Anonymous wrote:

Since my own neighborhood ranks at number 2 on the Top Ten priority clusters, I'm not joining the ranks of protesters. I may not be all that excited by the some of the policies that have been floated thus far, but I'd be MUCH angrier to be stuck with status quo.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ha. Here's a quote from the first page of the thread about Cheh's bill:

The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

Exactly. I think that is the strongest argument for something coming out of the current DME process. Gray doesn't care if he takes the heat because he is gone anyway. A lot of folks in this town are going to be interested in making the most of this unique opportunity to avoid political costs.

Take that to mean that if Bowser is elected, we might expect some of this to be implement? She can get the benefit of change without paying a personal price, politically?

I believe Catania's been pretty clear he does not support this. Anyone donated to his campaign recently?

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, THere's no question that DCPS boundaries, neglected or manipulated for many years, need to be attended to. The concern is if the boundaries issue is being used to manipulate families against their best interests.

Anonymous wrote:

And I remember well the IFF report - the first time I heard (and cringed at) the concept of "performing seats."

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

To accelerate performance in the District, add 27,070 performing seats in the Top Ten priority neighborhood clusters by 2016. Closing the service gap necessitates a coordinated effort between the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) and the Public Charter School Board (PCSB) as well as a focused implementation strategy. IFF recommends the development of cluster specific strategic plans. To develop each strategic plan, consult the detailed analysis for each of the Top Ten clusters in the Profiles section, immediately following this section. Because of the distinct characteristics of each neighborhood, each Top Ten cluster will have a separate strategy that accounts for local variation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

In a recent letter to the DME, Mary Cheh expressed strong opposition to the current process and its specific plans for lotteries, choice sets and specific boundary re-draws like the expansion of Hearst to incorporate streets very close to Janney and Murch. So has her position evolved since 2012? Or are you really suggesting that her current opposition is insincere and that they are just posturing to have Gray and Smith take the heat for this?

The study that she initiated in 2012 would have inevitably led to technical changes like Murch->Hearst. So yes, she is full of, ahem, she is being insincere now. IMO.

She has evolved. (I've emailed with her, fwiw.) Her initial quote in the NW Current said residents want diversity. They want good schools, too, but diversity is important to Ward 3 residents. She heard an earful: quality trumps diversity each and every day. Predictability trumps diversity each and every day. She heard the uproar and she changed her tune.

Of course, this is besides the point of whether she is being insincere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

In a recent letter to the DME, Mary Cheh expressed strong opposition to the current process and its specific plans for lotteries, choice sets and specific boundary re-draws like the expansion of Hearst to incorporate streets very close to Janney and Murch. So has her position evolved since 2012? Or are you really suggesting that her current opposition is insincere and that they are just posturing to have Gray and Smith take the heat for this?

The study that she initiated in 2012 would have inevitably led to technical changes like Murch->Hearst. So yes, she is full of, ahem, she is being insincere now. IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

In a recent letter to the DME, Mary Cheh expressed strong opposition to the current process and its specific plans for lotteries, choice sets and specific boundary re-draws like the expansion of Hearst to incorporate streets very close to Janney and Murch. So has her position evolved since 2012? Or are you really suggesting that her current opposition is insincere and that they are just posturing to have Gray and Smith take the heat for this?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ha. Here's a quote from the first page of the thread about Cheh's bill:

The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

Exactly. I think that is the strongest argument for something coming out of the current DME process. Gray doesn't care if he takes the heat because he is gone anyway. A lot of folks in this town are going to be interested in making the most of this unique opportunity to avoid political costs.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ha. Here's a quote from the first page of the thread about Cheh's bill:

The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

Exactly. I think that is the strongest argument for something coming out of the current DME process. Gray doesn't care if he takes the heat because he is gone anyway. A lot of folks in this town are going to be interested in making the most of this unique opportunity to avoid political costs.

Anonymous wrote:
Ha. Here's a quote from the first page of the thread about Cheh's bill:

The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

The Chancellor told a group of parents once: No one wants to take the heat for redrawing boundaries. Good schools get smaller boundaries, and less desirable schools get bigger boundaries. Anyone who experiences a change is necessarily unhappy.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It looks like many have forgotten the origins of the boundary process. Because of overcrowding in Ward 3 schools, Mary Cheh introduced legislation in 2012 requiring periodic boundary reviews. She was very vocal in demanding that something be done about boundaries. Catania suggested that he would begin hearings about boundaries since nothing was being done. Gray's tasking Smith with this job was clearly a response to Council pressure. Here is a discussion of Cheh's bill:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/277212.page

Also, the DME does have a strategy (perhaps plan?) for improving schools. I have no idea whether they are implementing it. But, the more paranoid among us may want to read this with caution. Some of your worst fears will be confirmed. One could argue that the boundary process is being manipulated to focus on the goals of this plan:

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote: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.