Fenty Sons' Enrollment Allowable, Rhee Says

Can't Break The Rules If You Make The Rules

Like many Post articles, the real information is either saved for last or is between the lines. Among the reforms brought to DCPS by FentyRhee were refinements to the Out Of Boundary process. I remember hearing Rhee talking about how the process needs to fair for all DC residents and that perceptions of inequality needed to be eliminated. In particular the ability of of local school principals to in effect, admit who they wanted to admit. Now at seems, only the Chancellor has that power.

This FentyRhee need to eliminate inequality in the Out of Boundary process helped in the 2008 ouster of Marta Guzman as principal of Oyster-Adams Bi-lingual School, where my children have gone to school for the past nine years as Out of Boundary students. One complaint I heard in meetings was that the Out of Boundary process wasn't fair - the principal could use too much of her own discretion. Now as the last paragraph cites, a recent amendment to the D.C. Municipal Regulations gives the Chancellor the authority to put a student anywhere the Chancellor wants for pretty much any reason the Chancellor wants.

I listened to the WTOP radio program from which Rhee is quoted claiming that no rules were broken by transferring Fenty's kids to Janney. As the article says though Rhee would not answer questions about if Fenty's kids were put ahead of any waiting list students. Who is she fooling? Apparently the WTOP reporter because he let her get away with her claim that no rules were by-passed or broken without directly asking her if Fenty's kids are at Janney as a result of her authority to place them there and he didn't push her about her refusal to answer if any other wait list students were passed over.

Most DC residents are primarily familiar with the lottery method for Out of Boundary. I know some who have tried to move their child to another school based on provisions in the No Child Left Behind law but have been frustrated by the lack of openings at more desirable schools. For the vast majority of DC parents the lottery system is the beginning and end of the story for an Out of Boundary application. I think that few DC parents realized that the Chancellor could take care of it all if they could just show that the transfer would be "in the best interests of the student, and that the transfer would promote the overall interests of the school system." But then again there is only one parent in DC who is also the Chancellor's boss - so maybe his call carries a little more weight than my call? And seeing as a "discretionary transfer" is all above board, of course, no rules were broken! Very convenient when you write the rules!

Fenty Sons' Enrollment Allowable, Rhee Says Twins Attend School Outside Neighborhood By Bill Turque Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, August 29, 2009 Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee said Friday that D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty did not bypass any rules or policies by enrolling his twin sons in an elementary school outside of his Crestwood neighborhood. But Rhee declined to say whether the Fenty children were placed ahead of other families on a waiting list for spots in the fourth grade at Lafayette Elementary School in the Chevy Chase neighborhood. Fenty's children had previously attended a private Montessori school that runs through third grade. When classes began Monday, the mayor fulfilled a longtime pledge to place his sons in the public school system once they reached fourth grade. Fenty (D) has repeatedly declined to discuss how he enrolled his children at Lafayette, one of the District's most coveted elementary schools, rather than West Elementary, his neighborhood school. Lafayette, which is 72 percent white and 28 percent minority, has a more affluent student body and higher standardized test scores than West, which is 71 percent black, according to District figures. In her first extended response to questions about the enrollment of the mayor's children, Rhee told WTOP radio: "I can assure you that no rules were broken. We have a number of provisions that allow kids to go to out-of-boundary schools, and all of those things were followed." The Fenty twins' enrollment marks the first time a D.C. mayor has had children in public schools since Christopher Barry, son of former mayor Marion Barry, attended city schools in the 1990s. Christopher Barry, who was raised in Southeast Washington, also went out-of-boundary to attend schools in upper Northwest. Former mayors Anthony A. Williams and Sharon Pratt did not have school-age children. About half of all D.C. public school students attend a school outside their neighborhood. Parents seeking an out-of-boundary school enter a lottery in which they can pursue spots at up to five schools. They are awarded spots based on school capacity. Those who can't be accommodated are placed on waiting lists. School sources familiar with the enrollment process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to comment on it, said Fenty did not participate in the lottery. Asked by WTOP reporter Mark Segraves whether she could assure parents that the Fentys were not moved ahead of other families on waiting lists for the school, Rhee said: "No, I can't say that's the case at all. We have waiting lists at lots of our schools." She added that she did not have information about lists at Lafayette readily available. "What I can assure you of, there are various protocols through which families can get their students into out-of-boundary schools, and all those protocols were followed," she said. Rhee referred follow-up questions to spokeswoman Jennifer Calloway, who said in an e-mail that the lottery is one of three ways that D.C. students can attend schools outside their neighborhoods. Families also can contact the desired school after the lottery to enroll on a first-come, first served basis. A recent amendment to the D.C. Municipal Regulations also authorizes Rhee to grant a "discretionary transfer" if she determines that it would be "in the best interests of the student, and that the transfer would promote the overall interests of the school system." The amendment, which went into effect May 29, was part of a series of rule changes tweaking the out-of-boundary application process. Staff writer Nikita Stewart contributed to this report.

