DC Begins School Boundary Study

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are naive to believe that there won’t be majorly disruptive proposals on the table. “Equity” is a prime consideration, and so I think we can expect things like city-wide lotteries and major changes to feeder patterns.

I was very involved in the last boundary review and there were proposals such as citywide lotteries. However, they were soundly rejected by the population at large, much to the surprise of those leading the process. I would not be surprised if similar proposals come up again, but I fully expect that they will be similarly rejected. I agree with those who think nothing beyond minor tweaks are likely to come out of this process.

I have a feeling we haven't seen the last of "choice sets."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always amused by y’all trying to kick Shepherd out in the name of overcrowding. Shepherd is such a tiny school.

Shepherd + 1/2 Lafayette would create a stronger cohort at Wells/Coolidge. I am always amused by the entitled Chevy Chase and Shepherd Park families who think it's too challenging to take Military/Piney Branch in the morning, and then want to restrict equity access at OOB at Deal/J-R. We see you.

UMC Takoma Elem family here. I support Shepard being zoned to Wells because I thing it makes sense geographically but I hate the narrative that we need students from other schools to come to Well’s to save us. I have been paying close attention to Wells and am looking forward to send my kid there without any new boundaries needed. I’m far more curious to see how many kids wind up in the new Walter reed developments and where they wind up.

Cool story. Not sending my (non-white, minority religion) DD to Wells unless the number of IB students goes up. Have toured school, met principal (seems great), but MS is fairly universally the worst time in a kid's life, and unless we improve Coolidge (which has been bad for 20+ years and where a kid was stabbed last week) you will not get IB participation in large numbers for Wells. Ward 4 is the most diverse ward in the city - so increasing IB buy-in will keep the school diverse by most metrics - but getting a critical cohort of Lafayette/Shepherd families is going to save Coolidge which will ensure Well's future.

There are plenty of UMC families IB for Wells/Coolidge who could probably contribute to the improvement of the school if they actually chose to send their kids there. They don’t though. Why would additional UMC families from Lafayette and Shepherd be different?

You...need....a....critical....mass.

Tracking students gets a bad rap, but it does allow for the acquisition of a critical mass. I mean look at Hardy Middle; getting that mass took some time, but now it pretty much is Deal MS south and getting whiter and richer every year. Once Hyde goes mostly IB (which seems happening fast), the entire pyramid goes mostly IB.

It's a toxic history more than a bad rap. In the years after Brown v. Board, white Washington didn't just quietly accept integration. Rather, they fought it every step of the way with procedural ploys. One of them was gerrymandering attendance boundaries to separate students by race, and another was setting up tracking systems where all the white kids were in one track and all the Black kids were in another. It took roughly twenty years of lawsuits after Brown to fully dismantle official segregation. (I'm not saying the schools aren't segregated today, just that it's not done as a matter of policy.)

A lot of DCPS policy about things like boundaries and tracking came out of the settlement of those lawsuits.

Funny thing happened between then and now. Black families of high performing kids who want a quality education are opting out of DCPS because the historical discrimination defense is BS and black families know it. Tracking that is being advocated for today is a demand for advanced kids to be allowed to have advanced classes with other advanced classes. So many people are making countervailing "equity" arguments that are a catch 22. Advanced classes and tracking are a way to advance white kids. But testing and other objective measurements are a violation of principles of equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.hillrag.com/2023/03/21/dc-begins-school-boundary-study/

Well this is exciting! I actually just recycled all my papers from the last boundary study where they proposed small geographic clusters with both DCPS and charters in them and replacing by-rights high schools with an all city lottery... Lots of grand plans for sweeping changes that resulted in ... a few boundary tweaks. School boundaries are quite the third rail in this city.

Why is the representation on the committee so lopsided?

W1: one rep
W2: one rep
W3: one rep
W4: three reps
W5: two reps
W6: one rep
W7: three reps
W8: three reps
City wide: 4 reps

Seems like the committee is rigged. Was it a similar composition 10 years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always amused by y’all trying to kick Shepherd out in the name of overcrowding. Shepherd is such a tiny school.

Shepherd + 1/2 Lafayette would create a stronger cohort at Wells/Coolidge. I am always amused by the entitled Chevy Chase and Shepherd Park families who think it's too challenging to take Military/Piney Branch in the morning, and then want to restrict equity access at OOB at Deal/J-R. We see you.

