Ward 3 - Wilson feeders meeting last night: did anyone attend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are several obvious ways to fix the overcrowding problem. Almost all involve telling some neighborhoods or groups they won't get to attend in the future. That will surely cause complaining from those groups. The key question is whether families suffering from the overcapacity will complain louder than the families who want to preserve access despite causing the overcrowding. If Deal families want to fix the problem, they need to speak up rather than just suffering quietly.

Yes. Whose suffering is going to be more compelling to DCPS - those stuck in low-performing or failing schools or those who only have 3 possible baseball teams to try out for in MS?

Which of the Deal neighborhoods do you consider "low-performing" or "failing"? Are you saying Shepherd Elementary is low performing?

Or are you referring to the OOB students who find some pathway into Deal? If you want to protect the access of those OOB students, then where do you think the cuts should come from? Maybe trim the boundaries of Deal further near the edges? Which edges?

I'm referring to the kids who escape their schools by getting into Hardy or a Hardy feeder OOB. They used to be able to pretty easily lottery into Lafeyette or Hearst or Murch, but not anymore.

[Anonymous]

Taking Oyster out of the feeder pattern makes as much, if not more, sense than removing Bancroft and Shepherd.

Let them continue their dual language programs at CHEC or Roosevelt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're assuming there have to be cuts. If they take no action, it just gets more and more uncomfortable for those who have the best schools. Do you see why that's easier politically than the alternatives?

Now we've come full circle. You and I seem to agree that the group that complains loudest will get its way. In the past, the neighborhoods and groups who feared a loss of access to deal have cried louder than the IB Deal families, because the overcrowding was annoying but bearable. Seems to me the overcrowding is now reaching the point where it's bad enough that the IB Deal families are crying louder than before. If they get louder than the other neighborhoods and groups, then change will come.

The politicians will respond to pressure. The question is which group will apply more pressure. You seem to think neighborhoods like Shepherd and the OOB community will always win. I disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taking Oyster out of the feeder pattern makes as much, if not more, sense than removing Bancroft and Shepherd.

Let them continue their dual language programs at CHEC or Roosevelt.

Why does that make more sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking Oyster out of the feeder pattern makes as much, if not more, sense than removing Bancroft and Shepherd.

Let them continue their dual language programs at CHEC or Roosevelt.

Why does that make more sense?

That

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone attend this meeting? I heard from an attendee that there was discussion of removing EOTP schools from the Deal/Wilson feed (i.e., Shepherd and Bancroft). Is this accurate? Were there other strategies for reducing overcrowding on the table, or was removal of feeders the main strategy being considered in the short-term?

Well, if they want to waste their time...

Keep whistling past he graveyard. Shrinking boundaries to remove Shepherd and Bancroft is the logical choice. It's just a matter of time.

Logical for you is one thing, but you don't control the boundary or the review process.
Logical for the mayor is another thing and more tied to political expediency than your logic.

Boundary changes are not due until 2022. Crestwood and 16th Street Heights are scheduled to lose their grandfathering to Deal at that time. Also, the next mayoral election is 2018. So, the next boundary change may not be overseen by a mayor as beholden to Ward 4 as our current mayor.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Boundary changes are not due until 2022. Crestwood and 16th Street Heights are scheduled to lose their grandfathering to Deal at that time. Also, the next mayoral election is 2018. So, the next boundary change may not be overseen by a mayor as beholden to Ward 4 as our current mayor.

1. IIRC, the last boundary plan specifically included a provision that allowed for earlier boundary changes in response to overcrowding. So while 2022 was a planned reassessment point, there's no reason they cannot be changed before then.

2. However, I agree with you that boundary changes for Deal/Wilson won't happen under Mayor Bowser. She owes political debts, and she has her favorites, so she won't let it happen under any circumstances. If she wins reelection in 2018 (which seems likely at this point), then that will effectively lock the boundaries until 2022. In essence, that dumps the boundary problem into the lap of the next mayor, so Bowser conveniently gets to pass the buck.

