DC Begins School Boundary Study

[Anonymous]

It just seems like Shepherd to Wells/Coolidge is the most obvious and needed change, but I would bet it's not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like Shepherd to Wells/Coolidge is the most obvious and needed change, but I would bet it's not going to happen.

And why should it? As long as DCPS refuses to guarantee an appropriate curriculum in MS and HS for the college-bound, parents will correctly fight to stay in the school that already provides it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like Shepherd to Wells/Coolidge is the most obvious and needed change, but I would bet it's not going to happen.

And why should it? As long as DCPS refuses to guarantee an appropriate curriculum in MS and HS for the college-bound, parents will correctly fight to stay in the school that already provides it.

I am genuinely asking, is the curriculum that different or is the student population just different? And if the curriculum is different is it because of the student population (I.e. fewer advanced/AP classes because lower demand)?

[Anonymous]

I live in the Bancroft boundary and it is hard to imagine that the school won't stay majority Latino. There are tons of large apartment buildings on 16th street that house a lot of immigrant families. And they far outnumber the rowhouses in the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like Shepherd to Wells/Coolidge is the most obvious and needed change, but I would bet it's not going to happen.

I live in Shepherd Park and sadly do see this happening. The community, for whatever reason, doesn’t exactly rally around the school. A lot of the older generation neighborhood folks I’ve talked to didn’t send their kids there. And the Shepherd parents are engaged, but busy (generally two working parent households). But maybe my pessimism is showing a bit today. Moving Shepherd doesn’t do much for overcrowding, even if it makes geographic sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like Shepherd to Wells/Coolidge is the most obvious and needed change, but I would bet it's not going to happen.

And why should it? As long as DCPS refuses to guarantee an appropriate curriculum in MS and HS for the college-bound, parents will correctly fight to stay in the school that already provides it.

I am genuinely asking, is the curriculum that different or is the student population just different? And if the curriculum is different is it because of the student population (I.e. fewer advanced/AP classes because lower demand)?

Coolidge doesn't have much of a population of high-achieving or even on-level kids. You can see this in the PARCC scores, the SAT scores, and the AP scores. 12 kids got at least a 3 on at least one AP test last year, relative to 452 at JR. So yes, there is lower demand for AP classes, and that's reflected in there being fewer AP classes. But, also, even if you're in an AP class, if that class spans all the way from kids who are not at grade level to kids who are advanced, it's going to be more difficult for the teacher to teach it at a level that's appropriate for the few advanced kids. It's hard to overstate the span of reading and math levels that you'll find among, say, 11th graders in DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like Shepherd to Wells/Coolidge is the most obvious and needed change, but I would bet it's not going to happen.

And why should it? As long as DCPS refuses to guarantee an appropriate curriculum in MS and HS for the college-bound, parents will correctly fight to stay in the school that already provides it.

I am genuinely asking, is the curriculum that different or is the student population just different? And if the curriculum is different is it because of the student population (I.e. fewer advanced/AP classes because lower demand)?

The curriculum is taught at a slower pace, and there are fewer kids on level so the class is not geared towards advanced students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like Shepherd to Wells/Coolidge is the most obvious and needed change, but I would bet it's not going to happen.

And why should it? As long as DCPS refuses to guarantee an appropriate curriculum in MS and HS for the college-bound, parents will correctly fight to stay in the school that already provides it.

I am genuinely asking, is the curriculum that different or is the student population just different? And if the curriculum is different is it because of the student population (I.e. fewer advanced/AP classes because lower demand)?

Coolidge doesn't have much of a population of high-achieving or even on-level kids. You can see this in the PARCC scores, the SAT scores, and the AP scores. 12 kids got at least a 3 on at least one AP test last year, relative to 452 at JR. So yes, there is lower demand for AP classes, and that's reflected in there being fewer AP classes. But, also, even if you're in an AP class, if that class spans all the way from kids who are not at grade level to kids who are advanced, it's going to be more difficult for the teacher to teach it at a level that's appropriate for the few advanced kids. It's hard to overstate the span of reading and math levels that you'll find among, say, 11th graders in DCPS.

Exactly. At a certain point you need kids on your same grade level. Serious students help each other with homework, share notes, have study groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like Shepherd to Wells/Coolidge is the most obvious and needed change, but I would bet it's not going to happen.

And why should it? As long as DCPS refuses to guarantee an appropriate curriculum in MS and HS for the college-bound, parents will correctly fight to stay in the school that already provides it.

I am genuinely asking, is the curriculum that different or is the student population just different? And if the curriculum is different is it because of the student population (I.e. fewer advanced/AP classes because lower demand)?

I mean, where did you go to college yourself? I’m guessing you, like most, aimed for the highest academic cohort where you could be accepted. Even if you chose a community college or state college for financial reasons, you likely expected to be in classes taught to a high level. I’m not sure why people seem to understand and accept this for college, but are confused about how this plays out in HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like Shepherd to Wells/Coolidge is the most obvious and needed change, but I would bet it's not going to happen.

