Greater Greater Washington story on school enrollment growth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These are OP numbers. Not large WOTP growth. https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Neighborhood%20Cluster%20Age%200-4.pdf

https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Neighborhood%20Cluster%20Age%200-17.pdf

The first chart in particular shows elementary age growth and yes while there is 0-17 growth WOTP in the second the highest area around Lafayette has 1/3 the growth of Petworth.

If you want to build to match WOTP growth numbers like this build to that limit. Do not making fleeing west an option for Petworth or Ward 1. Pull off the band aid. No additional floor on Deal if that is a trade off for a new elementary school between Spring Road and Military Road. Fill up Ward1 and 4 schools and have NONE of their students going to Hearst, Deal, Wilson.

This is ugly politics but it’s how you get the mix you want in more schools, period.

We’ll know that DC is planning ahead for Ward 1 when they build a middle school for Shaw.
Unless their plan to deal with Shaw growth is just to chase all the Shaw kids out of the system by 3rd grade.
In fact, it does seem like that is the current plan.

[Anonymous]

This comes up all the time here, but there’s no way a citywide lottery would ever happen.

The voters/taxpayers that would support it might do so for a few years, but then their kids get into a school they’re ok with or they move away and the issue fades. The “muh property values” set will be passionate about this issue forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are OP numbers. Not large WOTP growth. https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Neighborhood%20Cluster%20Age%200-4.pdf

https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Neighborhood%20Cluster%20Age%200-17.pdf

The first chart in particular shows elementary age growth and yes while there is 0-17 growth WOTP in the second the highest area around Lafayette has 1/3 the growth of Petworth.

If you want to build to match WOTP growth numbers like this build to that limit. Do not making fleeing west an option for Petworth or Ward 1. Pull off the band aid. No additional floor on Deal if that is a trade off for a new elementary school between Spring Road and Military Road. Fill up Ward1 and 4 schools and have NONE of their students going to Hearst, Deal, Wilson.

This is ugly politics but it’s how you get the mix you want in more schools, period.

We’ll know that DC is planning ahead for Ward 1 when they build a middle school for Shaw.
Unless their plan to deal with Shaw growth is just to chase all the Shaw kids out of the system by 3rd grade.
In fact, it does seem like that is the current plan.

I agree that the current plan seems to be to force people to leave. I don’t understand that as a matter of urban planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This comes up all the time here, but there’s no way a citywide lottery would ever happen.

The voters/taxpayers that would support it might do so for a few years, but then their kids get into a school they’re ok with or they move away and the issue fades. The “muh property values” set will be passionate about this issue forever.

As a DC voter, I don’t mind it for high school, when kids can get around on their own and are ready to specialize. Maybe even junior high. Elementary school, no way unless we get some school buses.

Plus, in between Wilson & EOTR, we’re already doing city wide lottery (+application) for high school, functionally. In bound percentages are below 50% in those schools, and inbound participation in in bound schools is probably even lower once you account for Wilson, application, charter & private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two things: building where there is little growth WORP is fundamentally a failure.
“All-lottery” will be fought by those happy with neighborhood schools.
Basically I think ‘all lottery’ fails because Ward 3 organizes and shows up in huge numbers everywhere during boundary reviews. I hate it but it’s true.
I personally will fight expanding Ward 3 schools for out of boundary enrollment
Best solution effectively will be force everyone to go to their own neighborhood schools. It will partially integrate Wards one and four.

Why are you saying there is little growth WOTP? Office of Planning projections show thousands of new students living WOTP.

Where, exactly? Ward 3 is pretty built out, so unless they assume that developers are going to start bulldozing single family neighborhoods for dense and tall mixed use (a GGW fantasy, I’m sure), it’s not going to happen.

The growth is through a record new baby boom and baby boomer retirement. When we moved to our block 10 years ago there were eight school aged kids on our block. Now there are 24. On just one block. That’s happening all over Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are OP numbers. Not large WOTP growth. https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Neighborhood%20Cluster%20Age%200-4.pdf

https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Neighborhood%20Cluster%20Age%200-17.pdf

The first chart in particular shows elementary age growth and yes while there is 0-17 growth WOTP in the second the highest area around Lafayette has 1/3 the growth of Petworth.

If you want to build to match WOTP growth numbers like this build to that limit. Do not making fleeing west an option for Petworth or Ward 1. Pull off the band aid. No additional floor on Deal if that is a trade off for a new elementary school between Spring Road and Military Road. Fill up Ward1 and 4 schools and have NONE of their students going to Hearst, Deal, Wilson.

This is ugly politics but it’s how you get the mix you want in more schools, period.

We’ll know that DC is planning ahead for Ward 1 when they build a middle school for Shaw.
Unless their plan to deal with Shaw growth is just to chase all the Shaw kids out of the system by 3rd grade.
In fact, it does seem like that is the current plan.

Shaw has a middle school. Stop being dramatic. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

[Anonymous]

Agreed PP. Shaw does not need a new middle
School. Shaw parents have Cardozo but don’t like it. Guess what, I don’t like macfarland either. Brookland parents clearly don’t like Brookland middle based on its 35% capacity. There is NO justification for a new middle school in Shaw. And most of the parents wbining about won’t send their kids there once they realize it’s basically all low income kids from Cardozo.

