Anonymous wrote:Reading the thread about School Within a School and Ludlow Taylor ( http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/135/388579.page ) I can't help but think their situation was impetus for the choice sets idea.

If I understand it correctly, these are two geographically close schools, one with specialized programming open to city-wide lottery. Most families at the school live within proximity, if not in-boundary, and they'd like a proximity preference to truly make it a "neighborhood" school that's still open city-wide. But that might harm progress being made at Ludlow-Taylor, where families also want to see growth in IB attendance.

I'm not advocating choice set as a solution here, but it's an eye-opening example of how that policy might work. Everyone with geographic proximity gets a preference in a ranked lottery for both schools (and whatever other schools are nearby) and get guaranteed placement in one or the other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading the thread about School Within a School and Ludlow Taylor ( http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/135/388579.page ) I can't help but think their situation was impetus for the choice sets idea.

If I understand it correctly, these are two geographically close schools, one with specialized programming open to city-wide lottery. Most families at the school live within proximity, if not in-boundary, and they'd like a proximity preference to truly make it a "neighborhood" school that's still open city-wide. But that might harm progress being made at Ludlow-Taylor, where families also want to see growth in IB attendance.

I'm not advocating choice set as a solution here, but it's an eye-opening example of how that policy might work. Everyone with geographic proximity gets a preference in a ranked lottery for both schools (and whatever other schools are nearby) and get guaranteed placement in one or the other.

They're not really analogous. The choice set is to throw a much wider swath of Capitol Hill into the mix (including parts that aren't nearly as close to either school you named), and make it a free for all lottery among 5 schools. And at least that choice set had two existing specialized school options. Many didn't.

It's also not really a representative example of how a choice set would change dynamics, at all, because SWS is not a neighborhood school now. Thus, putting SWS and Ludlow-Taylor in a choice set is win/win for neighbors. They don't have any right to SWS now, but now they have a chance at a school that most consider superior to Ludlow-Taylor. When a choice set is made up of what was all formerly neighborhood schools, one of which is currently markedly better than others, the dynamics are far different.

I'm not following your point about changed dynamics.

Puttting SWS in a choice set would mean getting the proximity preference that parents say they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading the thread about School Within a School and Ludlow Taylor ( http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/135/388579.page ) I can't help but think their situation was impetus for the choice sets idea.

If I understand it correctly, these are two geographically close schools, one with specialized programming open to city-wide lottery. Most families at the school live within proximity, if not in-boundary, and they'd like a proximity preference to truly make it a "neighborhood" school that's still open city-wide. But that might harm progress being made at Ludlow-Taylor, where families also want to see growth in IB attendance.

I'm not advocating choice set as a solution here, but it's an eye-opening example of how that policy might work. Everyone with geographic proximity gets a preference in a ranked lottery for both schools (and whatever other schools are nearby) and get guaranteed placement in one or the other.

They're not really analogous. The choice set is to throw a much wider swath of Capitol Hill into the mix (including parts that aren't nearly as close to either school you named), and make it a free for all lottery among 5 schools. And at least that choice set had two existing specialized school options. Many didn't.

It's also not really a representative example of how a choice set would change dynamics, at all, because SWS is not a neighborhood school now. Thus, putting SWS and Ludlow-Taylor in a choice set is win/win for neighbors. They don't have any right to SWS now, but now they have a chance at a school that most consider superior to Ludlow-Taylor. When a choice set is made up of what was all formerly neighborhood schools, one of which is currently markedly better than others, the dynamics are far different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading the thread about School Within a School and Ludlow Taylor ( http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/135/388579.page ) I can't help but think their situation was impetus for the choice sets idea.

If I understand it correctly, these are two geographically close schools, one with specialized programming open to city-wide lottery. Most families at the school live within proximity, if not in-boundary, and they'd like a proximity preference to truly make it a "neighborhood" school that's still open city-wide. But that might harm progress being made at Ludlow-Taylor, where families also want to see growth in IB attendance.

I'm not advocating choice set as a solution here, but it's an eye-opening example of how that policy might work. Everyone with geographic proximity gets a preference in a ranked lottery for both schools (and whatever other schools are nearby) and get guaranteed placement in one or the other.

They're not really analogous. The choice set is to throw a much wider swath of Capitol Hill into the mix (including parts that aren't nearly as close to either school you named), and make it a free for all lottery among 5 schools. And at least that choice set had two existing specialized school options. Many didn't.

Anonymous wrote:Reading the thread about School Within a School and Ludlow Taylor ( http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/135/388579.page ) I can't help but think their situation was impetus for the choice sets idea.

If I understand it correctly, these are two geographically close schools, one with specialized programming open to city-wide lottery. Most families at the school live within proximity, if not in-boundary, and they'd like a proximity preference to truly make it a "neighborhood" school that's still open city-wide. But that might harm progress being made at Ludlow-Taylor, where families also want to see growth in IB attendance.