UMC Takoma Elem family here. I support Shepard being zoned to Wells because I thing it makes sense geographically but I hate the narrative that we need students from other schools to come to Well’s to save us. I have been paying close attention to Wells and am looking forward to send my kid there without any new boundaries needed. I’m far more curious to see how many kids wind up in the new Walter reed developments and where they wind up.

Cool story. Not sending my (non-white, minority religion) DD to Wells unless the number of IB students goes up. Have toured school, met principal (seems great), but MS is fairly universally the worst time in a kid's life, and unless we improve Coolidge (which has been bad for 20+ years and where a kid was stabbed last week) you will not get IB participation in large numbers for Wells. Ward 4 is the most diverse ward in the city - so increasing IB buy-in will keep the school diverse by most metrics - but getting a critical cohort of Lafayette/Shepherd families is going to save Coolidge which will ensure Well's future.

What is large percentage to you. It is 68% inbound so far? Also curious why you assume that oob students are necessarily worse than in bound?

The boundary participation rate for Wells is 25%, Coolidge is 21%; Takoma is 35%. In contrast, Lafayette has a boundary participation of 92%; Deal is 74%; and J/R is 68%. Ward-wide, Ward 4 has a high level of education for women - the education level of the mother is the single biggest predictor of academic success for any student. There are also benefits in terms of community building when there is buy-in into the school.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for posting this. Tracking and "Gifted and Talented" programs are not the simple and perfect fix, and are a much more complex topic. Five or our six years ago there was a Book Club hosted at Stuart Hobson by the then Principal - we all read a chapter of a book and discussed it as a group. I later bought the book and read the whole thing, I highly recommend it. (Book is called Despite the Best Intentions, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22104174-despite-the-best-intentions) In addition to what the PP's text I pasted below, tracking and gifted programs can be problematic for a variety of reasons. When kids are tracked and placed at a young age, it it is hard for students to enter into those classes and tracks at a later date. A kid may not place in those programs for a lot of reasons (they were not at the school at that time, they transferred from another school and were behind, etc). Either way, unless it is done VERY carefully, tracking can exclude kids who are very capable from accessing quality instruction. After I read this book I started reading a bit more into it, and learned that the process for placing kids in tracked classes/Gifted programs can be a lot more subjective than I was comfortable with. Anyway, separate from this specific discussion/thread, I recommend the book, and I give the then Stuart Hobson principal credit for opening up his school/community to discussing this complex topic and trying to find the balance of how to make sure kids are challenged without excluding anybody. The chapter we read together was chapter 4 "It's Like Two High Schools".

It's a toxic history more than a bad rap. In the years after Brown v. Board, white Washington didn't just quietly accept integration. Rather, they fought it every step of the way with procedural ploys. One of them was gerrymandering attendance boundaries to separate students by race, and another was setting up tracking systems where all the white kids were in one track and all the Black kids were in another. It took roughly twenty years of lawsuits after Brown to fully dismantle official segregation. (I'm not saying the schools aren't segregated today, just that it's not done as a matter of policy.)

A lot of DCPS policy about things like boundaries and tracking came out of the settlement of those lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.hillrag.com/2023/03/21/dc-begins-school-boundary-study/

Well this is exciting! I actually just recycled all my papers from the last boundary study where they proposed small geographic clusters with both DCPS and charters in them and replacing by-rights high schools with an all city lottery... Lots of grand plans for sweeping changes that resulted in ... a few boundary tweaks. School boundaries are quite the third rail in this city.

Why is the representation on the committee so lopsided?

W1: one rep
W2: one rep
W3: one rep
W4: three reps
W5: two reps
W6: one rep
W7: three reps
W8: three reps
City wide: 4 reps

Seems like the committee is rigged. Was it a similar composition 10 years ago?

Wow, that is ridiculous.

Wards 7 and 8 are the least populous wards and they each get 3 reps?

Wards 1-4 are about the same size in population; ward 5 is a bit bigger; and ward 6 is the biggest. Yet wards 1-3 and 6 only get 1 rep; 4 gets 3 reps; and 5 gets 2 reps?

WTF?

