Overcrowding and lack of space in Ward 3 Schools
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Half of that 35,000 will end up in charter schools. The wards that growing fastest are 5, 7, and 8. Ward 3 is going to remain stable but unless everyone sells their houses as soon as their kids high college there just isnt' going to be the housing stock turnover you are imagining. |
Clearly the city needs to respond and build schools where the school-aged population is growing. This is assuming that the growth is projected to continue. If this is a temporary demographic bulge (there is evidence of this for Lafeyette), then the best solutiom is probably to ride it out and shrink OOB by attrition which is already happening. We will also see the impacts of the 2014 boundary shrinking that occurred for both Deal and Wilson. Don't forget both Cleveland Park and Woodley Park were removed from Deal and numerous neighborhoods were removed from Wilson. It was a big reduction for both, Wilson especially, and it takes a few years for the students from those neighborhoods to graduate. They will not be replaced, now that the boundaries have shrunk.
Anonymous
Key and Stoddert are also adjacent to Hyde... and 15% OOB |
Anonymous
Brian again. DCPS is not going to be there (okay outside of the very nice liaison person they send to every meeting). This is for us to talk among ourselves first, albeit with a councilmember in the room. Then as I noted, we would have the DCPS planning office (at least we hope to) come back at a future meeting. Frankly, I would have been happy to get the DCPS planning office to just come first. But I do agree that having a meeting before that point in time (1) allows Mary Cheh some ability to help us get the DCPS planning people to show up, (2) for us to listen to each others' concerns and ideas, so that we show up at the next meeting a little more on the same page, and (3) and helps us steer that conversation a little more, rather than DCPS steering it for us. But look, I am not expecting magic solutions or for DCPS to suddenly say, "Of course, we do x, y, and z for you right away!" or "We have never thought of that amazing and easy solution!" All of the options are hard. And most require tradeoffs. That is not something that experts can tell us. They can talk about options, their feasibility, and the considerations. But weighing the tradeoffs is something that we as community members should have input in. And, of course, not just folks in the Wilson feeder, before you point that out. Brian Doyle W3EdNet |
Anonymous
You wouldn't need to need to kick out any school from feeder if you got rid of OOB feeder. OOB is 37% at Deal and 50% at Wilson (and that includes the SW kids that were recently re-zoned from Wilson), so really if you consider the feeder schools now, Wilson is about 40% IB. |
Anonymous
Bancroft and shepherd send about 50 total kids to Deal each year, are you sure that will solve the problem? Keep in mind, Wilson (50% OOB) hasn't yet seen the lift from removing SE/SW neighborhoods hat used to feed to it. |
Anonymous
Deal capacity = 1200 students Deal enrollment in 20115-16 = 1341 students (probably higher now) If (as you claim) Bancroft & Shepherd are sending 50 students per year to Deal, that's 150 students total in grades 6-8. 1341 - 150 = 1191 students Removing Bancroft & Shepherd would put Deal almost exactly at capacity. Personally, I think restricting OOB feeder rights is a better first step than removing schools from the feeder pattern. But if restricting OOB feeder rights doesn't solve the problem, then changing the feeder pattern will absolutely solve the problem. |
Anonymous
This. Plus getting rid of OOB feeder rights after Hardy would right size Wilson. At zero cost to the tax payer and reduce overcrowding on our failing transit system. It all could be done with a stroke of the pen. |
Anonymous
If Deal and Wilson are 40% and 50% OOB why is anyone even talking about removing any feeders? Sounds like the schooks would be under capacity if they're were no OOB kids. If they removed Eaton from Deal before removing OOB, you know DCPS does not have the will to remove OOB though. |
Anonymous
You are saying more clearly and directly the thing I was trying to say a couple pages ago. We all know how to reduce overcrowding (remove OOB first, and then feeder schools if necessary). The real question is whether anyone in DCPS, or more likely DC government, has the willpower and courage to do it. |
Anonymous
The answer is no. The political will is not there and won't happen. I attended every meeting of the boundary discussion process a couple years back and the advocates for the OOB system are vocal and persistent. It's also important to acknowledge that a big part of the overcrowding problem in upper NW schools is that families bail on their inboundary schools and usually do it without reasonable notice. So upper middle class families will leave after 2nd, 3rd or 4th grade in order to claim a private school spot. That's fine. Do what's best for your child, right? But it leaves the DCPS holding the bag and a target enrollment number that the principal is obliged to try and reach. So he/she goes to the waitlist to fill up those classrooms that are now unexpectedly small in order to meet enrollment targets and justify the teacher salary. Making some sort of blanket statement that OOB practices should be halted is naive and doesn't take reality in to account. Rather than trying to eliminate OOB or middle and high school feeder rights (which I genuinely think are nonstarters), I think a better step would be to implement a "no new OOB students" policy for grades 3rd through 5th at upper NW "desirable" schools and have downtown give those schools a little break in not forcing them to fill those grades to capacity (because doing so grows the Deal and Wilson overcrowding problems as they inherit those kids). You can't blame OOB families for wanting to get their children into a feeder pattern that is attractive. |
Anonymous
This is probably the most logical answer I have read on this subject. |
Anonymous
It's hard to describe this phenomenon as "unexpected" when it predictably happens every year. But your solution makes sense. Broadly, if you're going to have OOB feeder rights, you have to think about the consequences through the feeder path of OOB admissions. |
Anonymous
That is my experience as well. But here's what I think is interesting: I've been posting on DCUM for about five years, this topic comes up pretty regularly. In the past the OOB advocates would have been all over this thread, and as you said, vocal and persistent. Where have they gone? |
Anonymous
|
I agree with a no new OOB students" policy for grades 3rd through 5th at upper NW "desirable" schools suggested by the PP.
However, that should be extended to the 7th and 8th grades of Wilson feeder middle schools. For instance, Hardy takes 20-30 each year in 7th and 8th grade to make up for the natural attrition rate. |
Anonymous
We lurk here. There's no value in bickering and trying to validate our existence in your eyes on an anonymous listserv. Better to gauge the unvarnished opinions of those who resent us. OOB interests that are threatened only need to be "vocal and persistent" when decision-makers are debating, not when frustrated parents are. |