C6


S


KLMNO Local Opinions WRITE FOR US


washingtonpost.com/localopinions localopinions@washingtonpost.com


CLOSE TO HOME THE DISTRICT


Excellence in the D.C. schools What does “free, for your tax dollars,” Woodrow Wilson High School


have that pricey St. Albans and Georgetown Day School also have? What do Wilson and Banneker Academic High School have that no public charter school has? They have National Merit Scholarship semifinalists. Wilson Senior High School had five National Merit semifinalists — as many as St. Albans and Georgetown Day had. Banneker Academic High School had two National Merit semifinalists. No public charter high school had any in 2010, and neither did a number of private high schools. Now that the school year is over, and Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty have not seen fit to shout such major successes in our public high schools from the rooftops, allow me to do it for them. Yes, one day it will be wonderful when every public high school in our city has highly competitive students. But while we are on that road, trying to create excellence everywhere, we need to salute it where we have it. District residents should understand and support the excellence that does exist in our public schools. Next year, I hope The Post will list National Merit semifinalists, as it has in years past. I also hope the D.C. Public Schools will revive some of the summer programs it used to foster high academic achievement among the best students in the city. Many years ago, the Superintendent’s Program for Potential National Merit Scholars gave bright students throughout the city a chance to come together and share enriching academic experiences over the summer. And it did produce results.


Delabian L. Rice-Thurston, Washington


Local Blog Network 6voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/


Some of the region’s best bloggers share work on the All Opinions Are Local blog. Below is one of last week’s posts.


McDonnell’s case for riders on Metro board Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell is trying to take some of Virginia’s


WMATA board seats away from the Northern Virginia counties that appoint them, and he is threatening to derail federal funding for safety-related improvements unless he gets his way. McDonnell’s main argument is that the state pays about half of Virginia’s share for the transit system, and therefore he should appoint two of the members. However, “half” is stretching things a lot and using some funny math. More important, if we accept the notion that whoever pays the bills ought to appoint the members of the WMATA board, riders should be electing almost half the board themselves. And why not? Much of the criticism of the board is that members look out for the interests of the local governments that appoint them, which sometimes align with riders’ interests and sometimes don’t. According to a Transportation Research Board report, a number of U.S. cities, including Denver and Salem, Ore., allow voters to elect all their transit board members, while others elect a portion. Michael Perkins analyzed the fiscal 2009 budget and computed


that if board seats were apportioned based on contributions to the capital and operating budget, riders would get about 42 percent of the seats. That number has probably increased with the recent fare hike.


Right now, the board has 14 members and is supposed to grow to 16, so about two elected representatives from each of Virginia, Maryland and D.C. would do nicely, plus the federal government could select a rider representative or two for its unfilled appointments. Meanwhile, the McDonnell administration’s calculation that the


state pays half of Virginia’s WMATA costs omits several key facts. First, it includes the 2 percent gas tax add-on that comes directly from Northern Virginia counties for transit. It also counts all money that goes to Metro based on a formula set by the legislature. Over time, Northern Virginia has negotiated to have some of its formula money go to Metro. The state isn’t really paying so much as acting as the banker. It’s


like President Obama decreeing that since most transportation money is federal, he’s now going to appoint the state secretary of transportation in all 50 states plus D.C. — as well as the state secretary of education and most other state officials. That’s just not how it works. Most of all, McDonnell’s calculations also completely discount all the money riders pay. Virginians who ride Metrorail and Metrobus are putting in plenty of their own money. At least right now they have some elected officials who respond to their concerns representing them on the WMATA board. Maybe those Northern Virginia riders should get to elect two representatives instead of McDonnell appointing them. If we follow McDonnell’s own logic, they have a better claim. Otherwise, let’s leave the local officials in charge. David Alpert, Greater Greater Washington


Local Opinions, a place for commentary about where we live, is looking for submissions of 300 to 500 words on timely local topics. Submissions must include name, e-mail address, street address and phone number, and they will be edited for brevity and clarity. To submit your article, please go to washingtonpost.com/localopinions.


NEXT WEEK’S TOPIC D.C. voting rights: Should the city change its strategy to a push for statehood?


HAL RIEDL BALTIMORE


A tragic reminder of Maryland’s broken parole system


The arrest of Cyril Cornelius Williams in the death of State Trooper Wesley Brown calls for an urgent investigation into the practices of the Maryland Parole Commission.


