Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:44     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:I know you can't force people to attend their in-bound school, but I wish you could - maybe the city could give some kind of tax credit for attending your neighborhood school if it is currently less than a certain percentage in bounds and meets other criteria and possibly give them a weighted better chance of OOB lottery if the whole experiment fails and they end up re-imposing OOB lottery.
I think this attitude comes up a lot here. Some people just get off on the idea of making someone else do something for the perceived greater good. This attitude comes up in the anti-charter bromides as well.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:43     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My guess is you are going from Murch to Hearst? If not, please clarify.

If this is the shift OP is describing, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy.


It has to be why they gave all of those details but left the school names off.


It is not the murch/hearst poster who chimed in at 10:50 saying this: "Also, I was where you are with the last round of boundary change proposals. We were moved from Murch, two blocks from our house, to Hearst, over a mile from our house. Hearst is the lowest performing elementary school in Ward 3 (I think) and the commute would have been awful. I still don't have confidence in the DME, because I think the review process has been opaque and alarmist, but I'm happy they reconsidered changing our boundary because that was ridiculous."

So enough speculation, already. Just read the words on the page.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:39     Subject: Re:Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The overall DME proposal may go nowhere but you are right to be concerned that boundaries will be redone. The new proposal talks about walkability so keep fighting changes that would turn walkers into drivers. DC is pushing a car reduction plan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/in-the-district-a-transportation-planthat-boosts-transit-and-discourages-driving/2014/06/03/c7721ac8-eb17-11e3-b98c-72cef4a00499_story.html

so it is an embarrassment if a new school policy would undercut this. Make that known. The left hand and the right hand should coordinate for city planning.

In the same vein, while it is good that the proposal focuses on at-risk kids, realistically how are going to move people around town? How are you really going to get families who are already dealing with all the stuff that makes them "at risk" in the first place to get it together every morning to get a kid to another neighborhood for school? Have they thought this through? Or is this proposal just lip service and they really don't see at-risk kids moving to different schools?



Good point. Children who are homeless tend to also be carless. How are they supposed to get to school? It's not like any of the upper NW schools are walkable from a homeless shelter.


Sorry to say but everything isn't always about you, meaning Ward 3. The proposal is mostly about low-hanging fruit like Brent, Maury, Peabody and soon-to-be-reopened Van Ness, all of which are more readily accessible from Wards 7 and 8, and which still (or will) have sizable OOB populations. Fortress NW is secure.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:39     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
dcmom wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is such a no-brainer to me that if DME got rid of OOB rights entirely and aligned elementary boundaries with neighborhoods, that a good chunk of the city's schools would be in good shape. Those that are not are the ones where resources could be invested in smart ways - like saturday hours, free, enhanced after-school programs, extended morning hours, etc.





This would cause a firestorm. During Rhee's tenure I recall her quote a statistic that about 1/3 of the city's public school children were in charters (obviously that has risen to 44%) 1/3 were OOB at schools not in their neighborhood, and only 1/3 were in their IB school. Point being if only 1/3 of families like their IB school, the consequences of removing OOB would be enormous and severe.
\

Right, but if you "force" every child to go to their neighborhood school, many of those schools will get better instantly, as in the very first year. Then resources could be used to really address the failing schools, not the schools that are failing because of low enrollment.


There is no way to force people in the schools--if they don't get into a charter, they will go outside DCPS.


We would go private or move.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:38     Subject: Re:Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:Why can't you walk to a school that is less than a mile away?

I thought OP said her house was two blocks from Murch. It would be absurd to expect her to walk to some other school much farther away.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:35     Subject: Re:Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Why can't you walk to a school that is less than a mile away?
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:28     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My guess is you are going from Murch to Hearst? If not, please clarify.

If this is the shift OP is describing, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy.


It has to be why they gave all of those details but left the school names off.



