Proposal is up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposal doesn't recommend a test in program at Eastern. DCPS must think that the gentrifiers will come to the spiffed up building eventually without one. I don't see that happening.

Wilson doesn't have a test-in program, yet it's the sought-after school.

Wilson has the academies, which are application only. Up until 3 years ago you could still get into Wilson from OOB by applying to the academies.

The academies are no longer by application; any student can get in.

[Anonymous]

Have they been dumbed down as a result?

[Anonymous]

I don't get the negative can't-improve attitude about various DCPS schools. Many charters went from nothing to in-demand in short order with innovative curricula and motivated teachers. Seems to me the same thing can work in DCPS schools. A big reqt though is parents who are willing to be part of the solution, rather than just whiners.

[Anonymous]

I was just looking at the selective/city-wide section in the proposal and it looks like there will be selective admissions high schools (so test/audition in), specialized programs within neighborhood schools (so admission is with boundaries (except possibly set asides and native language preferences), and city-wide elementary schools (so admission is lottery based.) Does that mean that the city-wide schools (the two that exist now and the ones that are rumored to be planned for the future) are really not going to be an option for most people in the district? The lottery preferences go IB/sibling (not applicable), IB (not applicable), OOB/sibling (1), OOB/at risk (2), OOB (with proximity, but only if DCPS chooses), OOB. It seems to me like the first two categories (OOB/sibling and OOB/at risk) will be sufficient to fill any city-wide school. So, most of us just won't be able to get a seat at these schools. It kind of makes the arguments that have been going on about proximity preference at these school obsolete since no one who does not fall into the at risk category has a prayer of getting into these schools, regardless of where they live.


What is going to happen to schools like SWS and CHML once the sibling pipeline dries up and they are filled almost exclusively with at risk kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposal doesn't recommend a test in program at Eastern. DCPS must think that the gentrifiers will come to the spiffed up building eventually without one. I don't see that happening.

Agree. The gorgeous new 123 million Dunbar isn't attracting gentrifiers or anyone else no matter how nice it looks. It's at less than 50% capacity.

The gentrifiers don't have high school aged kids yet. Who knows how it may be once the prekers are of age.

Exactly. The gentrifiers didn't move there until recently, and none were/are with school aged kids.

This gentrifier's kid is at a charter that goes through hs. No way would I ever consider Dunbar. If we hadn't got into an acceptable school by K, we would have moved. If you think a gorgeous building is going to make up for 17% reading at grade level in HIGH SCHOOL, y'all are as crazy as DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the negative can't-improve attitude about various DCPS schools. Many charters went from nothing to in-demand in short order with innovative curricula and motivated teachers. Seems to me the same thing can work in DCPS schools. A big reqt though is parents who are willing to be part of the solution, rather than just whiners.

I would agree with until you look at the boundaries, for say Amidon. ALL the housing projects in the area are zoned for Amidon- so how are they going to become an 'in demand' school. I feel like Amidon has just been dealt a death sentence so Van Ness can 'thrive' until they all leave for the burbs in a few years anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the negative can't-improve attitude about various DCPS schools. Many charters went from nothing to in-demand in short order with innovative curricula and motivated teachers. Seems to me the same thing can work in DCPS schools. A big reqt though is parents who are willing to be part of the solution, rather than just whiners.

I think parents are more than willing to be part of the solution if they thing DCPS is working with them instead of against them. DC needs middle class parents to stay in DC and the only way for that to happen is for the parents to be happy with the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposal doesn't recommend a test in program at Eastern. DCPS must think that the gentrifiers will come to the spiffed up building eventually without one. I don't see that happening.

Agree. The gorgeous new 123 million Dunbar isn't attracting gentrifiers or anyone else no matter how nice it looks. It's at less than 50% capacity.

The gentrifiers don't have high school aged kids yet. Who knows how it may be once the prekers are of age.

