DC Begins School Boundary Study

[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?"

Seems like that would be a good reason for ward 6 to have three reps, since ward is is failing the most at retaining kids in DCPS public school.

[Anonymous]

But if tracking can be subjective, why not have standardized tests then? And to be more inclusive, maybe don't even make the tests too hard. Basically just test for basic proficiency like the PARC already does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Wacky. So boomers should dictate school boundary cause NIMBY reasons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

If you're looking for an example of a neighboring school system that doesn't rely on test-in GT programs to provide middle school challenge, look no further than Arlington, where I teach middle school. In Arlington, advanced middle school students earn the right to take "intensive" (vs. honors) classes in 8th grade in science, social studies (geography for HS credit), English and math by having earned As in these subjects as 7th graders. DCPS, where I've also taught, always seems to be looking for a political viable excuse to duck out of offering advanced middle school students advanced classes outside of math. It's a misguided policy that still drives many UMC families out of DCPS middle schools, including Deal and Hardy.

[Anonymous]

+1. No need for DCPS to continue to reject almost all forms of MS tracking here in 2023. A boundary review isn’t half as important as a policy change!

[Anonymous]

I think a smart way of introducing a variety of levels of classes would be a great idea. I think it would need to be a citywide policy, and not just a plan implemented a certain schools to draw/retain a certain cohort of kids. Because kids in DC move around a lot more between charters and public schools, and from MD/other jurisdictions, it would need to be set up in a way that a kid was not disqualified due to not being at the school the prior year and receiving a specific grade. I am also a fan of having it on a class by class basis. I think the risk comes with developing set tracks/programs in early middle school that last for years and shut some kids out of extra content and material based on an entry requirement at a young age. When programs are set up in that manner, it is extremely hard for a kid to enter any advanced courses at a later date, even if they are completely capable of completing the assigned work.
On a separate but related note, I think at the high school level it would be interesting to allow kids to enroll in AP or other courses across different high schools in the city. We already have several high schools that offer college credit/dual enrollment courses, but since none of our high schools can offer all of the various AP or career/technical classes, I think it could be a good use of resources to allow kids to dual-enroll in different schools for specific AP or specialty courses.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I’m confused by these boundary participation rates. Why not look at the % of the students at the school who also live in bounds. From the school profiles on the DCPS website the percent of kids enrolled in schools who are in bounds for the school are:
78% Deal
64% Jackson-Reed
62% Wells
62% Hardy

92% Janney
88% Murch
88% Lafayette
78% Mann
77% Hearst
74% Brightwood
72% Eaton
70% Takoma
63% Shepard
58% Whittier

So yes. The West of the park schools do have somewhat higher percentages of the students at the school being from within their boundary but not outrageously so. I bet if there were as many charter options as close to Lafayette and Deal as there are to Takoma and Wells the numbers would be even closer. I’m sure a good number of Lafayette families would choose Language immersion or Montessori charter if given the option and Deal families might choose charters like Latin or DCI more frequently if they were closer.

So my question remains. Why is a cohort of 60-70% of the students being from the in-bounds area not a large enough cohort of in-bound students to consider the school?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I’m confused by these boundary participation rates. Why not look at the % of the students at the school who also live in bounds. From the school profiles on the DCPS website the percent of kids enrolled in schools who are in bounds for the school are:
78% Deal
64% Jackson-Reed
62% Wells
62% Hardy

92% Janney
88% Murch
88% Lafayette
78% Mann
77% Hearst
74% Brightwood
72% Eaton
70% Takoma
63% Shepard
58% Whittier

So yes. The West of the park schools do have somewhat higher percentages of the students at the school being from within their boundary but not outrageously so. I bet if there were as many charter options as close to Lafayette and Deal as there are to Takoma and Wells the numbers would be even closer. I’m sure a good number of Lafayette families would choose Language immersion or Montessori charter if given the option and Deal families might choose charters like Latin or DCI more frequently if they were closer.

So my question remains. Why is a cohort of 60-70% of the students being from the in-bounds area not a large enough cohort of in-bound students to consider the school?

DCI and Latin have plenty have families from Lafayette. Boundary participation is a more significant rate over time - but even by your culled stats. Coolidge is 44% inbound and almost 60% at-risk. When you can show that Wells actually feeds into Coolidge - the in-school participation arguably is more important - but then again, the in-school numbers are much higher in Wards 1-3;6. Wells is also not a diverse school - which is supposed to be an objective. Compare to Hardy, Deal, S-H.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I’m confused by these boundary participation rates. Why not look at the % of the students at the school who also live in bounds. From the school profiles on the DCPS website the percent of kids enrolled in schools who are in bounds for the school are:
78% Deal
64% Jackson-Reed
62% Wells
62% Hardy

92% Janney
88% Murch
88% Lafayette
78% Mann
77% Hearst
74% Brightwood
72% Eaton
70% Takoma
63% Shepard
58% Whittier

So yes. The West of the park schools do have somewhat higher percentages of the students at the school being from within their boundary but not outrageously so. I bet if there were as many charter options as close to Lafayette and Deal as there are to Takoma and Wells the numbers would be even closer. I’m sure a good number of Lafayette families would choose Language immersion or Montessori charter if given the option and Deal families might choose charters like Latin or DCI more frequently if they were closer.

