jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Supreme Court's PICS (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)) ruling might have fundamentally altered the landscape here.

If the boundaries of Deal or Wilson are redrawn to preserve AA enrollment a the expense of non-AA kids who live closer to the schools, those boundaries can and should be challenged by neighborhood families, and those families will likely prevail.

While the PICS case certainly makes things more complicated, I am not sure that I come to the came conclusion you have. A majority of the court recognized that the state has a compelling interest in seeking diversity in schools. However, the court ruled that plans to promote diversity have to be narrowly tailored. In the case of Deal and Wilson, a narrowly-tailered solution that preserves diversity would be fairly easy to develop. Defending a solution that did not preserve diversity, on the other hand, would be difficult given the compelling state interest in promoting diversity.

Second, "the interest in diversity in higher education", as upheld in Grutter v. Bollinger.
But Roberts distinguished Grutter from this case, and argued that this case was more similar to Gratz v. Bollinger. In Grutter, the interest was student body diversity "in the context of higher education," and was not focused on race alone but encompassed "all factors that may contribute to student body diversity".[13] The Grutter Court quoted the articulation of diversity from Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, noting that "it is not an interest in simple ethnic diversity, in which a specified percentage of the student body is in effect guaranteed to be members of selected ethnic groups, that can justify the use of race." [14] What was upheld in Grutter was consideration of "a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element." [15] "The entire gist of the analysis in Grutter was that the admissions program at issue there focused on each applicant as an individual, and not simply as a member of a particular racial group." As the Grutter Court explained, "[t]he importance of this individualized consideration in the context of a race-conscious admissions program is paramount." The point of the narrow tailoring analysis in which the Grutter Court engaged was to ensure that the use of racial classifications was indeed part of a broader assessment of diversity, and not simply an effort to achieve racial balance, which the Court explained would be "patently unconstitutional."[16] In the present cases, by contrast, race is not considered as part of a broader effort to achieve "exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints," ibid.; race, for some students, is determinative standing alone. Even when it comes to race, the plans here employ only a limited notion of diversity, viewing race exclusively in white/nonwhite terms in Seattle and black/"other" terms in Jefferson County. "The way Seattle classifies its students bears this out. Upon enrolling their child with the district, parents are required to identify their child as a member of a particular racial group. If a parent identifies more than one race on the form, "[t]he application will not be accepted and, if necessary, the enrollment service person taking the application will indicate one box.""[17] Furthermore, Roberts wrote:[9]

In upholding the admissions plan in Grutter ... this Court relied upon considerations unique to institutions of higher education, noting that in light of "the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition."[18] The Court explained that "[c]ontext matters" in applying strict scrutiny, and repeatedly noted that it was addressing the use of race "in the context of higher education." [19] The Court in Grutter expressly articulated key limitations on its holding—defining a specific type of broad-based diversity and noting the unique context of higher education—but these limitations were largely disregarded by the lower courts in extending Grutter to uphold race-based assignments in elementary and secondary schools. The present cases are not governed by Grutter.

Anonymous wrote:

That's a great argument ("demand quality in your own neighborhood")....for maybe 5-10 years from now. The point you're missing is the children who earned OOB spots at WotP elementary schools are for all intents and purposes considered "in-boundary" for middle and high school. There is and should be no distinction. That is the system and policy that DCPS has established and is essentially the "promise" they have given those families (trust me, I have printed and saved several references to this). DCPS has preached about pathways for educating those children that ensure continuity. Deal doesn't accept any "OOB" children anymore. If they accepted any last year, it was very few. Of course in your mind, Deal does because they allow those children who attended a feeder elementary as an OOB in. But that's how it should be.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Supreme Court's PICS (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)) ruling might have fundamentally altered the landscape here.

If the boundaries of Deal or Wilson are redrawn to preserve AA enrollment a the expense of non-AA kids who live closer to the schools, those boundaries can and should be challenged by neighborhood families, and those families will likely prevail.

While the PICS case certainly makes things more complicated, I am not sure that I come to the came conclusion you have. A majority of the court recognized that the state has a compelling interest in seeking diversity in schools. However, the court ruled that plans to promote diversity have to be narrowly tailored. In the case of Deal and Wilson, a narrowly-tailered solution that preserves diversity would be fairly easy to develop. Defending a solution that did not preserve diversity, on the other hand, would be difficult given the compelling state interest in promoting diversity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the more exclusionary Ward 3 parents become, and the more they wage war on OOB families (who earned their spots at WotP school through established policies and enabled those schools to maximize their budgets) will push the Chancellor towards a solution of no boundaries. Turning "OOB" into a dirty word will necessitate getting rid of it altogether.

Can we stop with this nonsense? They're not getting rid of boundaries. On the heels of a much-touted inprovement in test scores, they're not going to completely change the system (and torpedo many property values, at that). There is overcrowding at some schools, and underenrollment at others - that needs to be addressed.

Good grief, people. I can't figure out is many of you are so simple-minded that you actually believe this fairy tale, or if there is a concentrated campaign to instill fear in the community so that when a less drastic solution is proposed, people welcome it as better than the alternative.

Check that. I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories, and I AM a believer in Occam's Razor. So we'll go with simple-minded.