[Anonymous]

The Shaw MS logic was always that the local elementary schools would all start to look $$more like Ross$$ and then the locals would move forward with a new MS that looks “more like Ross” too. It was a future demographics play. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are going to have to limit PreK to low income families. Universal PreK is great but why does a family making $150k a year need it? They will need to pay for daycare or private PreK.

Free Park has been the biggest driver to get UMC families into DCPS. Not shiny buildings or empty promises. FREE preschool. The families get into the school
And realize it’s not that bad and slowly more families have stayed. And that’s why test scores are going up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to have to limit PreK to low income families. Universal PreK is great but why does a family making $150k a year need it? They will need to pay for daycare or private PreK.

Free Park has been the biggest driver to get UMC families into DCPS. Not shiny buildings or empty promises. FREE preschool. The families get into the school
And realize it’s not that bad and slowly more families have stayed. And that’s why test scores are going up.

UMC can easily afford PreK. Why do you think that draws them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to have to limit PreK to low income families. Universal PreK is great but why does a family making $150k a year need it? They will need to pay for daycare or private PreK.

Free Park has been the biggest driver to get UMC families into DCPS. Not shiny buildings or empty promises. FREE preschool. The families get into the school
And realize it’s not that bad and slowly more families have stayed. And that’s why test scores are going up.

UMC can easily afford PreK. Why do you think that draws them?

Our HHI was about $275K when our daughter was in a $20K daycare. Heck yeah we signed up for our IB to save on PK3! And we ended up loving the school. Free PK3 is a big draw for people like us that do okay but aren't rich (I think it would be less of a draw for folks above $400K).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to have to limit PreK to low income families. Universal PreK is great but why does a family making $150k a year need it? They will need to pay for daycare or private PreK.

Free Park has been the biggest driver to get UMC families into DCPS. Not shiny buildings or empty promises. FREE preschool. The families get into the school
And realize it’s not that bad and slowly more families have stayed. And that’s why test scores are going up.

UMC can easily afford PreK. Why do you think that draws them?

If you're saving up for $40K+ private school for middle and high school or $70K+ college the $20K+ you save on pre-K is significant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are OP numbers. Not large WOTP growth. https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Neighborhood%20Cluster%20Age%200-4.pdf

https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Neighborhood%20Cluster%20Age%200-17.pdf

The first chart in particular shows elementary age growth and yes while there is 0-17 growth WOTP in the second the highest area around Lafayette has 1/3 the growth of Petworth.

If you want to build to match WOTP growth numbers like this build to that limit. Do not making fleeing west an option for Petworth or Ward 1. Pull off the band aid. No additional floor on Deal if that is a trade off for a new elementary school between Spring Road and Military Road. Fill up Ward1 and 4 schools and have NONE of their students going to Hearst, Deal, Wilson.

This is ugly politics but it’s how you get the mix you want in more schools, period.

We’ll know that DC is planning ahead for Ward 1 when they build a middle school for Shaw.
Unless their plan to deal with Shaw growth is just to chase all the Shaw kids out of the system by 3rd grade.
In fact, it does seem like that is the current plan.

I agree that the current plan seems to be to force people to leave. I don’t understand that as a matter of urban planning.

Not “force” per se. But if the only options are the current Shaw and Brookland middle school, the city is shooting its elementary schools in the foot. Because the parents in Shaw - baby boom and longtime resident - will move, go private, or go charter before going to Cardozo.

I still don’t understand why DCPS doesn’t care about that. Shaw and other Ward I schools could really help very much to improve DCPS’s numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to have to limit PreK to low income families. Universal PreK is great but why does a family making $150k a year need it? They will need to pay for daycare or private PreK.

Free Park has been the biggest driver to get UMC families into DCPS. Not shiny buildings or empty promises. FREE preschool. The families get into the school
And realize it’s not that bad and slowly more families have stayed. And that’s why test scores are going up.

UMC can easily afford PreK. Why do you think that draws them?

If you're saving up for $40K+ private school for middle and high school or $70K+ college the $20K+ you save on pre-K is significant.

Free pre-K is not for middle class (and beyond middle class) kids or families. Vast majority of PK kids are poor.

Years of research shows that every dollar invested in high-quality early education has more effect on educational outcomes than investing that same dollar in any other part of the school system (MS, HS). The next step is high quality 0-3 for disadvantaged kids (hence the free early ed program). They are not trying to keep people like you in DC schools or the city, but rather deal with the million word gap. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190404074947.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to have to limit PreK to low income families. Universal PreK is great but why does a family making $150k a year need it? They will need to pay for daycare or private PreK.

Free Park has been the biggest driver to get UMC families into DCPS. Not shiny buildings or empty promises. FREE preschool. The families get into the school
And realize it’s not that bad and slowly more families have stayed. And that’s why test scores are going up.

UMC can easily afford PreK. Why do you think that draws them?

Our HHI was about $275K when our daughter was in a $20K daycare. Heck yeah we signed up for our IB to save on PK3! And we ended up loving the school. Free PK3 is a big draw for people like us that do okay but aren't rich (I think it would be less of a draw for folks above $400K).

Us too. It is difficult to get into a private preschool that offers as much as our (One-Star) IB. DC thrives there and the teachers are great. DC is proud to be with the big kids and has reading block im the K classroom.
The diversity is a plus, as is the opportunity for me to be a part of building up our school so that all the kids have a quality school of right. You wouldn't get that kind of experience at a private preschool.