymous wrote:There is not a specific quota. But nobody wants it to get less diverse than it already is.

And yes, you are being willfully obtuse. Maybe try to be a little more realistic about politics, a little more circumspect in your remarks, and you could actually help instead of being a pain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

FYI to anyone else reading, they HAVE stated this clearly, multiple times. They were explicit about this during the big boundary review a few years ago and then again at this recent meeting. They have been consistent on this. The segregation issue in DC is staring everyone in the face. It is passive aggressive to claim you don't understand when really you do understand but you don't agree. If you don't believe desegregation and diversity in schools is important then maybe it's your turn to clearly state your principles and desired solutions.

Thanks for your clear response. I don't think DCPS ever states that clearly; saying DCPS wants solutions that "promote equity, excellence and diversity" is not saying clearly that solutions cannot restrict access for black and Hispanic students.

To be clear, I don't have any problem with racial diversity and desegregation; I'm all for it. But we need to be clear about what our true goals are, and what our available tools are.

Solving a complex problem like this doesn't happen if people aren't clear about the limits. Using vague language and hidden parameters just makes it harder. Also, we ought to ask ourselves if the true goal of all this is to decrease overcrowding in Deal-Wilson, or if the true goal is to desegregate the city. The solutions may be very different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

FYI to anyone else reading, they HAVE stated this clearly, multiple times. They were explicit about this during the big boundary review a few years ago and then again at this recent meeting. They have been consistent on this. The segregation issue in DC is staring everyone in the face. It is passive aggressive to claim you don't understand when really you do understand but you don't agree. If you don't believe desegregation and diversity in schools is important then maybe it's your turn to clearly state your principles and desired solutions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, who is desperate for the why (which is obvious!) didn't you or someone quote it on the last page of comments? Didn'you you pull this out of one of the slides?: "We are focusing on ideas that preserve and promote equity, excellence, and diversity in schools."

Clearly the solutions presented have been determined not to "promote equity, excellence and diversity in schools."

Yes, but those are vague words that could mean anything. I could easily argue that restricting OOB feeder rights also "promotes equity, excellence and diversity" in schools.

You're precious.

Ok, the problem here is that PP is being willfully obtuse. That's all.

Nope. Not obtuse. I'm just looking for a clear answer. I keep hearing "oh, c'mon, you know why ..." but no one wants to speak the real reason. I honestly do not know what it is. Here are the possibilities I see ...

1. It's about political favors; Mayor Bowser is protecting her political supporters who want access to Deal and Wilson. If it's really about political favors, then she should say so.

2. It's about racial diversity; we can't let Deal or Wilson have fewer than __% black or Hispanic students. If it's really about a specific racial diversity quota, then say so and tell us what the quota is. At least we'll all know what the quota is, so we can figure out how to meet it.

3. It's about political will; no one wants to be accused of preventing any current or future student from attending Deal or Wilson. If it's really about no one wanting to be subject to criticism, them say so. At least then we'll know we need to design a solution that gives all the decision-makers plausible deniability.

Any other reasons I'm missing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, who is desperate for the why (which is obvious!) didn't you or someone quote it on the last page of comments? Didn'you you pull this out of one of the slides?: "We are focusing on ideas that preserve and promote equity, excellence, and diversity in schools."

Clearly the solutions presented have been determined not to "promote equity, excellence and diversity in schools."

Yes, but those are vague words that could mean anything. I could easily argue that restricting OOB feeder rights also "promotes equity, excellence and diversity" in schools.

You're precious.

Ok, the problem here is that PP is being willfully obtuse. That's all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 again. I apologize for beating a dead horse on this. I just find the vague and incomplete explanations of why certain solutions are eliminated from consideration to be completely ridiculous. If the simple answer is "Because Mayor Bowser gets a lot of support from EOTP Ward 4, and those solutions would prevent lots of families in EOTP Ward 4 from getting their children into the schools they want," then that should be stated clearly, so people know it's a political favor.

It's the hiding of real reasons behind euphemism and non-transparency that's irritating me.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

FYI to anyone else reading, they HAVE stated this clearly, multiple times. They were explicit about this during the big boundary review a few years ago and then again at this recent meeting. They have been consistent on this. The segregation issue in DC is staring everyone in the face. It is passive aggressive to claim you don't understand when really you do understand but you don't agree. If you don't believe desegregation and diversity in schools is important then maybe it's your turn to clearly state your principles and desired solutions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 again. I apologize for beating a dead horse on this. I just find the vague and incomplete explanations of why certain solutions are eliminated from consideration to be completely ridiculous. If the simple answer is "Because Mayor Bowser gets a lot of support from EOTP Ward 4, and those solutions would prevent lots of families in EOTP Ward 4 from getting their children into the schools they want," then that should be stated clearly, so people know it's a political favor.

It's the hiding of real reasons behind euphemism and non-transparency that's irritating me.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

Anonymous wrote:What solutions is dcps actually proposing then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, who is desperate for the why (which is obvious!) didn't you or someone quote it on the last page of comments? Didn'you you pull this out of one of the slides?: "We are focusing on ideas that preserve and promote equity, excellence, and diversity in schools."

Clearly the solutions presented have been determined not to "promote equity, excellence and diversity in schools."

Yes, but those are vague words that could mean anything. I could easily argue that restricting OOB feeder rights also "promotes equity, excellence and diversity" in schools.

You're precious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 again. I apologize for beating a dead horse on this. I just find the vague and incomplete explanations of why certain solutions are eliminated from consideration to be completely ridiculous. If the simple answer is "Because Mayor Bowser gets a lot of support from EOTP Ward 4, and those solutions would prevent lots of families in EOTP Ward 4 from getting their children into the schools they want," then that should be stated clearly, so people know it's a political favor.

It's the hiding of real reasons behind euphemism and non-transparency that's irritating me.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.