Had an idea for a new plan in the shower this morning
So this morning in the shower I had an idea for a new student assignment plan. This plan would take Peng Shi's original Guaranteed Equal Access to Quality Plan and combine it with the BPS "no-zone" plan which has no choice element and basically assigns kids to the closest school with an available seat. One problem with Peng's original plan was that it involved a two-step registration process. First you would sign your child up for school but not choose a school. Later, BPS would provide you with a list of schools to choose from. This option removes that first step because there would be no choice. You would sign up and BPS would use an algorithm to assign you to the closest school possible while guaranteeing equal access to quality for all students.
Is this a good idea? No. If you look at the title of this post you'll see that I called it a new plan, not a good one. It would completely eliminate choice which I think is very unattractive to both the EAC and the community. It would also be very complex under the hood and hard to explain. And there's not much predictability about where your child might go to school.
So why have I wasted precious bytes to post this idea? Because I want to emphasize the fact that all of the conversation that's been happening around these plans is generating lots of new ideas. People are collaborating (I've been talking to Peng and to Ann Walsh from Connolly's office) and using each other's good ideas. We're really not at the end of this process, we're pretty close to the beginning. If we had more time there's no telling what we could come up with. Maybe even this lousy plan could generate some new ideas.
We. Need. More. Time.