Anonymous wrote: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: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.

Anonymous wrote: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:Shouldn't we be outraged that the DME has all but acknowledged the three "proposals" are based on little more than a brain dump from the focus groups that has been massaged by her consultants. The attempt to walk all of this back as just a starting point for discussion akin to selecting from a Chinese-American menu. No sound or reasoned policymaking in sight.

Anonymous wrote:

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.