He's a very likable candidate. He was my ANC rep (1C03) and I thought did a great job.

by RS on Feb 1, 2011 2:17 pm • link • report

Weaver seems like a well-meaning guy. But in some ways, that was pretty uninspiring. A *lot* of old skool thinking permeating his answers. Particularly this:

This absolutely drives me crazy when you see 30 percent unemployment in Ward 8 and a relatively simple solution to the problem. We also desperately need training programs and internship programs so when these jobs are available, our residents can take them...

It's been long documented that the reason this law is "rarely enforced" is that the construction contractors can't fill those backbreaking entry-level positions with locals--though they try. In other words, this provision *is* enforced--but the developers get waivers because at some point, you actually need to have someone who will show up and do the work.

Not sure how the "world we live in" requires us to provide open-ended TANF benefits. Maryland and Virginia (and every other state, I think) seems to do just fine in that world. It's one of the reasons why we tend to import poverty and dysfunction from the suburbs. And they're in a hell of a better position to support a greater poverty load.

I'll leave aside the responses to the Height Act question ("I don't think we're at the level of height yet"?) or IRV ("we're not at that stage in D.C."?).

I'm still waiting for the next iteration of DC politician who has the courage to take on some of the shibboleths, and fight for the things we know (especially here on GGW) work.

by oboe on Feb 1, 2011 2:21 pm • link • report

I'll clarify: I'm with RS; Weaver seems like a perfect ANC rep. We need something a bit more substantial for the Council, though.

by oboe on Feb 1, 2011 2:22 pm • link • report

I like Bryan on several levels, think he has a great sense of humor, voted for him for Ward 1 CM, would love to see him on the Council, but he doesn't have my vote yet.

Here's why: I like Sekou Biddle too, and I *don't* like the alternatives, one of whom might slip in if Biddle and Weaver split their common votes.

Bryan's answer to the last question was not at all satisfying.

I'm not really sure how we're determining frontrunner at this point anyway. Because the Mayor or a councilmember told you to vote for somebody? If voters really care about this election and this city they need to take the time to learn about the candidates for themselves.

I'm not going to vote for someone just because Kwame and Vince tell me to, but I'm not going to withhold my vote for that reason either.

And who is determining frontrunner? The most powerful and second most powerful person in city government plus a money advantage plus incumbency sort of determines it. Not saying it can't change, but if the election were held today, I'd vote strategically, with my brain instead of my heart.

by Ward 1 Guy on Feb 1, 2011 2:54 pm • link • report

I asked a bunch of questions, thank you for taking one of them (about affordable housing and economic development). I thought his response was illumination. He's right, people mean different things by affordable housing. And for him to say that for him affordable housing means workforce housing says a lot.

I must say he left me feeling uninspired. Not sure that any candidate will leave me feeling inspired though, so I'll just wait until I hear more from all of them.

I want to hear what each candidate says about the budget situation. We can have all the ideas in the world, but if we have none about how to pay for them, where does that leave us. For example, he talked about supporting/replicating programs like those at Cardozo. Where does that money come from?

by Evans on Feb 1, 2011 2:56 pm • link • report

I liked some of Weaver's answers and found - like oboe - some of his other answers to be the usual bleeding heart tropes.

But I liked him much more overall than I liked Biddle's answers.

by Fritz on Feb 1, 2011 3:09 pm • link • report

I was disappointed in Bryan Weaver's discussion of school vouchers. Although he created a nice strawman with respect to Sidwell Friends and St. Albans, he sidestepped the point of the question. If he truly aims to represent our entire City, he owes us a more thoughtful and intellectually honest answer.

Mr. Weaver is either mistaken or disingenuous when he asserts that "there are almost no good private schools" that can be attended for $7,500 or less. If Mr. Weaver bothered to look around his own Ward, he would see several examples of affordable private schools such as Sacred Heart School and St. Augustine School. Just because these schools and community anchors are not the "flavor of the week" for his hipster supporters, does not mean that there aren't parents that wish to send their children there. St. Augustine and Sacred Heart each have a century-long track record of providing excellent elementary school educations to students from all backgrounds (and faiths). These schools have struggled since the demise of the DC Opportunity Scholarships. There is an entire constallation of private schools outside the rarified halls of St. Albans and Sidwell. Many of these schools have been community anchors in both good and bad times.

Mr. Weaver's castigation of vouchers as a "gimmick" while endorsing DC's charter school bonanza is logically and morally inconsistent. DC Charter schools are frequently "public" in name and funding only. Many have unfortunately turned into self-selecting, elitist fiefdoms for the fashionable, gentrifying set. They cost a hell of a lot more to the taxpayer per pupil than a $5K or $7K voucher. Aditionally, there are all sorts of social barriers to enrollment. Mr. Weaver had no problem previously sending a child to a charter school on the taxpayer dime, but now has all sorts of issues with other parents wanting to have their own children follow siblings to St. Augustine or Sacred Heart - at less cost to the taxpayer!!