[Anonymous]

Why is the representation on the committee so lopsided?

W1: one rep
W2: one rep
W3: one rep
W4: three reps
W5: two reps
W6: one rep
W7: three reps
W8: three reps
City wide: 4 reps

Seems like the committee is rigged. Was it a similar composition 10 years ago?

Wow, that is ridiculous.

Wards 7 and 8 are the least populous wards and they each get 3 reps?

Wards 1-4 are about the same size in population; ward 5 is a bit bigger; and ward 6 is the biggest. Yet wards 1-3 and 6 only get 1 rep; 4 gets 3 reps; and 5 gets 2 reps?

WTF?

If you look at this report, and see page 13 (https://dcpolicycenter.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2020-21-State-of-DC-Schools-pages-format.pdf) I am guessing the numbers on the committee are based on the percent of public school children come from that ward. Ward 6 is a huge ward, but many of the residents don't have kids, or send them to non public schools. So they total up to only 11% of the total students in public schools. Whereas wards 7 and 8 combined total is 42% of the public school population. So while the committee has parents from all wards, maybe it weighs them based on their proportional participation in the public school system?

[Anonymous]

Meant to write this as a separate reply, but it got connected to the last comment:

"If you look at this report, and see page 13 (https://dcpolicycenter.wpenginepowered.com/wp-cont...of-DC-Schools-pages-format.pdf) I am guessing the numbers on the committee are based on the percent of public school children come from that ward. Ward 6 is a huge ward, but many of the residents don't have kids, or send them to non public schools. So they total up to only 11% of the total students in public schools. Whereas wards 7 and 8 combined total is 42% of the public school population. So while the committee has parents from all wards, maybe it weighs them based on their proportional participation in the public school system?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.hillrag.com/2023/03/21/dc-begins-school-boundary-study/

Well this is exciting! I actually just recycled all my papers from the last boundary study where they proposed small geographic clusters with both DCPS and charters in them and replacing by-rights high schools with an all city lottery... Lots of grand plans for sweeping changes that resulted in ... a few boundary tweaks. School boundaries are quite the third rail in this city.

Why is the representation on the committee so lopsided?

W1: one rep
W2: one rep
W3: one rep
W4: three reps
W5: two reps
W6: one rep
W7: three reps
W8: three reps
City wide: 4 reps

Seems like the committee is rigged. Was it a similar composition 10 years ago?

Wow, that is ridiculous.

Wards 7 and 8 are the least populous wards and they each get 3 reps?

Wards 1-4 are about the same size in population; ward 5 is a bit bigger; and ward 6 is the biggest. Yet wards 1-3 and 6 only get 1 rep; 4 gets 3 reps; and 5 gets 2 reps?

WTF?

Wards 7 and 8 make up about 60% of the school aged children. Why wouldn’t they have more reps exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meant to write this as a separate reply, but it got connected to the last comment:

"If you look at this report, and see page 13 (https://dcpolicycenter.wpenginepowered.com/wp-cont...of-DC-Schools-pages-format.pdf) I am guessing the numbers on the committee are based on the percent of public school children come from that ward. Ward 6 is a huge ward, but many of the residents don't have kids, or send them to non public schools. So they total up to only 11% of the total students in public schools. Whereas wards 7 and 8 combined total is 42% of the public school population. So while the committee has parents from all wards, maybe it weighs them based on their proportional participation in the public school system?"

Maybe more people in the underrepresented wards would send their kids to DCPS if their needs were better taken into account....

[Anonymous]

Funny story, Ward 6 originally had ZERO reps because they forgot about Ward boundary changes, so they had to reach out to folks to add someone.

[Anonymous]

Whatever they do I just assume it will be bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This time around I am sure it will produce similar emotions and reactions, and who knows what the outcome will be. But I do think one major difference is that last time they did this, it was the first time in 40+ years, and they had to consider the addition of all charter schools, the closure of many schools under Rhee, the huge increase in public school students from the 1990s-2010 time periods, etc. Between 1996 and 2013, 58 schools had closed in the district, and other public schools had been converted to magnet (eg. Duke Ellington) and others charter. While there have been some new charters in the last 10 years, the rate and sheer number of new schools/closures is not as extreme. Which makes me think they may end up having time for some of the bigger ore tricky changes they didn't tackle last time. And while it seems like some on here like to throw the word 'equity' around like it is a bad word, it really does benefit the city as a whole if we try to advocate for better educational options for all of the schools, not just worrying about the one school our specific child goes to. Just my two cents ...
https://ggwash.org/view/34224/school-boundary-review-part-1-committee-grapples-with-a-changed-dc-while-parents-worry.[/quote

No, “equity” as a buzz word does not benefit the city as a whole. It’s behind harmful policies, like the dismantling of honors classes and discouragement of homework. Actual equity (as in, making neighborhood schools better) is much harder than “equity.”

