What are the odds OOB feeder rights will end?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This I am convinced that the studies with the greatest gains stem from kids going from schools with the greatest disparity in resources. Then people use that to justify mixing and matching comparable schools in the same district thinking that poor kids will succeed by absorbing something from middle class kids for their own social desires. What they really do is come off as just trying to punish people who they are jealous of. Taking a bunch of kids from public housing and sending them to school with middle class kids just hides their mediocrity by slipping it in to the stronger metrics all while exposing those families to that brand of obscenity that they worked so hard to avoid.

No, this is dead wrong. Exactly the phenomenon that you mention ("poor kids absorbing something from middle class kids") has been EXPLICITLY studied over and over and over again, and it's been shown to be absolutely the case and that having high achieving peers is an absolute benefit to lower income students. And having higher achieving peers absolutely improves low income kids' outcomes. Also, this is often cited as a strength of school systems in some of the the many countries where test outcomes are better than in the US -- the explicit idea that's taught to kids that they should encourage success of the group.

The "punish", "jealous", "hides their mediocrity" and "obscenity" stuff is just unhinged ranting, so I won't bother to address that.

[Anonymous]

^ Come on, the "many countries where test outcomes are better than in the US" treat their public school educators and poor children better than this country does, a whole lot better. Our teachers are made responsible for addressing a great many societal ills, including multi-generational poverty.

I wouldn't mind having a gaggle of poor kids in my child's academic classes in an EotP DCPS if the school could and would employ the staff to keep needy kids from sucking up a huge amount of the teacher's time and energy, to my bright advanced learner's detriment. But my in-boundary program doesn't have the resources, and school system leaders don't seem to care a whit about how to best serve academically advanced gentrifers' children. What happens is that my kid becomes more bored in class with every passing year, while I hire more tutors, play the charter lottery, and start checking out suburban real estate.

What about my kid's rights as a "high-achieving peer" to benefit from appropriate instruction? What about my rights as a taxpayer to see my children challenged in public school?

[Anonymous]

OOB feeder rights won't end. What will happen is that they will steadily erode in the most popular DCPS programs as more and more in-boundary students come into the pipeline at the ECE and elementary levels as City demographics shift.

Iffy management of DCPS doesn't inspire most UMC parents to lobby/vote for OOB feeder rights to continue.

[Anonymous]

They ended decades ago in MoCo and fairfax, that is why so many parents move there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Come on, the "many countries where test outcomes are better than in the US" treat their public school educators and poor children better than this country does, a whole lot better. Our teachers are made responsible for addressing a great many societal ills, including multi-generational poverty.

I wouldn't mind having a gaggle of poor kids in my child's academic classes in an EotP DCPS if the school could and would employ the staff to keep needy kids from sucking up a huge amount of the teacher's time and energy, to my bright advanced learner's detriment. But my in-boundary program doesn't have the resources, and school system leaders don't seem to care a whit about how to best serve academically advanced gentrifers' children. What happens is that my kid becomes more bored in class with every passing year, while I hire more tutors, play the charter lottery, and start checking out suburban real estate.

What about my kid's rights as a "high-achieving peer" to benefit from appropriate instruction? What about my rights as a taxpayer to see my children challenged in public school?

DCPS doesn’t care about high achieving kids being challenged. They are left to their own while the teacher spends most of the time dealing with the kids at the bottom in addition to dealing with behavior issues. This becomes much more obvious as you go higher up in grades and why many UMC parents bail by 3rd, 4th grade if not sooner.

[Anonymous]

OK, but things are getting a bit better for high achievers in DCPS, even in schools where a PTA isn't paying to hire additional staff as in JKLM, Brent, Maury etc.

You can see this clearly at Stuart Hobson MS on Capitol Hill, where a strong principal (going into his third school year) has been ratcheting up challenge with the support of his staff.

Hobson only offered a couple honors classes (with roughly one-third of students having access) two years ago. But this past school year, Hobson offered half a dozen honors classes. Neighborhood parents commonly report being pleasantly surprised by how challenging the classes are proving, even for fairly advanced students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

There is little they can do. The crowded areas are so crowded that they cannot be fixed by boundary reviews. Most of the schools (EOTP) are too small. This would never happen but I wonder what the city would look like with half as many schools but that were twice as big. I think bigger schools would be able to flex more with the changes in the city. I think you could also have more diverse schools. Instead we have small schools that are overflowing when 50 new kids show up over 5 years.

Here is what I would do. Re-open Emery (in Eckington) and give it the east end of Seaton's zone and the northern part of Walker-Jones' zone, and the southern part of Langley. Seaton's zone can then expand west and north, taking from Ross and Garrison. That relieves pressure on Ross. Garrison can shift north and west to take a bit from HD Cooke, Marie Reed, and Tubman. That could in turn relieve Bancroft.

Meanwhile, the elementary schools in the Coolidge feeder group can grow their boundaries a little to relieve Barnard and West, and Shepherd if they will stand for it. Also, the expanded capacity at Stevens school building should relieve SWW@FS.

Not sure what to do for Ward 3 if nobody is willing to be put out of Wilson and/or commute across the park. But there is relief available EOTP if people are willing to accept being re-zoned. Which they hate but it does sometimes happen.

