Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, Cheh seems to be part of the process leading to potential change - that's why she wrote the letter to start with, and she is providing specific reassurances. So, my point is, she will no longer win Ward 3 elections if she is hurting the interests of a broad group of ward 3 parents. Unless, somehow Ward 3 gets rezoned too to exclude those parents from ward 3 voting.

When the brouhaha over Hardy was going on 2-3 years ago, Cheh refused to take the side of her constituents and voted in favor of the resolution calling for the reinstatement of the Hardy principal. In the 2010 election she did very poorly south of Massachusetts and lost Spring Valley outright to a very weak candidate.

Exactly. And getting south ward 3 out of Deal and Wilson boundaries would mobilize many more parents than the Hardy principal affair. Parents who, btw, wouldn't be fooled as 15.31 seems to believe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, Cheh seems to be part of the process leading to potential change - that's why she wrote the letter to start with, and she is providing specific reassurances. So, my point is, she will no longer win Ward 3 elections if she is hurting the interests of a broad group of ward 3 parents. Unless, somehow Ward 3 gets rezoned too to exclude those parents from ward 3 voting.

When the brouhaha over Hardy was going on 2-3 years ago, Cheh refused to take the side of her constituents and voted in favor of the resolution calling for the reinstatement of the Hardy principal. In the 2010 election she did very poorly south of Massachusetts and lost Spring Valley outright to a very weak candidate.

Anonymous wrote:
Well, Cheh seems to be part of the process leading to potential change - that's why she wrote the letter to start with, and she is providing specific reassurances. So, my point is, she will no longer win Ward 3 elections if she is hurting the interests of a broad group of ward 3 parents. Unless, somehow Ward 3 gets rezoned too to exclude those parents from ward 3 voting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

I think this is likely too. But if certain neighborhoods get cut out of Deal, perhaps a test-in middle and high school would soften the blow.

What do you mean with "southern Ward 3"? Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Palisades? Would be a bit crazy for Cheh to do so - unless of course Ward 3 itself becomes rezoned.

Not the ppp but I think the poster is suggesting that elementary schools located in the southern part of Ward 3 might get cut out of the Wilson and Deal feeder. School boundaries have nothing to do with ward boundaries and at this point (as I understand it) only DCPS has the power to redraw school boundaries.

Well, Cheh seems to be part of the process leading to potential change - that's why she wrote the letter to start with, and she is providing specific reassurances. So, my point is, she will no longer win Ward 3 elections if she is hurting the interests of a broad group of ward 3 parents. Unless, somehow Ward 3 gets rezoned too to exclude those parents from ward 3 voting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

I think this is likely too. But if certain neighborhoods get cut out of Deal, perhaps a test-in middle and high school would soften the blow.

What do you mean with "southern Ward 3"? Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Palisades? Would be a bit crazy for Cheh to do so - unless of course Ward 3 itself becomes rezoned.

Not the ppp but I think the poster is suggesting that elementary schools located in the southern part of Ward 3 might get cut out of the Wilson and Deal feeder. School boundaries have nothing to do with ward boundaries and at this point (as I understand it) only DCPS has the power to redraw school boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

I think this is likely too. But if certain neighborhoods get cut out of Deal, perhaps a test-in middle and high school would soften the blow.

What do you mean with "southern Ward 3"? Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Palisades? Would be a bit crazy for Cheh to do so - unless of course Ward 3 itself becomes rezoned.

Anonymous wrote:

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

I think this is likely too. But if certain neighborhoods get cut out of Deal, perhaps a test-in middle and high school would soften the blow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh is setting up a study to tell us all what we already know - that the system we have of sending as many kids as possible to the too-few successful middle schools from all corners of the District is not a great long-term strategy.

Then, study in hand, she can move forward toward rationalizing the boundaries in a way that best suits her Ward, pointing toward the study, not her Ward's preferences, as justification. This ain't new. Anybody here ever work on the Hill?

Perhaps this is a move toward a more rational, logical policy for the District, but I doubt it is best for the kids at the time it is implemented. I know Ms. Cheh might feel sorry for the kids who don't get to go to high-functioning middle schools, but in the end she is looking out for the Ward she represents.

My alternative is this: once there's a comparably successful middle school for kids to attend, you can change the feeder patterns. Until then, we continue with the ugly-looking system we've got. Keep the pressure on the west-of-the-Park wards to have them participate in development of a better system. Don't just allow them to opt into their own self-contained school ecosystem.

You don't understand Mary Cheh. She is absolutely terrified, frozen to the point of paralysis, of doing anything that might be seen as advocating for her ward. More likely is an outcome where she bends over backwards and agrees to something that makes no sense at all to avoid any appearance of disadvantaging the rest of the city. I think we're more likely to see southern Ward 3 moved out of Deal (and Wilson) than any areas EOTP.

Anonymous wrote: It's numerically impossible for Hardy to become a neighborhood school.