So my question remains. Why is a cohort of 60-70% of the students being from the in-bounds area not a large enough cohort of in-bound students to consider the school?

Go ahead and consider it all you like. But for most people, in-boundary percentage and capture rate is only one factor. Other factors are academic performance, academic offering, and student behavior. Most people consider those too.

The percentage of students who love in-boundary can be misleading. Imagine a school that is doing very badly. It has 100 students who love in-boundary, but nobody else is willing to travel to it. The other 900 students living in the boundary choose not to attend. 100% of it's students are in-boundary, wow! Excellent school!

Now imagine a school that is doing well. 90% of the students living within its boundary attend, but it has a big building so it takes a lot of OOB kids as well. The result is an IB percentage of 50%. Terrible school? No. That is why people don't really find that metric valuable. It exists more for DCPS planning purposes.

[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.

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.

I’m confused by these boundary participation rates. Why not look at the % of the students at the school who also live in bounds. From the school profiles on the DCPS website the percent of kids enrolled in schools who are in bounds for the school are:
78% Deal
64% Jackson-Reed
62% Wells
62% Hardy

92% Janney
88% Murch
88% Lafayette
78% Mann
77% Hearst
74% Brightwood
72% Eaton
70% Takoma
63% Shepard
58% Whittier

So yes. The West of the park schools do have somewhat higher percentages of the students at the school being from within their boundary but not outrageously so. I bet if there were as many charter options as close to Lafayette and Deal as there are to Takoma and Wells the numbers would be even closer. I’m sure a good number of Lafayette families would choose Language immersion or Montessori charter if given the option and Deal families might choose charters like Latin or DCI more frequently if they were closer.

So my question remains. Why is a cohort of 60-70% of the students being from the in-bounds area not a large enough cohort of in-bound students to consider the school?

Go ahead and consider it all you like. But for most people, in-boundary percentage and capture rate is only one factor. Other factors are academic performance, academic offering, and student behavior. Most people consider those too.

The percentage of students who love in-boundary can be misleading. Imagine a school that is doing very badly. It has 100 students who love in-boundary, but nobody else is willing to travel to it. The other 900 students living in the boundary choose not to attend. 100% of it's students are in-boundary, wow! Excellent school!

Now imagine a school that is doing well. 90% of the students living within its boundary attend, but it has a big building so it takes a lot of OOB kids as well. The result is an IB percentage of 50%. Terrible school? No. That is why people don't really find that metric valuable. It exists more for DCPS planning purposes.

It would be interesting if DCPS tracked the number of would-be students living IB vs. the number of actual IB students attending? That would actually be valuable but probably impossible to keep up with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Word is that Bancroft admin are preparing to be zoned out of the JR feed. Would take years to fully implement likely, but we’ll see if it really happens.

It wouldn't shock me. It's certainly not surprising that they would try this.

It would be a little bit surprising. Bancroft doesn't send that many kids to Deal and JR, in the grand scheme of things, so you're zoning away a less white population without solving the overcrowding issues. Not a great look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Word is that Bancroft admin are preparing to be zoned out of the JR feed. Would take years to fully implement likely, but we’ll see if it really happens.

It wouldn't shock me. It's certainly not surprising that they would try this.

It would be a little bit surprising. Bancroft doesn't send that many kids to Deal and JR, in the grand scheme of things, so you're zoning away a less white population without solving the overcrowding issues. Not a great look.

But it’s a 10 year review. Bancroft is getting rapidly whiter and higher SES by the year. In another few years it won’t bring much more SES diversity than any other feeder. Plus it’s bilingual and closer to the DCPS bilingual middle school (MacFarland) than Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Word is that Bancroft admin are preparing to be zoned out of the JR feed. Would take years to fully implement likely, but we’ll see if it really happens.

It wouldn't shock me. It's certainly not surprising that they would try this.

It would be a little bit surprising. Bancroft doesn't send that many kids to Deal and JR, in the grand scheme of things, so you're zoning away a less white population without solving the overcrowding issues. Not a great look.

But it’s a 10 year review. Bancroft is getting rapidly whiter and higher SES by the year. In another few years it won’t bring much more SES diversity than any other feeder. Plus it’s bilingual and closer to the DCPS bilingual middle school (MacFarland) than Deal.

I bet they don't move Bancroft this time, but possibly in 2033. (I live west of the Park, and theoretically my kids at Deal and a feeder elementary would benefit from anything that reduces in-bounds population at Deal and JR, so I'm not making this argument out of self-interest; I just don't think the politics works out in favor of this move right now.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure CM Frumin is up for this fight. If I were a young Ward 3 family I’d be on high alert early in this process.

+1. The LaFayette PTA needs to have a sit down with CM Frumin immediately to understand how his “Ward 3 for All” plan impacts the boundary revision process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure CM Frumin is up for this fight. If I were a young Ward 3 family I’d be on high alert early in this process.

+1. The LaFayette PTA needs to have a sit down with CM Frumin immediately to understand how his “Ward 3 for All” plan impacts the boundary revision process.

Most of Lafayette is W4. Families will need to sit down with CM Lewis George, too.