When will schools like Janney step up and do their fair share to take at-risk kids??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That $55k is a lot more than the teachers made at the Title I charter school my kid used to go to.

Teacher salary is set by DCPS and is independent of the school at which the teacher works (except for 40/40 bonuses and such).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That $55k is a lot more than the teachers made at the Title I charter school my kid used to go to.

Teacher salary is set by DCPS and is independent of the school at which the teacher works (except for 40/40 bonuses and such).

Charter schools all set their own pay, DCPS has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Janney parent, I don’t at all see how this would be possible without expanding the school, which I don’t think there is room for, or redoing boundaries. At prek4, all but 5 seats from the lottery went to sibling, inbound preference. The 5 remaining went to inbound. At K, they HAVE to take all remaining inbound as an initial matter. That nearly completely fills up remaining seats. And a fair amount of the non-inbound go to out of bounds IEP children.

I will add though that Janney is horrendously equipped you handle at risk/IEP kids. Any child that deviates from the norm in any way is very disadvantaged at Janney. It would not be in their best interest to go there. Super sad but true.

How do you know this? IEP kids do not have a flag on them. [Note - my child does have an IEP. I see the sign-ups for OT and Speech (using this as a sample for "IEP kids" I typically know the families and they live in the neighborhood.

Because I was able to get my child into out of bounds prek3 of choice automatically due to the IEP and then move him to Janney based on the IEP even before we moved to AUPark. Now we live in AUPark so it’s in boundary. But both schools he attended were out of boundary when we got it. They are able to slot you pretty seamless as you request. My friend’s child had the same experience- they slotted her out of boundary child into Hearst then seamlessly switched him to Key when things went horribly with Hearst’s handling of the IEP. Both were out of boundary for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Janney parent, I don’t at all see how this would be possible without expanding the school, which I don’t think there is room for, or redoing boundaries. At prek4, all but 5 seats from the lottery went to sibling, inbound preference. The 5 remaining went to inbound. At K, they HAVE to take all remaining inbound as an initial matter. That nearly completely fills up remaining seats. And a fair amount of the non-inbound go to out of bounds IEP children.

I will add though that Janney is horrendously equipped you handle at risk/IEP kids. Any child that deviates from the norm in any way is very disadvantaged at Janney. It would not be in their best interest to go there. Super sad but true.

How do you know this? IEP kids do not have a flag on them. [Note - my child does have an IEP. I see the sign-ups for OT and Speech (using this as a sample for "IEP kids" I typically know the families and they live in the neighborhood.

Because I was able to get my child into out of bounds prek3 of choice automatically due to the IEP and then move him to Janney based on the IEP even before we moved to AUPark. Now we live in AUPark so it’s in boundary. But both schools he attended were out of boundary when we got it. They are able to slot you pretty seamless as you request. My friend’s child had the same experience- they slotted her out of boundary child into Hearst then seamlessly switched him to Key when things went horribly with Hearst’s handling of the IEP. Both were out of boundary for her.

NP. I think you're describing a very different issue, in which students with IEPs can and sometimes are moved around DCPS because the system as a whole is responsible for providing them with an appropriate education (this is a good thing IMO).

But it doesn't mean that you would necessarily know that any child coming into a Wilson-feeding school HAS SN, because At-Risk =/= SN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That $55k is a lot more than the teachers made at the Title I charter school my kid used to go to.

Teacher salary is set by DCPS and is independent of the school at which the teacher works (except for 40/40 bonuses and such).

+1. Duh! Do you think that the teachers at JKLM schools make more than teachers at Title I DCPS schools?? Charter schools are another thing, but that comparison would be valid for any DCPS school, high or low SES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in my 10th year as a DCPS parent and have had two kids go all the way through JKLM and currently have one at Deal and one at Walls.

My observation is that current parents want a good school for their own kids much more than they have some underlying desire to keep either at risk or more generally disadvantaged kids out. Meaning, they buy in boundary for good schools to ensure that their kids go to good schools, they are moving to these neighborhoods for access, not exclusivity. This means that they are fine with their kids attending school with at risk and disadvantaged kids so long as the in boundary kids continue to get a good education. My kids have had numerous OOB friends and classmates (all bright and successful kids and I only know where families live because of birthday parties and such) and I have never heard a negative comment towards or about such students.

