jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I disagree about more time. Get the boundary changes done and over with so they can focus on actual education issues.

There is going to be serious competition for resources now because the recommendations didn't include any resource allocation. Those fighting for resources won't be able to focus on actual education issues because resources are a prerequisite for such focus.

The way I view the recommendations at this stage is that they satisfy Ward 3 other than the Eaton folks and set up most of the rest of the city for disappointment. It will be interesting to see the reaction of those who have been viewing the recommendations through rose colored glasses when they wake up to the reality. If Bowser really does make accommodations for Crestwood and 16th Street Heights, the reaction to that will also be interesting.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, maybe Janney shouldn't get another renovation then? just one way to save money.

Exactly the sort of argument that is going to require a Costco membership just to be able to purchase sufficient popcorn.

Anonymous wrote:well, maybe Janney shouldn't get another renovation then? just one way to save money.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I disagree about more time. Get the boundary changes done and over with so they can focus on actual education issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait for Alice Deal for all! Bowser will have to push for new taxes to make that happen -- obviously, the Yoga Tax isn't enough, so maybe higher taxes on other perceived luxuries like alcohol, booze, and restaurants; a tough commuter tax would flip the switch overnight.

We already collect enough revenue in DC, we just spend it foolishly.

Hopefully Bowser stays true to form and cannot manage her way out of the already enacted boundary changes and gives up in frustration.

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait for Alice Deal for all! Bowser will have to push for new taxes to make that happen -- obviously, the Yoga Tax isn't enough, so maybe higher taxes on other perceived luxuries like alcohol, booze, and restaurants; a tough commuter tax would flip the switch overnight.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me why Catania wants to postpone the new boundaries? As a rich, white person in dupont, I should want him to postpone them, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that what he's doing will benefit the upper middle class and hurt the poor students. How will cardozo ever become a good school if people in that neighborhood don't actually have to go there?

If you have ever been involved in basic project management, you know that each step of the project has certain dependencies. A key dependency is a budget. The DME recommendations listed goals, but didn't consider or even provide for dependencies. As a result, my neighborhood has been re-zoned from Deal to a non-existant middle school. That school has no budget to operate, no money for renovation, no plan to open, no proposed academic program (though it will apparently have a dual language track), etc. Some parents see that there is a lot of potential in this school, but other families can't bank on potential. Those families either need or want to plan based on concrete rather than aspirational entities. Catania wants to used the year of delay to flesh out the dependencies. The year would allow a serious consideration of the budget realities and develop realistic timetables. It would allow the creation of school improvement plans for other schools so that they become more attractive options for the families re-zoned to them.

Basically, the DME proposals are only half of what is needed for implementation. Catania wants a year to complete the other half.

DP, and I still don't get the delay. Isn't there a grandfather clause of at least a year (if not more) before kids who were zoned for one school had to report to the new boundary school? Why doesn't that year or more give time for working out the funding and details on these "dependencies"? What about the Boundary proposals was supposed to be immediate?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me why Catania wants to postpone the new boundaries? As a rich, white person in dupont, I should want him to postpone them, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that what he's doing will benefit the upper middle class and hurt the poor students. How will cardozo ever become a good school if people in that neighborhood don't actually have to go there?

If you have ever been involved in basic project management, you know that each step of the project has certain dependencies. A key dependency is a budget. The DME recommendations listed goals, but didn't consider or even provide for dependencies. As a result, my neighborhood has been re-zoned from Deal to a non-existant middle school. That school has no budget to operate, no money for renovation, no plan to open, no proposed academic program (though it will apparently have a dual language track), etc. Some parents see that there is a lot of potential in this school, but other families can't bank on potential. Those families either need or want to plan based on concrete rather than aspirational entities. Catania wants to used the year of delay to flesh out the dependencies. The year would allow a serious consideration of the budget realities and develop realistic timetables. It would allow the creation of school improvement plans for other schools so that they become more attractive options for the families re-zoned to them.

Basically, the DME proposals are only half of what is needed for implementation. Catania wants a year to complete the other half.

DP, and I still don't get the delay. Isn't there a grandfather clause of at least a year (if not more) before kids who were zoned for one school had to report to the new boundary school? Why doesn't that year or more give time for working out the funding and details on these "dependencies"? What about the Boundary proposals was supposed to be immediate?