Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing standing in the way of all charters or city-wide lotteries are the families with good neighborhood schools. The boundary changes and loss of proximity preference sound a lot like redistricting to me. Redraw the lines to break up neighborhood schools.

Really DCPS elementary children don't have a right, or even a preference, to go to an elementary school a couple of blocks from their home?

By "DCPS elementary children", do you mean one particular block off of Wisconsin Avenue?

No, do you? If so consider that you may be falling into a divide and conquer strategy. There's no good child-centered reason why any kids anywhere should be moved from a good walkable school to a good non-walkable school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@ 10:26: what's more interesting is why the recommendations you highlight, contained in the DME's "Final Report" from 2012, are not mirrored by the DME's current proposals A-C. The ideas you cut out from the 2012 report look a lot more like Cheh's ideas than what is presently coming out of DME (before we see the final recommendations, that is).

Different poster here. I wonder if part of what was going on with the boundary proposals is that they're not directly linked to the goals in the IFF report.

The IFF report was providing a strategic plan for upgrading schools to improve DCPS offerings to students. If basically suggests using resources to improve certain promising Tier 2 schools in high-impact areas. And it notes as a side benefit that improving those Tier 2 schools will lessen overcrowding at other Tier 1 schools.

By contrast, the boundary review project is aimed at lessening the crowding at oversubscribed schools. Changing the boundaries is one possible solution. And consistent with the IFF report, improving other schools to attract students will help lessen the overcrowding too.

But why were some of the original A-C proposals targeted so differently (citywide lottery & choice sets)? I think it's because those alternatives have been used by some other cities, and they are really favored by some of the consultants working for DME, as methods to increase racial & economic diversity in schools. Some of these consultants have written various posts and op-ed pieces promoting lottery & choice-set approaches as ways to promote diversity. Given that some of her key advisors are pushing diversity models as a goal, it makes sense that those kind of proposals were offered as possible alternatives.

However, as we've all seen from the data, while most people support diversity in general, the primary focus parents have is on improved educational opportunities for their children. And most people don't seem to see lotteries or choice-sets as doing much to accomplish that primary goal of improved educational opportunities.

So IMHO what should happen is for DME to focus on adjusting the boundaries + improving Tier 2 schools in high-impact areas. And this talk of lotteries and choice-sets will fall by the wayside. But if the consultants & DME decide promoting diversity is actually a primary goal of theirs (even though it's not the primary goal of the process as described by the DME's briefs), then we may be headed in a different direction. If so, we will have some cognitive dissonance, because the DME will be doing things (lotteries & choice-sets) that are inconsistent with her stated goals, and inconsistent with public opinion.

The policy examples that have been up for discussion (and derision) are just that - examples of policy that could achieve the primary objective of closing the gap between supply and demand of performing seats. If you go back and read those examples again, much of what's in them is already in practice here in DC. The unified lottery is a city-wide lottery. You're free to try your lot at any of the schools in the city. As proposed in DME examples A and B, you also currently have preference for siblings and proximity. Choice sets sounds crazy until you realize that it's pretty similar to what we have now, which is a system that has several elementary schools feeding into one designated middle school; the only difference with choice sets is that you can go to any one of those elementary schools while still maintaining preference for the one closest to your house. Policy example C is the most contentious in its proposal for city-wide lottery (at middle and high school only), but critics have missed the fact that this example is modeled after the current charter system. That example calls for each school to have some specialized programming, such as IB, dual language or STEM. It doesn't sound so crazy when you remember that the most sought after high schools in DCPS, excepting Wilson, are application schools open to students city-wide - just like charters. No one seems to think charter lotteries are radical; rather it's the fairest way to give everyone access to a particular form of learning.

As for the speculation about forced diversity, there's nothing in the policy briefs or examples that says it's a priority. Forced diversity is simply reality unless you really do want to cut off Ward 3 from the rest of the city. It's worth remembering that if more families start choosing their neighborhood schools, they're going to have to expect and accept diversity because there is no getting around the demographics of this city. The set-asides that have been discussed are a necessity because many families still have unacceptable neighborhood schools and federal law says they have to be given access to performing schools. And pure politics says you'd never get acceptance of a policy that locks families into one school or feeder pattern. If you're seeing a few op-eds touting the benefits of diversity as sign of a social engineering agenda from the DME, then you're conflating your fears about diversity with the reality that most of the city's children are black or Hispanic.

