Ward 3 - Wilson feeders meeting last night: did anyone attend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:--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.

Re the cohort thing, what about the kids that only went to school with their cohort for one year? Or kids that live IB briefly then move away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:--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.

All of this!! Can we please make it a sticky?

The horse is out of the barn. Gotta find a different solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:--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.

Re the cohort thing, what about the kids that only went to school with their cohort for one year? Or kids that live IB briefly then move away?

Well then, institute a policy where no OOB are accepted to elementary schools that feed to Deal (or other over subscribed middle school...Hardy will get there one day soon) for the later grades (4th, 5th). The new policy that was quietly implemented that allows IB kids to leave their schools and stay is taking us down a path where the destination is no more boundaries for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

[Anonymous]

PP, who is desperate for the why (which is obvious!) didn't you or someone quote it on the last page of comments? Didn'you you pull this out of one of the slides?: "We are focusing on ideas that preserve and promote equity, excellence, and diversity in schools."

Clearly the solutions presented have been determined not to
"promote equity, excellence and diversity in schools."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...

also Bancroft both.

So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

By cutting SW out of the feeder pattern in 2014, DCPS did restrict access for many black students. So you can't say that they refuse to do this.

I just don't think they are gonig to do MORE that has this effect.

As the DCPS person stated at the meeting, we live in a very segregated city and in most parts of the city the schools are segregated. The question is whether we want to make our schools even more so.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone brought up the option of creating a separate, ninth grade campus. Some school districts with a single, overcrowded high school (e.g. Alexandria) seem to do this to good effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, who is desperate for the why (which is obvious!) didn't you or someone quote it on the last page of comments? Didn'you you pull this out of one of the slides?: "We are focusing on ideas that preserve and promote equity, excellence, and diversity in schools."

Clearly the solutions presented have been determined not to "promote equity, excellence and diversity in schools."

Yes, but those are vague words that could mean anything. I could easily argue that restricting OOB feeder rights also "promotes equity, excellence and diversity" in schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, who is desperate for the why (which is obvious!) didn't you or someone quote it on the last page of comments? Didn'you you pull this out of one of the slides?: "We are focusing on ideas that preserve and promote equity, excellence, and diversity in schools."

Clearly the solutions presented have been determined not to "promote equity, excellence and diversity in schools."

Yes, but those are vague words that could mean anything. I could easily argue that restricting OOB feeder rights also "promotes equity, excellence and diversity" in schools.

Here's your decoder ring:

Equity -- lowers the achievement gap between affluent and non-affluent children
Excellence -- increasing the graduation rate and PARCC scores
Diversity -- an economically and racially diverse student body that reflects the school aged population of the city at large

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because Shepherd is relied on to buttress Wilson's diversity as the grandfathered spots and OOB spots (which are responsible for a lot of the diversity now) decrease...
also Bancroft both.

So you're saying that DCPS simply will not use any method to reduce overcrowding that restricts access for black or Hispanic students?

If that's the answer, then DCPS should say it clearly.

By cutting SW out of the feeder pattern in 2014, DCPS did restrict access for many black students. So you can't say that they refuse to do this.

I just don't think they are gonig to do MORE that has this effect.

As the DCPS person stated at the meeting, we live in a very segregated city and in most parts of the city the schools are segregated. The question is whether we want to make our schools even more so.

Fine, but if it's essentially a racial quota that DCPS is seeking - eg, no fewer than 50% black students at Wilson - then let's just make that explicit, so we don't waste time with disallowed options. I think DCPS needs to say that clearly if that's their position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, who is desperate for the why (which is obvious!) didn't you or someone quote it on the last page of comments? Didn'you you pull this out of one of the slides?: "We are focusing on ideas that preserve and promote equity, excellence, and diversity in schools."

Clearly the solutions presented have been determined not to "promote equity, excellence and diversity in schools."

Yes, but those are vague words that could mean anything. I could easily argue that restricting OOB feeder rights also "promotes equity, excellence and diversity" in schools.

You're precious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone brought up the option of creating a separate, ninth grade campus. Some school districts with a single, overcrowded high school (e.g. Alexandria) seem to do this to good effect.

That's a fabulous idea. We'd need to identify the centralized location for such a school.

[Anonymous]

What solutions is dcps actually proposing then?