only answer to drug problem

From the Washington Post and distributed on neighborhood list serve - It's Time to Legalize Drugs By Peter Moskos and Stanford "Neill" Franklin Monday, August 17, 2009 Undercover Baltimore police officer Dante Arthur was doing what he does well, arresting drug dealers, when he approached a group in January. What he didn't know was that one of suspects knew from a previous arrest that Arthur was police. Arthur was shot twice in the face. In the gunfight that ensued, Arthur's partner returned fire and shot one of the suspects, three of whom were later arrested. In many ways, Dante Arthur was lucky. He lived. Nationwide, a police officer dies on duty nearly every other day. Too often a flag-draped casket is followed by miles of flashing red and blue lights. Even more officers are shot and wounded, too many fighting the war on drugs. The prohibition on drugs leads to unregulated, and often violent, public drug dealing. Perhaps counterintuitively, better police training and bigger guns are not the answer. When it makes sense to deal drugs in public, a neighborhood becomes home to drug violence. For a low-level drug dealer, working the street means more money and fewer economic risks. If police come, and they will, some young kid will be left holding the bag while the dealer walks around the block. But if the dealer sells inside, one raid, by either police or robbers, can put him out of business for good. Only those virtually immune from arrests (much less imprisonment) -- college students, the wealthy and those who never buy or sell from strangers -- can deal indoors. Six years ago one of us wrote a column on this page, "Victims of the War on Drugs." It discussed violence, poor community relations, overly aggressive policing and riots. It failed to mention one important harm: the drug war's clear and present danger toward men and women in blue. Drug users generally aren't violent. Most simply want to be left alone to enjoy their high. It's the corner slinger who terrifies neighbors and invites rivals to attack. Public drug dealing creates an environment where disputes about money or respect are settled with guns. In high-crime areas, police spend much of their time answering drug-related calls for service, clearing dealers off corners, responding to shootings and homicides, and making lots of drug-related arrests. One of us (Franklin) was the commanding officer at the police academy when Arthur (and well as Moskos) graduated. We all learned similar lessons. Police officers are taught about the evils of the drug trade and given the knowledge and tools to inflict as much damage as possible upon the people who constitute the drug community. Policymakers tell us to fight this unwinnable war. Only after years of witnessing the ineffectiveness of drug policies -- and the disproportionate impact the drug war has on young black men -- have we and other police officers begun to question the system. Cities and states license beer and tobacco sellers to control where, when and to whom drugs are sold. Ending Prohibition saved lives because it took gangsters out of the game. Regulated alcohol doesn't work perfectly, but it works well enough. Prescription drugs are regulated, and while there is a huge problem with abuse, at least a system of distribution involving doctors and pharmacists works without violence and high-volume incarceration. Regulating drugs would work similarly: not a cure-all, but a vast improvement on the status quo. Legalization would not create a drug free-for-all. In fact, regulation reins in the mess we already have. If prohibition decreased drug use and drug arrests acted as a deterrent, America would not lead the world in illegal drug use and incarceration for drug crimes. Drug manufacturing and distribution is too dangerous to remain in the hands of unregulated criminals. Drug distribution needs to be the combined responsibility of doctors, the government, and a legal and regulated free market. This simple step would quickly eliminate the greatest threat of violence: street-corner drug dealing. We simply urge the federal government to retreat. Let cities and states (and, while we're at it, other countries) decide their own drug policies. Many would continue prohibition, but some would try something new. California and its medical marijuana dispensaries provide a good working example, warts and all, that legalized drug distribution does not cause the sky to fall. Having fought the war on drugs, we know that ending the drug war is the right thing to do -- for all of us, especially taxpayers. While the financial benefits of drug legalization are not our main concern, they are substantial. In a July referendum, Oakland, Calif., voted to tax drug sales by a 4-to-1 margin. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the drug war would save $44 billion annually, with taxes bringing in an additional $33 billion. Without the drug war, America's most decimated neighborhoods would have a chance to recover. Working people could sit on stoops, misguided youths wouldn't look up to criminals as role models, our overflowing prisons could hold real criminals, and -- most important to us -- more police officers wouldn't have to die. Peter Moskos is a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the author of "Cop in the Hood." Neill Franklin is a 32-year law enforcement veteran. Both served as Baltimore City police officers and are members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

