Please explain relevance of "OOB crowding" to the DCPS boundary review process

[Anonymous]

^^ thanks a lot. Not all of us have stair-step kids and have stayed in our homes for both, while the boundaries have changed on us. Currently, you get 2 years grace period for siblings.

[Anonymous]

not sure what you mean 12:33?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the OP and think the way to resolve this is to end the feeder rights, while grandfathering in the students that are already at Deal or Wilson and their younger siblings. Yes, some students will lose out on when feeder rights end. Some students are going to lose out no matter which way you slice it, but all the other alternatives seem more unfair to me. I think a companion to this will be coming up with more resources to support failing schools in other parts of the city, even if it means allocating away some Deal/Wilson resources -- good staff, funding, whatever it takes.

Deal and Wilson do not get extra funding. They get standard per pupil funding and likely less than many other schools because they are not Title I schools. Several failing high schools across the city have gotten renovations in excess of $100 million in cost, lack of funding is not the problem. The key resource that Deal and Wilson have that is hard to replicate is the percentage of the student body that arrives prepared. That is not a resource you can allocate to another school. They need to find ways to make prepared students want to go to other schools.

Yes, the kids are more prepared -- but also their families are more likely to have resources (in both time and money) to contribute to the school. Deal's annual PTA dues are $150/family; my kid's EOTP PTA dues are $35/family. More SAHMs means more people available to volunteer. Deal parents are probably more likely than those at, say, Sousa, to be able to prevail on their employers to make corporate contributions.

IMO the biggest source of educational inequality is the difference in how much parents are able to contribute to their child's school. Unfortunately, you can't exactly prevent parents from doing that -- investing your resources in your child is a fundamental part of being a parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ thanks a lot. Not all of us have stair-step kids and have stayed in our homes for both, while the boundaries have changed on us. Currently, you get 2 years grace period for siblings.

Huh? Except for schools closing DC hasn't moved boundaries in 40 years. (That's a big part of the problem). And obviously there's no grace period when a school closes, it just closes.

[Anonymous]

My child is OBB at a feeder that will send him to Deal and Wilson. These were the rules when we bought our house and yes my son is entitled to attend Deal and Wilson based on the rules when we entered. It is just like college and how you are governed by the catalog from the year you entered. It is a contract.

The fact that every WOTP elementary school is overcrowded (NOT BECAUSE OF OBB KIDS) is the reason for the overcrowding.

My son's school has its capacity designated by the powers that be - so regardless of whether he is in that seat OR some neighborhood kid - our school will still send their classes on to Deal and Wilson.

Cutting OBB is just unfair and too easy a solution to a larger problem with boundaries and the move a few years ago in which nearly all elementary schools went from Pr-K to 5th grade...that wasn't always the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child is OBB at a feeder that will send him to Deal and Wilson. These were the rules when we bought our house and yes my son is entitled to attend Deal and Wilson based on the rules when we entered. It is just like college and how you are governed by the catalog from the year you entered. It is a contract.

The fact that every WOTP elementary school is overcrowded (NOT BECAUSE OF OBB KIDS) is the reason for the overcrowding.

My son's school has its capacity designated by the powers that be - so regardless of whether he is in that seat OR some neighborhood kid - our school will still send their classes on to Deal and Wilson.

Cutting OBB is just unfair and too easy a solution to a larger problem with boundaries and the move a few years ago in which nearly all elementary schools went from Pr-K to 5th grade...that wasn't always the case.

Umm, no, it is not a contract. Anyone who buys property anywhere in the country is subject to having boundaries and feeder patterns change. I am currently IB for Wilson, and I understand that I will probably get cut out. Do I wish it were not so? Of course. Do I feel like the city can't do it, that I have a "right" to have my kid go to Wilson, that the city is violating a contract with me? Absolutely not. The same applies to the feeders. If you really want your kid to go to Deal/Wilson, then you will need to move IB for it if they cut out feeder rights, assuming that they still have boundaries.

[Anonymous]

OP here, wow, I love how active DCUM forums can be!