No one expressing fear of the proposed changes is fearful of diversity. The fear you're seeing is fear of losing a high-performing neighborhood school (from those who have access to such a dwindling commodity in this city). Respectfully, your mis-diagnosis of the cause for the fear is clouding your assessment of the fearful crowd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@ 10:26: what's more interesting is why the recommendations you highlight, contained in the DME's "Final Report" from 2012, are not mirrored by the DME's current proposals A-C. The ideas you cut out from the 2012 report look a lot more like Cheh's ideas than what is presently coming out of DME (before we see the final recommendations, that is).

Different poster here. I wonder if part of what was going on with the boundary proposals is that they're not directly linked to the goals in the IFF report.

The IFF report was providing a strategic plan for upgrading schools to improve DCPS offerings to students. If basically suggests using resources to improve certain promising Tier 2 schools in high-impact areas. And it notes as a side benefit that improving those Tier 2 schools will lessen overcrowding at other Tier 1 schools.

By contrast, the boundary review project is aimed at lessening the crowding at oversubscribed schools. Changing the boundaries is one possible solution. And consistent with the IFF report, improving other schools to attract students will help lessen the overcrowding too.

But why were some of the original A-C proposals targeted so differently (citywide lottery & choice sets)? I think it's because those alternatives have been used by some other cities, and they are really favored by some of the consultants working for DME, as methods to increase racial & economic diversity in schools. Some of these consultants have written various posts and op-ed pieces promoting lottery & choice-set approaches as ways to promote diversity. Given that some of her key advisors are pushing diversity models as a goal, it makes sense that those kind of proposals were offered as possible alternatives.

However, as we've all seen from the data, while most people support diversity in general, the primary focus parents have is on improved educational opportunities for their children. And most people don't seem to see lotteries or choice-sets as doing much to accomplish that primary goal of improved educational opportunities.

So IMHO what should happen is for DME to focus on adjusting the boundaries + improving Tier 2 schools in high-impact areas. And this talk of lotteries and choice-sets will fall by the wayside. But if the consultants & DME decide promoting diversity is actually a primary goal of theirs (even though it's not the primary goal of the process as described by the DME's briefs), then we may be headed in a different direction. If so, we will have some cognitive dissonance, because the DME will be doing things (lotteries & choice-sets) that are inconsistent with her stated goals, and inconsistent with public opinion.

The policy examples that have been up for discussion (and derision) are just that - examples of policy that could achieve the primary objective of closing the gap between supply and demand of performing seats. If you go back and read those examples again, much of what's in them is already in practice here in DC. The unified lottery is a city-wide lottery. You're free to try your lot at any of the schools in the city. As proposed in DME examples A and B, you also currently have preference for siblings and proximity. Choice sets sounds crazy until you realize that it's pretty similar to what we have now, which is a system that has several elementary schools feeding into one designated middle school; the only difference with choice sets is that you can go to any one of those elementary schools while still maintaining preference for the one closest to your house. Policy example C is the most contentious in its proposal for city-wide lottery (at middle and high school only), but critics have missed the fact that this example is modeled after the current charter system. That example calls for each school to have some specialized programming, such as IB, dual language or STEM. It doesn't sound so crazy when you remember that the most sought after high schools in DCPS, excepting Wilson, are application schools open to students city-wide - just like charters. No one seems to think charter lotteries are radical; rather it's the fairest way to give everyone access to a particular form of learning.