I feel for her. If she's that close to Murch, she probably bought there deliberately with the expectation that would be her child's school. That's an entirely reasonable expectation under the circumstances. Murch is a better school than Hearst, however much the Hearst boosters want to deny it. The walkability factor and morning commute factor are legitimate arguments. The bottom line is that she's having something taken away for her and has a right to be angry about that.



away from her. Carry on.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:27     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My guess is you are going from Murch to Hearst? If not, please clarify.

If this is the shift OP is describing, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy.


It has to be why they gave all of those details but left the school names off.



I feel for her. If she's that close to Murch, she probably bought there deliberately with the expectation that would be her child's school. That's an entirely reasonable expectation under the circumstances. Murch is a better school than Hearst, however much the Hearst boosters want to deny it. The walkability factor and morning commute factor are legitimate arguments. The bottom line is that she's having something taken away for her and has a right to be angry about that.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:23     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:I know you can't force people to attend their in-bound school, but I wish you could - maybe the city could give some kind of tax credit for attending your neighborhood school if it is currently less than a certain percentage in bounds and meets other criteria and possibly give them a weighted better chance of OOB lottery if the whole experiment fails and they end up re-imposing OOB lottery.




That's a really disturbing statement. I'm going on record for not forcing people to make major decisions in their lives against their will. Would you also force women to have pregnancies they don't want?

I don't see tax credits helping as an incentive. Most of the families you want to "force" are the kind of families who prioritize their children's education above all else. You're not going to find enough of a tax credit to trump that.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:23     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My guess is you are going from Murch to Hearst? If not, please clarify.

If this is the shift OP is describing, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy.


It has to be why they gave all of those details but left the school names off.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:22     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My guess is you are going from Murch to Hearst? If not, please clarify.

If this is the shift OP is describing, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy.


+100 and in sorry anything under a mile is walkable. Yes, even for a 4 year old.
dcmom
Post 06/18/2014 12:18     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:I know you can't force people to attend their in-bound school, but I wish you could - maybe the city could give some kind of tax credit for attending your neighborhood school if it is currently less than a certain percentage in bounds and meets other criteria and possibly give them a weighted better chance of OOB lottery if the whole experiment fails and they end up re-imposing OOB lottery.


I wish a tax credit would do it. My school could really use more neighborhood families. But neighborhood families are not going to go to a failing school for a tax credit. They are not willing to compromise their kid's education. My school has around a 30% proficiency rate--I just don't see how you meet the needs of a kid who is proficient when the vast majority are not.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:15     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
I know you can't force people to attend their in-bound school, but I wish you could - maybe the city could give some kind of tax credit for attending your neighborhood school if it is currently less than a certain percentage in bounds and meets other criteria and possibly give them a weighted better chance of OOB lottery if the whole experiment fails and they end up re-imposing OOB lottery.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:12     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is such a no-brainer to me that if DME got rid of OOB rights entirely and aligned elementary boundaries with neighborhoods, that a good chunk of the city's schools would be in good shape. Those that are not are the ones where resources could be invested in smart ways - like saturday hours, free, enhanced after-school programs, extended morning hours, etc.





This would cause a firestorm. During Rhee's tenure I recall her quote a statistic that about 1/3 of the city's public school children were in charters (obviously that has risen to 44%) 1/3 were OOB at schools not in their neighborhood, and only 1/3 were in their IB school. Point being if only 1/3 of families like their IB school, the consequences of removing OOB would be enormous and severe.
\

Right, but if you "force" every child to go to their neighborhood school, many of those schools will get better instantly, as in the very first year. Then resources could be used to really address the failing schools, not the schools that are failing because of low enrollment.



If we learned nothing else from Desegregation Busing, it's that it does not work in reverse. You can bring one group of students into better schools, but you cannot force students to leave good schools for bad ones. They will move or choose private or find other options, but you simply cannot force them into a school they perceive to be bad.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 12:12     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:My guess is you are going from Murch to Hearst? If not, please clarify.

If this is the shift OP is describing, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy.