What would an at-risk preference do? New MSDC research paper out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it makes sense to give at-risk kids a preference; I would do it as

IB at-risk
IB sibling
other IB
OOB at-risk
OOB sibling
other OOB

That way, at-risk kids are not pushing out other IB kids (so not contributing to overcrowding), but they are at the top of the list and would get more of the existing spots.

This stacking also gives not-at-risk families slightly less incentive to flee their neighborhood school, which helps with that collective action problem and maybe creates more stability in school populations. Esp. if charters are at-risk/sibling/other preference, too. They could still move out of district tho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 16 DCPS and charter schools 10% or less at-risk students now (based on the 2018-19 enrollment audit). Adult-ed or alternative programs are not included.

A question mark means that there are fewer than 10 at-risk students enrolled, so a percentage cannot be calculated. https://osse.dc.gov/node/1306796

Brent 4.2% at risk
Deal 6.7%
Eaton 6.0%
Eliot Hine 4%
Hearst 6%
Janney ?
Key ?
Lafayette 2.8%
Maury 2.2%
Mann ?
Murch 4.1%
Oyster-Adams 10%
Peabody ?
Ross ?
School within a School ?
Stoddert 3.4%

BASIS DC 8.5%
LAMB 9%
Lee Montessori 10%
Mundo Verde 9.1%
Washington Latin MS 6.2%
Yu Ying PCS 4.4%

Thanks for posting this, it's good to have some real numbers to work on. I went to the link you posted and worked with the numbers. I got 15 schools that are currently below 10%, including five with fewer than 10 students. They are:
Brent Elementary School
Deal Middle School
Eaton Elementary School
Hearst Elementary School
Janney Elementary School
Key Elementary School
Lafayette Elementary School
Mann Elementary School
Maury Elementary School
Murch Elementary School @ UDC
Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster)
Roosevelt STAY High School
Ross Elementary School
School-Within-School @ Goding
Stoddert Elementary School

For simplicity's sake i just treated the schools below 10 as if they had zero. Those 15 schools currently have 7696 students and 281 at-risk. To get them all to 10% they'd have to have 770 students at-risk, or 489 more.

Overall DCPS has 20,963 at-risk students, 45% of the student body. Those 489 represent slightly over 2% of the students at risk. I'm sure that for those kids it would make a big change in their lives, but it's hard to see how this initiative makes a meaningful dent in the problem.

Start small. Go from there. Like you said, ittiudk make a big change in the lives of 600+ at-risk kids. That alone should make it worth doing. That it wouldn't be a huge sea change in any one School is a feature not a bug.

The point isn't that it's not a sea change in any one school, it's that it's not a meaningful solution to the problem of concentrated pAdd anoverty.

That's fine. There are many pieces to this puzzle. This is something we can do relatively easily, and we should.

Why do you think it is easy to add that many students to schools that already have trailers?

Because it isn't that many kids and the upper grades at the WOTP elementaries see incredible attrition from high income families.

Because the point is to call their bluff. If it's that crowded, drop preschool or change the boundary. Or is crowding only a problem when it's poor kids?

This makes zero sense to me. Drop PK, for which at risk students should be the target, to accommodate at risk in upper grades? Many of the desirable schools take few, if any, OOB kids in upper grades. So you'd never get to the 25% MSDC is proposing unless you're adding seats in all upper grades to reach this % threshold, whatever it is. If it's 25%, and you are talking Janney, cutting the two PK classes isn't magically going to create enough classrooms to up the school population overall 25% which is what you would have to do to get 25% at risk since it's easy to presume they are at nearly zero currently AND you've cut your nose off to spite your face because now no one is going to get PK4 services, not even the at risk kids you are purporting to help.

It would never be 25%. But more importantly, the point is to call their bluff on the overcrowding. How many at-risk Pk4s at Janney now? Practically zero. So why should we fund free preschool for the affluent at an overcrowded school? Anyone want to stand by that on policy grounds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 16 DCPS and charter schools 10% or less at-risk students now (based on the 2018-19 enrollment audit). Adult-ed or alternative programs are not included.

A question mark means that there are fewer than 10 at-risk students enrolled, so a percentage cannot be calculated. https://osse.dc.gov/node/1306796

Brent 4.2% at risk
Deal 6.7%
Eaton 6.0%
Eliot Hine 4%
Hearst 6%
Janney ?
Key ?
Lafayette 2.8%
Maury 2.2%
Mann ?
Murch 4.1%
Oyster-Adams 10%
Peabody ?
Ross ?
School within a School ?
Stoddert 3.4%

BASIS DC 8.5%
LAMB 9%
Lee Montessori 10%
Mundo Verde 9.1%
Washington Latin MS 6.2%
Yu Ying PCS 4.4%

Thanks for posting this, it's good to have some real numbers to work on. I went to the link you posted and worked with the numbers. I got 15 schools that are currently below 10%, including five with fewer than 10 students. They are:
Brent Elementary School
Deal Middle School
Eaton Elementary School
Hearst Elementary School
Janney Elementary School
Key Elementary School
Lafayette Elementary School
Mann Elementary School
Maury Elementary School
Murch Elementary School @ UDC
Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster)
Roosevelt STAY High School
Ross Elementary School
School-Within-School @ Goding
Stoddert Elementary School

For simplicity's sake i just treated the schools below 10 as if they had zero. Those 15 schools currently have 7696 students and 281 at-risk. To get them all to 10% they'd have to have 770 students at-risk, or 489 more.

Overall DCPS has 20,963 at-risk students, 45% of the student body. Those 489 represent slightly over 2% of the students at risk. I'm sure that for those kids it would make a big change in their lives, but it's hard to see how this initiative makes a meaningful dent in the problem.

Start small. Go from there. Like you said, ittiudk make a big change in the lives of 600+ at-risk kids. That alone should make it worth doing. That it wouldn't be a huge sea change in any one School is a feature not a bug.

The point isn't that it's not a sea change in any one school, it's that it's not a meaningful solution to the problem of concentrated pAdd anoverty.

That's fine. There are many pieces to this puzzle. This is something we can do relatively easily, and we should.

Why do you think it is easy to add that many students to schools that already have trailers?

Because it isn't that many kids and the upper grades at the WOTP elementaries see incredible attrition from high income families.

Because the point is to call their bluff. If it's that crowded, drop preschool or change the boundary. Or is crowding only a problem when it's poor kids?

This makes zero sense to me. Drop PK, for which at risk students should be the target, to accommodate at risk in upper grades? Many of the desirable schools take few, if any, OOB kids in upper grades. So you'd never get to the 25% MSDC is proposing unless you're adding seats in all upper grades to reach this % threshold, whatever it is. If it's 25%, and you are talking Janney, cutting the two PK classes isn't magically going to create enough classrooms to up the school population overall 25% which is what you would have to do to get 25% at risk since it's easy to presume they are at nearly zero currently AND you've cut your nose off to spite your face because now no one is going to get PK4 services, not even the at risk kids you are purporting to help.

It would never be 25%. But more importantly, the point is to call their bluff on the overcrowding. How many at-risk Pk4s at Janney now? Practically zero. So why should we fund free preschool for the affluent at an overcrowded school? Anyone want to stand by that on policy grounds?

Agreed that we shouldn’t fund free preschool for the affluent. But the point PP was making is that getting rid of the PK classrooms does not magically open space for at-risk kids in the upper grades. Schools are like pipelines and if you add a full class or a half class at K then you will need it all the way up (so lots more than a couple of classrooms). Your proposal would make sense if there were 6 Pk classes. Then those could be cut and 25 at-risk kids could come in at kindergarten and stay through ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 16 DCPS and charter schools 10% or less at-risk students now (based on the 2018-19 enrollment audit). Adult-ed or alternative programs are not included.

A question mark means that there are fewer than 10 at-risk students enrolled, so a percentage cannot be calculated. https://osse.dc.gov/node/1306796

Brent 4.2% at risk
Deal 6.7%
Eaton 6.0%
Eliot Hine 4%
Hearst 6%
Janney ?
Key ?
Lafayette 2.8%
Maury 2.2%
Mann ?
Murch 4.1%
Oyster-Adams 10%
Peabody ?
Ross ?
School within a School ?
Stoddert 3.4%

BASIS DC 8.5%
LAMB 9%
Lee Montessori 10%
Mundo Verde 9.1%
Washington Latin MS 6.2%
Yu Ying PCS 4.4%

Thanks for posting this, it's good to have some real numbers to work on. I went to the link you posted and worked with the numbers. I got 15 schools that are currently below 10%, including five with fewer than 10 students. They are:
Brent Elementary School
Deal Middle School
Eaton Elementary School
Hearst Elementary School
Janney Elementary School
Key Elementary School
Lafayette Elementary School
Mann Elementary School
Maury Elementary School
Murch Elementary School @ UDC
Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster)
Roosevelt STAY High School
Ross Elementary School
School-Within-School @ Goding
Stoddert Elementary School

For simplicity's sake i just treated the schools below 10 as if they had zero. Those 15 schools currently have 7696 students and 281 at-risk. To get them all to 10% they'd have to have 770 students at-risk, or 489 more.

Overall DCPS has 20,963 at-risk students, 45% of the student body. Those 489 represent slightly over 2% of the students at risk. I'm sure that for those kids it would make a big change in their lives, but it's hard to see how this initiative makes a meaningful dent in the problem.

Start small. Go from there. Like you said, ittiudk make a big change in the lives of 600+ at-risk kids. That alone should make it worth doing. That it wouldn't be a huge sea change in any one School is a feature not a bug.

The point isn't that it's not a sea change in any one school, it's that it's not a meaningful solution to the problem of concentrated pAdd anoverty.

That's fine. There are many pieces to this puzzle. This is something we can do relatively easily, and we should.

Why do you think it is easy to add that many students to schools that already have trailers?

Because it isn't that many kids and the upper grades at the WOTP elementaries see incredible attrition from high income families.

Because the point is to call their bluff. If it's that crowded, drop preschool or change the boundary. Or is crowding only a problem when it's poor kids?

This makes zero sense to me. Drop PK, for which at risk students should be the target, to accommodate at risk in upper grades? Many of the desirable schools take few, if any, OOB kids in upper grades. So you'd never get to the 25% MSDC is proposing unless you're adding seats in all upper grades to reach this % threshold, whatever it is. If it's 25%, and you are talking Janney, cutting the two PK classes isn't magically going to create enough classrooms to up the school population overall 25% which is what you would have to do to get 25% at risk since it's easy to presume they are at nearly zero currently AND you've cut your nose off to spite your face because now no one is going to get PK4 services, not even the at risk kids you are purporting to help.

It would never be 25%. But more importantly, the point is to call their bluff on the overcrowding. How many at-risk Pk4s at Janney now? Practically zero. So why should we fund free preschool for the affluent at an overcrowded school? Anyone want to stand by that on policy grounds?

Agreed that we shouldn’t fund free preschool for the affluent. But the point PP was making is that getting rid of the PK classrooms does not magically open space for at-risk kids in the upper grades. Schools are like pipelines and if you add a full class or a half class at K then you will need it all the way up (so lots more than a couple of classrooms). Your proposal would make sense if there were 6 Pk classes. Then those could be cut and 25 at-risk kids could come in at kindergarten and stay through ES.

You are missing my point. They want to complain about overcrowding, use it as a reason to not admit at-risk kids, and have free preschool for rich families too. It is either crowded or it isn't. I think it would benefit the system as a whole to move those funds away from Janney and spend them on preschool expansions elsewhere. Or the 0-3 program they are piloting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 16 DCPS and charter schools 10% or less at-risk students now (based on the 2018-19 enrollment audit). Adult-ed or alternative programs are not included.

A question mark means that there are fewer than 10 at-risk students enrolled, so a percentage cannot be calculated. https://osse.dc.gov/node/1306796

Brent 4.2% at risk
Deal 6.7%
Eaton 6.0%
Eliot Hine 4%
Hearst 6%
Janney ?
Key ?
Lafayette 2.8%
Maury 2.2%
Mann ?
Murch 4.1%
Oyster-Adams 10%
Peabody ?
Ross ?
School within a School ?
Stoddert 3.4%

BASIS DC 8.5%
LAMB 9%
Lee Montessori 10%
Mundo Verde 9.1%
Washington Latin MS 6.2%
Yu Ying PCS 4.4%

Thanks for posting this, it's good to have some real numbers to work on. I went to the link you posted and worked with the numbers. I got 15 schools that are currently below 10%, including five with fewer than 10 students. They are:
Brent Elementary School
Deal Middle School
Eaton Elementary School
Hearst Elementary School
Janney Elementary School
Key Elementary School
Lafayette Elementary School
Mann Elementary School
Maury Elementary School
Murch Elementary School @ UDC
Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster)
Roosevelt STAY High School
Ross Elementary School
School-Within-School @ Goding
Stoddert Elementary School

For simplicity's sake i just treated the schools below 10 as if they had zero. Those 15 schools currently have 7696 students and 281 at-risk. To get them all to 10% they'd have to have 770 students at-risk, or 489 more.

Overall DCPS has 20,963 at-risk students, 45% of the student body. Those 489 represent slightly over 2% of the students at risk. I'm sure that for those kids it would make a big change in their lives, but it's hard to see how this initiative makes a meaningful dent in the problem.

Start small. Go from there. Like you said, ittiudk make a big change in the lives of 600+ at-risk kids. That alone should make it worth doing. That it wouldn't be a huge sea change in any one School is a feature not a bug.

The point isn't that it's not a sea change in any one school, it's that it's not a meaningful solution to the problem of concentrated pAdd anoverty.

That's fine. There are many pieces to this puzzle. This is something we can do relatively easily, and we should.

Why do you think it is easy to add that many students to schools that already have trailers?

Because it isn't that many kids and the upper grades at the WOTP elementaries see incredible attrition from high income families.

Because the point is to call their bluff. If it's that crowded, drop preschool or change the boundary. Or is crowding only a problem when it's poor kids?

This makes zero sense to me. Drop PK, for which at risk students should be the target, to accommodate at risk in upper grades? Many of the desirable schools take few, if any, OOB kids in upper grades. So you'd never get to the 25% MSDC is proposing unless you're adding seats in all upper grades to reach this % threshold, whatever it is. If it's 25%, and you are talking Janney, cutting the two PK classes isn't magically going to create enough classrooms to up the school population overall 25% which is what you would have to do to get 25% at risk since it's easy to presume they are at nearly zero currently AND you've cut your nose off to spite your face because now no one is going to get PK4 services, not even the at risk kids you are purporting to help.

It would never be 25%. But more importantly, the point is to call their bluff on the overcrowding. How many at-risk Pk4s at Janney now? Practically zero. So why should we fund free preschool for the affluent at an overcrowded school? Anyone want to stand by that on policy grounds?

Agreed that we shouldn’t fund free preschool for the affluent. But the point PP was making is that getting rid of the PK classrooms does not magically open space for at-risk kids in the upper grades. Schools are like pipelines and if you add a full class or a half class at K then you will need it all the way up (so lots more than a couple of classrooms). Your proposal would make sense if there were 6 Pk classes. Then those could be cut and 25 at-risk kids could come in at kindergarten and stay through ES.

You are missing my point. They want to complain about overcrowding, use it as a reason to not admit at-risk kids, and have free preschool for rich families too. It is either crowded or it isn't. I think it would benefit the system as a whole to move those funds away from Janney and spend them on preschool expansions elsewhere. Or the 0-3 program they are piloting.

If you’re talking about removing funds for free preschool at affluent schools and reallocating those funds to at-risk kids, then I agree with that completely.

[Anonymous]

I thought that there are PreK 3 openings for anyone who wants them, no?! The demand only exceeds supply in the NW crowded schools. The kids not going to PreK 3 are not going for other reasons that availability, and I doubt having a few spots available at Janney is suddenly going to change their minds!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 16 DCPS and charter schools 10% or less at-risk students now (based on the 2018-19 enrollment audit). Adult-ed or alternative programs are not included.

A question mark means that there are fewer than 10 at-risk students enrolled, so a percentage cannot be calculated. https://osse.dc.gov/node/1306796

Brent 4.2% at risk
Deal 6.7%
Eaton 6.0%
Eliot Hine 4%
Hearst 6%
Janney ?
Key ?
Lafayette 2.8%
Maury 2.2%
Mann ?
Murch 4.1%
Oyster-Adams 10%
Peabody ?
Ross ?
School within a School ?
Stoddert 3.4%

BASIS DC 8.5%
LAMB 9%
Lee Montessori 10%
Mundo Verde 9.1%
Washington Latin MS 6.2%
Yu Ying PCS 4.4%

Thanks for posting this, it's good to have some real numbers to work on. I went to the link you posted and worked with the numbers. I got 15 schools that are currently below 10%, including five with fewer than 10 students. They are:
Brent Elementary School
Deal Middle School
Eaton Elementary School
Hearst Elementary School
Janney Elementary School
Key Elementary School
Lafayette Elementary School
Mann Elementary School
Maury Elementary School
Murch Elementary School @ UDC
Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster)
Roosevelt STAY High School
Ross Elementary School
School-Within-School @ Goding
Stoddert Elementary School

For simplicity's sake i just treated the schools below 10 as if they had zero. Those 15 schools currently have 7696 students and 281 at-risk. To get them all to 10% they'd have to have 770 students at-risk, or 489 more.

