Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear quite a bit of talk about a coalition to improve our schools and am very interested in participating. I suggest that this is the time to focus on a city-wide effort led by families focused on improving school quality and creating tangible indicators for what successful schools would look like from the perspective of children and their families.

One of my disappointments about the DME process is how it has pitted parents against each other and has not mobilized families around improving the quality of schools overall or even in specific higher, lower or middle performing schools.

The "secret" of the successful DCPS and charter schools is that the administration, teachers, and parents work together for the good of the students. Henderson's statement that families can leave DCPS is unacceptable. It alienates parents who want to be engaged in the education of their children at all socio-economic levels and leaves the system even more vulnerable and likely to fail.

DC is full of strong-willed, policy interested and engaged people. I would like to see this talent and energy funneled into productive ways to make DC schools the very best for the children of our city.

But makes sense if her MO is to preside over the demise of DCPS, to qualify for a position in the Charter industry.

But perhaps she's just tone deaf -- not a good quality for a leader.

You guys need to get over the obsession with Kaya Henderson. She is a person of adequate but not exceptional talent in charge of the school system of a small american city. Yes, it happens to be the city where you live, so you care about the outcomes! But stop obsessing over her and her motives. To me she comes across as a better than average DC civil servant, generally honest and trying to do the right thing. She is not in the same league as someone like Rhee who, despite the heavy criticism, is a visionary, founded her own organization at a young age prior to DCPS and went on to other good gigs post-DCPS.

Henderson will not be offered any lucrative jobs after this if she cannot show good results with DCPS. If she cannot show good results, this will turn out to have been the highest-paying and best job she ever has in her life, and she will be seen as someone who got lucky and was over-promoted following Rhee's ouster. Whereas if she does succeed, she will quite rightly be seen as a great candidate for many other education jobs.

In other words, her incentives are aligned with ours. And I am pretty sure she herself is aware of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear quite a bit of talk about a coalition to improve our schools and am very interested in participating. I suggest that this is the time to focus on a city-wide effort led by families focused on improving school quality and creating tangible indicators for what successful schools would look like from the perspective of children and their families.

One of my disappointments about the DME process is how it has pitted parents against each other and has not mobilized families around improving the quality of schools overall or even in specific higher, lower or middle performing schools.

The "secret" of the successful DCPS and charter schools is that the administration, teachers, and parents work together for the good of the students. Henderson's statement that families can leave DCPS is unacceptable. It alienates parents who want to be engaged in the education of their children at all socio-economic levels and leaves the system even more vulnerable and likely to fail.

DC is full of strong-willed, policy interested and engaged people. I would like to see this talent and energy funneled into productive ways to make DC schools the very best for the children of our city.

But makes sense if her MO is to preside over the demise of DCPS, to qualify for a position in the Charter industry.

But perhaps she's just tone deaf -- not a good quality for a leader.

that would make her the second tone deaf chancellor in a row - and DC has had three "tone deaf" mayors in a row, I guess.

I think the problem goes deeper than that - I think the near feudal sense of entitlement that charecterizes DC politics makes it almost impossible for any poltiical leader to succeed. "I cannot be redistricted because we have ALWAYS been IB for school X" "IB kids are welcome at school Y, AS LONG AS they do not change its "unique culture". "We must build no new apartments, because I have a right to park easily on the street using an RPP that costs under $50 a year" " we cannot enforce parking laws on Sunday, because we never have, so its my right to park anywhere when going to church" These kinds of attitudes, and the deference paid them, render it very difficult to accomplish any kind of rational planning and policy. It tends to make DC dysfunctional. The district rebound has been as successful as it is, mostly because of its wonderfuil legacy layout, because its still the major concentration of employment in the region, and becauase of the paradigm shift to urbanism among the young. Not because of its political culture, which resists change.

