Really I wouldn't be complaining at all. Sometimes it is better to do no harm than to act without a clear goal, plan, or support.

Who gave the DME this assignment? If the DME wants to keep busy in her final months she can work on a recommendation to the new administration for improving the quality of schools, not just changing boundaries without a plan based on limited data, poor assumptions and no indicators for what success should look like. This is why families city-wide are up in arms.

DCPS (specifically the DME Abigail Smith), what was the goal of this exercise? Yes, I participated in several of the focus groups asked the question and never got an answer beyond "well boundaries haven't changed in 40 years, so we are making changes," for the sake of change. Never a good reason for me particularly when looking at educational reform, where you need empirical evidence, pilots, and a long-term horizon on how modifications impact long-term outcomes for children.

The proposals were in a word radical to shake things up so that families would be softened up. Abolish neighborhood schools and create a city-wide lottery at all grades (the most radical); lose predictability through choice sets (so people don't know which school their child would actually attend); or keep a predictable elementary school, with strangely redrawn boundaries in several neighborhoods throughout the city, but lotteries for all high schools. In my experience following these discussions it seems that nobody really likes these proposals, the strongest endorsement I have heard is "that something needs to be done," or "at least they are trying to do something." The city-wide parents who don't like the proposals and boundaries have written letters, signed petitions, and started protesting on the street. The reaction has been so strong in my neighborhood that many parents have gone beyond list-serves and are organizing door-to-door and sending fliers.

For green development and creating sustainable schools proximity is important. The initial proposals A,B, and C removed proximity preference and the proposed boundary redrawing did not consider proximity to schools. Note that there is even one proposal (C) that actually gives a preference to teachers, but not neighbors.

This process is not credible, has no mandate and is ignoring the voices of families and children.

Anonymous wrote:I have questioned the timeline and motives for the boundary review since the very beginning. At this point I encourage all of us to bring a healthy dose of skepticism as we analyze the next round of proposals.

Why would any of us trust a lame duck administration that has been tainted by corruption charges and has demonstrated an inability to manage the most basic aspects of city administration (trash can gate), with a politically charged exercise that hasn't taken place in over 40 years. Please be alert to potential collusion, back room deals and literally the "sale" of our schools to special interests.

Any reasonable and honest administration would have halted this process months ago due to a lack of a clear mandate and the understanding that the newly elected officials need to represent the views of their constituents. I am optimistic that the city's residents will not be duped, but let's keep our eyes open.

This administration, lame duck or not, is doing its job. If they weren't you'd be complaining about that.

I have questioned the timeline and motives for the boundary review since the very beginning. At this point I encourage all of us to bring a healthy dose of skepticism as we analyze the next round of proposals.

Why would any of us trust a lame duck administration that has been tainted by corruption charges and has demonstrated an inability to manage the most basic aspects of city administration (trash can gate), with a politically charged exercise that hasn't taken place in over 40 years. Please be alert to potential collusion, back room deals and literally the "sale" of our schools to special interests.

Any reasonable and honest administration would have halted this process months ago due to a lack of a clear mandate and the understanding that the newly elected officials need to represent the views of their constituents. I am optimistic that the city's residents will not be duped, but let's keep our eyes open.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there's got to be an intriguing political subtext going on here: if Kaya wants to keep her job, Bowser must be elected; but in order to insure that Bowser is elected (and Kaya keeps her job) the DME's final report has to be innocuous enough (and palatable enough to the voters) that it does not make Kaya's stewardship of DCPS seem incompetent; so, it's in Kaya's best interest to try to force the DME's report to be favorable to Kaya's future. Said another way: the Council and their constituents have made clear that an outcome like "city wide lottery for high schools" is not going to fly with them; so if the DME's report includes that outcome, Bowser will have to reject it, and then the Chancellor becomes damaged goods by association.

Of course, the Chancellor is not supposed to have influence on the DME's report; but as a practical matter, there are just too many incentives involved for that to be true.

I disagree. I think that Smith's proposals are anathema to many voters who are supporting Catania.

How many voters are supporting Catania? Not one person in the world knows.

Anonymous wrote:I think there's got to be an intriguing political subtext going on here: if Kaya wants to keep her job, Bowser must be elected; but in order to insure that Bowser is elected (and Kaya keeps her job) the DME's final report has to be innocuous enough (and palatable enough to the voters) that it does not make Kaya's stewardship of DCPS seem incompetent; so, it's in Kaya's best interest to try to force the DME's report to be favorable to Kaya's future. Said another way: the Council and their constituents have made clear that an outcome like "city wide lottery for high schools" is not going to fly with them; so if the DME's report includes that outcome, Bowser will have to reject it, and then the Chancellor becomes damaged goods by association.

Of course, the Chancellor is not supposed to have influence on the DME's report; but as a practical matter, there are just too many incentives involved for that to be true.

I disagree. I think that Smith's proposals are anathema to many voters who are supporting Catania.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there's got to be an intriguing political subtext going on here: if Kaya wants to keep her job, Bowser must be elected; but in order to insure that Bowser is elected (and Kaya keeps her job) the DME's final report has to be innocuous enough (and palatable enough to the voters) that it does not make Kaya's stewardship of DCPS seem incompetent; so, it's in Kaya's best interest to try to force the DME's report to be favorable to Kaya's future. Said another way: the Council and their constituents have made clear that an outcome like "city wide lottery for high schools" is not going to fly with them; so if the DME's report includes that outcome, Bowser will have to reject it, and then the Chancellor becomes damaged goods by association.

