Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: We see a two-tier system emerging with schools that have above average performance (such as Deal) or are completely failing our children in middle and high school. Keep elementary schools as they are, in other words do no harm. Several of the elementary school proposals further limit access to good elementary schools by shifting boundaries to increase in-boundary enrollment therefore decreasing the number of spots for our out-of-boundary children.

OP, the problem I am having with your call to stop the DME proposals is that it's contradictory.

I want greater in-boundary enrollment in my school.

The two-tier system that you see as emerging has been that way for decades. It's not the result of poor planning at the local level. It originated with No Child Left Behind and its mandate that kids in failing schools be placed in succeeding schools and that funding follow the student.

Now we are where we are, with some schools overcrowded, and others emptied out and continuing to fail. That's an unsustainable model, no matter who gets the finger of blame in this political season or next. You want to fix neighborhood schools? Fix the funding model. No one is talking about that.

In the meantime, when you say leave the schools as they are, you're limiting my options as a parent. When you wax altruistically about maintaining space for "our OOB students" you're talking about MY child - and I don't want his best shot to be in YOUR school.

If there's one thing about which parents can unite, it's that no one wants to be out of boundary.

I agree with you that the middle and high school options are deplorable and there's not nearly enough in the DME proposals to address that. But efforts do have to start at elementary, because that's where parents are won into the system or lost forever. And at this time, that's where the critical mass of needed parents exists.

Bravo, bravissimo!

The place where we are all united as parents is middle school and high school. The options are completely unacceptable. In high school we go private, move to the suburbs, supplement extensively with extracurricular academic programs, and pray for the best from a system that is one of the worst high school programs in the country.

Elementary is much less clear. It seems like the status quo is working much better than the proposals for many, perhaps even most families. The concerns about the process are substantial and are worthy of much deeper analysis, dialogue and better analytics. The DME should understand that the backlash to the proposals is real and substantiated. Sensible administrators would have stopped this process weeks ago.

The DME is trying to "fix" the part of the system that is not (or for the cynics, the least) broken and ignoring the real issue -- middle schools and high schools.

It is a divide and conquer strategy pitting neighbors and families against each other. I for one refuse to play the game, and yes they are all OUR children. Look in the eyes of any four year old in the city and tell me that they don't deserve the very best education possible. Look at a promising junior high student dreaming of attending college who is at a school that we all know is substandard, is the only option available, and where most children drop out. Let's put kids first they deserve better that this from all of us.

Anonymous wrote: We see a two-tier system emerging with schools that have above average performance (such as Deal) or are completely failing our children in middle and high school. Keep elementary schools as they are, in other words do no harm. Several of the elementary school proposals further limit access to good elementary schools by shifting boundaries to increase in-boundary enrollment therefore decreasing the number of spots for our out-of-boundary children.

OP, the problem I am having with your call to stop the DME proposals is that it's contradictory.

I want greater in-boundary enrollment in my school.

The two-tier system that you see as emerging has been that way for decades. It's not the result of poor planning at the local level. It originated with No Child Left Behind and its mandate that kids in failing schools be placed in succeeding schools and that funding follow the student.

Now we are where we are, with some schools overcrowded, and others emptied out and continuing to fail. That's an unsustainable model, no matter who gets the finger of blame in this political season or next. You want to fix neighborhood schools? Fix the funding model. No one is talking about that.

In the meantime, when you say leave the schools as they are, you're limiting my options as a parent. When you wax altruistically about maintaining space for "our OOB students" you're talking about MY child - and I don't want his best shot to be in YOUR school.

If there's one thing about which parents can unite, it's that no one wants to be out of boundary.

I agree with you that the middle and high school options are deplorable and there's not nearly enough in the DME proposals to address that. But efforts do have to start at elementary, because that's where parents are won into the system or lost forever. And at this time, that's where the critical mass of needed parents exists.

Anonymous wrote:OOB feeder rights are beyond stupid and it was inevitable that they would help destabilize the system. But there is no way (politically) to end them without giving families a quality alternative.

So let's give families a quality alternative -- but if you're right and part of the purpose was to destabilize the system, then it will just keep on this way until the system is completely destabilized and charters will be perceived as the only answer.


Has anyone read the Shock Doctrine lately? The idea is to drastically change a system (for the better) after there's been a major unexpected shock to the system. If the shock doesn't happen naturally (as in a flood, or hurricane) then an outside force can come in a purposely shock the system, leaving it in disarray, and ripe to be re-aligned by the very people who caused the shock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The changes with Murch and Janney will precisely make Hearst become less accessible to OOB. It is one of the few schools that currently accepts OOB kids. I have friends on 16th who would give anything for their kids to get OOB spots in Hearst.

They can always move IB for Hearst.

Of course, if John Eaton moves to Hardy (not a done deal) and with Hardy's HS situation potentially uncertain, more OOB spots will open at Eaton as IB families bail.

OOB feeder rights are beyond stupid and it was inevitable that they would help destabilize the system. But there is no way (politically) to end them without giving families a quality alternative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no benefit of continuing this OOB "safety valve" lottery system. Michelle Rhee was off the mark as the system has not improved overall, just some random children get a spot at a "good" school.

Improve neighborhood schools.

If there are spots available in schools I have no problem making them available to taxpayers who want them, even if they don't happen to live in-boundary.

