Boundary review can’t come soon enough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poverty and race go hand in hand in dc. It’s not racist to point that out.

WRONG. All low income in DC may be AA or Hispanic but not all Hispanic or AA are low income. PP ought to mean what’s she says and say what she means. Her comment was racist. Period. I get it that you and other PPs coming to her defense don’t understand. I deal with people like you every day. Regardless it was a racist comment. She and you should take this as a learning opportunity so a not to generalize about people and kids in the future. You live in DC. And whether you like it or not, there are minorities that live here, rich and poor. And no, you should not let your dog poop at a private university campus.

That’s not what I said but ok.

What conclusion should one come to with this statement: “I think a lot of schools that are like 99% black/Latino face these issues.”

Why not just say “I think a lot of schools that are like 99% low income face these issues.”

THAT wasn’t me. You quoted my comment about race and poverty going hand in hand and inserted your assumption that I meant all black and Hispanic families are low income. You inserted that. It’s a fact that race and poverty go hand in hand in dc. No where did I say that it means ALL minority families are low income. That would be absurd. Please don’t quote someone and add extra to what they said with what you assume they meant. I was not the PP that said ““I think a lot of schools that are like 99% black/Latino face these issues.” Two different posters so take it up with that person directly and quote them. I stand by my statement that race and poverty go hand in hand in dc.

I didn’t say it was you that said that. It was said period. Word for word. If you agree with that verbatim statement then you’re racist too. Period.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand why you quoted my statement about race and poverty going hand in hand then? Do you not agree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least the charters are catering to the middle class in D.C. Without charters, there probably would be even less middle class residents.

The challenge of this thread I think is how to duplicate some of the charters' success in elementary schools. Boundary review, combined with incentives to retain middle class students at the schools (like advanced classes and so forth) are one of the obvious approaches.

What?

Most charters are serving mostly disadvantaged kids with a very few exceptions.

Most all of DCPS serves mostly disadvantaged kids with very few exceptions, too. Yet I assume your desire is to integrate DCPS with what little middle class students exist. Charters have been successful in this regard, to the degree that middle class students even exist. What's yer point?

Not very few exceptions. Nearly one quarter of DCPS students are UMC these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least the charters are catering to the middle class in D.C. Without charters, there probably would be even less middle class residents.

The challenge of this thread I think is how to duplicate some of the charters' success in elementary schools. Boundary review, combined with incentives to retain middle class students at the schools (like advanced classes and so forth) are one of the obvious approaches.

What?

Most charters are serving mostly disadvantaged kids with a very few exceptions.

Most all of DCPS serves mostly disadvantaged kids with very few exceptions, too. Yet I assume your desire is to integrate DCPS with what little middle class students exist. Charters have been successful in this regard, to the degree that middle class students even exist. What's yer point?

Not very few exceptions. Nearly one quarter of DCPS students are UMC these days.

If they were "really" UMC, they wouldn't be putting up with DCPS. UMC goes private, especially given DCPS foolishness, full stop.

[Anonymous]

So are you talking about truly MC and UMC or your version of it which is actually wealthy. I don’t know any UMC that can afford dc housing prices and private school for multiple kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So are you talking about truly MC and UMC or your version of it which is actually wealthy. I don’t know any UMC that can afford dc housing prices and private school for multiple kids.

That’s just your circle / your age. There are a lot of us, but our kids aren’t 5 and 7 and we didn’t pay $1.24 million for a flipped rowhouse in Petworth within the last years.

[Anonymous]

Just because $250K annual income doesn’t get you champagne and helicopters doesn’t mean it’s not the top quintile of US incomes.

[Anonymous]

The OP who tried to start a new thread on this subject said that for Hill families this was a particularly big deal.

Sorry to be so dense, but what do Hill families somehow think is going to happen? Is this about Brent or Maury feeding into SH? Both seem unlikely. What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The OP who tried to start a new thread on this subject said that for Hill families this was a particularly big deal.

Sorry to be so dense, but what do Hill families somehow think is going to happen? Is this about Brent or Maury feeding into SH? Both seem unlikely. What?

That is what it always is about for Hill parents. They want the 3-4 highest performing elementary schools to feed the same MS, and then prob get guaranteed seats at SWW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP who tried to start a new thread on this subject said that for Hill families this was a particularly big deal.

Sorry to be so dense, but what do Hill families somehow think is going to happen? Is this about Brent or Maury feeding into SH? Both seem unlikely. What?

That is what it always is about for Hill parents. They want the 3-4 highest performing elementary schools to feed the same MS, and then prob get guaranteed seats at SWW.

Sounds good to me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. By the time of the boundary review it will be clear that all of the WITP schools are full. That will be a key fact.

We get to make choices about that. Fundamentally I see three choices, maybe four.