+100. DCUM is full of Chicken Littles. Somebody heard about San Francisco's model and has been continuously posting the possibility of DC adopting the model to the point where others are starting to believe this inane fairy tale. Good grief!!! Stop perpetuating this myth!

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Supreme Court's PICS (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)) ruling might have fundamentally altered the landscape here.

If the boundaries of Deal or Wilson are redrawn to preserve AA enrollment a the expense of non-AA kids who live closer to the schools, those boundaries can and should be challenged by neighborhood families, and those families will likely prevail.

While the PICS case certainly makes things more complicated, I am not sure that I come to the came conclusion you have. A majority of the court recognized that the state has a compelling interest in seeking diversity in schools. However, the court ruled that plans to promote diversity have to be narrowly tailored. In the case of Deal and Wilson, a narrowly-tailered solution that preserves diversity would be fairly easy to develop. Defending a solution that did not preserve diversity, on the other hand, would be difficult given the compelling state interest in promoting diversity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the more exclusionary Ward 3 parents become, and the more they wage war on OOB families (who earned their spots at WotP school through established policies and enabled those schools to maximize their budgets) will push the Chancellor towards a solution of no boundaries. Turning "OOB" into a dirty word will necessitate getting rid of it altogether.

Can we stop with this nonsense? They're not getting rid of boundaries. On the heels of a much-touted inprovement in test scores, they're not going to completely change the system (and torpedo many property values, at that). There is overcrowding at some schools, and underenrollment at others - that needs to be addressed.

Good grief, people. I can't figure out is many of you are so simple-minded that you actually believe this fairy tale, or if there is a concentrated campaign to instill fear in the community so that when a less drastic solution is proposed, people welcome it as better than the alternative.

Check that. I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories, and I AM a believer in Occam's Razor. So we'll go with simple-minded.

Anonymous wrote:

Like others have said before, I would focus on two areas. The string of neighborhoods just east of the Park and on Capitol Hill.

This is a key point. Starting a magnet school in Ward 8 just won't work, because it's too difficult to get to, and, rightly or wrongly, many nid/high SES families will be afraid to go there. But schools on the Hill, and in Columbia Heights, Petworth, 16th St. Heights, etc. are accessible to Wards 1 and 4 families, (plus families WotP), and ar not perceived to be as dangerous.

Like others have said before, I would focus on two areas. The string of neighborhoods just east of the Park and on Capitol Hill.

Anonymous wrote:PP who thinks the no boundaries idea is simple-minded fails to recognize that it's not only upper NW that has seen skyrocketing property values. We live in Petworth. Bought 12 years ago for $200K...our house is not worth $600K. I'm not convinced your "plummeting home values" argument and move out of the district argument hold water.

Anonymous wrote:^^^^I think this is where the gaping hole is in the city's and DCPSs' educational policy and planning. For political reasons around race and SES, they try to push educationally ambitious parents into scenarios that will help less fortunate/less involved families RATHER THAN doing what it takes to entice those families into the situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sick of people that overpaid for their homes in Ward 3 trying to kick out anyone that doesn't look like their little snowflake. Let's be real, historically whites have never wanted to go to Deal or Wilson. You can't go house poor and decide you can no longer afford private and want to kick out the kids that have been there for generations. Especially when there is another perfectly fine middle school in Ward 3 that is severely under enrolled.

No kid has been at Deal or Wilson for "generations." Their FAMILIES may have been there for generations - but that doesn't give the current students any rights. Are you seriously suggesting that an OOB student whos mother went to Deal and Wilson has a greater "right" to go there than a kid who lives IB?

No, I wasn't suggesting OOB should be able to get there before IB. I was suggesting that the current diverse IB neighborhoods should not be carved out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the more exclusionary Ward 3 parents become, and the more they wage war on OOB families (who earned their spots at WotP school through established policies and enabled those schools to maximize their budgets) will push the Chancellor towards a solution of no boundaries. Turning "OOB" into a dirty word will necessitate getting rid of it altogether.

I think you are misinterpreting how IB parents see the OOB issue. Basically, it is an issue of capacity. What are we supposed to do when the school is full? Rather than continuing to shoehorn more and more students into a few schools, DCPS needs to make more schools acceptable to DCPS parents. If I were an OOB parent, I would resent the hell out of the fact that I had to drive across town to make sure my DC had a good education. Instead, people feel lucky that they made it into a good school. Demand quality in your own neighborhood. Demand that DCPS do its job.

That's a great argument ("demand quality in your own neighborhood")....for maybe 5-10 years from now. The point you're missing is the children who earned OOB spots at WotP elementary schools are for all intents and purposes considered "in-boundary" for middle and high school. There is and should be no distinction. That is the system and policy that DCPS has established and is essentially the "promise" they have given those families (trust me, I have printed and saved several references to this). DCPS has preached about pathways for educating those children that ensure continuity. Deal doesn't accept any "OOB" children anymore. If they accepted any last year, it was very few. Of course in your mind, Deal does because they allow those children who attended a feeder elementary as an OOB in. But that's how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:
The Supreme Court's PICS (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)) ruling might have fundamentally altered the landscape here.

If the boundaries of Deal or Wilson are redrawn to preserve AA enrollment a the expense of non-AA kids who live closer to the schools, those boundaries can and should be challenged by neighborhood families, and those families will likely prevail.