Option B best for Ward 3?

[Anonymous]

The point you're not mentioning is that in order to have room for the OOB set asides at schools like Janney or Lafayette, they have to shrink the boundaries. What they'll essentially have to do for it to work is shift a lot more IB to the lower-IB WOTP schools like Hearst or Eaton.

So for the Ward 3 families near the border between a high IB school and a low IB school, they'd likely be pushed into the lower IB school. You can see that already in the proposed maps, with a large chunk of Murch moved over to Hearst, and chunks of Stoddert and Key moved over to Hyde.

[Anonymous]

Lafayette parent here, trying to figure out what the other options would mean for us. Would both cost us the guarantee of our spot at deal and Wilson? How do we know what schools would be in our choice set?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it really a guarantee? What happens if there is no room after 15/20% set asides?

What happens now with overcrowded schools? They will just be overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point you're not mentioning is that in order to have room for the OOB set asides at schools like Janney or Lafayette, they have to shrink the boundaries. What they'll essentially have to do for it to work is shift a lot more IB to the lower-IB WOTP schools like Hearst or Eaton.

So for the Ward 3 families near the border between a high IB school and a low IB school, they'd likely be pushed into the lower IB school. You can see that already in the proposed maps, with a large chunk of Murch moved over to Hearst, and chunks of Stoddert and Key moved over to Hyde.

Hearst still feeds Deal and Wilson and Eaton feeds Hardy and Wilson, so I don't understand how shifting elementary students affects the high schools? Otherwise, shifting boundaries a few blocks is the responsible thing to do if schools are reaching 700 kids in ES.

[Anonymous]

What about sibling preference? How does the set aside handle that?

[Anonymous]

Sibling preference for IB or OOB?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lafayette parent here, trying to figure out what the other options would mean for us. Would both cost us the guarantee of our spot at deal and Wilson? How do we know what schools would be in our choice set?

Also wondering about what the other middle school would be. I saw the elem choice sets in op. A, but didn't see what the MS options would be. Currently IB for Lafayette and deal as well. What would the other closest middle be? Not Hardy. Takoma EC? Brightwood? Seems really far, not to mention a failing school. Would they really send kids less than a mile from a strong school double that distance to a failing school?

[Anonymous]

Here is Policy Example B: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/policy-example-b/920/

Geographical preference comes first, so if you live near the school you have have a right to attend. Next comes feeder preference. Whether you're IB or OOB, you have a right to attend the MS and HS if you attended the feeder elementary school, ditto for MS to HS.

Then comes the 10% set aside for OOB families and here's where it gets murky. They say the 10% (thats 15% for MS) is specifically for students from low performing schools. Later they say those students will also have to compete with siblings first, then twins or "multiples" admitted to the school, and it would seem that whatever is left over after that goes to the low performing refugees.

But the bottom line is that no one from Ward 3 is going to get kicked out of Wilson. More than that, many of the OOB kids who would have otherwise attended Deal, Hardy and/or Wilson will now have very limited access to those schools. Perhaps they'll have other options in other parts of the city, perhaps not, but Option B is net positive for Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Can't see option B as politically saleable in the rest of the city.

[Anonymous]

Folks- option B gives people in any ward a choice. Choose where you live and that will be your school. Like the rest of the country.

If you would rather have a lottery, play powerball. But lottery for education will NOT improve the schools people leaving. Realize that a lottery will be an illusion of choice, and there will be no net gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is Policy Example B: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/policy-example-b/920/

Geographical preference comes first, so if you live near the school you have have a right to attend. Next comes feeder preference. Whether you're IB or OOB, you have a right to attend the MS and HS if you attended the feeder elementary school, ditto for MS to HS.

Then comes the 10% set aside for OOB families and here's where it gets murky. They say the 10% (thats 15% for MS) is specifically for students from low performing schools. Later they say those students will also have to compete with siblings first, then twins or "multiples" admitted to the school, and it would seem that whatever is left over after that goes to the low performing refugees.