Of course, the Chancellor is not supposed to have influence on the DME's report; but as a practical matter, there are just too many incentives involved for that to be true.

I don't think that Bowser has to be elected to keep her job. I think it's just as likely that Catania would keep her on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-primary-results-raise-questions-about-schools-chancellor-kaya-hendersons-future/2014/04/03/ff5258e0-ba93-11e3-9c3c-311301e2167d_story.html

Anonymous wrote:I think there's got to be an intriguing political subtext going on here: if Kaya wants to keep her job, Bowser must be elected; but in order to insure that Bowser is elected (and Kaya keeps her job) the DME's final report has to be innocuous enough (and palatable enough to the voters) that it does not make Kaya's stewardship of DCPS seem incompetent; so, it's in Kaya's best interest to try to force the DME's report to be favorable to Kaya's future. Said another way: the Council and their constituents have made clear that an outcome like "city wide lottery for high schools" is not going to fly with them; so if the DME's report includes that outcome, Bowser will have to reject it, and then the Chancellor becomes damaged goods by association.

Of course, the Chancellor is not supposed to have influence on the DME's report; but as a practical matter, there are just too many incentives involved for that to be true.

I don't think that Bowser has to be elected to keep her job. I think it's just as likely that Catania would keep her on.

I think there's got to be an intriguing political subtext going on here: if Kaya wants to keep her job, Bowser must be elected; but in order to insure that Bowser is elected (and Kaya keeps her job) the DME's final report has to be innocuous enough (and palatable enough to the voters) that it does not make Kaya's stewardship of DCPS seem incompetent; so, it's in Kaya's best interest to try to force the DME's report to be favorable to Kaya's future. Said another way: the Council and their constituents have made clear that an outcome like "city wide lottery for high schools" is not going to fly with them; so if the DME's report includes that outcome, Bowser will have to reject it, and then the Chancellor becomes damaged goods by association.

Of course, the Chancellor is not supposed to have influence on the DME's report; but as a practical matter, there are just too many incentives involved for that to be true.

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, does DME need anymore feedback on these proposals? I think the parents who have taken the time to show up at these dog any pony shows over the past 8 months have been pretty unison in support of neighborhood schools. I can't bear to sit through another 2 hour meeting full of platitudes and short on specifics on how to actually improve bad schools.

I know several people that don't agree with the most popular DCUM position, so no, there is no unanimity.

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, does DME need anymore feedback on these proposals? I think the parents who have taken the time to show up at these dog any pony shows over the past 8 months have been pretty unison in support of neighborhood schools. I can't bear to sit through another 2 hour meeting full of platitudes and short on specifics on how to actually improve bad schools.

and if a non-neighborhood school focused solution is proposed, the timing will make it difficult for parents to respond forcefully and DME plans will go forward as if there had been no parental input. Now if only the listening sessions had come out the way DME wanted, if would look like they had been responsive to parental input.

Honestly, does DME need anymore feedback on these proposals? I think the parents who have taken the time to show up at these dog any pony shows over the past 8 months have been pretty unison in support of neighborhood schools. I can't bear to sit through another 2 hour meeting full of platitudes and short on specifics on how to actually improve bad schools.

Unfortunately by that time it will be too late. DCPS has had months to explain and has chosen to steam roll out a proposal precisely when schools are closing for the summer break and families are going on vacation. DCPS clearly has NO interest in listening or hearing the voices of parents. Welcome to parental engagement DCPS style. DCPS thinks it knows best for all. It is patronizing and drafts proposals based on limited analysis and data -- families and children seem to be an afterthought. So much for educational partnerships with the families DCPS serves. DCPS sees concerned parents throughout the city as the enemy.

Before I as a parent comment on the DME's proposals I would love to hear from DCPS and get a judgment from them about how feasible the changes are and what sort of timeline they'd recommend for all these new HS configurations.

Anonymous wrote:From the article:

Parents and community members will have a chance to react at three public meetings scheduled the following week. Unlike previously, parents at these meetings will not only hear about citywide policy proposals but also will break out into groups to discuss the effects of the recommendations on specific schools and neighborhoods, according to a flier slated to go out to parents starting today.

Sounds to me like they do have different proposals for different areas of the city (what I always assumed would happen) and now they need feedback from those most affected by the changes. Makes sense - the early boundary proposals were ridiculous, but what's happening in Cleveland Park is different from Petworth and Capitol Hill. There have to be variations on what happens in all these places and I wouldn't want to waste time sitting at a table with parents who aren't facing the same or similar dilemma.

That said, the timing of the community sessions couldn't be worse. It's the week after school lets out but before summer camp starts. Having no childcare, we've got long-held plans to be out of town.

Yes, sounds like different proposals for different areas and a process where they try to keep everyone separated by school to keep people from focusing on how the proposed policies impact the whole system. Either that or complete surrender on her attempt to inject per policies into a boundary process.

I know, I know. When left with too much time to mull this stuff over we can all start criticizing everything...but I gotta say...it's pretty annoying to schedule all of these meetings the last week of school and then we all head off into the summer not knowing where the heck this is all heading. But I guess they have to stick with their self-imposed, arbitrary deadline (which is linked to a contractual deadline maybe?).

FYI: I'm glad to be given the opportunity for input...especially if the next proposal reflects actual feedback from DC residents. I'm just curious what budget the money is coming from for these rounds of meetings. Anyone know?