ANC3D Discussion on Foxhall Elementary / Old Hardy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it - you don't want an analysis that makes clear how much demand is in-boundary? You want to do this without that?

Demand for what is in-boundary? For Foxhall E.S.? We already know that IB demand exceeds supply because all of the neighboring ESs are overcrowded. And OOB demand? Check the waitlists for said schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it - you don't want an analysis that makes clear how much demand is in-boundary? You want to do this without that?

Demand for what is in-boundary? For Foxhall E.S.? We already know that IB demand exceeds supply because all of the neighboring ESs are overcrowded. And OOB demand? Check the waitlists for said schools.

OK just clarifying: every student is inboundary somewhere now. Inboundary demand is student enrollment in the school for whose boundaries within which they are resident.

Overcrowded is not the same as beyond inboundary demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is a DCPS refuge at Lab not currently funded to go there (in a contentious drawn out painful process just trying to get an education for my son who dcps won’t teach to read). Anyway point being the “Lab should be treated special because it educates dcps special Ed kids” is just untrue. I’d say it’s less than 10% who are dcps funded to attend.

My understanding is that DCPS used to voluntarily place students there, but during the Gray administration it stopped, and since then the only DCPS-funded kids are ones whose parents have successfully sued or otherwise prevailed over DCPS. Another poster noted that Lab doesn't give the city any break on tuition. So Lab isn't a partner of DCPS or the city, it's an adversary.

It was a minor scandal in the 90s. Wealthy white parents were gaming the easily-gamed DCPS system and getting their kids -- some of them with only minor learning challenges that could have been handled by their local public school -- into Lab with taxpayers paying the tuition.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1995/04/02/dcs-tuition-free-zone/78c1f12a-7a83-4812-915d-885534177916/

As of 2013, the most recent year I could find the numbers for, DC taxpayers still were paying the tuition for 70 of Lab School's 360 students.

Pretttty sure the kids who entered in the 90s have since graduated.

If they haven't, the city really didn't get its money's worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it - you don't want an analysis that makes clear how much demand is in-boundary? You want to do this without that?

Demand for what is in-boundary? For Foxhall E.S.? We already know that IB demand exceeds supply because all of the neighboring ESs are overcrowded. And OOB demand? Check the waitlists for said schools.

OK just clarifying: every student is inboundary somewhere now. Inboundary demand is student enrollment in the school for whose boundaries within which they are resident.

Overcrowded is not the same as beyond inboundary demand.

These schools pull very few if any students off the waitlists (which, post K, are all OOB). So the overcrowding is caused by excess IB demand. That the excess IB demand effectively closes them to OOBs is inequitable. There are also ample enrollment projections out there if you want to get into the weeds.

[Anonymous]

yep, those enrollment projections from the weeds are what I'm waiting for...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yep, those enrollment projections from the weeds are what I'm waiting for...

Have a look through the thread. They are there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yep, those enrollment projections from the weeds are what I'm waiting for...

I recommend Nick Keenan's seminal article about the 2019 Master Facilities Plan:
https://ggwash.org/view/71802/can-dcps-survive-the-coming-enrollment-surge

He went through the details of the demographic projections and I think you'll find the answers you're looking for. Money quote:

For most of the past 50 years, DC Public Schools (DCPS) has had way too many schools, and the most pressing facilities issue for the agency has been how to close and dispose of unneeded buildings in an orderly manner. Even though DC has gained over 22,000 public school students since 2008, and between 2008 and 2013 DCPS shrunk from 134 to 110 schools, the number of seats still exceeds the number of students by about 25%.

Today, DCPS has a capacity of 61,925 seats and only 48,043 students, according to the Master Facilities Plan. However, if the projections hold, by 2027 – which is only eight years away – DCPS will have 61,697 students. For the first time in 60 years—two generations—DCPS is going to be full. And it's likely going to grow from there.

He also talks about age-group imbalance -- more seats are needed in the younger grades -- and geographic imbalance -- more seats are needed in the western half of the city.

[Anonymous]

I would love Keenan's all-lottery idea, of course.

I remember how terrible this MFP really was - the last was much better done - this was all intended to not be used against the city to seek resources. Very few breakdowns at the school catchment.

I see nothing on inboundary student totals in these two-hundred pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I remember how terrible this MFP really was - the last was much better done - this was all intended to not be used against the city to seek resources. Very few breakdowns at the school catchment.

The 2019 MFP was the first one ever.

[Anonymous]

2010 MFP
http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/DocUploads/DataShop/DS_393.pdf

2014 Supplement
https://dme.dc.gov/page/dme-2014-master-facilities-plan-annual-supplement

2015 Supplement https://dme.dc.gov/node/1146702

ETC
https://dme.dc.gov/service/public-education-facility-planning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love Keenan's all-lottery idea, of course.

Keenan doesn't argue for an all-lottery system, rather he merely points out that the current assignment policies are not sustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love Keenan's all-lottery idea, of course.

I remember how terrible this MFP really was - the last was much better done - this was all intended to not be used against the city to seek resources. Very few breakdowns at the school catchment.

I see nothing on inboundary student totals in these two-hundred pages.

Go here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17d7ZYwYlkVre4sc4EiH3SWpU-FL5zvj_. Click on the Data Appendix PDF. On the third page, there is a link to SY19-20 Public School Enrollments per DCPS Boundary.

Key ES is 85% in-boundary and an 88% boundary participation rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I see nothing on inboundary student totals in these two-hundred pages.

Here's the methodology of the enrollment projections. The DME relied upon the Office of Planning for demographic projections. The OOP divides the city into 40+ Planning Clusters, each of roughly 20,000 people. The OOP provided the DME with projections on school-age children population by Planning Cluster. The DME's office then took each cluster, and said where do the kids who live there go to school now, and what will it look like in eight years if the projected number of kids went to the exact same mix of schools, in the exact same proportion.

Now the obvious flaw with this method is that it assumes that there will be no change in attendance patterns, which is clearly not true and very easy to poke holes in. However, I don't see any other way you could have done it.

[Anonymous]

Hey that is really valuable! And it does help tease out some differences, e.g., Key at 83% inboundary, but Deal at 78% (though growing!) and Hardy at 54% (though doubling from a few years earlier). Wilson at 62% inboundary.

That kind of difference points at different needs - in my book, it means your elementary grade need is acute just with inbounds students, your middle school need is a matter of managing access. So, for example, it could direct us on Foxhall to emphasize elementary grades, not a middle school or high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey that is really valuable! And it does help tease out some differences, e.g., Key at 83% inboundary, but Deal at 78% (though growing!) and Hardy at 54% (though doubling from a few years earlier). Wilson at 62% inboundary.

That kind of difference points at different needs - in my book, it means your elementary grade need is acute just with inbounds students, your middle school need is a matter of managing access. So, for example, it could direct us on Foxhall to emphasize elementary grades, not a middle school or high school.

DCPS is talking about putting an elementary school at Foxhall.