But the bottom line is that no one from Ward 3 is going to get kicked out of Wilson. More than that, many of the OOB kids who would have otherwise attended Deal, Hardy and/or Wilson will now have very limited access to those schools. Perhaps they'll have other options in other parts of the city, perhaps not, but Option B is net positive for Ward 3.

True. Option B hands Ward 3 an even bigger schools premium on home values. Unless you are IB for a failing school, the only way to get access to Deal and Wilson is to live in bounds, and with the new boundaries, the number of homes inbounds falls substantially. The lottery options start to look pretty good.

SF has a similar system, and real estate agents now tout proximity to housing projects as selling points to UMC families. The UMC families buy places near failing schools, and then do really well in the lottery. Poorer families can't take advantage of the spots, since the city doesn't provide transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Policy Example B: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/policy-example-b/920/

Geographical preference comes first, so if you live near the school you have have a right to attend. Next comes feeder preference. Whether you're IB or OOB, you have a right to attend the MS and HS if you attended the feeder elementary school, ditto for MS to HS.

Then comes the 10% set aside for OOB families and here's where it gets murky. They say the 10% (thats 15% for MS) is specifically for students from low performing schools. Later they say those students will also have to compete with siblings first, then twins or "multiples" admitted to the school, and it would seem that whatever is left over after that goes to the low performing refugees.

But the bottom line is that no one from Ward 3 is going to get kicked out of Wilson. More than that, many of the OOB kids who would have otherwise attended Deal, Hardy and/or Wilson will now have very limited access to those schools. Perhaps they'll have other options in other parts of the city, perhaps not, but Option B is net positive for Ward 3.

True. Option B hands Ward 3 an even bigger schools premium on home values. Unless you are IB for a failing school, the only way to get access to Deal and Wilson is to live in bounds, and with the new boundaries, the number of homes inbounds falls substantially. The lottery options start to look pretty good.

SF has a similar system, and real estate agents now tout proximity to housing projects as selling points to UMC families. The UMC families buy places near failing schools, and then do really well in the lottery. Poorer families can't take advantage of the spots, since the city doesn't provide transportation.

That is screwed up! We should not model after SF.

[Anonymous]

The OOB set aside is bullshit - how much do you want to bet that is Central Office folks setting aside seats for their kids, so they can be sent to good schools while keeping their low mortgages in other parts of the city. Great way to fund a Mercedes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The OOB set aside is bullshit - how much do you want to bet that is Central Office folks setting aside seats for their kids, so they can be sent to good schools while keeping their low mortgages in other parts of the city. Great way to fund a Mercedes.

I would have laughed at this but at least one of the options gives preference to DCPS employees. I think they have to work at the school, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Policy Example B: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/policy-example-b/920/

Geographical preference comes first, so if you live near the school you have have a right to attend. Next comes feeder preference. Whether you're IB or OOB, you have a right to attend the MS and HS if you attended the feeder elementary school, ditto for MS to HS.

Then comes the 10% set aside for OOB families and here's where it gets murky. They say the 10% (thats 15% for MS) is specifically for students from low performing schools. Later they say those students will also have to compete with siblings first, then twins or "multiples" admitted to the school, and it would seem that whatever is left over after that goes to the low performing refugees.

But the bottom line is that no one from Ward 3 is going to get kicked out of Wilson. More than that, many of the OOB kids who would have otherwise attended Deal, Hardy and/or Wilson will now have very limited access to those schools. Perhaps they'll have other options in other parts of the city, perhaps not, but Option B is net positive for Ward 3.

True. Option B hands Ward 3 an even bigger schools premium on home values. Unless you are IB for a failing school, the only way to get access to Deal and Wilson is to live in bounds, and with the new boundaries, the number of homes inbounds falls substantially. The lottery options start to look pretty good.

SF has a similar system, and real estate agents now tout proximity to housing projects as selling points to UMC families. The UMC families buy places near failing schools, and then do really well in the lottery. Poorer families can't take advantage of the spots, since the city doesn't provide transportation.

It's gaming the system. But seems to me that when DC is setting up a new system, it should be one that is well thought out enough that it doesn't need to be gamed by those clever enough to do so in order to work well for everyone.