Overall DCPS has 20,963 at-risk students, 45% of the student body. Those 489 represent slightly over 2% of the students at risk. I'm sure that for those kids it would make a big change in their lives, but it's hard to see how this initiative makes a meaningful dent in the problem.

Start small. Go from there. Like you said, ittiudk make a big change in the lives of 600+ at-risk kids. That alone should make it worth doing. That it wouldn't be a huge sea change in any one School is a feature not a bug.

The point isn't that it's not a sea change in any one school, it's that it's not a meaningful solution to the problem of concentrated pAdd anoverty.

That's fine. There are many pieces to this puzzle. This is something we can do relatively easily, and we should.

Why do you think it is easy to add that many students to schools that already have trailers?

Because it isn't that many kids and the upper grades at the WOTP elementaries see incredible attrition from high income families.

Because the point is to call their bluff. If it's that crowded, drop preschool or change the boundary. Or is crowding only a problem when it's poor kids?

This makes zero sense to me. Drop PK, for which at risk students should be the target, to accommodate at risk in upper grades? Many of the desirable schools take few, if any, OOB kids in upper grades. So you'd never get to the 25% MSDC is proposing unless you're adding seats in all upper grades to reach this % threshold, whatever it is. If it's 25%, and you are talking Janney, cutting the two PK classes isn't magically going to create enough classrooms to up the school population overall 25% which is what you would have to do to get 25% at risk since it's easy to presume they are at nearly zero currently AND you've cut your nose off to spite your face because now no one is going to get PK4 services, not even the at risk kids you are purporting to help.

It would never be 25%. But more importantly, the point is to call their bluff on the overcrowding. How many at-risk Pk4s at Janney now? Practically zero. So why should we fund free preschool for the affluent at an overcrowded school? Anyone want to stand by that on policy grounds?

Agreed that we shouldn’t fund free preschool for the affluent. But the point PP was making is that getting rid of the PK classrooms does not magically open space for at-risk kids in the upper grades. Schools are like pipelines and if you add a full class or a half class at K then you will need it all the way up (so lots more than a couple of classrooms). Your proposal would make sense if there were 6 Pk classes. Then those could be cut and 25 at-risk kids could come in at kindergarten and stay through ES.

You are missing my point. They want to complain about overcrowding, use it as a reason to not admit at-risk kids, and have free preschool for rich families too. It is either crowded or it isn't. I think it would benefit the system as a whole to move those funds away from Janney and spend them on preschool expansions elsewhere. Or the 0-3 program they are piloting.

If you’re talking about removing funds for free preschool at affluent schools and reallocating those funds to at-risk kids, then I agree with that completely.

They could at least give IB at-risk first priority, even over siblings. It might not be many kids, but it's hard to argue with it on policy grounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought that there are PreK 3 openings for anyone who wants them, no?! The demand only exceeds supply in the NW crowded schools. The kids not going to PreK 3 are not going for other reasons that availability, and I doubt having a few spots available at Janney is suddenly going to change their minds!

The demand exceeds supply in other parts of the city as well. Yes there are enough PK3 slots available, but most people don’t want to trek to another ward for PK3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought that there are PreK 3 openings for anyone who wants them, no?! The demand only exceeds supply in the NW crowded schools. The kids not going to PreK 3 are not going for other reasons that availability, and I doubt having a few spots available at Janney is suddenly going to change their minds!

The demand exceeds supply in other parts of the city as well. Yes there are enough PK3 slots available, but most people don’t want to trek to another ward for PK3.

Ok, other parts of the city as well, but, by intention, there are plenty of spots available in areas with the highest concentration of at-risk students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 16 DCPS and charter schools 10% or less at-risk students now (based on the 2018-19 enrollment audit). Adult-ed or alternative programs are not included.