Here is what I think could help (not solve) the problem. More well-resourced elementary schools in boundary for the currently oversubscribed schools and a plan to make set aside seats available to at risk students with appropriate support. That includes transportation and other supports to make getting to these schools feasible so these students can show up rested and ready to learn.

Also, add another middle school that is also well resourced and fed by successful elementary schools. Spread the same students out across more schools where the parents can be assured their kids are going to school with a majority prepared cohort and strong academics where there is also space for all the students coming up through the expanded feeders.

My point is, most of the parents do not require perfect, we live in DC and send our kids to DCPS by choice, we live in a diverse city by choice and want solid schools but we are not Fairfax county families stressing over AAP programs and gunning for TJ.

The problem is that the city isn’t going to build new schools WOTP. Bad optics.

That’s why people zoned for Lafayette go bananas when someone suggests they feed to Wells and the Coolidge.

DC has a system of neighborhood schools. Students should attend the schools that they are zoned for. It’s nuts to keep building Ward 3 schools bigger and bigger so that they can take more students who have to cross the city.

It's not only nuts, it's shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in my 10th year as a DCPS parent and have had two kids go all the way through JKLM and currently have one at Deal and one at Walls.

My observation is that current parents want a good school for their own kids much more than they have some underlying desire to keep either at risk or more generally disadvantaged kids out. Meaning, they buy in boundary for good schools to ensure that their kids go to good schools, they are moving to these neighborhoods for access, not exclusivity. This means that they are fine with their kids attending school with at risk and disadvantaged kids so long as the in boundary kids continue to get a good education. My kids have had numerous OOB friends and classmates (all bright and successful kids and I only know where families live because of birthday parties and such) and I have never heard a negative comment towards or about such students.

Here is what I think could help (not solve) the problem. More well-resourced elementary schools in boundary for the currently oversubscribed schools and a plan to make set aside seats available to at risk students with appropriate support. That includes transportation and other supports to make getting to these schools feasible so these students can show up rested and ready to learn.

Also, add another middle school that is also well resourced and fed by successful elementary schools. Spread the same students out across more schools where the parents can be assured their kids are going to school with a majority prepared cohort and strong academics where there is also space for all the students coming up through the expanded feeders.

My point is, most of the parents do not require perfect, we live in DC and send our kids to DCPS by choice, we live in a diverse city by choice and want solid schools but we are not Fairfax county families stressing over AAP programs and gunning for TJ.

The problem is that the city isn’t going to build new schools WOTP. Bad optics.

That’s why people zoned for Lafayette go bananas when someone suggests they feed to Wells and the Coolidge.

DC has a system of neighborhood schools. Students should attend the schools that they are zoned for. It’s nuts to keep building Ward 3 schools bigger and bigger so that they can take more students who have to cross the city.

It's not only nuts, it's shameful.

Uh huh. And you really think that parents in Ward 3 would stand for their kids being randomly assigned to Mayor Marion Barry Educational Center in Southeast DC ?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Janney parent, I don’t at all see how this would be possible without expanding the school, which I don’t think there is room for, or redoing boundaries. At prek4, all but 5 seats from the lottery went to sibling, inbound preference. The 5 remaining went to inbound. At K, they HAVE to take all remaining inbound as an initial matter. That nearly completely fills up remaining seats. And a fair amount of the non-inbound go to out of bounds IEP children.

I will add though that Janney is horrendously equipped you handle at risk/IEP kids. Any child that deviates from the norm in any way is very disadvantaged at Janney. It would not be in their best interest to go there. Super sad but true.

How do you know this? IEP kids do not have a flag on them. [Note - my child does have an IEP. I see the sign-ups for OT and Speech (using this as a sample for "IEP kids" I typically know the families and they live in the neighborhood.

Because I was able to get my child into out of bounds prek3 of choice automatically due to the IEP and then move him to Janney based on the IEP even before we moved to AUPark. Now we live in AUPark so it’s in boundary. But both schools he attended were out of boundary when we got it. They are able to slot you pretty seamless as you request. My friend’s child had the same experience- they slotted her out of boundary child into Hearst then seamlessly switched him to Key when things went horribly with Hearst’s handling of the IEP. Both were out of boundary for her.

NP. I think you're describing a very different issue, in which students with IEPs can and sometimes are moved around DCPS because the system as a whole is responsible for providing them with an appropriate education (this is a good thing IMO).