3. While Bowser is beholden to ensuring that all the Ward 4 neighborhoods will keep their access to Deal, I don't have a sense of how she feels about the OOB students. It seems to me that a politically viable step is to eliminate automatic OOB feeder rights, and make them subject to capacity constraints. While it's unclear whether exiting the OOB students will solve the overcrowding problem, it at least will be a step in the right direction. It throws a bone to the Deal IB community, so they will support Bowser. It doesn't hurt the Ward 4 neighborhoods, and it in fact helps shield them from arguments that they should lose access to Deal. It would almost certainly include a grandfathering clause, so all the OOB students currently in the pipeline wouldn't have cause to complain. The only constituency that would really have immediate cause to complain are OOB families who hope to lottery into one of the feeder schools in the future, and that doesn't seem like a terribly loud or cohesive constituency. I'm not sure why Bowser wouldn't get behind a plan like this. Seems like a win-win for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Boundary changes are not due until 2022. Crestwood and 16th Street Heights are scheduled to lose their grandfathering to Deal at that time. Also, the next mayoral election is 2018. So, the next boundary change may not be overseen by a mayor as beholden to Ward 4 as our current mayor.

1. IIRC, the last boundary plan specifically included a provision that allowed for earlier boundary changes in response to overcrowding. So while 2022 was a planned reassessment point, there's no reason they cannot be changed before then.

2. However, I agree with you that boundary changes for Deal/Wilson won't happen under Mayor Bowser. She owes political debts, and she has her favorites, so she won't let it happen under any circumstances. If she wins reelection in 2018 (which seems likely at this point), then that will effectively lock the boundaries until 2022. In essence, that dumps the boundary problem into the lap of the next mayor, so Bowser conveniently gets to pass the buck.

3. While Bowser is beholden to ensuring that all the Ward 4 neighborhoods will keep their access to Deal, I don't have a sense of how she feels about the OOB students. It seems to me that a politically viable step is to eliminate automatic OOB feeder rights, and make them subject to capacity constraints. While it's unclear whether exiting the OOB students will solve the overcrowding problem, it at least will be a step in the right direction. It throws a bone to the Deal IB community, so they will support Bowser. It doesn't hurt the Ward 4 neighborhoods, and it in fact helps shield them from arguments that they should lose access to Deal. It would almost certainly include a grandfathering clause, so all the OOB students currently in the pipeline wouldn't have cause to complain. The only constituency that would really have immediate cause to complain are OOB families who hope to lottery into one of the feeder schools in the future, and that doesn't seem like a terribly loud or cohesive constituency. I'm not sure why Bowser wouldn't get behind a plan like this. Seems like a win-win for her.

OP here. I live in EOTP Ward 4. This seems like a reasonable plan. In addition, it would be nice if a preference could be given to OOB families who lottery into a feeder. So short-term grandfathering of OOB, followed by a preference for OOB (some of these kids have gone to school with my own since PK4), might be palatable for OOB families.

[Anonymous]

9:52 again, adding to my point #3. I don't have a sense of where the OOB students at Deal and its feeders are coming from. As I think about it, I could see a disproportionate number of them being families that live in Ward 4 and know the tricks of which elementary schools to use as OOB access points for Deal. If that's the case, then perhaps Bowser will want to protect the OOB community because it's mostly made up of her core supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9:52 again, adding to my point #3. I don't have a sense of where the OOB students at Deal and its feeders are coming from. As I think about it, I could see a disproportionate number of them being families that live in Ward 4 and know the tricks of which elementary schools to use as OOB access points for Deal. If that's the case, then perhaps Bowser will want to protect the OOB community because it's mostly made up of her core supporters.

OP again. At least at Shepherd, many of the OOB families live very near by. Some are in Ward 5 or farther afield, but many are in the same general area (Takoma, Brightwood, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Did anyone go to the meeting - would be interested to hear what the chancellor said...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone go to the meeting - would be interested to hear what the chancellor said...

+1.

Would be great to know if:

a) this is a PR/community relations exercise designed to let people vent but won't lead to any changes before 2022

b) there are short term options being considered or

c) changing boundaries is on the table before 2022

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: ... 3. While Bowser is beholden to ensuring that all the Ward 4 neighborhoods will keep their access to Deal, I don't have a sense of how she feels about the OOB students. It seems to me that a politically viable step is to eliminate automatic OOB feeder rights, and make them subject to capacity constraints. While it's unclear whether exiting the OOB students will solve the overcrowding problem, it at least will be a step in the right direction. It throws a bone to the Deal IB community, so they will support Bowser. It doesn't hurt the Ward 4 neighborhoods, and it in fact helps shield them from arguments that they should lose access to Deal. It would almost certainly include a grandfathering clause, so all the OOB students currently in the pipeline wouldn't have cause to complain. The only constituency that would really have immediate cause to complain are OOB families who hope to lottery into one of the feeder schools in the future, and that doesn't seem like a terribly loud or cohesive constituency. I'm not sure why Bowser wouldn't get behind a plan like this. Seems like a win-win for her.