I beleive that some other less well situated jurisdictions, with more functional political cultures, will benefit from this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are people who think she needs to be beholden to people whose kids are not at any risk of real difficulties who want to fight over whether their kids get to go to Murch, Hearst, or Janney.

I would want to ignore those people too. And I hope her attention is on those at risk of real problems.

+1

As an affluent parent of a DCPS student, I find many of my peers to be insufferably privileged. (Hello DCUM!)

In the Barry era, most people WOTP were afraid to speak up for more city services, either resigned to the probability that they would never get them or out of guilt that somehow they didn't deserve them. I'm glad to see in the last 15 years or so that people have come to demand good schools, clean parks, trash that gets picked up on time, cops who have training, etc. DC is no longer the Third World city that it was under Barry, and people should demand good schools and other services for the high taxes that they pay.

The quality of your trash pick up is not (usually) impacted by who else is on your trash route. Maybe parks are, but while they are neighborhood focused there are no boundaries for them (and so of course some do get over crowded from time to time).

I don't think anyone is saying that there shouldn't be schools with qualified teachers, good buildings, new books, and stuff like that. Its when a high quality school is one that has no more than a certain percentage of FARMS, or when folks are insisting everyone in a certain high SES area must go to one middle school even as that MS gets overcrowded, or when people call attempts to get more at risk kids into certain schools "social engineering pursued by ideologues" that we get issues not found in the social services mentioned above.

Why is it unreasonable that people who's neighborhood has fed the same middle school for 60 - 70 years or more. and who have bought houses expecting to attend a certain cluster of schools, don't want to be shunted to another one.? -- particularly when the other middle school is demonstrably not as good as what they have had?

I only believe it's reasonable to keep feeders for historical reasons when all things are equal, which they clearly are not in DC. As a PP mentioned, this is sort of an "insufferably privileged." This boundary issue has brought out real ugliness in my neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:I hear quite a bit of talk about a coalition to improve our schools and am very interested in participating. I suggest that this is the time to focus on a city-wide effort led by families focused on improving school quality and creating tangible indicators for what successful schools would look like from the perspective of children and their families.

One of my disappointments about the DME process is how it has pitted parents against each other and has not mobilized families around improving the quality of schools overall or even in specific higher, lower or middle performing schools.

The "secret" of the successful DCPS and charter schools is that the administration, teachers, and parents work together for the good of the students. Henderson's statement that families can leave DCPS is unacceptable. It alienates parents who want to be engaged in the education of their children at all socio-economic levels and leaves the system even more vulnerable and likely to fail.

DC is full of strong-willed, policy interested and engaged people. I would like to see this talent and energy funneled into productive ways to make DC schools the very best for the children of our city.

But makes sense if her MO is to preside over the demise of DCPS, to qualify for a position in the Charter industry.

But perhaps she's just tone deaf -- not a good quality for a leader.

I hear quite a bit of talk about a coalition to improve our schools and am very interested in participating. I suggest that this is the time to focus on a city-wide effort led by families focused on improving school quality and creating tangible indicators for what successful schools would look like from the perspective of children and their families.

One of my disappointments about the DME process is how it has pitted parents against each other and has not mobilized families around improving the quality of schools overall or even in specific higher, lower or middle performing schools.

The "secret" of the successful DCPS and charter schools is that the administration, teachers, and parents work together for the good of the students. Henderson's statement that families can leave DCPS is unacceptable. It alienates parents who want to be engaged in the education of their children at all socio-economic levels and leaves the system even more vulnerable and likely to fail.

DC is full of strong-willed, policy interested and engaged people. I would like to see this talent and energy funneled into productive ways to make DC schools the very best for the children of our city.

Anonymous wrote:In many ways I feel that a new part of DC has been thrown into the DCPS that many of us have been dealing with for sometime. You think it's a new thing to have your schools drastically changed overnight. Meanwhile we have been dealing with it for some time under the guise of 'reform'.
And the argument of 'we are losing something good and it's not fair' only resonates with a small part of DC. Find a broader base for more support. Most of us had, have, and will continue to have crap options. Hell, I would take a unicorn middle school over Jefferson and day.