I spent 20 years as a case man-


ager in the Maryland Division of Correction, most of it working di- rectly with new offenders and pa- role violators, and I can attest that it has long been the policy of the Maryland Parole Commission to expedite parole, even for re- peat, potentially violent offend- ers like Williams. According to Maryland Judi-


ciary Case Search, available on- line, Williams was sentenced to the Division of Correction on July 13, 2006, for possession with in- tent to distribute a “large amount” of drugs — 50 grams of crack. He got five years, with an- other five years suspended, and three years probation upon re- lease. On the same day, charges of attempted murder, first-degree assault and using a handgun in a violent crime, in a different case, were dropped. That October, Williams was back in Prince George’s County Circuit Court to receive another sentence of five years in still an- other case, for possession of marijuana with intent to distrib- ute. The judge ran this second five years concurrently with the first five and started his time in this case on Aug. 17, 2006, so that the full sentence would not ex-


How did that happen? By law, Williams was entitled to five days good-conduct time for every month to which he was sen- tenced. Thus, assuming that none of these credits were revoked for bad behavior, Williams was enti- tled to a minimum of 300 days off his five-year sentence. Allowance must be made for additional credits toward release that he would have earned during his 23 months. This figure has not been disclosed. The bottom line is, if he had not been approved for parole and released after having served less than half his sentence, Williams might have still been a guest of the Division of Correction when Trooper Brown reported for his shift at Applebee’s on June 10. The fact that Maryland lacks enough prison space to house men who we know are good bets to reoffend is allowed to trump the risk of new crimes and new victims.


And despite tough talk from MARYLAND STATE POLICE VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS


Maryland State Trooper Wesley Brown, 24, was killed June 10 at an Applebee’s restaurant in Forestville.


pire until Aug. 17, 2011. The Post reported that Wil- liams was paroled on July 23,


2008, having served 23 months of real time for his third major felo- ny conviction.


Gov. Martin O’Malley, this policy of accelerated parole has actually been ratcheted up on his watch. There are many Cyril Cornelius Williamses out there waiting to explode, and there are many more lining up to be released. I implore the governor to order an immediate freeze on parole re- leases until an urgent investiga- tion into the practices of the Pa- role Commission can be conduct- ed.


SUNDAY, JUNE 20, 2010


HEIDI MORDHORST AND JANET SLUZENSKI BETHESDA


A charter applicant to Montgomery: If not now, when?


The decision this month by the


Montgomery County Board of Education upholding Schools Su- perintendent Jerry Weast’s rec- ommendation to reject our public charter school application was an unwelcome déjà vu. Nine years ago, a Post news


story headlined “Weast Advises Board to Reject Charter School” [Sept. 7, 2001] reported that Weast called for the rejection of the Jaime Escalante Public Char- ter School “because the proposed program is not unique.” This time around, the Mont-


gomery County Public Schools re- view panel and the board ac- knowledged the uniqueness of Global Garden Public Charter School’s proposed program — a markedly smaller, K-8 school of- fering extended day and year- round learning time — but denied our application on the basis that our plans for the school are “not ready for prime time.” Global Garden’s founding group of parents, educators and residents has devoted thousands of volunteer hours to developing


our proposal, believing that the time is right for MCPS to broaden its already exemplary provision for students by giving public charter schools a try. MCPS, how- ever, seems to view our grass- roots effort as too great a risk for its public school system, current- ly ranked near the top in the na- tion. The school board’s decision leads us to question its commit- ment to its own charter school policy, which reads, “The Board of Education believes in main- taining an educational system designed to provide success for every student and in delivering services through a variety of in- novative programs designed to meet the needs of a diverse stu- dent body.” Indeed, Weast stated during the board’s discussion that already, “choice is . . . in abundant supply in Montgomery County” because of the 150 pri- vate schools here — but private schools are not a viable choice for many families, and MCPS’s 200 choice programs are oversub- scribed and often are not univer-


sally available.