Exactly. The gentrifiers didn't move there until recently, and none were/are with school aged kids.

This gentrifier's kid is at a charter that goes through hs. No way would I ever consider Dunbar. If we hadn't got into an acceptable school by K, we would have moved. If you think a gorgeous building is going to make up for 17% reading at grade level in HIGH SCHOOL, y'all are as crazy as DCPS.

Congrats -- you were one of the lucky ones who won at the lottery of public school education, while others, also tax payers, struck out. Hopefully, by the time their kids get to high school age, the catchment area around Dunbar will have scores as high as those at your charter, and your neighbors won't have to move to the suburbs. Seems like the big shots who want DC to thrive would be doing everything they can to make that happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the selective/city-wide section in the proposal and it looks like there will be selective admissions high schools (so test/audition in), specialized programs within neighborhood schools (so admission is with boundaries (except possibly set asides and native language preferences), and city-wide elementary schools (so admission is lottery based.) Does that mean that the city-wide schools (the two that exist now and the ones that are rumored to be planned for the future) are really not going to be an option for most people in the district? The lottery preferences go IB/sibling (not applicable), IB (not applicable), OOB/sibling (1), OOB/at risk (2), OOB (with proximity, but only if DCPS chooses), OOB. It seems to me like the first two categories (OOB/sibling and OOB/at risk) will be sufficient to fill any city-wide school. So, most of us just won't be able to get a seat at these schools. It kind of makes the arguments that have been going on about proximity preference at these school obsolete since no one who does not fall into the at risk category has a prayer of getting into these schools, regardless of where they live.


What is going to happen to schools like SWS and CHML once the sibling pipeline dries up and they are filled almost exclusively with at risk kids?

The DME needs to clarify the city-wide lottery component. Since everyone has a fair shot at admittance into a citywide school, does it make sense that the city-wide lotteries will reflect the city's natural balance of at-risk/higher SES families that the set-aside is attempting to address? They may actually be limiting access by capping the at-risk population.

[Anonymous]

I really want access to all the data the DME used to develop this proposal and the school-specific boundary documents. And I want to see the at-risk data. How many children that qualify as at-risk reside in DC and at what ages? Also, let's see the population projections the committee used to make all their decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the selective/city-wide section in the proposal and it looks like there will be selective admissions high schools (so test/audition in), specialized programs within neighborhood schools (so admission is with boundaries (except possibly set asides and native language preferences), and city-wide elementary schools (so admission is lottery based.) Does that mean that the city-wide schools (the two that exist now and the ones that are rumored to be planned for the future) are really not going to be an option for most people in the district? The lottery preferences go IB/sibling (not applicable), IB (not applicable), OOB/sibling (1), OOB/at risk (2), OOB (with proximity, but only if DCPS chooses), OOB. It seems to me like the first two categories (OOB/sibling and OOB/at risk) will be sufficient to fill any city-wide school. So, most of us just won't be able to get a seat at these schools. It kind of makes the arguments that have been going on about proximity preference at these school obsolete since no one who does not fall into the at risk category has a prayer of getting into these schools, regardless of where they live.


What is going to happen to schools like SWS and CHML once the sibling pipeline dries up and they are filled almost exclusively with at risk kids?

The DME needs to clarify the city-wide lottery component. Since everyone has a fair shot at admittance into a citywide school, does it make sense that the city-wide lotteries will reflect the city's natural balance of at-risk/higher SES families that the set-aside is attempting to address? They may actually be limiting access by capping the at-risk population.