As for the speculation about forced diversity, there's nothing in the policy briefs or examples that says it's a priority. Forced diversity is simply reality unless you really do want to cut off Ward 3 from the rest of the city. It's worth remembering that if more families start choosing their neighborhood schools, they're going to have to expect and accept diversity because there is no getting around the demographics of this city. The set-asides that have been discussed are a necessity because many families still have unacceptable neighborhood schools and federal law says they have to be given access to performing schools. And pure politics says you'd never get acceptance of a policy that locks families into one school or feeder pattern. If you're seeing a few op-eds touting the benefits of diversity as sign of a social engineering agenda from the DME, then you're conflating your fears about diversity with the reality that most of the city's children are black or Hispanic.

Anonymous wrote:The only thing standing in the way of all charters or city-wide lotteries are the families with good neighborhood schools. The boundary changes and loss of proximity preference sound a lot like redistricting to me. Redraw the lines to break up neighborhood schools.

Really DCPS elementary children don't have a right, or even a preference, to go to an elementary school a couple of blocks from their home?

By "DCPS elementary children", do you mean one particular block off of Wisconsin Avenue?

The only thing standing in the way of all charters or city-wide lotteries are the families with good neighborhood schools. The boundary changes and loss of proximity preference sound a lot like redistricting to me. Redraw the lines to break up neighborhood schools.

Really DCPS elementary children don't have a right, or even a preference, to go to an elementary school a couple of blocks from their home?

The boundary change is a complete distraction. Instead of trying to replicate the few quality neighborhood elementary schools. DCPS may ultimately end up undermining these schools. If you notice the boundaries are not even being considered as a "proposal," they are not included in Option A,B, or C. In fact all DC residents would lose the right to a proximity preference which is appaling. However in proposal C teachers would have rights to schools over neighbors -- shame on the DME consultants for even proposing a "solution" like this.

In Ward 3, the exercise is being used to soften up families with extremely walkable schools that are less than 5 minutes walking from their home to get used to having to commute by car. This will prime these families to become part of an experiment for city-wide elementary schools or charters. Resources have been put into expanding Janney (twice), modernizing Hearst (same capacity just beautiful new facilities), and Murch with promised shovels in the ground by 2015 (the Murch principal is happily looking at a major expansion of the school and has already ordered additional trailers). There should be no overcrowding issue in Ward 3, if there is it means that DCPS officials responsible for planning exercises should lose their jobs. We know the boundary exercise in Ward 3 is a distraction. Stop by and see where the proposed homes are located and see the impact of these changes on young elementary school children who are being taken from schools less than two blocks from their homes. Ironically the new plan has several families moving from the doubly expanded Janney to Murch. Seriously if anyone in the city is happy with the boundary change who is directly impacted by it please chime in. I have not met a single family that is impacted by the boundary change that supports it. From where I sit, it sounds to me like DCPS is proposing a deck chair reshuffling, a conspiracy, or is operating at an extremely high level of incompetence. None of these prospects inspire me to have any confidence in the exercise being led by the DME. I think that the process needs to be stopped and restarted with a clear strategy for family engagement and a focus on children.

A large and vocal group of families throughout the city want quality neighborhood elementary schools for their children. Why can't DCPS focus on this as a goal? Seems like DCPS itself supported this goal, because we were sold a "methodology based on the premise that all students should have the choice of a performing school in their neighborhood."

DME how do you propose to support performing schools in all neighborhoods? in the priority neighborhoods in the city?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, yes. Everyone agrees that some boundary changes were and are necessary. Why do people keep talking about boundary changes and student assignment policies like they are the same thing? THEY ARE NOT. A large majority of the proposals for new student assignment policies would completely do away with the idea of BOUNDARIES.

BOUNDARIES did not come down off the mountain with Moses, they are just a tool. And in this public school landscape with nearly half of the students attending charter schools, it might be okay to ask if they even make sense in all cases. If you plot where kids EOTP actually attend school, it would look like someone shot the boundary map with a load of buckshot.

Charters and OOB are the reality for the foreseeable future. So why should the schools be tied down to a nearly obsolete convention?

None of this precludes or excuses DCPS from making neighborhood schools that people actually want to send their children to.