OP here. I live in EOTP Ward 4. This seems like a reasonable plan. In addition, it would be nice if a preference could be given to OOB families who lottery into a feeder. So short-term grandfathering of OOB, followed by a preference for OOB (some of these kids have gone to school with my own since PK4), might be palatable for OOB families.

Hi OP. Maybe you and I can develop a solution! To be clear, here's what I'm suggesting ...

Let's assume the following hypothetical:
Deal max capacity = 1200 students total, 400 per grade
IB students seeking enrollment = 300
OOB students who attend a Deal feeder seeking enrollment = 50
OOB students who do not attend a Deal feeder seeking enrollment = 100
In that hypothetical, all 300 IB students would get enrolled, plus the 50 OOB students who attend Deal feeders, for a total of 350. There would be 50 remaining slots before the 400 capacity limit is reached. The 100 OOB students who do not attend Deal feeders would lottery for those 50 slots.

If we change the hypothetical:
Deal max capacity = 1200 students total, 400 per grade
IB students seeking enrollment = 300
OOB students who attend a Deal feeder seeking enrollment = 150
OOB students who do not attend a Deal feeder seeking enrollment = 100
In this new hypothetical, all 300 IB students would get enrolled. The 150 OOB students who attend Deal feeders would lottery for the remaining 100 slots. The 100 OOB students who do not attend Deal feeders would be ineligible.

If a third hypothetical has 400 IB students seeking enrollment to Deal, then neither of the OOB groups would get slots. Indeed, if more than 400 IB students seek enrollment, then they might have to lottery for slots themselves.

Do you think that might work? What are the complications?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking Oyster out of the feeder pattern makes as much, if not more, sense than removing Bancroft and Shepherd.

Let them continue their dual language programs at CHEC or Roosevelt.

Why does that make more sense?

That

Lol! Wishful thinking for the Oyster haters--that won't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: ... 3. While Bowser is beholden to ensuring that all the Ward 4 neighborhoods will keep their access to Deal, I don't have a sense of how she feels about the OOB students. It seems to me that a politically viable step is to eliminate automatic OOB feeder rights, and make them subject to capacity constraints. While it's unclear whether exiting the OOB students will solve the overcrowding problem, it at least will be a step in the right direction. It throws a bone to the Deal IB community, so they will support Bowser. It doesn't hurt the Ward 4 neighborhoods, and it in fact helps shield them from arguments that they should lose access to Deal. It would almost certainly include a grandfathering clause, so all the OOB students currently in the pipeline wouldn't have cause to complain. The only constituency that would really have immediate cause to complain are OOB families who hope to lottery into one of the feeder schools in the future, and that doesn't seem like a terribly loud or cohesive constituency. I'm not sure why Bowser wouldn't get behind a plan like this. Seems like a win-win for her.

OP here. I live in EOTP Ward 4. This seems like a reasonable plan. In addition, it would be nice if a preference could be given to OOB families who lottery into a feeder. So short-term grandfathering of OOB, followed by a preference for OOB (some of these kids have gone to school with my own since PK4), might be palatable for OOB families.

Hi OP. Maybe you and I can develop a solution! To be clear, here's what I'm suggesting ...

Let's assume the following hypothetical:
Deal max capacity = 1200 students total, 400 per grade
IB students seeking enrollment = 300
OOB students who attend a Deal feeder seeking enrollment = 50
OOB students who do not attend a Deal feeder seeking enrollment = 100
In that hypothetical, all 300 IB students would get enrolled, plus the 50 OOB students who attend Deal feeders, for a total of 350. There would be 50 remaining slots before the 400 capacity limit is reached. The 100 OOB students who do not attend Deal feeders would lottery for those 50 slots.

If we change the hypothetical:
Deal max capacity = 1200 students total, 400 per grade
IB students seeking enrollment = 300
OOB students who attend a Deal feeder seeking enrollment = 150
OOB students who do not attend a Deal feeder seeking enrollment = 100
In this new hypothetical, all 300 IB students would get enrolled. The 150 OOB students who attend Deal feeders would lottery for the remaining 100 slots. The 100 OOB students who do not attend Deal feeders would be ineligible.

If a third hypothetical has 400 IB students seeking enrollment to Deal, then neither of the OOB groups would get slots. Indeed, if more than 400 IB students seek enrollment, then they might have to lottery for slots themselves.

Do you think that might work? What are the complications?

You forgot to subtract the seats at these schools for Special Needs kids who are in specialized classrooms or programs (not students with IEPs in inclusion). They count against the enrollment ceiling but come from across the city and have a right to stay in the feeder pattern too. https://dcps.dc.gov/publication/special-education-classroom-locations