I agree that the DME needs to clarify city-wide lottery component. What makes you think that the DME means that the at risk population will be limited to 10% at city-wide schools? The list of preference categories does not make it clear that the way the wait list will be generated is with only 10% of students at risk going to the top. This isn't clear for non-city-wide schools also. It reads to me like the boundary schools that qualify have to set aside 10% of seats and the preference order goes IB/sib, IB, OOB/sib, OOB/at risk, OOB/proximity, OOB. Therefore, this is the order that the spots are filled and the wait list is generated. So, they have to set aside AT LEAST 10% of seats for at risk, but they also have to fill the seats in the preference order. Therefore, all the at risk kids fill the seats first, even if there are more than 10% of seats available, and then everyone else gets in line in their lottery order. At a citywide school, there is no IB population, so the seats fill OOB/sib, OOB at risk, OOB proximity, OOB. There is no language that indicates that the OOB/at risk will be LIMITED to 10%. If there are enough students who fit that criteria in the city (and let's face it, there are), a school would have to fill all of its OOB seats with at risk kids first. There is unlikely to be any seats left at city-wide schools (or any other schools for that matter) for OOB/proximity, and OOB.

I am sort of surprised that this isn't of more concern to people in this thread since a lot of people bank on getting in somewhere either OOB or to a city-wide school, both of which are pretty much off the table unless you are OOB/at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the selective/city-wide section in the proposal and it looks like there will be selective admissions high schools (so test/audition in), specialized programs within neighborhood schools (so admission is with boundaries (except possibly set asides and native language preferences), and city-wide elementary schools (so admission is lottery based.) Does that mean that the city-wide schools (the two that exist now and the ones that are rumored to be planned for the future) are really not going to be an option for most people in the district? The lottery preferences go IB/sibling (not applicable), IB (not applicable), OOB/sibling (1), OOB/at risk (2), OOB (with proximity, but only if DCPS chooses), OOB. It seems to me like the first two categories (OOB/sibling and OOB/at risk) will be sufficient to fill any city-wide school. So, most of us just won't be able to get a seat at these schools. It kind of makes the arguments that have been going on about proximity preference at these school obsolete since no one who does not fall into the at risk category has a prayer of getting into these schools, regardless of where they live.


What is going to happen to schools like SWS and CHML once the sibling pipeline dries up and they are filled almost exclusively with at risk kids?

The DME needs to clarify the city-wide lottery component. Since everyone has a fair shot at admittance into a citywide school, does it make sense that the city-wide lotteries will reflect the city's natural balance of at-risk/higher SES families that the set-aside is attempting to address? They may actually be limiting access by capping the at-risk population.

I agree that the DME needs to clarify city-wide lottery component. What makes you think that the DME means that the at risk population will be limited to 10% at city-wide schools? The list of preference categories does not make it clear that the way the wait list will be generated is with only 10% of students at risk going to the top. This isn't clear for non-city-wide schools also. It reads to me like the boundary schools that qualify have to set aside 10% of seats and the preference order goes IB/sib, IB, OOB/sib, OOB/at risk, OOB/proximity, OOB. Therefore, this is the order that the spots are filled and the wait list is generated. So, they have to set aside AT LEAST 10% of seats for at risk, but they also have to fill the seats in the preference order. Therefore, all the at risk kids fill the seats first, even if there are more than 10% of seats available, and then everyone else gets in line in their lottery order. At a citywide school, there is no IB population, so the seats fill OOB/sib, OOB at risk, OOB proximity, OOB. There is no language that indicates that the OOB/at risk will be LIMITED to 10%. If there are enough students who fit that criteria in the city (and let's face it, there are), a school would have to fill all of its OOB seats with at risk kids first. There is unlikely to be any seats left at city-wide schools (or any other schools for that matter) for OOB/proximity, and OOB.

I am sort of surprised that this isn't of more concern to people in this thread since a lot of people bank on getting in somewhere either OOB or to a city-wide school, both of which are pretty much off the table unless you are OOB/at risk.