The mistake was upping the stakes on OOB. Making it so that if someone gets into an OOB slot for pre-k they have rights for the next 14 years -- as do their siblings. Making it a right that trumps any notion of capacity of the schools. Those changes made DCPS even more a system of haves and have-nots, a system of winners and losers. These were short-sighted destabilizing changes.

But they also provided a solid educational pathway to kids whose neighborhood school is failing. I have no doubt that if the elementary is failing the middle and high school options are as well.

To disclose my bias: my family is in bounds for Janney, Deal and Wilson. I support feeder rights, these students are part of the elementary community and should not be cut off from their cohort at the end of their elementary years if the city cannot offer them a better option.

New poster. But the real rub occurs when those OOB students with feeder rights are either (1) overloading the capacity of the schools, or (2) displacing neighborhood children. If there is simply no more room at an overcrowded school, which students should go to a different school: the OOB students or the neighborhood students?

To disclose my (lack of) bias: My family is not in-bounds for Janney, Deal, Wilson, or any of the Ward 3 schools. And none of my children are at those schools either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no benefit of continuing this OOB "safety valve" lottery system. Michelle Rhee was off the mark as the system has not improved overall, just some random children get a spot at a "good" school.

Improve neighborhood schools.

If there are spots available in schools I have no problem making them available to taxpayers who want them, even if they don't happen to live in-boundary.

The mistake was upping the stakes on OOB. Making it so that if someone gets into an OOB slot for pre-k they have rights for the next 14 years -- as do their siblings. Making it a right that trumps any notion of capacity of the schools. Those changes made DCPS even more a system of haves and have-nots, a system of winners and losers. These were short-sighted destabilizing changes.

But they also provided a solid educational pathway to kids whose neighborhood school is failing. I have no doubt that if the elementary is failing the middle and high school options are as well.

To disclose my bias: my family is in bounds for Janney, Deal and Wilson. I support feeder rights, these students are part of the elementary community and should not be cut off from their cohort at the end of their elementary years if the city cannot offer them a better option.

I think if you make school boundaries for neighborhoods, people will build their schools in their neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:I see no benefit of continuing this OOB "safety valve" lottery system. Michelle Rhee was off the mark as the system has not improved overall, just some random children get a spot at a "good" school.

Improve neighborhood schools.

If there are spots available in schools I have no problem making them available to taxpayers who want them, even if they don't happen to live in-boundary.

The mistake was upping the stakes on OOB. Making it so that if someone gets into an OOB slot for pre-k they have rights for the next 14 years -- as do their siblings. Making it a right that trumps any notion of capacity of the schools. Those changes made DCPS even more a system of haves and have-nots, a system of winners and losers. These were short-sighted destabilizing changes.

OP, you would have more credibility if you began by stating your own personal interest.

It's fine to remain anonymous, but at least tell us if you are currently OOB, or IB for a DCPS that you like, etc.

The way your post reads, I suspect you are benefiting from an OOB status quo that you want to protect.

Maybe I am guessing wrong but when I make proposals like this I always begin by disclosing my own self-interest, so my audience can judge for themselves how to weigh my words against my possible motives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The changes with Murch and Janney will precisely make Hearst become less accessible to OOB. It is one of the few schools that currently accepts OOB kids. I have friends on 16th who would give anything for their kids to get OOB spots in Hearst.

They can always move IB for Hearst.

They would also create OOB set asides at Murch and Janney (and stoddert, Lafayette, key, Mann, Hyde, Brent, plus others I am not thinking of)

I see no benefit of continuing this OOB "safety valve" lottery system. Michelle Rhee was off the mark as the system has not improved overall, just some random children get a spot at a "good" school.

Improve neighborhood schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good -- I continue to ask parents to be on the look out for language that sounds compassionate but is really self serving -- e.g. "we cannot overlook the needs of those parents who are too busy working the nightshift to support their families to attend these meetings, therefore...." - and then refer to some obscure data which they don't source and if they did and if you checked it carefully, you'd find it didn't support their conclusion.

They are very tricky and are accustomed to getting away with their tricks, especially when it involves manipulating data.

Also realize that they are monitoring DCUM. This can help keep them honest or spur them on to more sophisticated means of deception

+1 I hope DCPS is monitoring this forum and thinking seriously about letting the DME go. It is ridiculous that families, childen and our neighbors are not being listened to by DCPS because we are all too spoiled, too affluent, too engaged, too disinterested, too workaholic, too poor, too uneducated, or too ignorant.

They want do develop the ideal school system for the ideal family and it seems that none of us fit the bill. It is depressing. Where is the notion of responsive government!

DME is an acronym, as in Deputy Mayor for Education. The DME is appointed bheard serves at the pleasure of the Mayor, as does the Chancellor (DCPS) and Superintendent (OSSE) who in theory report to the DME. In other words, your issue with the school assignment review process is directed to the DME and her staff, not the Chancellor and her staff. By the way, there are a number of Depity Mayors, including one for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED), Health and Human Services (DMHHS), and Public Safety and Justice (DMPSJ).

Anonymous wrote:The changes with Murch and Janney will precisely make Hearst become less accessible to OOB. It is one of the few schools that currently accepts OOB kids. I have friends on 16th who would give anything for their kids to get OOB spots in Hearst.

They can always move IB for Hearst.