Those that will move will be replaced by people who are okay with the school set-up. Those that stay and go private are still paying taxes to fund the schools. Them keeping their kid in private will paying taxes actually helps with overcrowding. I'm not seeing how there's a loss here. People here are trying to find every angle to prevent high income families from contributing to EofP schools. You guys moved here knowing the layout of the land. Now you're trying to shirk helping out where your help is desperately needed. I'm not getting this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Crestwood, Shepherd Park and 16th Street Heights and Mount Pleasant (kids going to Bancroft) will get booted out of Deal/Wilson feeder patterns. It will help to bring higher SES kids to lower performing schools and create the sort of mix that helps to level the playing field for all of DC's kids. The more SES kids are in these "lower performing" schools, the more people with influence will feel obligated to step in and make sure resources are being provided to kids that have long done without. This is a win-win for people who truly care about the disserved in the greater DC community.

But what will be done to create a reason these families want to send their children to this new MS? You cannot force people with choices to send their children to an "lower performing" school. People with choices vote with their feet.

Also, how do you deal with the fallout that such changes will remove diversity from the highest performing non-application schools in DC, even if there are higher SES families mixed with the diversity?

I live in Shepherd Park. My neighbor said if they change the feeding pattern, he is moving his children to MoCo. I think the people who can afford private will go private and the ones that cannot will move. Most of my neighbors send their kids private because of DCPS reputation or bad experiences at Shepherd ES. People do not want to send their children to a MS school with lower performing schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 2010 democratic primary, 80% of Ward 3 Ds voted for Adrian Fenty. You think a lot of these folks would tolerate any attempt to water down their rights to Deal/Wilson with some sort of open boundary scheme?

They don't have to tolerate it. They don't make the decisions. Yuppies here still don't have the numbers to affect political outcomes. It's still Chocolate City with the numbers at the poll booth. Unhappy families can leave if they're unhappy. Others will take their place. Or families can go private. They still pay taxes, which funds education. Win-win for the city either way.

Very insightful thinking. That is, assuming you want DC to become Detroit.

Anonymous wrote:Lottery for all school is just silly. So will they do away with rights to your IB school? I don't get the idea.

+1, in what world does it make sense for my child to take a bus/have me drive them when they could just walk the three blocks to our "okay" neighborhood school? At least in the early years, I would put a big premium on proximity.

Anonymous wrote:In the 2010 democratic primary, 80% of Ward 3 Ds voted for Adrian Fenty. You think a lot of these folks would tolerate any attempt to water down their rights to Deal/Wilson with some sort of open boundary scheme?

They don't have to tolerate it. They don't make the decisions. Yuppies here still don't have the numbers to affect political outcomes. It's still Chocolate City with the numbers at the poll booth. Unhappy families can leave if they're unhappy. Others will take their place. Or families can go private. They still pay taxes, which funds education. Win-win for the city either way.

Lottery for all school is just silly. So will they do away with rights to your IB school? I don't get the idea.

I thought that Henderson had floated the idea of making all the high schools lotteried. I have less issue with that idea, as HS kids can shuttle themselves around. The HSs would also have the opportunity to specialize to attract specific populations of students to a greater extent than they do now. I'm not very familiar with DC high schools, but Ellington has arts, McKinley has some technology focus, etc. Of course, in DC, the differences between the schools (or really Wilson and the other non-specialized DC HS) is much greater than simply course offerings.

I would be completely against removing neighborhood elementary schools. My kids attend their neighborhood DCPS and I love that the school is nearby, we can organize playdates in the local parks, they see their friends throughout the neighborhood, and most importantly, I feel like I am also part of the greater school community in a way that wouldn't be possible if it weren't a neighborhood school.

So I have a colleague whose friend apparently advises Gray on education matters. Colleague told me the friend said the plan was to lotterize all schools. I fought back quite strongly against this idea. He later told me his misinterpreted and that the plan was a common lottery.