My read is the same as yours--my middle-class kid will have to get into a charter by luck or go to our IB failing school. Or we will have to move to a place we can afford that also has good schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the selective/city-wide section in the proposal and it looks like there will be selective admissions high schools (so test/audition in), specialized programs within neighborhood schools (so admission is with boundaries (except possibly set asides and native language preferences), and city-wide elementary schools (so admission is lottery based.) Does that mean that the city-wide schools (the two that exist now and the ones that are rumored to be planned for the future) are really not going to be an option for most people in the district? The lottery preferences go IB/sibling (not applicable), IB (not applicable), OOB/sibling (1), OOB/at risk (2), OOB (with proximity, but only if DCPS chooses), OOB. It seems to me like the first two categories (OOB/sibling and OOB/at risk) will be sufficient to fill any city-wide school. So, most of us just won't be able to get a seat at these schools. It kind of makes the arguments that have been going on about proximity preference at these school obsolete since no one who does not fall into the at risk category has a prayer of getting into these schools, regardless of where they live.


What is going to happen to schools like SWS and CHML once the sibling pipeline dries up and they are filled almost exclusively with at risk kids?

The DME needs to clarify the city-wide lottery component. Since everyone has a fair shot at admittance into a citywide school, does it make sense that the city-wide lotteries will reflect the city's natural balance of at-risk/higher SES families that the set-aside is attempting to address? They may actually be limiting access by capping the at-risk population.

I agree that the DME needs to clarify city-wide lottery component. What makes you think that the DME means that the at risk population will be limited to 10% at city-wide schools? The list of preference categories does not make it clear that the way the wait list will be generated is with only 10% of students at risk going to the top. This isn't clear for non-city-wide schools also. It reads to me like the boundary schools that qualify have to set aside 10% of seats and the preference order goes IB/sib, IB, OOB/sib, OOB/at risk, OOB/proximity, OOB. Therefore, this is the order that the spots are filled and the wait list is generated. So, they have to set aside AT LEAST 10% of seats for at risk, but they also have to fill the seats in the preference order. Therefore, all the at risk kids fill the seats first, even if there are more than 10% of seats available, and then everyone else gets in line in their lottery order. At a citywide school, there is no IB population, so the seats fill OOB/sib, OOB at risk, OOB proximity, OOB. There is no language that indicates that the OOB/at risk will be LIMITED to 10%. If there are enough students who fit that criteria in the city (and let's face it, there are), a school would have to fill all of its OOB seats with at risk kids first. There is unlikely to be any seats left at city-wide schools (or any other schools for that matter) for OOB/proximity, and OOB.

I am sort of surprised that this isn't of more concern to people in this thread since a lot of people bank on getting in somewhere either OOB or to a city-wide school, both of which are pretty much off the table unless you are OOB/at risk.

My read is the same as yours--my middle-class kid will have to get into a charter by luck or go to our IB failing school. Or we will have to move to a place we can afford that also has good schools.

Is this really so different than the current reality?

My impression is that all of the schools that would be affected by this proposal already have zero open spots.

I don't know how the 10% would work. Is it 10% per grade level? Overall? Will they have to add 10% to their student population?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the selective/city-wide section in the proposal and it looks like there will be selective admissions high schools (so test/audition in), specialized programs within neighborhood schools (so admission is with boundaries (except possibly set asides and native language preferences), and city-wide elementary schools (so admission is lottery based.) Does that mean that the city-wide schools (the two that exist now and the ones that are rumored to be planned for the future) are really not going to be an option for most people in the district? The lottery preferences go IB/sibling (not applicable), IB (not applicable), OOB/sibling (1), OOB/at risk (2), OOB (with proximity, but only if DCPS chooses), OOB. It seems to me like the first two categories (OOB/sibling and OOB/at risk) will be sufficient to fill any city-wide school. So, most of us just won't be able to get a seat at these schools. It kind of makes the arguments that have been going on about proximity preference at these school obsolete since no one who does not fall into the at risk category has a prayer of getting into these schools, regardless of where they live.


What is going to happen to schools like SWS and CHML once the sibling pipeline dries up and they are filled almost exclusively with at risk kids?