A question mark means that there are fewer than 10 at-risk students enrolled, so a percentage cannot be calculated. https://osse.dc.gov/node/1306796

Brent 4.2% at risk
Deal 6.7%
Eaton 6.0%
Eliot Hine 4%
Hearst 6%
Janney ?
Key ?
Lafayette 2.8%
Maury 2.2%
Mann ?
Murch 4.1%
Oyster-Adams 10%
Peabody ?
Ross ?
School within a School ?
Stoddert 3.4%

BASIS DC 8.5%
LAMB 9%
Lee Montessori 10%
Mundo Verde 9.1%
Washington Latin MS 6.2%
Yu Ying PCS 4.4%

Thanks for posting this, it's good to have some real numbers to work on. I went to the link you posted and worked with the numbers. I got 15 schools that are currently below 10%, including five with fewer than 10 students. They are:
Brent Elementary School
Deal Middle School
Eaton Elementary School
Hearst Elementary School
Janney Elementary School
Key Elementary School
Lafayette Elementary School
Mann Elementary School
Maury Elementary School
Murch Elementary School @ UDC
Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster)
Roosevelt STAY High School
Ross Elementary School
School-Within-School @ Goding
Stoddert Elementary School

For simplicity's sake i just treated the schools below 10 as if they had zero. Those 15 schools currently have 7696 students and 281 at-risk. To get them all to 10% they'd have to have 770 students at-risk, or 489 more.

Overall DCPS has 20,963 at-risk students, 45% of the student body. Those 489 represent slightly over 2% of the students at risk. I'm sure that for those kids it would make a big change in their lives, but it's hard to see how this initiative makes a meaningful dent in the problem.

Start small. Go from there. Like you said, ittiudk make a big change in the lives of 600+ at-risk kids. That alone should make it worth doing. That it wouldn't be a huge sea change in any one School is a feature not a bug.

The point isn't that it's not a sea change in any one school, it's that it's not a meaningful solution to the problem of concentrated pAdd anoverty.

That's fine. There are many pieces to this puzzle. This is something we can do relatively easily, and we should.

Why do you think it is easy to add that many students to schools that already have trailers?

Because it isn't that many kids and the upper grades at the WOTP elementaries see incredible attrition from high income families.

This is absolutely not true of the Deal feeders. Janney is crowded all the way through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 16 DCPS and charter schools 10% or less at-risk students now (based on the 2018-19 enrollment audit). Adult-ed or alternative programs are not included.

A question mark means that there are fewer than 10 at-risk students enrolled, so a percentage cannot be calculated. https://osse.dc.gov/node/1306796

Brent 4.2% at risk
Deal 6.7%
Eaton 6.0%
Eliot Hine 4%
Hearst 6%
Janney ?
Key ?
Lafayette 2.8%
Maury 2.2%
Mann ?
Murch 4.1%
Oyster-Adams 10%
Peabody ?
Ross ?
School within a School ?
Stoddert 3.4%

BASIS DC 8.5%
LAMB 9%
Lee Montessori 10%
Mundo Verde 9.1%
Washington Latin MS 6.2%
Yu Ying PCS 4.4%

Thanks for posting this, it's good to have some real numbers to work on. I went to the link you posted and worked with the numbers. I got 15 schools that are currently below 10%, including five with fewer than 10 students. They are:
Brent Elementary School
Deal Middle School
Eaton Elementary School
Hearst Elementary School
Janney Elementary School
Key Elementary School
Lafayette Elementary School
Mann Elementary School
Maury Elementary School
Murch Elementary School @ UDC
Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster)
Roosevelt STAY High School
Ross Elementary School
School-Within-School @ Goding
Stoddert Elementary School

For simplicity's sake i just treated the schools below 10 as if they had zero. Those 15 schools currently have 7696 students and 281 at-risk. To get them all to 10% they'd have to have 770 students at-risk, or 489 more.

Overall DCPS has 20,963 at-risk students, 45% of the student body. Those 489 represent slightly over 2% of the students at risk. I'm sure that for those kids it would make a big change in their lives, but it's hard to see how this initiative makes a meaningful dent in the problem.

Start small. Go from there. Like you said, ittiudk make a big change in the lives of 600+ at-risk kids. That alone should make it worth doing. That it wouldn't be a huge sea change in any one School is a feature not a bug.

The point isn't that it's not a sea change in any one school, it's that it's not a meaningful solution to the problem of concentrated pAdd anoverty.

That's fine. There are many pieces to this puzzle. This is something we can do relatively easily, and we should.

Why do you think it is easy to add that many students to schools that already have trailers?

Because it isn't that many kids and the upper grades at the WOTP elementaries see incredible attrition from high income families.

Because the point is to call their bluff. If it's that crowded, drop preschool or change the boundary. Or is crowding only a problem when it's poor kids?