And why should it? As long as DCPS refuses to guarantee an appropriate curriculum in MS and HS for the college-bound, parents will correctly fight to stay in the school that already provides it.

I am genuinely asking, is the curriculum that different or is the student population just different? And if the curriculum is different is it because of the student population (I.e. fewer advanced/AP classes because lower demand)?

I mean, where did you go to college yourself? I’m guessing you, like most, aimed for the highest academic cohort where you could be accepted. Even if you chose a community college or state college for financial reasons, you likely expected to be in classes taught to a high level. I’m not sure why people seem to understand and accept this for college, but are confused about how this plays out in HS.

I am wondering whether the curriculum would (or could) advance with the addition of more high-performing students. But I guess schools like Coolidge are currently stuck in a loop of high-performing students not wanting to attend because the curriculum doesn't serve them, so as a result the curriculum remains geared towards low performers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one plays the equity card more than Janeese, and if you gave her a truth serum, I would bet a lot of money that she wants to move Lafayette kids to the other side of the park.

But she also knows that expressing that desire would make her a one-termer, so she'll conveniently forget about equity on this subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like Shepherd to Wells/Coolidge is the most obvious and needed change, but I would bet it's not going to happen.

And why should it? As long as DCPS refuses to guarantee an appropriate curriculum in MS and HS for the college-bound, parents will correctly fight to stay in the school that already provides it.

I am genuinely asking, is the curriculum that different or is the student population just different? And if the curriculum is different is it because of the student population (I.e. fewer advanced/AP classes because lower demand)?

I mean, where did you go to college yourself? I’m guessing you, like most, aimed for the highest academic cohort where you could be accepted. Even if you chose a community college or state college for financial reasons, you likely expected to be in classes taught to a high level. I’m not sure why people seem to understand and accept this for college, but are confused about how this plays out in HS.

I am wondering whether the curriculum would (or could) advance with the addition of more high-performing students. But I guess schools like Coolidge are currently stuck in a loop of high-performing students not wanting to attend because the curriculum doesn't serve them, so as a result the curriculum remains geared towards low performers.

Yes, it would improve with a stronger cohort. But parents won’t generally send their kids until they have some assurance of that critical mass. The stakes are too high for HS. For MS parents seem more willing to take risks - but those parents often conceive of middle school as academically unimportant and firmly believe their child doesn’t need academic structure. They invariably have a plan for HS that is not the IB - Walls, private, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do track that, although I can't find it right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like Shepherd to Wells/Coolidge is the most obvious and needed change, but I would bet it's not going to happen.

And why should it? As long as DCPS refuses to guarantee an appropriate curriculum in MS and HS for the college-bound, parents will correctly fight to stay in the school that already provides it.

I am genuinely asking, is the curriculum that different or is the student population just different? And if the curriculum is different is it because of the student population (I.e. fewer advanced/AP classes because lower demand)?

I mean, where did you go to college yourself? I’m guessing you, like most, aimed for the highest academic cohort where you could be accepted. Even if you chose a community college or state college for financial reasons, you likely expected to be in classes taught to a high level. I’m not sure why people seem to understand and accept this for college, but are confused about how this plays out in HS.

I am wondering whether the curriculum would (or could) advance with the addition of more high-performing students. But I guess schools like Coolidge are currently stuck in a loop of high-performing students not wanting to attend because the curriculum doesn't serve them, so as a result the curriculum remains geared towards low performers.

That's part of it. But having a group of high-performing students is also not a sufficient condition for having a curriculum geared toward them. The advanced curricula and differentiation at existing DC middle and high schools got grandfathered in, more or less. It's harder to kill programs that have existing constituencies than it is to resist creating them in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like Shepherd to Wells/Coolidge is the most obvious and needed change, but I would bet it's not going to happen.

And why should it? As long as DCPS refuses to guarantee an appropriate curriculum in MS and HS for the college-bound, parents will correctly fight to stay in the school that already provides it.

I am genuinely asking, is the curriculum that different or is the student population just different? And if the curriculum is different is it because of the student population (I.e. fewer advanced/AP classes because lower demand)?

I mean, where did you go to college yourself? I’m guessing you, like most, aimed for the highest academic cohort where you could be accepted. Even if you chose a community college or state college for financial reasons, you likely expected to be in classes taught to a high level. I’m not sure why people seem to understand and accept this for college, but are confused about how this plays out in HS.

I am wondering whether the curriculum would (or could) advance with the addition of more high-performing students. But I guess schools like Coolidge are currently stuck in a loop of high-performing students not wanting to attend because the curriculum doesn't serve them, so as a result the curriculum remains geared towards low performers.

That's part of it. But having a group of high-performing students is also not a sufficient condition for having a curriculum geared toward them. The advanced curricula and differentiation at existing DC middle and high schools got grandfathered in, more or less. It's harder to kill programs that have existing constituencies than it is to resist creating them in the first place.

Right. The equity folks would probably love to get rid of APs, but there are some limits.

If Banneker and Walls were proposed today, they would never get approved.