More D.C. Kids Had Elevated Lead Than Stated

Unacceptable Science & Anecdotal Evidence



Following is a report on inaccuracies in reports by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the DC Department of Health about elevated lead levels in DC children.
The following quote from John Rosen, a pediatric expert on lead and the head of the lead-poisoning prevention program at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, is of particular interest to me - "This is unacceptable science, and it's unacceptable public health, and the losers are the children who may suffer a lifetime from elevated lead exposure". I appreciate his use of the phrase "unacceptable science", a very serious charge against the preeminent government health agency.
I don't totally ignore what I am told by the CDC but the examples in this article are among other examples of why I am slightly skeptical of much of what the CDC says. I note that this year in an information packet about lice distributed by our daughter's public school, for the first time in my eight years involvement with the school, information was included about lice treatment beyond the previously standard reference to the CDC web page which directs parents to put some fairly hazardous pesticides on the child's head. I have spoken to the school nurse a number of times about our successful use of mayonnaise and oil instead of the over the counter and prescription pesticides that are recommended by the CDC. The reference to mayo and oil use is prefaced by something like "some people report that they have used the following.....", "...but cannot substantiate results......". Not the first time someone has told me that my science wasn't "top notch" but at least I have never been of accused of "unacceptable science"! And glad to see the school finally acknowledge other methods than heavy chem.

More D.C. Kids Had Elevated Lead Than Stated By Carol D. Leonnig Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 4, 2009 More than twice as many D.C. children as previously reported by federal and local health officials had high levels of lead in their blood amid the city's drinking water crisis, according to congressional investigators, throwing into doubt assurances by those officials that the lead in tap water did not seriously harm city children. The new information was uncovered by a House subcommittee investigating the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's performance and has raised congressional concern about whether the agency properly alerted District residents to a health risk from unprecedented levels of lead in the water. Local officials could not say Monday whether some children with unsafe lead exposure have gone without intervention to reduce health risks. The CDC and city health department had reported dangerously high lead levels in 193 children in 2003, the worst year for high concentrations of lead in city tap water. But lab data gathered by congressional investigators this year show that the actual number was 486 children. The subcommittee's investigators uncovered the higher figures by seeking the data directly from all D.C. labs that analyze local test results. After the lead problem became public in 2004, blood tests from thousands of city children taken in 2003 were inexplicably missing from D.C. government files. Using the partial data, the CDC, the nation's leading public health agency, and the D.C. Department of Health published a paper reporting that they were not finding a significant increase in children with dangerous lead levels. "There is no indication that DC residents have blood lead levels above the CDC levels of concern," Mary Jean Brown, the CDC's top lead poisoning prevention official, wrote in a summary of her paper. She wrote the report with the Department of Health in March 2004 after residents and Congress learned about the lead problem. Brown stressed at the time that from 2001 to 2004, blood lead levels among the city's children and adults were generally dropping as levels in the city's water were rising. The 2003 data on blood tests for children were considered critical in measuring whether a widespread spike in lead in the city's drinking water had harmed children's health. That year, the city found tens of thousands of city homes with elevated lead in the water. It was not until 2004 that the public was alerted to the problem and many residents began protecting themselves and their children by switching to filtered or bottled water. Since then, the city has changed its water treatment. Lead levels have fallen and are at historical lows. Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), chairman of the investigations and oversight subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee, which is conducting the inquiry, said the new findings raise questions about the CDC's performance. "Parents thought that they didn't have to worry about lead in their children's drinking water because they trusted CDC," Miller said. "The CDC can't lend their credibility simply to assure the public that there is nothing to worry about. If they say everything is fine, then everything better really be fine." In letters sent to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) on Monday evening, Miller requested more agency documents. He said the CDC should have known it had "wildly incomplete" data when it published research that "suggested there was no danger to children and the public from elevated lead levels in the water." "The disparity in the numbers reported by the CDC and the data obtained by the subcommittee is extraordinarily disturbing," Miller wrote, adding that the missing data "should have set off warning bells that the CDC could not rely on the numbers being provided for public health statements." In a written statement, CDC officials declined to comment on the new data, saying they had not seen it. Fenty's office released a statement saying: "The Administration looks forward to receiving the findings of the congressional investigation related to the 2003 lead reporting between DOH and the CDC and, once reviewed, we will use its findings to better serve D.C. residents." Recent research at Children's National Medical Center indicates that children who lived in neighborhoods with the highest concentrations of lead in the water -- Capitol Hill, Columbia Heights and northern sections of Ward 4 -- were much more likely to have elevated lead in their bloodstream. Blood test results are collected when doctors and labs report the results to the city health department, which monitors children to try to reduce their exposure to lead. Fetuses and children younger than 6 are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, and high levels can cause a permanent loss in IQ, motor coordination and the ability to communicate. In 2001 and 2002, the health department had collected results from 16,042 children and 15,755 children, respectively. But in 2003, results from only 9,229 children were on file with the department. After the lead problem was reported in January 2004, Brown and her deputies from the CDC questioned city health officials about why they had fewer tests. They responded that some labs did not report test results of low lead levels. Brown told The Washington Post this year that she believed that the missing data would probably not affect the findings in her paper because they did not involve high lead readings. On Monday, CDC officials said that Brown did not ask for the data because labs are required to report to the District. "CDC has no authority to require that laboratories report directly to it," according to the CDC statement. John Rosen, a pediatric expert on lead and the head of the lead-poisoning prevention program at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, expressed surprise that officials drew conclusions based on data they knew was incomplete and did not seek the missing data from the labs. "This is unacceptable science, and it's unacceptable public health, and the losers are the children who may suffer a lifetime from elevated lead exposure," he said. The 2003 test results suggested that the incidence of dangerous lead exposure was falling in the District, a decline cited in a George Washington University paper. William Walker, the chairman of the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority board, said that he could not comment about data he had not seen or how health agencies performed in 2003 but that he is eager to learn more about the House panel's findings. "If this is true -- that there are a lot more kids with elevated lead -- it's of great concern to us," Walker said. "We're going to look at the data and see what the committee comes out with in their investigation and respond accordingly."