This makes zero sense to me. Drop PK, for which at risk students should be the target, to accommodate at risk in upper grades? Many of the desirable schools take few, if any, OOB kids in upper grades. So you'd never get to the 25% MSDC is proposing unless you're adding seats in all upper grades to reach this % threshold, whatever it is. If it's 25%, and you are talking Janney, cutting the two PK classes isn't magically going to create enough classrooms to up the school population overall 25% which is what you would have to do to get 25% at risk since it's easy to presume they are at nearly zero currently AND you've cut your nose off to spite your face because now no one is going to get PK4 services, not even the at risk kids you are purporting to help.

It would never be 25%. But more importantly, the point is to call their bluff on the overcrowding. How many at-risk Pk4s at Janney now? Practically zero. So why should we fund free preschool for the affluent at an overcrowded school? Anyone want to stand by that on policy grounds?

Agreed that we shouldn’t fund free preschool for the affluent. But the point PP was making is that getting rid of the PK classrooms does not magically open space for at-risk kids in the upper grades. Schools are like pipelines and if you add a full class or a half class at K then you will need it all the way up (so lots more than a couple of classrooms). Your proposal would make sense if there were 6 Pk classes. Then those could be cut and 25 at-risk kids could come in at kindergarten and stay through ES.

You are missing my point. They want to complain about overcrowding, use it as a reason to not admit at-risk kids, and have free preschool for rich families too. It is either crowded or it isn't. I think it would benefit the system as a whole to move those funds away from Janney and spend them on preschool expansions elsewhere. Or the 0-3 program they are piloting.

Ok, fine, but simply eliminating PK 4 from affluent schools is a different proposal than saying that every school should take whatever percentage of at-risk kids, because my point still stands, that even if the set aside is 10%, assuming a school like Janney has 0% at risk now...total enrollment is 772. Subtract from that the 57 PK4 slots. Enrollment of non PK students = 715. For a 10% set aside they would have to add 72 kids, with now 3 empty PK classrooms to use. I haven't been in Janney, but in our DCPS, the PK classes are housed in much smaller rooms (I'm actually fairly certain one of our PK4 rooms was a janitorial closet in the past) than regular classrooms since the kids are little and the class numbers are lower. So they'd have 3 small classrooms to work with and 3 classes worth of older kids to accommodate, not all of whom are going to be in the same grade. I'm just trying to wrap my head around where they would put these kids? All things equal that would be 12 kids/grade. Unless you think it's a good idea to at the same time increase class sizes further? And if it should be 25% like the paper says, that's 179 kids or 30 kids/grade, which is more than a full class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 16 DCPS and charter schools 10% or less at-risk students now (based on the 2018-19 enrollment audit). Adult-ed or alternative programs are not included.

A question mark means that there are fewer than 10 at-risk students enrolled, so a percentage cannot be calculated. https://osse.dc.gov/node/1306796

Brent 4.2% at risk
Deal 6.7%
Eaton 6.0%
Eliot Hine 4%
Hearst 6%
Janney ?
Key ?
Lafayette 2.8%
Maury 2.2%
Mann ?
Murch 4.1%
Oyster-Adams 10%
Peabody ?
Ross ?
School within a School ?
Stoddert 3.4%

BASIS DC 8.5%
LAMB 9%
Lee Montessori 10%
Mundo Verde 9.1%
Washington Latin MS 6.2%
Yu Ying PCS 4.4%

Thanks for posting this, it's good to have some real numbers to work on. I went to the link you posted and worked with the numbers. I got 15 schools that are currently below 10%, including five with fewer than 10 students. They are:
Brent Elementary School
Deal Middle School
Eaton Elementary School
Hearst Elementary School
Janney Elementary School
Key Elementary School
Lafayette Elementary School
Mann Elementary School
Maury Elementary School
Murch Elementary School @ UDC
Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster)
Roosevelt STAY High School
Ross Elementary School
School-Within-School @ Goding
Stoddert Elementary School

For simplicity's sake i just treated the schools below 10 as if they had zero. Those 15 schools currently have 7696 students and 281 at-risk. To get them all to 10% they'd have to have 770 students at-risk, or 489 more.

Overall DCPS has 20,963 at-risk students, 45% of the student body. Those 489 represent slightly over 2% of the students at risk. I'm sure that for those kids it would make a big change in their lives, but it's hard to see how this initiative makes a meaningful dent in the problem.

Start small. Go from there. Like you said, ittiudk make a big change in the lives of 600+ at-risk kids. That alone should make it worth doing. That it wouldn't be a huge sea change in any one School is a feature not a bug.

