Boundary Review December town halls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirmed one of the things being considered is OOB feeder rights. She did mention that it reduced at risk on average by 2-6%.

But that wouldn’t make sense with adding OOB at risk set asides. I’m only half listening though so correct me if I’m wrong.

Each strategy has an impact. Sure Reducing OOB feeder from Lafayette to Deal may reduce Deal's at risk numbers by 2% by itself but if Deal could not accept any OOB student that is not at risk until they are 30% at risk would more than make up for the reduction and do a better job addressing diversity and equitable access.

[Anonymous]

It seems like the Janney families are sounding alarms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirmed one of the things being considered is OOB feeder rights. She did mention that it reduced at risk on average by 2-6%.

But that wouldn’t make sense with adding OOB at risk set asides. I’m only half listening though so correct me if I’m wrong.

Each strategy has an impact. Sure Reducing OOB feeder from Lafayette to Deal may reduce Deal's at risk numbers by 2% by itself but if Deal could not accept any OOB student that is not at risk until they are 30% at risk would more than make up for the reduction and do a better job addressing diversity and equitable access.

Doesn’t it just mean a different set of at risk OOB students will join in middle school or high school than who lotteried into elementary school? Since those elementary students would also be at risk at Lafayette? I’m not for or against it, just trying to figure it out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the Janney families are sounding alarms.

Yeah Janney is big mad

[Anonymous]

this is what we get when we let technocrats run the asylum. all the money and time and good will spent on literally nibbling around the edges in a way that can never solve DC’s severe educational issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the Janney families are sounding alarms.

Yeah Janney is big mad

It looks like the proposed change to Janney is cutting out the western edge and south of Turtle Park neighborhoods. Those homes would go to Hardy then MacArthur. Did I get that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirmed one of the things being considered is OOB feeder rights. She did mention that it reduced at risk on average by 2-6%.

But that wouldn’t make sense with adding OOB at risk set asides. I’m only half listening though so correct me if I’m wrong.

Each strategy has an impact. Sure Reducing OOB feeder from Lafayette to Deal may reduce Deal's at risk numbers by 2% by itself but if Deal could not accept any OOB student that is not at risk until they are 30% at risk would more than make up for the reduction and do a better job addressing diversity and equitable access.

Doesn’t it just mean a different set of at risk OOB students will join in middle school or high school than who lotteried into elementary school? Since those elementary students would also be at risk at Lafayette? I’m not for or against it, just trying to figure it out!

No it would mean there is room for more at risk students as the wealthy kids with means won't have a guaranteed path through high school. Only at risk kids would have OOB path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirmed one of the things being considered is OOB feeder rights. She did mention that it reduced at risk on average by 2-6%.

But that wouldn’t make sense with adding OOB at risk set asides. I’m only half listening though so correct me if I’m wrong.

Each strategy has an impact. Sure Reducing OOB feeder from Lafayette to Deal may reduce Deal's at risk numbers by 2% by itself but if Deal could not accept any OOB student that is not at risk until they are 30% at risk would more than make up for the reduction and do a better job addressing diversity and equitable access.

Taking an OOB kid who goes through ES and then not allowing that kid to continue into MS with their friends will literally destroy 6+ years of educational progress for that child. It's going to create all sorts of crazy problems at the MS and HS level. Especially if that OOB kid has an IEP.

Lots of OOB kids might not necessarily be "at-risk," but have lots of other issues that might make them susceptible to dropping out of school or somehow getting derailed in their educational progress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this is what we get when we let technocrats run the asylum. all the money and time and good will spent on literally nibbling around the edges in a way that can never solve DC’s severe educational issues.

Wasn't mean to solve the eductional issues. Just boundaries. Looks like they're doing just that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this is what we get when we let technocrats run the asylum. all the money and time and good will spent on literally nibbling around the edges in a way that can never solve DC’s severe educational issues.

I haven’t been very dialed into the process, but this was my takeaway from the meeting as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the Janney families are sounding alarms.

Yeah Janney is big mad

It looks like the proposed change to Janney is cutting out the western edge and south of Turtle Park neighborhoods. Those homes would go to Hardy then MacArthur. Did I get that right?

Yes.

And Hardy-MacArthur will get the southern remainder of Woodley Park. So now all of Woodley Park will go to Hardy-MacArthur.

TBH, the proposed boundary changes are waaaaaaaaaay less dramatic than the changes that were pushed through in 2013-2014.

[Anonymous]

If the bureaucrats are empowered to do more, they will do so. This is mayor/DME direction. Her MO is "focus on downtown and don't make Ward 3 mad" and I am tired of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirmed one of the things being considered is OOB feeder rights. She did mention that it reduced at risk on average by 2-6%.

But that wouldn’t make sense with adding OOB at risk set asides. I’m only half listening though so correct me if I’m wrong.

Each strategy has an impact. Sure Reducing OOB feeder from Lafayette to Deal may reduce Deal's at risk numbers by 2% by itself but if Deal could not accept any OOB student that is not at risk until they are 30% at risk would more than make up for the reduction and do a better job addressing diversity and equitable access.

Taking an OOB kid who goes through ES and then not allowing that kid to continue into MS with their friends will literally destroy 6+ years of educational progress for that child. It's going to create all sorts of crazy problems at the MS and HS level. Especially if that OOB kid has an IEP.

Lots of OOB kids might not necessarily be "at-risk," but have lots of other issues that might make them susceptible to dropping out of school or somehow getting derailed in their educational progress.

We can agree to disagree. Even still, this won't be an issue if they implement the at risk set aside. That said kid wouldn't have gotten into Janney/Lafayette to begin with. I suspect those schools that have a lot of OOB spots now are conveniently going to only have space for 1-2 kids each year 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel seen and heard. All the strategies I've suggested are being discussed. Highest among them would be at risk set aside for all schools until said school is 30% at risk. By name, they said biggest opportunity schools would be Brent, Lafayette, and Oyster Adams.

Did they say how this would play out in terms of whether it's grade-by-grade or school overall? Grade-by-grade 30% targets seem fine, but filling the upper grades (where there is more space) exclusively with at-risk kids to try to get to 30% overall seems like it could be incredibly disruptive. Our school could literally go from 15% at risk to 45% at risk between two grade levels if they did it that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel seen and heard. All the strategies I've suggested are being discussed. Highest among them would be at risk set aside for all schools until said school is 30% at risk. By name, they said biggest opportunity schools would be Brent, Lafayette, and Oyster Adams.

Did they say how this would play out in terms of whether it's grade-by-grade or school overall? Grade-by-grade 30% targets seem fine, but filling the upper grades (where there is more space) exclusively with at-risk kids to try to get to 30% overall seems like it could be incredibly disruptive. Our school could literally go from 15% at risk to 45% at risk between two grade levels if they did it that way.

School wide. Nothing is final. They are accepting comments.