That's easy to do. Just act like Jefferson is a figment of your imagination. I appreciate your larger point and I would love to work in a broader coalition on a platform that addresses the needs of a larger number of folks. I don't know anything about the Jefferson situation, but if you provide background, it could help education me and others.

In many ways I feel that a new part of DC has been thrown into the DCPS that many of us have been dealing with for sometime. You think it's a new thing to have your schools drastically changed overnight. Meanwhile we have been dealing with it for some time under the guise of 'reform'.
And the argument of 'we are losing something good and it's not fair' only resonates with a small part of DC. Find a broader base for more support. Most of us had, have, and will continue to have crap options. Hell, I would take a unicorn middle school over Jefferson and day.

Anonymous wrote:Arguments like that remind me of the arguments that went around about blockbusting.

"Look, we didn't create the real estate market, and the way the market is, if these people move into your neighborhood, your home value will go down. That's just the way the real estate market works."

Unless you decide it won't work that way.

Wow, I have the power to decide that DC and a handful his peers can turn around a school with 700 students and an 18% graduation rate. Who knew?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

Wow. Now the Crestwood advocate know how to run a large system better than the person actually doing so? The DME proposal is very good given real world constraints, and Kaya's comments reflect that. It some parents don't understand the complexities of a city-wide system, they can move to the suburbs.

The DME (pronounced "Dummy") proposal is DOA. Neither major mayoral candidate will enact it. Moreover, if you look at the specifics of the Dummy proposal, it's pretty clear that the authors haven't thought through all of the complexities it creates. Should they be exiled to the suburbs? (Oh wait, some of the consultants probably live there already.)

As a matter of fact, I have looked at the full proposal, and find much more compelling than your substandard argumentation. Now, we know that politics often trump policy and there is a campaign underway...we will see.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

Wow. Now the Crestwood advocate know how to run a large system better than the person actually doing so? The DME proposal is very good given real world constraints, and Kaya's comments reflect that. It some parents don't understand the complexities of a city-wide system, they can move to the suburbs.

The DME (pronounced "Dummy") proposal is DOA. Neither major mayoral candidate will enact it. Moreover, if you look at the specifics of the Dummy proposal, it's pretty clear that the authors haven't thought through all of the complexities it creates. Should they be exiled to the suburbs? (Oh wait, some of the consultants probably live there already.)

jsteele wrote:Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

Wow. Now the Crestwood advocate know how to run a large system better than the person actually doing so? The DME proposal is very good given real world constraints, and Kaya's comments reflect that. It some parents don't understand the complexities of a city-wide system, they can move to the suburbs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are people who think she needs to be beholden to people whose kids are not at any risk of real difficulties who want to fight over whether their kids get to go to Murch, Hearst, or Janney.

I would want to ignore those people too. And I hope her attention is on those at risk of real problems.

+1

As an affluent parent of a DCPS student, I find many of my peers to be insufferably privileged. (Hello DCUM!)

In the Barry era, most people WOTP were afraid to speak up for more city services, either resigned to the probability that they would never get them or out of guilt that somehow they didn't deserve them. I'm glad to see in the last 15 years or so that people have come to demand good schools, clean parks, trash that gets picked up on time, cops who have training, etc. DC is no longer the Third World city that it was under Barry, and people should demand good schools and other services for the high taxes that they pay.

The quality of your trash pick up is not (usually) impacted by who else is on your trash route. Maybe parks are, but while they are neighborhood focused there are no boundaries for them (and so of course some do get over crowded from time to time).

I don't think anyone is saying that there shouldn't be schools with qualified teachers, good buildings, new books, and stuff like that. Its when a high quality school is one that has no more than a certain percentage of FARMS, or when folks are insisting everyone in a certain high SES area must go to one middle school even as that MS gets overcrowded, or when people call attempts to get more at risk kids into certain schools "social engineering pursued by ideologues" that we get issues not found in the social services mentioned above.