Why does Shepherd need to be relieved? It can handle the number of its in boundary kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, but things are getting a bit better for high achievers in DCPS, even in schools where a PTA isn't paying to hire additional staff as in JKLM, Brent, Maury etc.

You can see this clearly at Stuart Hobson MS on Capitol Hill, where a strong principal (going into his third school year) has been ratcheting up challenge with the support of his staff.

Hobson only offered a couple honors classes (with roughly one-third of students having access) two years ago. But this past school year, Hobson offered half a dozen honors classes. Neighborhood parents commonly report being pleasantly surprised by how challenging the classes are proving, even for fairly advanced students.

I heard that if you are middle class, your child will get in. That the honors classes at SH are not very selective.

[Anonymous]

It depends what you mean by selective. If your child is working at grade level or above, and this can be documented/demonstrated, they get into a particular honors class. If they aren't working at or above grade level in a particular subject, they don't.

That's selective enough for me, given that almost all the other DCPS middle schools (including Deal and Hardy) lump kids who lack basic skills in with kids working at or above grade level, other than for math instruction. We supplement with academic summer programs and tutoring to add rigor, which is a whole lot cheaper than paying for private school.

The fact that Stuart Hobson's student body is 75% OOB/low SES isn't a problem with half a dozen honors classes on offer, in a huge deal for us. We wouldn't have touched the school without the honors classes, presumably like most of the other middle-class families who enroll their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It depends what you mean by selective. If your child is working at grade level or above, and this can be documented/demonstrated, they get into a particular honors class. If they aren't working at or above grade level in a particular subject, they don't.

That's selective enough for me, given that almost all the other DCPS middle schools (including Deal and Hardy) lump kids who lack basic skills in with kids working at or above grade level, other than for math instruction. We supplement with academic summer programs and tutoring to add rigor, which is a whole lot cheaper than paying for private school.

The fact that Stuart Hobson's student body is 75% OOB/low SES isn't a problem with half a dozen honors classes on offer, in a huge deal for us. We wouldn't have touched the school without the honors classes, presumably like most of the other middle-class families who enroll their children.

Hardy has had honors classes for subjects other than math for several years. Deal has it for foreign language and math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

There is little they can do. The crowded areas are so crowded that they cannot be fixed by boundary reviews. Most of the schools (EOTP) are too small. This would never happen but I wonder what the city would look like with half as many schools but that were twice as big. I think bigger schools would be able to flex more with the changes in the city. I think you could also have more diverse schools. Instead we have small schools that are overflowing when 50 new kids show up over 5 years.

Here is what I would do. Re-open Emery (in Eckington) and give it the east end of Seaton's zone and the northern part of Walker-Jones' zone, and the southern part of Langley. Seaton's zone can then expand west and north, taking from Ross and Garrison. That relieves pressure on Ross. Garrison can shift north and west to take a bit from HD Cooke, Marie Reed, and Tubman. That could in turn relieve Bancroft.

Meanwhile, the elementary schools in the Coolidge feeder group can grow their boundaries a little to relieve Barnard and West, and Shepherd if they will stand for it. Also, the expanded capacity at Stevens school building should relieve SWW@FS.

Not sure what to do for Ward 3 if nobody is willing to be put out of Wilson and/or commute across the park. But there is relief available EOTP if people are willing to accept being re-zoned. Which they hate but it does sometimes happen.

Why does Shepherd need to be relieved? It can handle the number of its in boundary kids.

Because this is about the long term capacity, 10 or more years out. Building new schools takes time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It depends what you mean by selective. If your child is working at grade level or above, and this can be documented/demonstrated, they get into a particular honors class. If they aren't working at or above grade level in a particular subject, they don't.

That's selective enough for me, given that almost all the other DCPS middle schools (including Deal and Hardy) lump kids who lack basic skills in with kids working at or above grade level, other than for math instruction. We supplement with academic summer programs and tutoring to add rigor, which is a whole lot cheaper than paying for private school.

The fact that Stuart Hobson's student body is 75% OOB/low SES isn't a problem with half a dozen honors classes on offer, in a huge deal for us. We wouldn't have touched the school without the honors classes, presumably like most of the other middle-class families who enroll their children.

It might be better than schools who don’t offer honors but still lacking much compared to schools in Va and Md that offers more than 2 levels in all subjects in middle and high school. You are still placing kids at grade level with kids who can be 2+ grade levels above. DCPS still has a ways to go in differentiating kids appropriately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

There is little they can do. The crowded areas are so crowded that they cannot be fixed by boundary reviews. Most of the schools (EOTP) are too small. This would never happen but I wonder what the city would look like with half as many schools but that were twice as big. I think bigger schools would be able to flex more with the changes in the city. I think you could also have more diverse schools. Instead we have small schools that are overflowing when 50 new kids show up over 5 years.

Here is what I would do. Re-open Emery (in Eckington) and give it the east end of Seaton's zone and the northern part of Walker-Jones' zone, and the southern part of Langley. Seaton's zone can then expand west and north, taking from Ross and Garrison. That relieves pressure on Ross. Garrison can shift north and west to take a bit from HD Cooke, Marie Reed, and Tubman. That could in turn relieve Bancroft.