But it doesn't mean that you would necessarily know that any child coming into a Wilson-feeding school HAS SN, because At-Risk =/= SN.

OP. I also think it is a good thing. My understanding of the post I was responding to was that there were two parts raised - one, whether IEP kids get preference and can enter Janney from out of bounds, which is what I was responding to. And second, whether people know who is an IEP kid. I did not respond as to the latter but I can tell you that the teachers and all administration 100% know which are the IEP kids and they are then treated very differently and inappropriately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids go to Janney, and I would happily support increasing class sizes by 10 percent and saving those spots for at-risk students. That’s two kids per class. Does anyone seriously think that would be outrageously disruptive? Your kids can handle having a couple more friends.

If the right supports for such kids were in place in DCPS, right, two at-risk kids won't be a problem, not at all. Problem is, the right supports aren't in place. We're at a highly gentrified DCPS EotP where two at-risk kids who work a couple years behind the grade level of the others can easily eat up around a quarter of a classroom teacher's time and energy. We've seen this happen every year in the school. At-risk kids have a way of dragging down a group of high performers, not because anybody wants this, but because DCPS doesn't have a good system in place to help them. You're WotP, so you don't know how this works. What happens at our school is that high SES parents slyly form advanced tutoring groups on the side to supplement, to help ensure that our children don't fall behind you WotP'ers.

My kids are at Janney now but went for four years to an EOTP charter school. If Janney suddenly started taking on an additional 10 percent of its student population with set-aside spots for at-risk kids, someone -- the PTA or DCPS or the school administration -- would make sure there were more resources in place and would handle it. I really don't think two at-risk kids would drag down a whole classroom of kids from extremely wealthy families taught by experienced, well-paid teachers.

Janney wouldn't stop being high performing for sure but performance would absolutely be impacted. Two at-risk kids per class would be 5-10% of the population. Janney has a 5-star rating that is just above the 80 points needed. A swing of 10% of students who are at-risk would most likely drop Janney down to the 4-star level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids go to Janney, and I would happily support increasing class sizes by 10 percent and saving those spots for at-risk students. That’s two kids per class. Does anyone seriously think that would be outrageously disruptive? Your kids can handle having a couple more friends.

If the right supports for such kids were in place in DCPS, right, two at-risk kids won't be a problem, not at all. Problem is, the right supports aren't in place. We're at a highly gentrified DCPS EotP where two at-risk kids who work a couple years behind the grade level of the others can easily eat up around a quarter of a classroom teacher's time and energy. We've seen this happen every year in the school. At-risk kids have a way of dragging down a group of high performers, not because anybody wants this, but because DCPS doesn't have a good system in place to help them. You're WotP, so you don't know how this works. What happens at our school is that high SES parents slyly form advanced tutoring groups on the side to supplement, to help ensure that our children don't fall behind you WotP'ers.

My kids are at Janney now but went for four years to an EOTP charter school. If Janney suddenly started taking on an additional 10 percent of its student population with set-aside spots for at-risk kids, someone -- the PTA or DCPS or the school administration -- would make sure there were more resources in place and would handle it. I really don't think two at-risk kids would drag down a whole classroom of kids from extremely wealthy families taught by experienced, well-paid teachers.

Janney wouldn't stop being high performing for sure but performance would absolutely be impacted. Two at-risk kids per class would be 5-10% of the population. Janney has a 5-star rating that is just above the 80 points needed. A swing of 10% of students who are at-risk would most likely drop Janney down to the 4-star level.

FFS. Do you not realize that an at-risk student is not necessarily below proficiency on PARCC, and if they are in a solid school with high-performing peers they will almost certainly do better than at a low-performing school (not harming your rating). Further, the STAR ratings will onlyl fall if Janney can't help any at-risk child progress to or toward proficiency.

If your school is all that, they should be able to educate anyone. If you can't, then it actually deserves 2 or 3 stars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids go to Janney, and I would happily support increasing class sizes by 10 percent and saving those spots for at-risk students. That’s two kids per class. Does anyone seriously think that would be outrageously disruptive? Your kids can handle having a couple more friends.