The point isn't that it's not a sea change in any one school, it's that it's not a meaningful solution to the problem of concentrated pAdd anoverty.

That's fine. There are many pieces to this puzzle. This is something we can do relatively easily, and we should.

Why do you think it is easy to add that many students to schools that already have trailers?

Because it isn't that many kids and the upper grades at the WOTP elementaries see incredible attrition from high income families.

Because the point is to call their bluff. If it's that crowded, drop preschool or change the boundary. Or is crowding only a problem when it's poor kids?

This makes zero sense to me. Drop PK, for which at risk students should be the target, to accommodate at risk in upper grades? Many of the desirable schools take few, if any, OOB kids in upper grades. So you'd never get to the 25% MSDC is proposing unless you're adding seats in all upper grades to reach this % threshold, whatever it is. If it's 25%, and you are talking Janney, cutting the two PK classes isn't magically going to create enough classrooms to up the school population overall 25% which is what you would have to do to get 25% at risk since it's easy to presume they are at nearly zero currently AND you've cut your nose off to spite your face because now no one is going to get PK4 services, not even the at risk kids you are purporting to help.

It would never be 25%. But more importantly, the point is to call their bluff on the overcrowding. How many at-risk Pk4s at Janney now? Practically zero. So why should we fund free preschool for the affluent at an overcrowded school? Anyone want to stand by that on policy grounds?

Agreed that we shouldn’t fund free preschool for the affluent. But the point PP was making is that getting rid of the PK classrooms does not magically open space for at-risk kids in the upper grades. Schools are like pipelines and if you add a full class or a half class at K then you will need it all the way up (so lots more than a couple of classrooms). Your proposal would make sense if there were 6 Pk classes. Then those could be cut and 25 at-risk kids could come in at kindergarten and stay through ES.

You are missing my point. They want to complain about overcrowding, use it as a reason to not admit at-risk kids, and have free preschool for rich families too. It is either crowded or it isn't. I think it would benefit the system as a whole to move those funds away from Janney and spend them on preschool expansions elsewhere. Or the 0-3 program they are piloting.

Ok, fine, but simply eliminating PK 4 from affluent schools is a different proposal than saying that every school should take whatever percentage of at-risk kids, because my point still stands, that even if the set aside is 10%, assuming a school like Janney has 0% at risk now...total enrollment is 772. Subtract from that the 57 PK4 slots. Enrollment of non PK students = 715. For a 10% set aside they would have to add 72 kids, with now 3 empty PK classrooms to use. I haven't been in Janney, but in our DCPS, the PK classes are housed in much smaller rooms (I'm actually fairly certain one of our PK4 rooms was a janitorial closet in the past) than regular classrooms since the kids are little and the class numbers are lower. So they'd have 3 small classrooms to work with and 3 classes worth of older kids to accommodate, not all of whom are going to be in the same grade. I'm just trying to wrap my head around where they would put these kids? All things equal that would be 12 kids/grade. Unless you think it's a good idea to at the same time increase class sizes further? And if it should be 25% like the paper says, that's 179 kids or 30 kids/grade, which is more than a full class.

I believe it would be 10% schoolwide, not 10% of each grade, but who knows.

If Janney has less than 10 at-risk kids now, that could still be over 1%. Giving at-risk IB highest preference for preschool could bump the percentage up further without increasing total enrollment--they are all IB anyway, it just bumps out some non-at-risk IB PK4s. Replace one of the PK4s with a PK3 or go to multi-age preschool rooms with the same preference of IB at-risk over everyone else and you could get even more at-risk kids without any OOB kids at all. Would not get to 77 kids, but would help.

Janney sure seems crowded! I feel for them! Time to change the boundaries to alleviate this terrible overcrowding!

[Anonymous]

Regardless of how crowded DCUM people say Janney is, for 2017-18 Janney added OOB students at K, 1, 2, 3 and 4.

If this proposal were implemented, those seats would have gone to at-risk OOB students, not just whoever had the best lottery number for each of those grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of how crowded DCUM people say Janney is, for 2017-18 Janney added OOB students at K, 1, 2, 3 and 4.

If this proposal were implemented, those seats would have gone to at-risk OOB students, not just whoever had the best lottery number for each of those grades.

This. And hey, maybe do something about residency cheating and insiders sneaking their kids in, and then it will be less crowded? If Janney hired its own residency investigator that would probably help.