11:30 again. I apologize for beating a dead horse on this. I just find the vague and incomplete explanations of why certain solutions are eliminated from consideration to be completely ridiculous. If the simple answer is "Because Mayor Bowser gets a lot of support from EOTP Ward 4, and those solutions would prevent lots of families in EOTP Ward 4 from getting their children into the schools they want," then that should be stated clearly, so people know it's a political favor.

It's the hiding of real reasons behind euphemism and non-transparency that's irritating me.

Anonymous wrote:10:30 again with another question. I see this idea from someone: "Using the building during the summer seems obvious." That's a clever idea IMHO, because it's existing capacity. Was there any further talk, at this meeting or elsewhere, about shifting school schedules to put kids on rotating 9-month school schedules that result in 12-month use of buildings? That creates lots of other logistical headaches, but those other headaches are solveable, and 12-month use of the buildings helps significantly with the capacity problem.

I actually like this idea. I did it in CA growing up. We had four tracks (red, blue, green, yellow). G&T kids were on one track. It wasn't wildly popular due to not everyone having the entire summer off but it could work in 3 tracks where everyone gets at least a month of in summer. I think this should be explored.

--Because "school choice" has become a buzzword and anything that threatens to limit that is unacceptable.
--Because there are thousands of children who currently attend DCPS schools OOB and the city has committed to a policy of ensuring continuity for those students.
--Because charters, which don't deal with boudnaries, have changed things, changed thinking. It's easier to imagine doing away with DCPS boundaries altogether than to limit choice.
--Because allowing children who have joined a cohort and community at one school to stay with that group for middle school and high school is the right thing to do.
--Because the boundary review process was a long, painful process that solved nothing.
--Because higher SES families will leave or go private if the overcrowding becomes too problematic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it is politically unfeasible. Obviously!

+1 never going to happen. if you participated in any of the boundary meetings 3 or 4 years ago, you would know that.

I did participate in the boundary discussions, and I recognize it's "politically challenging." But every one of these solutions is politically challenging. The question I'm asking is WHY specifically these solutions are considered too politically unfeasible to consider.

Anonymous wrote:OMG, please stop using the word "disfavor" over and over PP.

Sorry. I know it's repetitive. But it's the word they used in the slides. I did not want to insert other synonyms (e.g., rejecting, criticizing, dropping, etc) because that might lead to side-argument over whether my synonyms are accurate.

10:30 yet again. As I read more of the materials, I have more questions.

Here are links to the presentations and discusion notes from the May 16 meeting:
https://dcpsplanning.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/041117-wilson-feeder-capacity-cwg-faq.pdf
https://dcpsplanning.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/051617-wfpcwg-deck.pdf
https://dcpsplanning.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/051617-cwg-meeting-notes.pdf

Apparently the situation evolved between the May 3 "everything on the table" meeting, and the later May 16 meeting. Here's an excerpt from slide #22, which discusses (1) changing boundaries, (2) changing which schools are in the feeder pattern, and (3) the options of OOB students at feeder schools.

Based on feedback from DCPS leadership and school and wider community stakeholders, we will not be pursuing these proposed solutions. We are focusing on ideas that preserve and promote equity, excellence, and diversity in schools.

I guess those solutions are formally "off the table" now? I still do not have a clear understanding of why they're being rejected. Was any explanation provided?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:30 again with another question. I see this idea from someone: "Using the building during the summer seems obvious." That's a clever idea IMHO, because it's existing capacity. Was there any further talk, at this meeting or elsewhere, about shifting school schedules to put kids on rotating 9-month school schedules that result in 12-month use of buildings? That creates lots of other logistical headaches, but those other headaches are solveable, and 12-month use of the buildings helps significantly with the capacity problem.

So the teachers are working 12 months? Good luck.

What do they do with the building during the summer right now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brian already answered that question earlier in this thread - in summarizing the meeting.

Can you please show me where he answered those questions? I checked, and I certainly see Brian challenging us all to offer fresh ideas besides those two, but I don't see an explanation about why DCPS disfavors those two. Indeed, Brian's earlier posts seemed to suggest that DCPS was not rejecting those two ideas, but was rather leaving them "on the table." So when I see here that DCPS explicitly disfavors them, I'm wondering if there's any explanation of specifically why DCPS is disfavoring them.

Apologies if I just missed Brian's explanation. Here's are his two summaries of the meeting - http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/45/640148.page#10857571 . Am I just blindly missing where DCPS spelled out the reasons it disfavors those two approaches? Any help appreciated.

He said that DCPS said that to get families to leave the pattern they needed to be pulled or incented toward another option, not pushed out. They are not going to take away the right that was promised just 3 years ago.

My interpretation, not Brian's, is that they would redraw the lines before they end OOB rights. And I don't think they're going to redraw the lines.

Anonymous wrote:10:30 again with another question. I see this idea from someone: "Using the building during the summer seems obvious." That's a clever idea IMHO, because it's existing capacity. Was there any further talk, at this meeting or elsewhere, about shifting school schedules to put kids on rotating 9-month school schedules that result in 12-month use of buildings? That creates lots of other logistical headaches, but those other headaches are solveable, and 12-month use of the buildings helps significantly with the capacity problem.

So the teachers are working 12 months? Good luck.

Anonymous wrote:Because it is politically unfeasible. Obviously!

+1 never going to happen. if you participated in any of the boundary meetings 3 or 4 years ago, you would know that.

OMG, please stop using the word "disfavor" over and over PP.

Because it is politically unfeasible. Obviously!

Anonymous wrote:Brian already answered that question earlier in this thread - in summarizing the meeting.

Can you please show me where he answered those questions? I checked, and I certainly see Brian challenging us all to offer fresh ideas besides those two, but I don't see an explanation about why DCPS disfavors those two. Indeed, Brian's earlier posts seemed to suggest that DCPS was not rejecting those two ideas, but was rather leaving them "on the table." So when I see here that DCPS explicitly disfavors them, I'm wondering if there's any explanation of specifically why DCPS is disfavoring them.

Apologies if I just missed Brian's explanation. Here's are his two summaries of the meeting - http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/45/640148.page#10857571 . Am I just blindly missing where DCPS spelled out the reasons it disfavors those two approaches? Any help appreciated.

10:30 again with another question. I see this idea from someone: "Using the building during the summer seems obvious." That's a clever idea IMHO, because it's existing capacity. Was there any further talk, at this meeting or elsewhere, about shifting school schedules to put kids on rotating 9-month school schedules that result in 12-month use of buildings? That creates lots of other logistical headaches, but those other headaches are solveable, and 12-month use of the buildings helps significantly with the capacity problem.

Brian already answered that question earlier in this thread - in summarizing the meeting.