Ok, this has really helped me. I was unsure of what my opinion was on all of this, and I think now my opinion is the following:

- the boundary for Wilson should stay as it is (not sure about Deal, but sounds like Wilson has the real crowding problem)
- everyone resident within the boundary gets first preference
- then those OOB with siblings attending
- then those OOB from Rhee-era feeder schools
- then everyone else
- until the school has reached capacity.

This is how it works in cities with good neighborhood schools, that I have seen. Everyone IB for neighborhood schools gets in first and if (only if) there are extra spots, they do a lottery.

In practice, this would, it sounds to me, drastically reduce OOB attendance thru feeder schools, which seems fair to me.

In response to the PP(s) who say that even IB is not an entitlement, sure, same as how you can buy a house next to a park, pay a premium, and yet the govt builds a trash dump on the park, over your protests.

But if you are going to cut property owners out of 40-year old boundaries for a desirable school then you should have a compelling reason. The only compelling reason I can think of would be overcrowding that is solely due to increased school-age population within the boundary.

But in this case Wilson is big enough to handle all children within boundary. The 47% of OOB should be cut before any boundary shrinking takes place.

To the OOB parent above who refers to the contract, I am not going to get into the legal issues of contract law! But I will ask you this: what reasonable expectation did you have for Wilson when you bought your house in Eckington or Anacostia, etc? It seems to me that a purchaser in Crestwood or Palisades had a reasonable expectation of Wilson, and paid a preimum for it, but the purchaser in Anacostia or Eckington or Co Heights did not have a reasonable expectation; they won a lottery, and probably their house was inexpensive (by DC standards!).

It seems much more fair to me to take away someone's lottery win than to take away something that someone paid for with their hard-earned dollars.

Therefore, I think the OOB kids must be excluded before any IB kids, with some grandfathering. Tough on those OOB families of course, but you are no worse off than when you bought your house. You only had a lucky windfall taken away from you. Like as if you bought a house, and later the govt announced a new park, and then the govt changed its mind and didn't build the park. You're not worse off.

To those (perhaps Rhee?) who say they want to "force" high socio-economic status parents to invest in DCPS, good luck with that. White participation in DCPS (sad but true, race is a good SES proxy in DC) is at a multi-decade record high of 12%, correct? And a whopping 22% at Wilson? The idea that local schools are bad is already assumed in most parts of DC. For many high-SES parents, Deal and Wilson are probably on the borderline of acceptable quality. Worsen them and people will likely do something else, as they have for decades. And yes someone will take their place in their house if they move to the 'burbs, but probably someone childless.

As an aside, I came to the depressing realization when reading all of this, that there probably just isn't the demographics in DC to support a system-wide high-quality public school system right now. I mean even if you accomplished the goal of "spreading out" all the high-SES parents across the city schools, they would be spread too thin. A universal quality education in DC seems demographically impossible now.

The only long term hope for DCPS is demographic change. This city just has more poverty than it can bear, not in terms of tax base (where the mean average plays a role), but in terms of critical mass for social capital accumulation (where the median rules all).

In the meantime, probably better to preserve whatever quality has been concentrated in a small number of schools west of the park, than to pursue a beggar-thy-neighbor policy and ruin all schools within DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Out-of-boundary crowding is about the feeder patterns. The schools can set how's many seats go into the lottery for out-of-boundary students. Doing that well or poorly is a question of administrative competence, not really of policy.

The feeders however are links that must be set or undone by policy. They are the primary and in the future likely only way students who are not in boundary get into Deal or Wilson.

To continue this thought, basically since 2009 DCPS has been making promises it can't keep. There are more kids who have the right to attend Deal and Wilson than those schools can hold. It doesn't take a whole lot of prescience to look forward three years and see that today's kindergarteners are going to be third graders, today's third graders are going to be sixth graders and today's sixth graders are going to be ninth graders. But no one at DCPS seems capable of this feat.

[Anonymous]

In 2009, Michelle Rhee could have announced that instead of kids in feeder schools having a right to attend OOB, the policy would be that OOB kids in feeder schools would have preference in the lottery at the next level. At that time there was no practical difference, everyone would have been just as happy then and we wouldn't have a problem today.