If the right supports for such kids were in place in DCPS, right, two at-risk kids won't be a problem, not at all. Problem is, the right supports aren't in place. We're at a highly gentrified DCPS EotP where two at-risk kids who work a couple years behind the grade level of the others can easily eat up around a quarter of a classroom teacher's time and energy. We've seen this happen every year in the school. At-risk kids have a way of dragging down a group of high performers, not because anybody wants this, but because DCPS doesn't have a good system in place to help them. You're WotP, so you don't know how this works. What happens at our school is that high SES parents slyly form advanced tutoring groups on the side to supplement, to help ensure that our children don't fall behind you WotP'ers.

My kids are at Janney now but went for four years to an EOTP charter school. If Janney suddenly started taking on an additional 10 percent of its student population with set-aside spots for at-risk kids, someone -- the PTA or DCPS or the school administration -- would make sure there were more resources in place and would handle it. I really don't think two at-risk kids would drag down a whole classroom of kids from extremely wealthy families taught by experienced, well-paid teachers.

Janney wouldn't stop being high performing for sure but performance would absolutely be impacted. Two at-risk kids per class would be 5-10% of the population. Janney has a 5-star rating that is just above the 80 points needed. A swing of 10% of students who are at-risk would most likely drop Janney down to the 4-star level.

FFS. Do you not realize that an at-risk student is not necessarily below proficiency on PARCC, and if they are in a solid school with high-performing peers they will almost certainly do better than at a low-performing school (not harming your rating). Further, the STAR ratings will onlyl fall if Janney can't help any at-risk child progress to or toward proficiency.

If your school is all that, they should be able to educate anyone. If you can't, then it actually deserves 2 or 3 stars.

I realize that Janney proficiency overall is about 88% for ELA and 82% for math. For African American students, it is 59% for ELA and 45% for math. While Janney is 5-star overall, it is 4-star for African Americans. City-wide, as a group at-risk students perform lower than African Americans as a group. Who knows, maybe Janney would do better for at-risk students than they do for African Americans (and certainly Janney's performance for African Americans is better than many places in the city).

Also, yes, any individual at-risk student is not necessarily below proficiency on PARCC, but generally at-risk students are not as proficient as their non-at-risk peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in my 10th year as a DCPS parent and have had two kids go all the way through JKLM and currently have one at Deal and one at Walls.

My observation is that current parents want a good school for their own kids much more than they have some underlying desire to keep either at risk or more generally disadvantaged kids out. Meaning, they buy in boundary for good schools to ensure that their kids go to good schools, they are moving to these neighborhoods for access, not exclusivity. This means that they are fine with their kids attending school with at risk and disadvantaged kids so long as the in boundary kids continue to get a good education. My kids have had numerous OOB friends and classmates (all bright and successful kids and I only know where families live because of birthday parties and such) and I have never heard a negative comment towards or about such students.

Here is what I think could help (not solve) the problem. More well-resourced elementary schools in boundary for the currently oversubscribed schools and a plan to make set aside seats available to at risk students with appropriate support. That includes transportation and other supports to make getting to these schools feasible so these students can show up rested and ready to learn.

Also, add another middle school that is also well resourced and fed by successful elementary schools. Spread the same students out across more schools where the parents can be assured their kids are going to school with a majority prepared cohort and strong academics where there is also space for all the students coming up through the expanded feeders.

My point is, most of the parents do not require perfect, we live in DC and send our kids to DCPS by choice, we live in a diverse city by choice and want solid schools but we are not Fairfax county families stressing over AAP programs and gunning for TJ.

The problem is that the city isn’t going to build new schools WOTP. Bad optics.

That’s why people zoned for Lafayette go bananas when someone suggests they feed to Wells and the Coolidge.

DC has a system of neighborhood schools. Students should attend the schools that they are zoned for. It’s nuts to keep building Ward 3 schools bigger and bigger so that they can take more students who have to cross the city.

It's not only nuts, it's shameful.

What's shameful is a system that makes it so you can only go to a good school if you can afford to buy a house in a neighborhood zoned for one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in my 10th year as a DCPS parent and have had two kids go all the way through JKLM and currently have one at Deal and one at Walls.

My observation is that current parents want a good school for their own kids much more than they have some underlying desire to keep either at risk or more generally disadvantaged kids out. Meaning, they buy in boundary for good schools to ensure that their kids go to good schools, they are moving to these neighborhoods for access, not exclusivity. This means that they are fine with their kids attending school with at risk and disadvantaged kids so long as the in boundary kids continue to get a good education. My kids have had numerous OOB friends and classmates (all bright and successful kids and I only know where families live because of birthday parties and such) and I have never heard a negative comment towards or about such students.