Philly rolls out solar-powered trash compactors

Philly rolls out solar-powered trash compactors

By PATRICK WALTERS
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:37 PM

PHILADELPHIA -- Is it any surprise that a city known for its love of cheesesteaks, soft pretzels and cannolis would embrace a solar-powered trash compactor called a BigBelly?

In the largest rollout yet, Philadelphia has replaced 700 downtown trash bins with 500 of the high-tech compactors, which use solar energy to condense trash - cutting down collection trips by 75 percent.

Facing a $1.4 billion, five-year budget deficit, the city estimates it will save $875,000 a year with the compactors, bought with state grant money. Cities from Vienna to Boston to Vancouver have tried the devices in smaller numbers, but Philadelphia put them along four collection routes in its heavily traveled downtown area.

Streets Commissioner Clarena Tolson said the compactors, the last of which was installed this month, usually need to be emptied five times a week - as opposed to 19 times for a regular can. The change frees up 25 streets department employees, who are now filling vacancies on trucks that collect household recycling.

"We now can go all day," Tolson said of the 32-gallon compactors, which can hold 150 to 200 gallons of trash.

The devices are being piloted by governments and other entities in 40 states and 20 countries, but no other group is trying an approach as comprehensive as what Philadelphia is doing, said Richard Kennelly, vice president of marketing for BigBelly Solar, based in Needham, Mass.

The BigBelly is powered by sun, but it does not need direct light, Kennelly said. When trash gets to the top of the bin, it breaks an electronic beam that triggers a motor that pushes it down. As trash gets more densely packed, the machine senses the resistance and changes a light out front from green to yellow.

In Philadelphia, the cans also have a wireless monitoring system that notifies the city when they're full. In addition, the city is introducing curbside recycling containers next to many of the compactors.

Boston first got the solar-powered compactors in 2006 and now has 160, using them everywhere from historic Faneuil Hall to Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox.

"Our problem with them right now is we don't have them concentrated, we've got them spread," said Dennis Royer, Boston's chief of public works and transportation, who estimates the compactors pay for themselves in 18 months.

Royer said he would love to replace more of his 1,595 trash cans with the BigBelly. The city has also gotten businesses to purchase 20 or 30 of the compactors, which cost from $3,195 to $3,995 apiece.

About 100 BigBelly compactors are being used by various entities in New York, including the Bronx Zoo. Chicago has 90. There are about 30 in Vancouver. Overseas, Vienna has 60 and they are also being used in parts of Australia, Israel and France.

But Philadelphia is the first to use them in such big numbers, along whole collection routes.

"They really moved forward on this, primarily because of the cost savings," Kennelly said of Philadelphia officials.

In a city once dubbed the nation's fattest, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter initially did a double-take when an aide told him about the devices.

"What? Who's got a big belly?" he recalled asking.

But when he saw how they could save money and when the city came up with grant money to purchase them, he said, he warmed quickly. The city tested three of them last year and began adding them by the hundreds this year.

The targeted approach is also being tested in Somerville, Mass., where officials have focused them in densely packed areas.

Somerville has saturated its main square and several other areas, freeing up several streets department workers to repair potholes, trim trees and fix playground equipment, said Michael Lambert, director of transportation and infrastructure.

One lesson Royer learned in Boston was that workers needed to keep the cans very clean so that people didn't shy away from them.

And even though they need to be emptied less often, he said, their fullness needs to be carefully monitored - especially during big events.

"You don't want anything to discourage people from using them," he said.

(This version CORRECTS streets commissioner's first name to 'Clarena' in 4th graf.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072302095_pf.html