How is the meeting at Dunbar going?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Were people actually expecting the proposal to address improving schools? I thought the purpose was to right-size the boundaries. It seems to me the conversation or plans to improve schools should continue beyond this proposal.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the difference in definition between students "at-risk" and "FARMS?"

The document links to the definition of at risk--is those in foster care, homeless, who qualify for TAND or SNAP. So they are the FARM population that is probably lowest income. 43% of DC students are at-risk, but 70%+ are FARM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does 48% FARMS and less than 30% at-risk tell us about student make-up at Francis Stevens?

That they have a lot of low-income students but that they don't have as many who are at risk--meaning in foster care, homeless, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just got home--it was long, but I was glad I went. I was in the Cardozo breakout group. Here are the new things I learned (much of what they said was very clear in the proposal):

- 43% of students are at-risk, which confirms my view that if the at-risk preference is adopted, then the middle class will not have any OOB options--they will go charter or leave if they have a terrible in-boundary option.
- They flashed a screen of the schools that had under 30% at-risk, where the preference would apply, and it included some schools that I thought were more diverse--including Francis-Stevens. It was so fast that I wasn't able to write them down, it's just that F-S stood out to me. They really need to make that information public.
- The confirmed that under the new proposal, a principal would have no discretion to keep a family if they get in IB and then move OOB--the family would be able to stay only until the end of the academic year, unless they are high-risk. I think this is great and would prevent a lot of gaming of the system.
- In terms of how they would create room at overcrowded schools for the 10% minimum OOB population, they gave the example that at Janney, it is 8% OOB so they would only have to increase by 2%. And they said that at the elementary school level, this would not be by grade--they could have 10% in any combination of grades they want. So they could reserve those spots for kids in the upper grades if they wanted. But there was no good answer when it came to how can you physically put kids in the space.
- In the breakout, people were pretty skeptical of the middle school choices. One person pointed out that the CHEC feeders are not dual language schools, and the proposal only lets people who have dual-language-only options in elementary school have an alternative. The response was that CHEC is a program that is appropriate for someone who has never studied Spanish before. (The question asker was very skeptical of this answer.) Similarly, some Ross parents seemed concerned that the new Center City Middle School would not attract people from the feeder schools. And Francis-Stevens parents talked about how the shrinking of the boundary might mean that the middle school only has ten in-boundary kids per grade.

My biggest concern coming out of this meeting is the middle class issue--with 43% of people getting at-risk preference for the good schools, that tells me that the rest of us will have no luck. That's probably fine if you are in a rising school, but that's not my situation at all.

But what if the 8% OOB from Janney are not from At-Risk schools. Does that mean Janney could end up at 18% OOB until the current 8% move up?

They only have to get to 10% OOB. They do not have to have 30% at risk--it's just that because they are under 30% at risk, they give a preference in the OOB lottery for those who are at risk. So over time, that 10% will entirely become at risk (given that two-fifths of students are at risk and get a lottery preference).

[Anonymous]

So basically only the lowest-income students get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So basically only the lowest-income students get in.

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So basically only the lowest-income students get in.

Yes. Instead of distributing high SES kids through the system via lotteries, this plan would distribute at-risk kids through the system via set-asides.

There could be positives to this approach:

1) At-risk get to be in a stable, positive learning environment where their needs can be meet by fully staffed, resource rich schools. There are studies that indicate that this approach can be successful.

2) The sending schools have their administrative and educational burdens reduced so that the middle/working class families left behind can have a fighting chance to build a decent school.

[Anonymous]

But will DCPS and other agencies step up and provide the funding and resources for the comprehensive services and supports that homeless, foster and other AR students require? This includes, for example, additional SpEd teachers, classroom aides, etc. I have heard nothing from the DME about this critical piece necessary for implementing the set asides. In any event, I am not sure what PP is talking about, as even our highly-regarded elementary hardly qualifies as "resource rich" unless there is an endowment fund of which I am not aware.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were people actually expecting the proposal to address improving schools? I thought the purpose was to right-size the boundaries. It seems to me the conversation or plans to improve schools should continue beyond this proposal.

Well, I was at least hoping it wouldn't make things worse. And if you have middle income people "stuck" at low performing schools, unable to get out as they can now, ad the most motivated at-risk families leaving, the middle income families will opt out of DCPS entirely.

I thought everyone wanted neighborhood schools. The first proposal with choice sets was rejected. Am I missing something?

[Anonymous]

I think that, if any preference is adopted, it should be as it was originally outlined--for people, regardless at income, who are in low-performing schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were people actually expecting the proposal to address improving schools? I thought the purpose was to right-size the boundaries. It seems to me the conversation or plans to improve schools should continue beyond this proposal.

Well, I was at least hoping it wouldn't make things worse. And if you have middle income people "stuck" at low performing schools, unable to get out as they can now, ad the most motivated at-risk families leaving, the middle income families will opt out of DCPS entirely.

I thought everyone wanted neighborhood schools. The first proposal with choice sets was rejected. Am I missing something?

Well, I liked choice sets, since I am in a failing school and the other schools in my choice set are a lot better. I was in the minority on DCUM, which has more people in high-performing schools, but everyone else at my school was in favor of them too.

[Anonymous]

^^ also, the original choice B was a preference for those at low-performing school regardless of income. This proposal is for at risk regardless of school. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But will DCPS and other agencies step up and provide the funding and resources for the comprehensive services and supports that homeless, foster and other AR students require? This includes, for example, additional SpEd teachers, classroom aides, etc. I have heard nothing from the DME about this critical piece necessary for implementing the set asides. In any event, I am not sure what PP is talking about, as even our highly-regarded elementary hardly qualifies as "resource rich" unless there is an endowment fund of which I am not aware.

Legendary wotp PTAs.

[Anonymous]

This whole at risk set aside is a HORRIBLE plan! In D.C. the face of "at-risk" is, in peoples' minds, the young black child. With this plan, the young black child at a Janney or Lafayette or Hearst, will immediately be identified as one of the "at risk" set aside kids. Will this make black kid that is in bounds feel pressure to have his peers know that "I am not one of them"? Will this make the OOB at risk child feel somehow "less than"? Will people look on that child with disdain? This has huge unfortunate social repercussions especially when "at risk" is closely associated with race in the minds of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were people actually expecting the proposal to address improving schools? I thought the purpose was to right-size the boundaries. It seems to me the conversation or plans to improve schools should continue beyond this proposal.

Well, I was at least hoping it wouldn't make things worse. And if you have middle income people "stuck" at low performing schools, unable to get out as they can now, ad the most motivated at-risk families leaving, the middle income families will opt out of DCPS entirely.

I thought everyone wanted neighborhood schools. The first proposal with choice sets was rejected. Am I missing something?

Ha, ha. That was bullsh#t from people who just didn't like the idea of lotteries. They still want OOB access to the best schools for their kid.