First, we can decide to go along with the residential segregation and transportation patterns and say they’re full and out-of-boundary students are basically excluded. Sounds bad, but it might have the most impact for neighborhoods from which students travel west for elementary and feed upward in terms of keeping their best students in those schools.

Second, we could keep everything the same and start construction WOTP to meet demand. Build out bigger elementary schools, build more middle and high schools.

Third, we could make a rule that reserves some spots in each of these schools for OOB students. Maybe based on at-risk status and maybe not. Would have good effects but could create stigma. Could exclude or include people who don’t need access to schools like this.

Fourth, we could equalize further by establishing a lottery not tied to residence of applicant, i.e., no inboundary preference. I see this as the best choice functionally but politically unachievable. This forum’s reaction to that choice is always that every person with a better than 9th grade education and a tent will move to some suburb and leave DC to the zombies if that’s even mentioned and while that’s handwringing bullshit it’s politically reflective of something for sure. That’s why I only say it’s 3 choices really.

Other choices like choice grouped pyramids were run up the flagpole and failed during the last go round. I doubt we’re more likely to turn those choices into reality than last time.

What do you all think?

Good post. I think #1 is the most feasible option. I too see the appeal of #4 but don’t think it’s politically viable. San Francisco has a system similar to #4 but it’s pretty unpopular even if well-intentioned and pretty effective at integrating schools. And that’s with SF having many more good schools than DC.

Boston also tried a similar syatem, but had to walk it back, so that some preference is given to residents.

San Francisco has a much smaller percentage of residents with children, partially because of expense, and partially due to the lottery. I don't think SF has more good schools than DC. California per pupil expenditure is very low compared to most DMV school districts. The kinds of specials we take for granted would be unheard of in a lot of CA schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP who tried to start a new thread on this subject said that for Hill families this was a particularly big deal.

Sorry to be so dense, but what do Hill families somehow think is going to happen? Is this about Brent or Maury feeding into SH? Both seem unlikely. What?

That is what it always is about for Hill parents. They want the 3-4 highest performing elementary schools to feed the same MS, and then prob get guaranteed seats at SWW.

Adjusting for demographics, Watkins performs better than Brent. You probably mean they want the 3-4 whitest schools to feed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP who tried to start a new thread on this subject said that for Hill families this was a particularly big deal.

Sorry to be so dense, but what do Hill families somehow think is going to happen? Is this about Brent or Maury feeding into SH? Both seem unlikely. What?

That is what it always is about for Hill parents. They want the 3-4 highest performing elementary schools to feed the same MS, and then prob get guaranteed seats at SWW.

Adjusting for demographics, Watkins performs better than Brent. You probably mean they want the 3-4 whitest schools to feed

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

The Brent/ aura folks always home in on the unweighted scores. The DC school report card is a better too, and Watkins is among the highest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good post. I think #1 is the most feasible option. I too see the appeal of #4 but don’t think it’s politically viable. San Francisco has a system similar to #4 but it’s pretty unpopular even if well-intentioned and pretty effective at integrating schools. And that’s with SF having many more good schools than DC.

Boston also tried a similar syatem, but had to walk it back, so that some preference is given to residents.

San Francisco has a much smaller percentage of residents with children, partially because of expense, and partially due to the lottery. I don't think SF has more good schools than DC. California per pupil expenditure is very low compared to most DMV school districts. The kinds of specials we take for granted would be unheard of in a lot of CA schools.

I agree with a lot of your post, including regarding per-pupil expenditure and specials. But SF schools are better-scoring than DC schools. As an example, look at US News's "College Readiness Index," which compares AP/IB performance. SFUSD's score is 42.1 and DCPS is 28.9. Also compare the scatter plots for district high schools (DC has so many in the lower left corner): https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/district-of-columbia/districts/district-of-columbia-public-schools/wilson-high-school-4649 https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/california/districts/san-francisco-unified-school-district/abraham-lincoln-high-school-3254 Neither district scores too well, but SF has a lot more schools that are mediocre but not terrible. My only point is that moving away from IB schools will be even harder in DC than it was in SF where's it's very unpopular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP who tried to start a new thread on this subject said that for Hill families this was a particularly big deal.

Sorry to be so dense, but what do Hill families somehow think is going to happen? Is this about Brent or Maury feeding into SH? Both seem unlikely. What?

That is what it always is about for Hill parents. They want the 3-4 highest performing elementary schools to feed the same MS, and then prob get guaranteed seats at SWW.

Adjusting for demographics, Watkins performs better than Brent. You probably mean they want the 3-4 whitest schools to feed

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

The Brent/ aura folks always home in on the unweighted scores. The DC school report card is a better too, and Watkins is among the highest.

I just think Brent and Maury (and Tyler?) should feed together to Elliot Hine - that would be the best chance of buy in and integration.