Here is what I think could help (not solve) the problem. More well-resourced elementary schools in boundary for the currently oversubscribed schools and a plan to make set aside seats available to at risk students with appropriate support. That includes transportation and other supports to make getting to these schools feasible so these students can show up rested and ready to learn.

Also, add another middle school that is also well resourced and fed by successful elementary schools. Spread the same students out across more schools where the parents can be assured their kids are going to school with a majority prepared cohort and strong academics where there is also space for all the students coming up through the expanded feeders.

My point is, most of the parents do not require perfect, we live in DC and send our kids to DCPS by choice, we live in a diverse city by choice and want solid schools but we are not Fairfax county families stressing over AAP programs and gunning for TJ.

The problem is that the city isn’t going to build new schools WOTP. Bad optics.

That’s why people zoned for Lafayette go bananas when someone suggests they feed to Wells and the Coolidge.

DC has a system of neighborhood schools. Students should attend the schools that they are zoned for. It’s nuts to keep building Ward 3 schools bigger and bigger so that they can take more students who have to cross the city.

It's not only nuts, it's shameful.

What's shameful is a system that makes it so you can only go to a good school if you can afford to buy a house in a neighborhood zoned for one.

One problem is that half of DC wants even more rigorous public schools. The other half values DCPS as a jobs program, which leads to dead wood and poor performance among staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in my 10th year as a DCPS parent and have had two kids go all the way through JKLM and currently have one at Deal and one at Walls.

My observation is that current parents want a good school for their own kids much more than they have some underlying desire to keep either at risk or more generally disadvantaged kids out. Meaning, they buy in boundary for good schools to ensure that their kids go to good schools, they are moving to these neighborhoods for access, not exclusivity. This means that they are fine with their kids attending school with at risk and disadvantaged kids so long as the in boundary kids continue to get a good education. My kids have had numerous OOB friends and classmates (all bright and successful kids and I only know where families live because of birthday parties and such) and I have never heard a negative comment towards or about such students.

Here is what I think could help (not solve) the problem. More well-resourced elementary schools in boundary for the currently oversubscribed schools and a plan to make set aside seats available to at risk students with appropriate support. That includes transportation and other supports to make getting to these schools feasible so these students can show up rested and ready to learn.

Also, add another middle school that is also well resourced and fed by successful elementary schools. Spread the same students out across more schools where the parents can be assured their kids are going to school with a majority prepared cohort and strong academics where there is also space for all the students coming up through the expanded feeders.

My point is, most of the parents do not require perfect, we live in DC and send our kids to DCPS by choice, we live in a diverse city by choice and want solid schools but we are not Fairfax county families stressing over AAP programs and gunning for TJ.

The problem is that the city isn’t going to build new schools WOTP. Bad optics.

That’s why people zoned for Lafayette go bananas when someone suggests they feed to Wells and the Coolidge.

DC has a system of neighborhood schools. Students should attend the schools that they are zoned for. It’s nuts to keep building Ward 3 schools bigger and bigger so that they can take more students who have to cross the city.

It's not only nuts, it's shameful.

What's shameful is a system that makes it so you can only go to a good school if you can afford to buy a house in a neighborhood zoned for one.

Its it really a system that makes this so? Is that system DCPS? DC government? America? Capitalism?

Why are the good schools considered good? I am in a charter that serves a fairly high proportion of at-risk kids -- it's not the highest in the city but it is way above average for at-risk kids. One of the parents has a student who has been at the school from Kindergarten through 4th. She says that since her kid is so high performing she now wants to send them to Basis or OOB to a highly regarded DCPS school. I asked her why and she says that since the current school got her kid to be high performing, she now wants the kid to be among all (or almost all) high performing kids and (as she puts it), high performing families. She says she has faith in her current school but they can't deliver the peers she wants for her child.

I suppose if you don't open any OOB seats and force families to have only the option of their neighborhood school, those schools could potentially get better? But... probably not. Those families would just call for more charters or they'd move or go private.

[Anonymous]

What's shameful is a system that makes it so you can only go to a good school if you can afford to buy a house in a neighborhood zoned for one.

What's shameful is the multi-generational poverty and cultural rejection of achievement in much of DC.

I assert that there are very "good schools" — nay, excellent schools — in DCPS where 50-98% of the student population come from families described above. The "schools" aren't the problem.