I would start with a proposal for middle and high school. The middle and high school options are dismal for all residents.

Anonymous wrote:The DME proposals are crap. I'm happy to scrap them and start afresh, based on the actual parent input (not the doctored composites)

And what would you start with?

The DME proposals are crap. I'm happy to scrap them and start afresh, based on the actual parent input (not the doctored composites)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it is a choice model with a strange preference for DCPS teachers.

I forgot about the teacher preference, and this comment struck me as so strange that I went back and read the proposals again.

What a difference a few months makes. Reading them after these weeks of debate and controversy makes them seem less onerous. But they really should have started each one with the objectives and changes that they would bring (instead of putting them at the end) because even the most hated proposals have something many parents say they want. Choice sets, for example, has creation of strong connections to neighborhood schools as its objective and proposes to create specialized programming in every area of the city.

You have completely, totally fallen for it the way a fish bites a worm on a hook. This was precession the point of the whole process: to float radical, idealogical, plans that completely overhaul how students are assigned to public school in DC and allow a freak out to happen. By the time the freak out about the most radical plans is over, people will be "softened up" and will passively accept any changes short of those far out plans.

Voila. You have been manipulated by a master.

Actually, what I did was some informal market research and, reading here on DCUM and attending the community forums, learned more about what other parents want. Here are some of the desired features I keep hearing and reading:

- right to attend neighborhood schools
- expand early childhood capacity, especially for lower-income so that children are prepared to learn by K
- specialized programming (IB, Montessori, dual-language, STEM) with predictable feeder patterns for those through MS and HS
- magnet programs or application academies for high school, either as a standalone or within comprehensive schools
- break up of PS-8 schools in Wards 1, 4 and 5 to create stand alone middle schools

It surprised me to go back and see that all of these objectives are in the policy examples, they're just buried beneath the proposals to achieve them.

I'm just really focused on getting stronger programs for PS-12 in my neighborhood. And I think parents in underserved areas of the city feel the same way and are in a unique position to demand that, in the same way that Ward 3 and Capitol Hill parents demanded it.

I don't feel manipulated. My kid is high SES and will do well no matter where he ends up - I'll make sure of that. DCPS wants more parents like me, and there are more of us to make those demands. Since the DME is moving in that direction, I'd rather keep going there than start from scratch.

Poster who won't sign the petition as written: I also do not agree with OOB set asides that are not tested for a) being FARMS students b) tested academically. We ought to help the kids who if they had the opportunity would take full advantage of it, not kids who have other opportunities or kids who will be disruptive because they are so far behind. Hardy has just created test in classes for math and english. We have talked about a test in middle school. One disruptive child (we had one not OOB one year) can destroy learning for everyone. But our class had two teachers so at least one could pull the child out. It was a serious problem the entire year.

In sum, the set asides need to be thoroughly discussed - why give them to someone who won't appreciate it. It would also be good if most of the kids don't know each other because a group of troublemakers is a disaster. And if we do it like this the kids will have initial adjustment problems. But there are incredibly intelligent kids from Anacostia who are excelling at BASIS. DCPS does not have to have a lottery for the OOB students. And NO MORE than 20%. Deal is 21%. Washington Latin middle school is 18.3% BASIS is over 40% FARMS kids, and we did as well as Washington Latin on our first DC CAS. I think it really matters who comes, the same way the motivated parents have been driving every day to be OOB at Hearst and Eaton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it is a choice model with a strange preference for DCPS teachers.

I forgot about the teacher preference, and this comment struck me as so strange that I went back and read the proposals again.

What a difference a few months makes. Reading them after these weeks of debate and controversy makes them seem less onerous. But they really should have started each one with the objectives and changes that they would bring (instead of putting them at the end) because even the most hated proposals have something many parents say they want. Choice sets, for example, has creation of strong connections to neighborhood schools as its objective and proposes to create specialized programming in every area of the city.

