Anonymous wrote:
Oh, so he's going to make Wilson accept anyone who lives in SW, Navy Yard, Crestwood, Shepherd Park, etc. AND everyone who attends Deal or Hardy or Adams until Eastern, Roosevelt, and Coolidge are on par with it? He better start planning a budget that allows for an expansion. Or does he just mean that he'll do that for one more year while those schools develop improvement plans (not like they've never had any improvement plans before...haven't we been through over a decade of No Child Left Behind) and then implement boundary changes after that, whether the schools improve much or not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

I believe he is going to try to stop the changes via legislative means. At least, that's how I interpret this:

"I intend to take action to delay implementation of the recommendations until at least school year 2016-2017."

I don't think he has a whole lot of goodwill built up on the Council, and I imagine it would be hard to get support for stopping a lottery that's already in progress and going back to the old system. How much would that cost? Where would the money come from? How many charter schools would opt out of the combined lottery if they knew it was going to be a sh*tshow?

There will also be some families that like aspects of the new plan (at-risk set-asides, guaranteed PK in Title I schools) and will fight hard to keep them for 2015-6.

And while some Van Ness parents don't like the new boundaries, I think they'd be even more pissed to stay in-bounds for Amidon-Bowen.

He doesn't have to stop any of the aspects people might like from occurring, he just has to stop the boundary redraw until there's a more concrete plan for people. I'm not effected by the MS feeder component, I'm still fed to a crap school and I was before... But more people in ward 6 are starting to worry about that than will attend van ness.

Anonymous wrote:blah blah bliddly belch...Catania is handing out platitudes for everyone, with no firm road map for how to carry it out. Perhaps he will issue the necessary clarifications in due course; but if not, a long-winded statement like this could be politically dangerous. Bowser could come out with a more explicit statement and look more of a leader.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

I believe he is going to try to stop the changes via legislative means. At least, that's how I interpret this:

"I intend to take action to delay implementation of the recommendations until at least school year 2016-2017."

I don't think he has a whole lot of goodwill built up on the Council, and I imagine it would be hard to get support for stopping a lottery that's already in progress and going back to the old system. How much would that cost? Where would the money come from? How many charter schools would opt out of the combined lottery if they knew it was going to be a sh*tshow?

There will also be some families that like aspects of the new plan (at-risk set-asides, guaranteed PK in Title I schools) and will fight hard to keep them for 2015-6.

And while some Van Ness parents don't like the new boundaries, I think they'd be even more pissed to stay in-bounds for Amidon-Bowen.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That could mean that either he is capable of changing his mind (which is banal, and is hardly a resounding statement of resolve - I cannot tell a lie, but don't hold me to that tomorrow) or it means He currently can support a plan to move kids from higher performing schools to low performing schools that will become higher performing schools. The latter is not expressed properly (that is not what his words actually mean in English) and even reading his words as you do, its vague - do they have to actually be a higher performing, or is a solid plan enough? Does McFarland's plan have to actually make is high performing as Deal? Is that realistic? Over what time frame?

The words are pretty clear. I'm not sure why you are not understanding. But, I see if I can explain it better:

jsteele wrote:

I believe he is going to try to stop the changes via legislative means. At least, that's how I interpret this:

"I intend to take action to delay implementation of the recommendations until at least school year 2016-2017."

Anonymous wrote:blah blah bliddly belch...Catania is handing out platitudes for everyone, with no firm road map for how to carry it out. Perhaps he will issue the necessary clarifications in due course; but if not, a long-winded statement like this could be politically dangerous. Bowser could come out with a more explicit statement and look more of a leader.

Anonymous wrote:so

a) is he going to restart the lottery after (if) he takes office?

b) how is he going to reconcile this with needing one year notice before making boundary changes?

c) how will he deal with the overcrowding at Deal and Wilson that will occur if they are chosen by growing numbers of students at the schools and neighborhoods that feed them?

His statement addresses none of these things. I'm not sure if that's better or worse than Bowser not making a statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I have maintained all along that I cannot support a plan that moves students from higher performing schools to lower performing ones."

So, "never", as he's maintained from the start. But he took 700 words to say it so it makes him look smart to some people.

Look at this part more closely:

"In order to secure the confidence of our public school families, we must focus on the issue of school quality in tandem with the proposed recommendations so that all our students – regardless of where they live – can succeed. Among other things, we must work with the community to create open and transparent school-specific quality improvement plans. Much more work is needed in this regard."

He is saying that if you want to move families to lower performing schools, you must work with them to address the issue of school quality. He wants school-specific quality improvement plans. He will support moving students to a lower performing school if the school has a realistic chance of improving. That's the only realistic way to address the chicken and egg problem of getting high-performing kids into a lower-performing school.

Mental exercise: We maintain our current patchwork system. How many bushels of "school improvement plans" does it take for another middle school to equalize Deal to the point where it would acceptable to adjust Deal's boundaries? At the rate BASIS, Latin, DCI, KIPP, etc. are growing, will there even be any high or mid SES students left by then? Doubtful. So all he is saying is "never" in a fancy way.

The proposed plan obviously has huge gaps, but the clean slate of 1 to 4 new middle schools offers a chance for DCPS to do something right from the start. Why not start now?

A year is long enough to create exactly what he says: "school specific plans." Unicorn school actually becomes a school, with an open date, and an address, and a PLAN. And, to assuage those getting cut out of deal, it should also be TEST IN. The DME and her fairy-tale advisory committee, with their set asides and feeders that split up some of the best schools in the city, will not stop the charter/suburb bleed of high-quality students (and the funding and invested parents that usually come along with them.) This plan only maintains the status quo - people going charter, bailing for the burbs or buying into the overcrowded Deal. Test-in is a such a political hot-potato, but I guarantee if you gave one to every ward the bleed would stop overnight. THAT'S specific, if Catania has the balls to make it happen, he's got my vote.