Get this straight. Nobody goes to a charter because they prefer to travel. They go to a charter or an OOB school because the school that serves their BOUNDARY is unacceptable, poorly run, dangerous or a mess. Charter schools pop up in jurisdictions where the regular schools suck for a reason. The vast majority of families would ( and do looking at the USA as a whole ) to to the school they are assigned to by address if it served their kid weLl. Stop confusing this. It is the same lame argument for closing all under enrolled schools. Well..... No one wants to go there. Yes. Because it is a terrible school. Fix it and we will go there.

PP here. I lived in Ward 8 for ten years so I understand this concept really well. No amount of fixing would have ever convinced me to send my child to our IB school. Out of 50+ families in our development, I can't think of any that did. So why not give that school the same flexibility that it's charter competitors have to focus on a targeted population? Special needs, math focused, whatever. Instead of setting up shop to serve the random 300 or 50 kids that happen to live within a couple of blocks?

Maybe a good neighborhood school is one that is flexible and focused enough to serve the needs of the neighborhood -- to have specific classes, or sections for specific needs.

Part of the idea of charters was to provide competition to traditional public schools (TPS) so they'd respond and get better. That's silly. The purpose of schools is to educate children, not compete with each other. Part of the deal was that the teachers in charters would be better because that weren't unionized -- another silly notion --- there is no evidence that unionization negatively affects teacher quality and some evidence that a positive correlation exists. Charters were also supposed to provide "choice" but our lengthy experiment with them in DC has shown parents that charters often leave parents without choice when they strike out in the lottery and find that the school system has done nothing to improve their neighborhood schools.

The thing is if no one but parents wants to improve the neighborhoods, it will be hard to make it happen. When the city officials are actually working against neighborhood schools and in favor of an "all-choice" system they are not working on behalf of the taxpayers who are paying their salaries.

We can call the notion behind charters silly, but they are the facts on the ground. DCPS can either adapt to them or continue to whither away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, yes. Everyone agrees that some boundary changes were and are necessary. Why do people keep talking about boundary changes and student assignment policies like they are the same thing? THEY ARE NOT. A large majority of the proposals for new student assignment policies would completely do away with the idea of BOUNDARIES.

BOUNDARIES did not come down off the mountain with Moses, they are just a tool. And in this public school landscape with nearly half of the students attending charter schools, it might be okay to ask if they even make sense in all cases. If you plot where kids EOTP actually attend school, it would look like someone shot the boundary map with a load of buckshot.

Charters and OOB are the reality for the foreseeable future. So why should the schools be tied down to a nearly obsolete convention?

None of this precludes or excuses DCPS from making neighborhood schools that people actually want to send their children to.

Get this straight. Nobody goes to a charter because they prefer to travel. They go to a charter or an OOB school because the school that serves their BOUNDARY is unacceptable, poorly run, dangerous or a mess. Charter schools pop up in jurisdictions where the regular schools suck for a reason. The vast majority of families would ( and do looking at the USA as a whole ) to to the school they are assigned to by address if it served their kid weLl. Stop confusing this. It is the same lame argument for closing all under enrolled schools. Well..... No one wants to go there. Yes. Because it is a terrible school. Fix it and we will go there.

PP here. I lived in Ward 8 for ten years so I understand this concept really well. No amount of fixing would have ever convinced me to send my child to our IB school. Out of 50+ families in our development, I can't think of any that did. So why not give that school the same flexibility that it's charter competitors have to focus on a targeted population? Special needs, math focused, whatever. Instead of setting up shop to serve the random 300 or 50 kids that happen to live within a couple of blocks?

Maybe a good neighborhood school is one that is flexible and focused enough to serve the needs of the neighborhood -- to have specific classes, or sections for specific needs.

Part of the idea of charters was to provide competition to traditional public schools (TPS) so they'd respond and get better. That's silly. The purpose of schools is to educate children, not compete with each other. Part of the deal was that the teachers in charters would be better because that weren't unionized -- another silly notion --- there is no evidence that unionization negatively affects teacher quality and some evidence that a positive correlation exists. Charters were also supposed to provide "choice" but our lengthy experiment with them in DC has shown parents that charters often leave parents without choice when they strike out in the lottery and find that the school system has done nothing to improve their neighborhood schools.