You have completely, totally fallen for it the way a fish bites a worm on a hook. This was precession the point of the whole process: to float radical, idealogical, plans that completely overhaul how students are assigned to public school in DC and allow a freak out to happen. By the time the freak out about the most radical plans is over, people will be "softened up" and will passively accept any changes short of those far out plans.

Voila. You have been manipulated by a master.

+1000

Reject all three proposals and the boundary changes

Anonymous wrote:Gray can leave a legacy to DC without worrying about the Washington Teachers Union and others who want no change.

Now's a good time to say that some failing schools are unlikely to be turned around in the next 25 years and to try something else in those buildings and across the District.

We've tried for 50 years and it's just not working in places without strong charter schools and DCPS backed by neighborhoods with high real-estate prices.

Time to drop the no-change theme, I think, as we've had nothing but change in the last seven years and should admit that it happened and was a failure, before going on to the next meaningless change, denying what's been tried so far.

It might be time to stop the turn-around language too, to the extent it implies that something is supposed to "happen" to the school buildings. Like most worthwhile changes, a change in achievement must be accurately focused and won't happen if it's not addressed at all or not addressed correctly (as in the past seven years).

It's the poverty. It's the SES level -- all the research and all the common sense and experience indicate that. Doing something about it will be hard, but denying it just perpetuates it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it is a choice model with a strange preference for DCPS teachers.

I forgot about the teacher preference, and this comment struck me as so strange that I went back and read the proposals again.

What a difference a few months makes. Reading them after these weeks of debate and controversy makes them seem less onerous. But they really should have started each one with the objectives and changes that they would bring (instead of putting them at the end) because even the most hated proposals have something many parents say they want. Choice sets, for example, has creation of strong connections to neighborhood schools as its objective and proposes to create specialized programming in every area of the city.

You have completely, totally fallen for it the way a fish bites a worm on a hook. This was precession the point of the whole process: to float radical, idealogical, plans that completely overhaul how students are assigned to public school in DC and allow a freak out to happen. By the time the freak out about the most radical plans is over, people will be "softened up" and will passively accept any changes short of those far out plans.

Voila. You have been manipulated by a master.

Gray can leave a legacy to DC without worrying about the Washington Teachers Union and others who want no change.

Now's a good time to say that some failing schools are unlikely to be turned around in the next 25 years and to try something else in those buildings and across the District.

We've tried for 50 years and it's just not working in places without strong charter schools and DCPS backed by neighborhoods with high real-estate prices.

Anonymous wrote:But it is a choice model with a strange preference for DCPS teachers.

I forgot about the teacher preference, and this comment struck me as so strange that I went back and read the proposals again.

What a difference a few months makes. Reading them after these weeks of debate and controversy makes them seem less onerous. But they really should have started each one with the objectives and changes that they would bring (instead of putting them at the end) because even the most hated proposals have something many parents say they want. Choice sets, for example, has creation of strong connections to neighborhood schools as its objective and proposes to create specialized programming in every area of the city.

But it is a choice model with a strange preference for DCPS teachers.

Anonymous wrote:Why in the world do the three DME proposals remove proximity preference?

Proposal C specifically states that there is a proximity preference.

Why in the world do the three DME proposals remove proximity preference?

Anonymous wrote:
19:13 Very interesting observations. How would you recommend fixing the funding model? What would you recommend doing with children who have failing in boundary schools?

not 19:13 and don't have a plan for fixing the funding model (the school system should, though). But I'd say a start is not thinking of the schools as failing. A building can't fail. That whole line of thinking skews the reality of what's happening in any school - some combination of facilities, teaching and admin staff, funding, parental involvement, neighborhood influences, and the kids.

Administrators who are in denial about teachers' abilities to single-handedly change student trajectory (despite being proven wrong) and who are pushing different buildings, via OOB and charter placement, as the only solution, will never be able to fix anything, except their job security, as long as the city that's paying them lets them continue along this course.

19:13 Very interesting observations. How would you recommend fixing the funding model? What would you recommend doing with children who have failing in boundary schools?