As Oboe said above, an At-large City Council seat is beyond Bryan Weaver's capabilities. This nascent campaign is mystifying to those who watched the Ward One City Council race. In the Ward One race, he doubled down on using his Hoops Sagrado alumni as campaign surrogates. Once that strategy dismally failed (he came in third), he shifted his image to that of candidate for the gentrifying hipsters. I'm curious as to what percentage of this target electorate is even registered to vote in DC.

Finally, I think the "draft Weaver" effort was contrived and has the faint smell of astro-turf. The goal seems to have been earned media and it worked (even if it couldn't raise any money).

by NIMBY on Feb 1, 2011 4:05 pm • link • report

I didn't see anything I hated about Weaver's answers, but I also didn't see anything I loved. Right now I'm slightly leaning toward Biddle between the two of them, but Weaver could still win me over (though I still need to hear from Mara, and maybe some of the other candidates). Thursday's forum is looking like it will likely be a big factor in who I vote for.

Perhaps for the next race where we hear from multiple candidates, we have some more standard questions that all the candidates answer so it's easier to compare them. We could even send them ahead of time and they can email their responses (so it doesn't cut into the hour long chat).

by Steven Yates on Feb 1, 2011 4:29 pm • link • report

The Draft Weaver effort was absolutely about building momentum and getting media coverage. That's the goal of any draft campaign—to demonstrate that the potential candidate would be viable in the election. I'd reject the notion that it was astroturfing; the movement sprung up out of conversations with community activists across the city. If you look at who has been supporting Bryan, you'll see a diverse group of people, far beyond any simple label such as hipster or gentrifier. Many of Bryan's ideas are in line with younger, progressive voters, but his message also resonates with many others.

All I can speak to is why I support Bryan, and why I have gotten involved with this campaign. I watched the Ward One race as a resident, and also covered it for DCist and WeLoveDC.com. I met Bryan through that campaign, and eventually came to see that his voice was something that could serve our entire city well. Further, I'd reject the notion that any of the major candidates in this race are unqualified to serve as an at-large member of the Council. They each bring a set of skills to the table, which may be more or less in line with what certain voters feel are most important. Mr. Biddle and Mr. Mara both have experience with education, and Bryan Weaver has experience as a community activist with first-hand knowledge of the youth justice system. Each has their own strong points.

I'm very happy that GGW has been hosting these forums, because ultimately one of the big reasons I wanted Bryan to run was to have these kinds of conversations and debates. I hope many of you can make it to the candidate forum on Thursday.

We look forward to having the opportunity to continue this discussion of the issues.

by Dave Stroup on Feb 1, 2011 5:05 pm • link • report

@NIMBY I think you inadvertently provided the explanation for the "logically and morally inconsistent" position held by Bryan (and many others) in support of charters but not vouchers.

Catholic schools should not get tax money. Plain and simple. They have a right to exist, but not a right to public subsidies. They can take down the crosses, stop discriminating against gays and non-Catholics, strip religion from their curriculum, and convert to charters to start accepting public money (as 8 DC Catholic schools have done already), but they can't have it both ways.

The voucher-subsidized private and parochial schools don't have to give or report scores on the DC-CAS and they have zero academic accountability. They should therefore get zero public dollars.

by Ward 1 Guy on Feb 1, 2011 6:06 pm • link • report

Ward 1 Guy,

If what you stated is indeed Bryan's rationale for supporting DC's tsunami of Charter Schools and opposing vouchers, why doesn't he just come out and say it? Many voucher opponents seem to tip-toe around the margins of these issues using code words, but hesitate to bring up the religious aspect. Could it be that such statements are spectacularly divisive among the larger population?

The issue of vouchers for religious schools aside, you are ignored my initial point and why I took issue with Mr. Weaver's comment. He said the following: "Vouchers are a gimmick. It's $7500 to low-income families and there are almost no good private schools that have that low of a tuitition..." Following this comment, an anti-voucher strawman was constructed by positing that places like St. Albans and Sidwell Friends were the only types of schools suitable to attend using a voucher and unless we can fund a seat at such places for everyone who is "at risk", the concept is worthless.

In response, I tried to point out that this statement is demonstrably false and that one need not leave Ward 1 to see how erroneous it is. In fact, thousands of students are being educated every day across the District at private institutions whose tuition would be more than covered by a $7,500 voucher. It's worth noting that both of the Ward One schools I mentioned have large populations of non-Catholic children enrolled. You can reread my post if you like. If an education comparable to St. Albans and Sidwell is the non-negotiable, baseline criteria for even launching school reform programs, why are we shoveling a small fortune of tax dollars every year to a patchwork of Charter Schools of wildly varying quality, access and purposes? In its totality, the charter network in DC is not the solution to our problems. Are there pockets of excellence? Yes. Are there swaths of mediocrity? Yes.