The thing is if no one but parents wants to improve the neighborhoods, it will be hard to make it happen. When the city officials are actually working against neighborhood schools and in favor of an "all-choice" system they are not working on behalf of the taxpayers who are paying their salaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@ 10:26: what's more interesting is why the recommendations you highlight, contained in the DME's "Final Report" from 2012, are not mirrored by the DME's current proposals A-C. The ideas you cut out from the 2012 report look a lot more like Cheh's ideas than what is presently coming out of DME (before we see the final recommendations, that is).

Different poster here. I wonder if part of what was going on with the boundary proposals is that they're not directly linked to the goals in the IFF report.

The IFF report was providing a strategic plan for upgrading schools to improve DCPS offerings to students. If basically suggests using resources to improve certain promising Tier 2 schools in high-impact areas. And it notes as a side benefit that improving those Tier 2 schools will lessen overcrowding at other Tier 1 schools.

By contrast, the boundary review project is aimed at lessening the crowding at oversubscribed schools. Changing the boundaries is one possible solution. And consistent with the IFF report, improving other schools to attract students will help lessen the overcrowding too.

But why were some of the original A-C proposals targeted so differently (citywide lottery & choice sets)? I think it's because those alternatives have been used by some other cities, and they are really favored by some of the consultants working for DME, as methods to increase racial & economic diversity in schools. Some of these consultants have written various posts and op-ed pieces promoting lottery & choice-set approaches as ways to promote diversity. Given that some of her key advisors are pushing diversity models as a goal, it makes sense that those kind of proposals were offered as possible alternatives.

However, as we've all seen from the data, while most people support diversity in general, the primary focus parents have is on improved educational opportunities for their children. And most people don't seem to see lotteries or choice-sets as doing much to accomplish that primary goal of improved educational opportunities.

So IMHO what should happen is for DME to focus on adjusting the boundaries + improving Tier 2 schools in high-impact areas. And this talk of lotteries and choice-sets will fall by the wayside. But if the consultants & DME decide promoting diversity is actually a primary goal of theirs (even though it's not the primary goal of the process as described by the DME's briefs), then we may be headed in a different direction. If so, we will have some cognitive dissonance, because the DME will be doing things (lotteries & choice-sets) that are inconsistent with her stated goals, and inconsistent with public opinion.

I can get behind this and, hopefully, this is the direction the DME will take.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, yes. Everyone agrees that some boundary changes were and are necessary. Why do people keep talking about boundary changes and student assignment policies like they are the same thing? THEY ARE NOT. A large majority of the proposals for new student assignment policies would completely do away with the idea of BOUNDARIES.

BOUNDARIES did not come down off the mountain with Moses, they are just a tool. And in this public school landscape with nearly half of the students attending charter schools, it might be okay to ask if they even make sense in all cases. If you plot where kids EOTP actually attend school, it would look like someone shot the boundary map with a load of buckshot.

Charters and OOB are the reality for the foreseeable future. So why should the schools be tied down to a nearly obsolete convention?

None of this precludes or excuses DCPS from making neighborhood schools that people actually want to send their children to.

Get this straight. Nobody goes to a charter because they prefer to travel. They go to a charter or an OOB school because the school that serves their BOUNDARY is unacceptable, poorly run, dangerous or a mess. Charter schools pop up in jurisdictions where the regular schools suck for a reason. The vast majority of families would ( and do looking at the USA as a whole ) to to the school they are assigned to by address if it served their kid weLl. Stop confusing this. It is the same lame argument for closing all under enrolled schools. Well..... No one wants to go there. Yes. Because it is a terrible school. Fix it and we will go there.

PP here. I lived in Ward 8 for ten years so I understand this concept really well. No amount of fixing would have ever convinced me to send my child to our IB school. Out of 50+ families in our development, I can't think of any that did. So why not give that school the same flexibility that it's charter competitors have to focus on a targeted population? Special needs, math focused, whatever. Instead of setting up shop to serve the random 300 or 50 kids that happen to live within a couple of blocks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@ 10:26: what's more interesting is why the recommendations you highlight, contained in the DME's "Final Report" from 2012, are not mirrored by the DME's current proposals A-C. The ideas you cut out from the 2012 report look a lot more like Cheh's ideas than what is presently coming out of DME (before we see the final recommendations, that is).