Global Garden took pains to or- ganize its work and expectations around MCPS’s Public Charter Schools Regulation for evaluating charter school proposals, which lays out in some detail how char- ter school applications are to be submitted and reviewed over a 120-day period and includes a mechanism for applicants to re- ceive feedback and technical as- sistance from MCPS reviewers. We were disappointed to real-


ize that MCPS would not take the entire 120 days to complete the review. Nor did the process ad- here to the structure described in the school system’s own regula- tion. Apart from a 30-minute question-and-answer session with the review panel, we were not offered any feedback during the application process. This lack of interest in working with us to improve our applica- tion is all the more frustrating be- cause Global Garden’s application has already been judged by Mary- land State Department of Educa- tion evaluators to be worthy of


$550,000 in federal charter school start-up funds, contingent on approval at the local level. With a proposed opening date of September 2011, there are still 13 months and a negotiated charter- ing process between now and the first day of school to iron out the concerns of MCPS reviewers. During the three minutes we were given to address the board before its vote, we offered a sug- gestion — that the board do just as Weast recommended and “not approve” our application at this time. We hoped that they might affirmatively decide to leave the application pending and, in the meantime, direct MCPS staff to work with us by expanding on the feedback contained in Weast’s recommendation and providing technical assistance to refine our application into a proposal that is “ready for prime time” — because if not now, when?


The writers are, respectively, vice president and president of the founding board of the Global Garden Public Charter School.


STU MENDELSOHN MCLEAN The plan for Tysons is too important to get wrong During the last few decades of


the 20th century, the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce recognized that Fairfax was fac- ing serious challenges in meet- ing infrastructure demands as it grew from a rural community of dairy farms to one of the wealth- iest suburbs in the nation. At- tracting business to Fairfax re- quired a visionary plan that pro- vided incentives for companies to relocate or expand. As a re- sult, the county has developed into one of the finest communi- ties in the nation. We are proud that our community has a strong economy, high income levels, low crime, abundant parks, quality arts and culture, and a top-notch school system. Today, we find ourselves at a similar crossroads as we plan to transition from a suburb of of-


fice parks to a world-class, high- tech urban center. But the plan for the redevelopment for Ty- sons Corner that is up for public comment before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday is not visionary, but cautionary. Let me lay out the Chamber of Com- merce’s concerns. Tysons Corner is planned to be the “downtown” of Fairfax and is already home to several of the largest corporations in the county. If planned properly, the extension of Metrorail through Tysons will significantly in- crease capacity in the region and create more opportunities to attract and expand business- es in Fairfax. Simply stated, however, the chamber believes the plan as currently proposed, while im- proved in some aspects from the


planning staff ’s original draft, will lead to a once-in-a-genera- tion missed opportunity that significantly discourages the re- development of Tysons. There is a fundamental un- derstanding that strong eco-


stream, particularly through real estate taxes, that contrib- utes to the funding of county services and infrastructure. By restricting growth, the


county’s plan will actually im- pede Tysons Corner’s prosperity


The plan as currently proposed . . . will lead to a once-in-a-generation missed opportunity that significantly discourages the redevelopment of Tysons.


nomic development practices can aid a local government’s ability to meet its infrastructure needs and serve the community. To meet financial demands, it is important to maintain a reason- able balance of business and res- idential tax revenue, because businesses require significantly less county spending. Business- es provide an essential revenue


and exacerbate infrastructure deficiencies.


Over the past few months the chamber has reiterated the det- rimental effects of the plan’s de- velopment criteria. One of the most critical recommendations we have made has been allowing unlimited residential develop- ment within one-half mile of Metro stations (up from the pro-


posed plan’s one-quarter mile). As a basic tenet of the new Ty- sons vision, it is imperative that residential development be en- couraged, not discouraged. If this condition, among oth- ers, is not significantly adjusted, the vision for Tysons will not be met or, worse, redevelopment will no longer be economically feasible. The result will mean continued by-right development and no grid of streets, which the planning staff has acknowl- edged is the most critical im- provement needed. Further, these conditions could push de- velopment to other parts of the county, including outside the transit-oriented-development corridor. Developers and businesses contributed hundreds of mil- lions of dollars to the redevel-


opment of Tysons by funding the extension of the Metrorail sys- tem. In addition, many busi- nesses have contributed signifi- cant transportation improve- ments through proffers, and all businesses contribute to trans- portation through the special commercial and industrial tax. Sadly, the county has not con- tributed to this major infra- structure improvement and has altered a plan that had the po- tential to be creative and in- novative. While we patiently wait for correct, bold and for- ward-thinking direction on the future of Tysons, the Chamber of Commerce will continue to pro- mote the area as a great place to live, play, shop and do business.


The writer is chairman of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170