To me, opposition to the DC Opportunity Scholarship program logically calls for opposition to the excessive move towards charter schools in DC. Most schools that qualify for vouchers have been part of their community for nearly a century. They are your neighbors, their doors are open and their generations of graduates are their credentials. You say they have "zero academic accountability." Instead, you have no problem with spending $5-7K a year more per pupil on a new charter school concept with no track record of success. From my vantage, the barely checked growth of new charter schools is a far greater threat to the vitality of DCPS than a couple of hundred kids getting vouchers to go to places like Archbishop Carroll.

by NIMBY on Feb 1, 2011 7:47 pm • link • report

I don't really expect "inspiring" from an internet chat session! You're trying to type out answers as fast as you can, in order to take the next question -- without the benefit of tone of voice, an actual smile, etc.

But given the setting, I came away pretty impressed. Reasonably *specific* answers, knowledgeable about a wide range of issues (though he missed the height = Capitol dome thing, like so many people do). Seemed like a good balance in wanting a positive role for city government, but without overreaching or thinking the Council can magically solve every problem.

I voted for Bryan in the Ward 1 primary, leaning toward the same in this election too.

by Shalom on Feb 1, 2011 7:52 pm • link • report

Ward 1 Guy, I'm confused about why you say Catholic schools shouldn't get public subsidies. People can use federal loans to attend Catholic universities. Do you think there's a difference between being able to do that and getting a voucher that can be used for a Catholic school in the district? Or are you also opposed to people being able to use federal loans to go to a Catholic university.

by Evans on Feb 1, 2011 8:14 pm • link • report

I should not have implied that I know Bryan's rationale, but I'll defend mine. I oppose unchecked expansion of charters. Charter schools that don't perform well academically should face consequences. Since we can't say the same for schools that take voucher money, they shouldn't take voucher money.

by Ward 1 Guy on Feb 1, 2011 8:46 pm • link • report

To my knowledge, schools like Sidwell and St. Albans accept the vouchers. If said vouchers, along with other grant and aid programs provide an opportunity for a District student otherwise not available, then why is this a bad thing?

by William on Feb 1, 2011 10:23 pm • link • report

An independent study found students participating in the DC Opportunity Scholarship program did not perform significantly better than those who were unable to participate. I don't see why we (DC or Feds) should divert funds into a questionnably effective program, benefiting a few private schools and effecting a fraction of DC students.
I'm more interested in hearing about the candidates' ideas about teacher incentives, as well as other candidates' views on IMPACT (can it be reformed to reflect student populations of teachers who are not just in grades 3-thru-8, the teachers whose students backgrounds are not currently being taken into account along with test scores)?

by DCster on Feb 2, 2011 9:16 am • link • report

DCster,

There are quite a few "questionably effective" charter schools. I hope you have the same concerns for them.

If you are concerned about the diversion of public funds, it may be helpful to note that the per-pupil cost to taxpayers for a DC Opportunity Scholarship - even at the maximum $7,500 amount - is significantly lower than that for the charter schools. The diversion of significant public funds to insular and self-selecting charter schools is an issue that has received far too little attention. The charter movement seems to be the "hot, new thing" among the educational elite and any criticism of it is viewed as unacceptable in polite company. Look at the demagoguery in "Waiting for Superman" for its capture of the public debate.

Your comments about DCPS and teacher evaluations are spot on and I agree with them.

I view the vouchers as a much lesser "threat" to quality, universal public education. Why? The vouchers are going to schools that are established, community anchors that have largely co-existed with DCPS for decades in the best and worst of times. The opportunity scholarships are not creating a new educational infrastructure that directly threatens the primacy of DCPS, public schools and a unionized teaching workforce.

The explosion of charter schools has created a massive new infrastructure in direct competition with DCPS. Like any organization/bureaucracy, continued growth and preservation become paramount and this is on full display in the charter movement. The worst thing is that public funds are being used to fund the growing charter propaganda machine.

by NIMBY on Feb 2, 2011 9:45 am • link • report

@ NIMBY If private schools want government money, then they should be subject to the same oversight as public and charter schools.

by jcm on Feb 2, 2011 10:00 am • link • report

I got a great chuckle from his line about following the Lobster Truck roll around to get his 3,000 sigs.

But his economic development answers left me agreeing with Fritz's categorization of the comments as "bleeding heart tropes".

The idea that any unemployed resident off the street is qualified to work construction is absurd.

by Paul on Feb 2, 2011 4:10 pm • link • report