Different poster here. I wonder if part of what was going on with the boundary proposals is that they're not directly linked to the goals in the IFF report.

The IFF report was providing a strategic plan for upgrading schools to improve DCPS offerings to students. If basically suggests using resources to improve certain promising Tier 2 schools in high-impact areas. And it notes as a side benefit that improving those Tier 2 schools will lessen overcrowding at other Tier 1 schools.

By contrast, the boundary review project is aimed at lessening the crowding at oversubscribed schools. Changing the boundaries is one possible solution. And consistent with the IFF report, improving other schools to attract students will help lessen the overcrowding too.

But why were some of the original A-C proposals targeted so differently (citywide lottery & choice sets)? I think it's because those alternatives have been used by some other cities, and they are really favored by some of the consultants working for DME, as methods to increase racial & economic diversity in schools. Some of these consultants have written various posts and op-ed pieces promoting lottery & choice-set approaches as ways to promote diversity. Given that some of her key advisors are pushing diversity models as a goal, it makes sense that those kind of proposals were offered as possible alternatives.

However, as we've all seen from the data, while most people support diversity in general, the primary focus parents have is on improved educational opportunities for their children. And most people don't seem to see lotteries or choice-sets as doing much to accomplish that primary goal of improved educational opportunities.

So IMHO what should happen is for DME to focus on adjusting the boundaries + improving Tier 2 schools in high-impact areas. And this talk of lotteries and choice-sets will fall by the wayside. But if the consultants & DME decide promoting diversity is actually a primary goal of theirs (even though it's not the primary goal of the process as described by the DME's briefs), then we may be headed in a different direction. If so, we will have some cognitive dissonance, because the DME will be doing things (lotteries & choice-sets) that are inconsistent with her stated goals, and inconsistent with public opinion.

Excellent analysis. Those parts certainly fit together in explaining our current situation.

Anonymous wrote:@ 10:26: what's more interesting is why the recommendations you highlight, contained in the DME's "Final Report" from 2012, are not mirrored by the DME's current proposals A-C. The ideas you cut out from the 2012 report look a lot more like Cheh's ideas than what is presently coming out of DME (before we see the final recommendations, that is).

Different poster here. I wonder if part of what was going on with the boundary proposals is that they're not directly linked to the goals in the IFF report.

The IFF report was providing a strategic plan for upgrading schools to improve DCPS offerings to students. If basically suggests using resources to improve certain promising Tier 2 schools in high-impact areas. And it notes as a side benefit that improving those Tier 2 schools will lessen overcrowding at other Tier 1 schools.

By contrast, the boundary review project is aimed at lessening the crowding at oversubscribed schools. Changing the boundaries is one possible solution. And consistent with the IFF report, improving other schools to attract students will help lessen the overcrowding too.

But why were some of the original A-C proposals targeted so differently (citywide lottery & choice sets)? I think it's because those alternatives have been used by some other cities, and they are really favored by some of the consultants working for DME, as methods to increase racial & economic diversity in schools. Some of these consultants have written various posts and op-ed pieces promoting lottery & choice-set approaches as ways to promote diversity. Given that some of her key advisors are pushing diversity models as a goal, it makes sense that those kind of proposals were offered as possible alternatives.

However, as we've all seen from the data, while most people support diversity in general, the primary focus parents have is on improved educational opportunities for their children. And most people don't seem to see lotteries or choice-sets as doing much to accomplish that primary goal of improved educational opportunities.

So IMHO what should happen is for DME to focus on adjusting the boundaries + improving Tier 2 schools in high-impact areas. And this talk of lotteries and choice-sets will fall by the wayside. But if the consultants & DME decide promoting diversity is actually a primary goal of theirs (even though it's not the primary goal of the process as described by the DME's briefs), then we may be headed in a different direction. If so, we will have some cognitive dissonance, because the DME will be doing things (lotteries & choice-sets) that are inconsistent with her stated goals, and inconsistent with public opinion.