But there was no thought given to the long-term consequences then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here, wow, I love how active DCUM forums can be!

Ok, this has really helped me. I was unsure of what my opinion was on all of this, and I think now my opinion is the following:

- the boundary for Wilson should stay as it is (not sure about Deal, but sounds like Wilson has the real crowding problem)
- everyone resident within the boundary gets first preference
- then those OOB with siblings attending
- then those OOB from Rhee-era feeder schools
- then everyone else
- until the school has reached capacity.

This is how it works in cities with good neighborhood schools, that I have seen. Everyone IB for neighborhood schools gets in first and if (only if) there are extra spots, they do a lottery.

In practice, this would, it sounds to me, drastically reduce OOB attendance thru feeder schools, which seems fair to me.

In response to the PP(s) who say that even IB is not an entitlement, sure, same as how you can buy a house next to a park, pay a premium, and yet the govt builds a trash dump on the park, over your protests.

But if you are going to cut property owners out of 40-year old boundaries for a desirable school then you should have a compelling reason. The only compelling reason I can think of would be overcrowding that is solely due to increased school-age population within the boundary.

But in this case Wilson is big enough to handle all children within boundary. The 47% of OOB should be cut before any boundary shrinking takes place.

To the OOB parent above who refers to the contract, I am not going to get into the legal issues of contract law! But I will ask you this: what reasonable expectation did you have for Wilson when you bought your house in Eckington or Anacostia, etc? It seems to me that a purchaser in Crestwood or Palisades had a reasonable expectation of Wilson, and paid a preimum for it, but the purchaser in Anacostia or Eckington or Co Heights did not have a reasonable expectation; they won a lottery, and probably their house was inexpensive (by DC standards!).

It seems much more fair to me to take away someone's lottery win than to take away something that someone paid for with their hard-earned dollars.

Therefore, I think the OOB kids must be excluded before any IB kids, with some grandfathering. Tough on those OOB families of course, but you are no worse off than when you bought your house. You only had a lucky windfall taken away from you. Like as if you bought a house, and later the govt announced a new park, and then the govt changed its mind and didn't build the park. You're not worse off.

To those (perhaps Rhee?) who say they want to "force" high socio-economic status parents to invest in DCPS, good luck with that. White participation in DCPS (sad but true, race is a good SES proxy in DC) is at a multi-decade record high of 12%, correct? And a whopping 22% at Wilson? The idea that local schools are bad is already assumed in most parts of DC. For many high-SES parents, Deal and Wilson are probably on the borderline of acceptable quality. Worsen them and people will likely do something else, as they have for decades. And yes someone will take their place in their house if they move to the 'burbs, but probably someone childless.

As an aside, I came to the depressing realization when reading all of this, that there probably just isn't the demographics in DC to support a system-wide high-quality public school system right now. I mean even if you accomplished the goal of "spreading out" all the high-SES parents across the city schools, they would be spread too thin. A universal quality education in DC seems demographically impossible now.

The only long term hope for DCPS is demographic change. This city just has more poverty than it can bear, not in terms of tax base (where the mean average plays a role), but in terms of critical mass for social capital accumulation (where the median rules all).

In the meantime, probably better to preserve whatever quality has been concentrated in a small number of schools west of the park, than to pursue a beggar-thy-neighbor policy and ruin all schools within DC...

Completely rationale and thoughtful analysis, we can only hope dcps is this rationale and they then turn their energies to how to create mor schools high SES families want to send their kids to. My only dispute is with your thinking that Wilson is the largest problem. I think there are more good high school slots (Wilson, SWW, Banneker, Ellington) that successful/hardworking kids are more likely to find a good fit than in MS. I am hopeful that Hardy will gain momentum, Jefferson seems to be working for many as well.

[Anonymous]

Oh boy. This is a popcorn-passing post if there ever was one.

[Anonymous]

^^popcorn poster, can you elaborate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, wow, I love how active DCUM forums can be!