The DME needs to clarify the city-wide lottery component. Since everyone has a fair shot at admittance into a citywide school, does it make sense that the city-wide lotteries will reflect the city's natural balance of at-risk/higher SES families that the set-aside is attempting to address? They may actually be limiting access by capping the at-risk population.

I agree that the DME needs to clarify city-wide lottery component. What makes you think that the DME means that the at risk population will be limited to 10% at city-wide schools? The list of preference categories does not make it clear that the way the wait list will be generated is with only 10% of students at risk going to the top. This isn't clear for non-city-wide schools also. It reads to me like the boundary schools that qualify have to set aside 10% of seats and the preference order goes IB/sib, IB, OOB/sib, OOB/at risk, OOB/proximity, OOB. Therefore, this is the order that the spots are filled and the wait list is generated. So, they have to set aside AT LEAST 10% of seats for at risk, but they also have to fill the seats in the preference order. Therefore, all the at risk kids fill the seats first, even if there are more than 10% of seats available, and then everyone else gets in line in their lottery order. At a citywide school, there is no IB population, so the seats fill OOB/sib, OOB at risk, OOB proximity, OOB. There is no language that indicates that the OOB/at risk will be LIMITED to 10%. If there are enough students who fit that criteria in the city (and let's face it, there are), a school would have to fill all of its OOB seats with at risk kids first. There is unlikely to be any seats left at city-wide schools (or any other schools for that matter) for OOB/proximity, and OOB.

I am sort of surprised that this isn't of more concern to people in this thread since a lot of people bank on getting in somewhere either OOB or to a city-wide school, both of which are pretty much off the table unless you are OOB/at risk.

My read is the same as yours--my middle-class kid will have to get into a charter by luck or go to our IB failing school. Or we will have to move to a place we can afford that also has good schools.

Is this really so different than the current reality?

My impression is that all of the schools that would be affected by this proposal already have zero open spots.

I don't know how the 10% would work. Is it 10% per grade level? Overall? Will they have to add 10% to their student population?

Yes.

so schools that are currently maxed out at 26 or 28 kids per class will now have to fill to 30?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The DME needs to clarify the city-wide lottery component. Since everyone has a fair shot at admittance into a citywide school, does it make sense that the city-wide lotteries will reflect the city's natural balance of at-risk/higher SES families that the set-aside is attempting to address? They may actually be limiting access by capping the at-risk population.

I agree that the DME needs to clarify city-wide lottery component. What makes you think that the DME means that the at risk population will be limited to 10% at city-wide schools? The list of preference categories does not make it clear that the way the wait list will be generated is with only 10% of students at risk going to the top. This isn't clear for non-city-wide schools also. It reads to me like the boundary schools that qualify have to set aside 10% of seats and the preference order goes IB/sib, IB, OOB/sib, OOB/at risk, OOB/proximity, OOB. Therefore, this is the order that the spots are filled and the wait list is generated. So, they have to set aside AT LEAST 10% of seats for at risk, but they also have to fill the seats in the preference order. Therefore, all the at risk kids fill the seats first, even if there are more than 10% of seats available, and then everyone else gets in line in their lottery order. At a citywide school, there is no IB population, so the seats fill OOB/sib, OOB at risk, OOB proximity, OOB. There is no language that indicates that the OOB/at risk will be LIMITED to 10%. If there are enough students who fit that criteria in the city (and let's face it, there are), a school would have to fill all of its OOB seats with at risk kids first. There is unlikely to be any seats left at city-wide schools (or any other schools for that matter) for OOB/proximity, and OOB.

I am sort of surprised that this isn't of more concern to people in this thread since a lot of people bank on getting in somewhere either OOB or to a city-wide school, both of which are pretty much off the table unless you are OOB/at risk.



People are still digesting the proposal. The other factor is that not every "at-risk" kid will have the interest or ability to commute across town everyday, so there will be fewer "at risk" seats taken than people might imagine.