I'm not advocating choice set as a solution here, but it's an eye-opening example of how that policy might work. Everyone with geographic proximity gets a preference in a ranked lottery for both schools (and whatever other schools are nearby) and get guaranteed placement in one or the other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a glaring example of how in Dysfunctional City one hand doesn't know (or doesn't care) what the other is doing. At the same time that DCPS/DME are proposing to put more students into cars at the price of walkabililty, DC's planning office and DDOT for several years have aggressively pushed the opposite policies. These include trying to eliminate or reduce off-street parking requirements for new development, to discourage car use, reducing lanes on major avenues in favor of bike lanes, etc. Future plans include congestion road pricing. You would think that the Office of the Mayor (of which DME is a part) would be coordinating major policy initiatives, but no.

What if choice sets wouldn't work in your cluster, but were extremely beneficial in another?

As I posted in 9:38 above, the SWS discussion has a lot of people claiming that they want that proximity preference which they don't have. They may have a right to attend Ludlow-Taylor, which is very close-by, but some don't want it. Wouldn't it be better to give these families prefernce for another geographically-close school then drive them off to a charter in another part of the city?

Even the fear that everyone would choose SWS over Ludlow-Taylor is tempered by the fact that the specialized programming at SWS is not for everyone.

My own neighborhood school is dual language. But what if I preferred traditional learning offered at another school that's also close by? Maybe I'd like to have a choice between the two. And maybe that geographicaly-convenient choice is better than a charter or OOB school that puts me and the kid in a car every day.

You're ignoring the earlier poster's point about a disfunctional city administration: one agency promotes a high-traffic policy, while another seeks to restrict traffic. But hey, nothing new; we've all chosen to live here.

To your point about a lottery school in the same proximity as a somewhat desirable "neighborhood school": why wouldn't the obvious solution be to give a proximity preference to the lottery school? DCPS would have to come up with some kind of metric for what constitutes "proximity," but that would seem a less sticky solution than getting this "choice sets" business started.

I mean, I don't like the idea of "proximity preference" for a lottery school, either (I'm sure Walls and Banneker wouldn't care for it, for example), but once DCPS got started with the whole "choice" thing within DCPS (outside of charters, that is), it's too much to expect for them to admit initiating foolish policy in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

This is a glaring example of how in Dysfunctional City one hand doesn't know (or doesn't care) what the other is doing. At the same time that DCPS/DME are proposing to put more students into cars at the price of walkabililty, DC's planning office and DDOT for several years have aggressively pushed the opposite policies. These include trying to eliminate or reduce off-street parking requirements for new development, to discourage car use, reducing lanes on major avenues in favor of bike lanes, etc. Future plans include congestion road pricing. You would think that the Office of the Mayor (of which DME is a part) would be coordinating major policy initiatives, but no.

What if choice sets wouldn't work in your cluster, but were extremely beneficial in another?

As I posted in 9:38 above, the SWS discussion has a lot of people claiming that they want that proximity preference which they don't have. They may have a right to attend Ludlow-Taylor, which is very close-by, but some don't want it. Wouldn't it be better to give these families prefernce for another geographically-close school then drive them off to a charter in another part of the city?

Even the fear that everyone would choose SWS over Ludlow-Taylor is tempered by the fact that the specialized programming at SWS is not for everyone.

My own neighborhood school is dual language. But what if I preferred traditional learning offered at another school that's also close by? Maybe I'd like to have a choice between the two. And maybe that geographicaly-convenient choice is better than a charter or OOB school that puts me and the kid in a car every day.

This is a glaring example of how in Dysfunctional City one hand doesn't know (or doesn't care) what the other is doing. At the same time that DCPS/DME are proposing to put more students into cars at the price of walkabililty, DC's planning office and DDOT for several years have aggressively pushed the opposite policies. These include trying to eliminate or reduce off-street parking requirements for new development, to discourage car use, reducing lanes on major avenues in favor of bike lanes, etc. Future plans include congestion road pricing. You would think that the Office of the Mayor (of which DME is a part) would be coordinating major policy initiatives, but no.

Anonymous wrote: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:11:21, responding to 15:04.

1. I'm not sure why you keep calling it "forced diversity" or suggesting anyone here have some "fear" of diversity. As the system stands now, most of the schools are pretty darn diverse. For example, Wilson High School is 45% African American, 25% white, 17% Latino, and 8% Asian. No one's afraid of diversity.

2. The big difference between the A/B/C proposals and the current situation is that despite preferences, they suggest more students will be pushed out of their local neighborhood schools.

3. It seems a little silly to expand the choice options for DCPS schools, and try to improve all of them. Given that DCPS has many more schools than necessary right now, it seems a better approach to funnel students to a limited number of schools where DCPS can focus its efforts on improvement. In essence, less than open choice.

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.

Anonymous wrote:
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.