Why is it unreasonable that people who's neighborhood has fed the same middle school for 60 - 70 years or more. and who have bought houses expecting to attend a certain cluster of schools, don't want to be shunted to another one.? -- particularly when the other middle school is demonstrably not as good as what they have had?

whether its reasonable or not (which has been discusssed ad nauseum) arguing for it is NOT the same as arguing for good basic services. But someone is going to get shunted out of Deal. Unless you are just going to keep making it bigger and bigger. Maybe thats a feasible solution, I don't know. I don't think its in the US constitution or the DC charter than no one ever gets redistricted to a worse school. I mean it happens in the suburbs fairly regularly. Its fine to lobby against it - its the "if they cut us out of Deal the Barry years are back" as a means of argument that is offputting.

typo correction above: should be "whose neighborhood"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are people who think she needs to be beholden to people whose kids are not at any risk of real difficulties who want to fight over whether their kids get to go to Murch, Hearst, or Janney.

I would want to ignore those people too. And I hope her attention is on those at risk of real problems.

+1

As an affluent parent of a DCPS student, I find many of my peers to be insufferably privileged. (Hello DCUM!)

In the Barry era, most people WOTP were afraid to speak up for more city services, either resigned to the probability that they would never get them or out of guilt that somehow they didn't deserve them. I'm glad to see in the last 15 years or so that people have come to demand good schools, clean parks, trash that gets picked up on time, cops who have training, etc. DC is no longer the Third World city that it was under Barry, and people should demand good schools and other services for the high taxes that they pay.

The quality of your trash pick up is not (usually) impacted by who else is on your trash route. Maybe parks are, but while they are neighborhood focused there are no boundaries for them (and so of course some do get over crowded from time to time).

I don't think anyone is saying that there shouldn't be schools with qualified teachers, good buildings, new books, and stuff like that. Its when a high quality school is one that has no more than a certain percentage of FARMS, or when folks are insisting everyone in a certain high SES area must go to one middle school even as that MS gets overcrowded, or when people call attempts to get more at risk kids into certain schools "social engineering pursued by ideologues" that we get issues not found in the social services mentioned above.

Why is it unreasonable that people who's neighborhood has fed the same middle school for 60 - 70 years or more. and who have bought houses expecting to attend a certain cluster of schools, don't want to be shunted to another one.? -- particularly when the other middle school is demonstrably not as good as what they have had?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are people who think she needs to be beholden to people whose kids are not at any risk of real difficulties who want to fight over whether their kids get to go to Murch, Hearst, or Janney.

I would want to ignore those people too. And I hope her attention is on those at risk of real problems.

+1

As an affluent parent of a DCPS student, I find many of my peers to be insufferably privileged. (Hello DCUM!)

In the Barry era, most people WOTP were afraid to speak up for more city services, either resigned to the probability that they would never get them or out of guilt that somehow they didn't deserve them. I'm glad to see in the last 15 years or so that people have come to demand good schools, clean parks, trash that gets picked up on time, cops who have training, etc. DC is no longer the Third World city that it was under Barry, and people should demand good schools and other services for the high taxes that they pay.

The quality of your trash pick up is not (usually) impacted by who else is on your trash route. Maybe parks are, but while they are neighborhood focused there are no boundaries for them (and so of course some do get over crowded from time to time).

I don't think anyone is saying that there shouldn't be schools with qualified teachers, good buildings, new books, and stuff like that. Its when a high quality school is one that has no more than a certain percentage of FARMS, or when folks are insisting everyone in a certain high SES area must go to one middle school even as that MS gets overcrowded, or when people call attempts to get more at risk kids into certain schools "social engineering pursued by ideologues" that we get issues not found in the social services mentioned above.