Meanwhile, the elementary schools in the Coolidge feeder group can grow their boundaries a little to relieve Barnard and West, and Shepherd if they will stand for it. Also, the expanded capacity at Stevens school building should relieve SWW@FS.

Not sure what to do for Ward 3 if nobody is willing to be put out of Wilson and/or commute across the park. But there is relief available EOTP if people are willing to accept being re-zoned. Which they hate but it does sometimes happen.

Why does Shepherd need to be relieved? It can handle the number of its in boundary kids.

Because this is about the long term capacity, 10 or more years out. Building new schools takes time.

Maybe I don't have all the data. Is there a reason why Shepherd is expected to go far over capacity in the next 10 years? Many IB families don't send their kids there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

There is little they can do. The crowded areas are so crowded that they cannot be fixed by boundary reviews. Most of the schools (EOTP) are too small. This would never happen but I wonder what the city would look like with half as many schools but that were twice as big. I think bigger schools would be able to flex more with the changes in the city. I think you could also have more diverse schools. Instead we have small schools that are overflowing when 50 new kids show up over 5 years.

Here is what I would do. Re-open Emery (in Eckington) and give it the east end of Seaton's zone and the northern part of Walker-Jones' zone, and the southern part of Langley. Seaton's zone can then expand west and north, taking from Ross and Garrison. That relieves pressure on Ross. Garrison can shift north and west to take a bit from HD Cooke, Marie Reed, and Tubman. That could in turn relieve Bancroft.

Meanwhile, the elementary schools in the Coolidge feeder group can grow their boundaries a little to relieve Barnard and West, and Shepherd if they will stand for it. Also, the expanded capacity at Stevens school building should relieve SWW@FS.

Not sure what to do for Ward 3 if nobody is willing to be put out of Wilson and/or commute across the park. But there is relief available EOTP if people are willing to accept being re-zoned. Which they hate but it does sometimes happen.

Why does Shepherd need to be relieved? It can handle the number of its in boundary kids.

Because this is about the long term capacity, 10 or more years out. Building new schools takes time.

Maybe I don't have all the data. Is there a reason why Shepherd is expected to go far over capacity in the next 10 years? Many IB families don't send their kids there.

+1. I also don't know why this argument applies more to Shepherd than some of the larger feeders, which are overcrowded even while being majority IB. It seems eliminating Shepherd wouldn't make much of a difference in the longterm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the boundary review is gonna be the same as it was last time. Property values and self centered arguments masquerading as concern for poor kids. If you’d put others at the center of your life you wouldn’t argue this way. I guess that was never really a popular perspective on moral issues, in the end.

There is little they can do. The crowded areas are so crowded that they cannot be fixed by boundary reviews. Most of the schools (EOTP) are too small. This would never happen but I wonder what the city would look like with half as many schools but that were twice as big. I think bigger schools would be able to flex more with the changes in the city. I think you could also have more diverse schools. Instead we have small schools that are overflowing when 50 new kids show up over 5 years.

Here is what I would do. Re-open Emery (in Eckington) and give it the east end of Seaton's zone and the northern part of Walker-Jones' zone, and the southern part of Langley. Seaton's zone can then expand west and north, taking from Ross and Garrison. That relieves pressure on Ross. Garrison can shift north and west to take a bit from HD Cooke, Marie Reed, and Tubman. That could in turn relieve Bancroft.

Meanwhile, the elementary schools in the Coolidge feeder group can grow their boundaries a little to relieve Barnard and West, and Shepherd if they will stand for it. Also, the expanded capacity at Stevens school building should relieve SWW@FS.

Not sure what to do for Ward 3 if nobody is willing to be put out of Wilson and/or commute across the park. But there is relief available EOTP if people are willing to accept being re-zoned. Which they hate but it does sometimes happen.

Why does Shepherd need to be relieved? It can handle the number of its in boundary kids.

Because this is about the long term capacity, 10 or more years out. Building new schools takes time.

Maybe I don't have all the data. Is there a reason why Shepherd is expected to go far over capacity in the next 10 years? Many IB families don't send their kids there.

+1. I also don't know why this argument applies more to Shepherd than some of the larger feeders, which are overcrowded even while being majority IB. It seems eliminating Shepherd wouldn't make much of a difference in the longterm.

The MFP says that Shepherd will be over capacity by 96 kids in 10 years. Of course the schools in the Wilson pyramid are overcrowded but it is hard to figure out much of a solution for the areas west of the park if people don't want to commute across the park. Shepherd stands out to me because it abuts Takoma and the Coolidge feeder group. Takoma is projected to be overcrowded, but Brightwood and Whittier are not. And Wells MS is not. So it seems to me that boundaries could be shuffled north a bit to give a few more blocks to Brightwood and Whittier and less to Takoma and Shepherd.

Of course, this would infuriate people, but isn't that always what happens when boundaries change? I don't have any special expertise or knowledge here, I just notice that it's potentially an option.

Does anyone know if the Stevens School modernization is reflected in the MFP?