I'm still skeptical. If this idea is to annihilate all neighborhood schools, Gray will be annihilated himself. That's a complete non-starter, at least at the elementary school level.

That would prompt serious flight.

This committee of Gray cronies exists to push an open lottery system. There have been whispers about this for some time. I'd bet that a few of the whisperers are posting anonymously in this thread.

I do think that many parents who moved to places because their kids could go to certain schools will move if the kids are not grandfathered, and home values and tax base will drop in places like Ward 3. The PPs who talked about making Ward 3 residents "blink" are probably among the whisperers who know that the outcome for this committee is foreordained.

If Gray doesn't run again or probably even if he does, the next mayor will probably abandon the Gray plan anyway.

We all agree on the principles and I'm willing to abide by them. But this topic/discussion has a whole lot of "Here's what's best for you" and "Leave me to make my own decisions" tone to it. Can't have it both ways.

Anonymous wrote:PP, where do you live? Why don't you continue telling me what's best for me and my children...

Look, people just doing whatever they want within a plan that wasn't that good when it was drawn up 50 years ago is how we got to what we have today. We can't keep floating on autopilot when it's clear we're not in the right place.

We need to make a plan, try to live with it, and adjust it as needed.

You can't do everything you want with your property, can't park everywhere you want, smoke where (or what) you want, play music when you want. We all live within limits so that everyone is better off.

I'm sure someplace in the exurbs has a cabin with a wood stove if you don't like having to reach compromises with your neighbors, but otherwise, we need your ideas.

"PP" means "Two PP ago". Thanks puntblock.

PP, where do you live? Why don't you continue telling me what's best for me and my children...

Anonymous wrote:The press release implies that they are going to look at options for charters, such as creating a neighborhood preference. Would they be able to do this given that the charter law is a federal law? Wouldn't that require action by congress?

I think it would be great if language immersion charters could reserve a certain portion of the seats to true native household speakers (as opposed to, say, a child who goes to a bilingual daycare but speaks English at home), verified by a written and/or oral test. (My child would not benefit from this directly, as we are an English-speaking family, but I think it would make the language immersion schools much better for everyone.)

I agree that language preference would be better for the school, but seems unfair from the point of view of students applying. Under your scenario, a child from a Spanish speaking household would have preference at Mundo Verde, Oyster-Adams, LAMB, Tyler SI, (others I'm likely missing), and still have the option of their in-boundary school, along with the same lottery access to all the other DCPS and charter schools, while a mono-lingual child would have the latter but not the former. That sort of unequal access seems against the spirit of public education and school choice. Of course at the secondary level, SWW, Banneker, Ellington all have selective admissions. Clearly, I have mixed feelings about the subject.

Anonymous wrote:In the 2010 democratic primary, 80% of Ward 3 Ds voted for Adrian Fenty. You think a lot of these folks would tolerate any attempt to water down their rights to Deal/Wilson with some sort of open boundary scheme?

I don't see how Ward 3 could ever really lose out on access to Deal and Wilson because of proximity. The people I want at center city schools are center city people, who live in mixed income and diverse neighborhoods but for some reason have not considered mixed income schools.

Further, we all know Spring Valley kids won't go east of the Park; there are reasons their parents moved there, and it wasn't the mustard gas. Heck, those parents won't send their kids to Hardy.

Let me be real honest. I want every family of every background with two parents, two college degrees and a family income over $100,000 from Ward 1, 4 and 5 to have every reason, both incentive and restrictive, to place their kids in schools in that part of the city and not send them into "Deal-Wilson." They and their demands and effort will be what would transform those schools.

You can say it won't happen, but I think it should and can. I will support those whose actions have the effect of encouraging those parents to stay in the center of the city as well as those whose actions restrict those who would like to solve the problem by opting out or lotterying westward.

If the City no longer had increasing numbers of children or a slack home market, I might be more cautious. But people want in, and we can build a system that shapes our city for the better.