It will be interesting to see how they balance equity and “equity.” For example, in W6 the MS and HS would become much more integrated if they were allowed to offer actual honors programs or more tracked subjects. But that’s taboo now. As always, the people most hurt by this are the bright MC/lower MC kids in DCPS who don’t have access to gifted/honors programs.

Why would DCPS be opposed to tracking if it helps bring about more diverse student bodies? Honest question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This time around I am sure it will produce similar emotions and reactions, and who knows what the outcome will be. But I do think one major difference is that last time they did this, it was the first time in 40+ years, and they had to consider the addition of all charter schools, the closure of many schools under Rhee, the huge increase in public school students from the 1990s-2010 time periods, etc. Between 1996 and 2013, 58 schools had closed in the district, and other public schools had been converted to magnet (eg. Duke Ellington) and others charter. While there have been some new charters in the last 10 years, the rate and sheer number of new schools/closures is not as extreme. Which makes me think they may end up having time for some of the bigger ore tricky changes they didn't tackle last time. And while it seems like some on here like to throw the word 'equity' around like it is a bad word, it really does benefit the city as a whole if we try to advocate for better educational options for all of the schools, not just worrying about the one school our specific child goes to. Just my two cents ...
https://ggwash.org/view/34224/school-boundary-review-part-1-committee-grapples-with-a-changed-dc-while-parents-worry.[/quote

No, “equity” as a buzz word does not benefit the city as a whole. It’s behind harmful policies, like the dismantling of honors classes and discouragement of homework. Actual equity (as in, making neighborhood schools better) is much harder than “equity.”

It will be interesting to see how they balance equity and “equity.” For example, in W6 the MS and HS would become much more integrated if they were allowed to offer actual honors programs or more tracked subjects. But that’s taboo now. As always, the people most hurt by this are the bright MC/lower MC kids in DCPS who don’t have access to gifted/honors programs.

Why would DCPS be opposed to tracking if it helps bring about more diverse student bodies? Honest question.

See a few posts above -- historically tracking has created segregation, even within the same school. Not to say it can't be done, but again, to quote the title of that book, despite the best intention, lots of research of examples of tracking and gifted and talented programs do not help with segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.hillrag.com/2023/03/21/dc-begins-school-boundary-study/

Well this is exciting! I actually just recycled all my papers from the last boundary study where they proposed small geographic clusters with both DCPS and charters in them and replacing by-rights high schools with an all city lottery... Lots of grand plans for sweeping changes that resulted in ... a few boundary tweaks. School boundaries are quite the third rail in this city.

Why is the representation on the committee so lopsided?

W1: one rep
W2: one rep
W3: one rep
W4: three reps
W5: two reps
W6: one rep
W7: three reps
W8: three reps
City wide: 4 reps

Seems like the committee is rigged. Was it a similar composition 10 years ago?

Wow, that is ridiculous.

Wards 7 and 8 are the least populous wards and they each get 3 reps?

Wards 1-4 are about the same size in population; ward 5 is a bit bigger; and ward 6 is the biggest. Yet wards 1-3 and 6 only get 1 rep; 4 gets 3 reps; and 5 gets 2 reps?

WTF?

Wards 7 and 8 make up about 60% of the school aged children. Why wouldn’t they have more reps exactly?

1. Everyone in DC pays taxes, which support the public schools.

2. School boundaries affect home prices, traffic patterns, etc.

3. DC residents who are pregnant, planning to have kids in the near future, or thinking about sending their kids to public schools shouldn't be ignored.

4. By your logic, people in wards 7 and 8 should pay more for public schools since they have relatively more kids in the public schools.

As the DC license says, this is just "taxation without representation."