@ 10:26: what's more interesting is why the recommendations you highlight, contained in the DME's "Final Report" from 2012, are not mirrored by the DME's current proposals A-C. The ideas you cut out from the 2012 report look a lot more like Cheh's ideas than what is presently coming out of DME (before we see the final recommendations, that is).

Actually, we do know what works: refurbished facilities + large numbers of high SES families. Sadly, we can't easily replicate the second ingredient of the formula.

Well there are more high-SES families in my cluster (Brightwood, Crestwood, Petworth) than there were even five years ago. And they are more interested in going to their neighborhood schools than trekking across town. The school boundary and assignment process is aimed at redirecting them to those schools and the very first recommendation in the report referenced above is to "invest in facilities and programs to accelerate performance in Tier 2 schools - especially in Clusters 2, 18, 22, and 31 that have high concentrations of Tier schools." These are the clusters with the highest demand for performing seats.

It goes on to say, "Moreover, several of the neighborhoods dominated by Tier 2 schools are undergoing a demographic shift accompanied by a decline in demand for public schools. The ensuing change in demand for public schools suggests that focusing on improving Tier 2 schools to increase performing capacity, as opposed to authorizing new charter schools or turnarounds for Tier 4 schools, will be a more sustainable long term strategy."

It sounds like the report that the DME put forward is talking about exactly what so many here say they want. But wait, there's more:

"Accelerating performance in Tier 2 schools in Top Ten clusters, especially Clusters 2 and 18, will relieve overcrowding elsewheree; currently up to 50 percent of the students in the most overcrowded Tier 1 schools in the northwest and central parts of the city commute from priority neighborhoods, as their parents seek a better education for their children. Providing local options for students in the northest will shift current commute patterns."

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

If you look on page 42, it does suggest ways to improve performance, including "extending learning time, reforming academic programs, professional development for teachers or school leadership effectiveness coaching. In implementing the plan, provide operational flexibility and sustained support."

I'm in agreement with those suggestions as are most of the people who've commented in this forum. The hat trick is getting the funding to improve those schools and, thanks to NCLB, that means getting more students into those schools. I see that as the primary objective of the DME policy examples floated thus far. Apart from suggested policies for school assignment (choice sets, etc.) the boundary proposals seem to have been an entirely separate process, NOT involving community input. I agree, those have been a distraction, but there's been credible buzz that they will not move forward. But getting parents to choose their neighborhood schools outside of Ward 3? That must move forward.

The report says that DCPS needs to work with charter schools to increase the number of performing seats, and that makes sense. The charters aren't going anywhere, nor should they, but they cannot alone meet the demand. I haven't seen anything in the proposals that even suggests they should. If I'm wrong about that, someone please point it out. With links.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, yes. Everyone agrees that some boundary changes were and are necessary. Why do people keep talking about boundary changes and student assignment policies like they are the same thing? THEY ARE NOT. A large majority of the proposals for new student assignment policies would completely do away with the idea of BOUNDARIES.

BOUNDARIES did not come down off the mountain with Moses, they are just a tool. And in this public school landscape with nearly half of the students attending charter schools, it might be okay to ask if they even make sense in all cases. If you plot where kids EOTP actually attend school, it would look like someone shot the boundary map with a load of buckshot.

Charters and OOB are the reality for the foreseeable future. So why should the schools be tied down to a nearly obsolete convention?

None of this precludes or excuses DCPS from making neighborhood schools that people actually want to send their children to.

Get this straight. Nobody goes to a charter because they prefer to travel. They go to a charter or an OOB school because the school that serves their BOUNDARY is unacceptable, poorly run, dangerous or a mess. Charter schools pop up in jurisdictions where the regular schools suck for a reason. The vast majority of families would ( and do looking at the USA as a whole ) to to the school they are assigned to by address if it served their kid weLl. Stop confusing this. It is the same lame argument for closing all under enrolled schools. Well..... No one wants to go there. Yes. Because it is a terrible school. Fix it and we will go there.