Ok, this has really helped me. I was unsure of what my opinion was on all of this, and I think now my opinion is the following:

- the boundary for Wilson should stay as it is (not sure about Deal, but sounds like Wilson has the real crowding problem)
- everyone resident within the boundary gets first preference
- then those OOB with siblings attending
- then those OOB from Rhee-era feeder schools
- then everyone else
- until the school has reached capacity.

This is how it works in cities with good neighborhood schools, that I have seen. Everyone IB for neighborhood schools gets in first and if (only if) there are extra spots, they do a lottery.

In practice, this would, it sounds to me, drastically reduce OOB attendance thru feeder schools, which seems fair to me.

In response to the PP(s) who say that even IB is not an entitlement, sure, same as how you can buy a house next to a park, pay a premium, and yet the govt builds a trash dump on the park, over your protests.

But if you are going to cut property owners out of 40-year old boundaries for a desirable school then you should have a compelling reason. The only compelling reason I can think of would be overcrowding that is solely due to increased school-age population within the boundary.

But in this case Wilson is big enough to handle all children within boundary. The 47% of OOB should be cut before any boundary shrinking takes place.

To the OOB parent above who refers to the contract, I am not going to get into the legal issues of contract law! But I will ask you this: what reasonable expectation did you have for Wilson when you bought your house in Eckington or Anacostia, etc? It seems to me that a purchaser in Crestwood or Palisades had a reasonable expectation of Wilson, and paid a preimum for it, but the purchaser in Anacostia or Eckington or Co Heights did not have a reasonable expectation; they won a lottery, and probably their house was inexpensive (by DC standards!).

It seems much more fair to me to take away someone's lottery win than to take away something that someone paid for with their hard-earned dollars.

Therefore, I think the OOB kids must be excluded before any IB kids, with some grandfathering. Tough on those OOB families of course, but you are no worse off than when you bought your house. You only had a lucky windfall taken away from you. Like as if you bought a house, and later the govt announced a new park, and then the govt changed its mind and didn't build the park. You're not worse off.

To those (perhaps Rhee?) who say they want to "force" high socio-economic status parents to invest in DCPS, good luck with that. White participation in DCPS (sad but true, race is a good SES proxy in DC) is at a multi-decade record high of 12%, correct? And a whopping 22% at Wilson? The idea that local schools are bad is already assumed in most parts of DC. For many high-SES parents, Deal and Wilson are probably on the borderline of acceptable quality. Worsen them and people will likely do something else, as they have for decades. And yes someone will take their place in their house if they move to the 'burbs, but probably someone childless.

As an aside, I came to the depressing realization when reading all of this, that there probably just isn't the demographics in DC to support a system-wide high-quality public school system right now. I mean even if you accomplished the goal of "spreading out" all the high-SES parents across the city schools, they would be spread too thin. A universal quality education in DC seems demographically impossible now.

The only long term hope for DCPS is demographic change. This city just has more poverty than it can bear, not in terms of tax base (where the mean average plays a role), but in terms of critical mass for social capital accumulation (where the median rules all).

In the meantime, probably better to preserve whatever quality has been concentrated in a small number of schools west of the park, than to pursue a beggar-thy-neighbor policy and ruin all schools within DC...

Completely rationale and thoughtful analysis, we can only hope dcps is this rationale and they then turn their energies to how to create mor schools high SES families want to send their kids to. My only dispute is with your thinking that Wilson is the largest problem. I think there are more good high school slots (Wilson, SWW, Banneker, Ellington) that successful/hardworking kids are more likely to find a good fit than in MS. I am hopeful that Hardy will gain momentum, Jefferson seems to be working for many as well.

+1. Thank you. Are you applying to be next Mayor

[Anonymous]

But won't giving preference to "OOB from Rhee-era feeder schools" pretty much shut out for the next 10 years those students who were unlucky in the lottery and didn't get into a Deal/Wilson elementary feeder school? It seems unfair that they lost the lottery once at pre-k/k and now they are pretty much forever shut out and it would be more fair to allow them an equal shot at the lottery to Deal/Wilson.

[Anonymous]

This would allow but in from the Rhee era families at least.