Boundary review can’t come soon enough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you keep circling back to saying YOU get to keep Janney AND get access to my dual language school, which is the only good part of a neighborhood school with no students on grade level. Fix that equitably and you're getting somewhere. Otherwise you're just taking.

I'm the person you are responding to. I do not have access to Janney -- and the only dual-language school in my ward is Powell, which I am not IB for.

Okay well YOU get access to language immersion and that person gets access to Janney and I’m stuck here in ward 8 with no chance at either. So that’s great for YOU but there are still some of us with access to no specialized language program and no “good” school.

I’m +1 to an immersion school in every ward with a non IB lottery system. Everyone must lottery if they want a spot.

[Anonymous]

Shoot I quoted the wrong person. I’m sorry. I meant to quote 14:22

[Anonymous]

Dude I get you. It just seems like those who have stuff go accumulating more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why wouldn’t we do lottery for good schools that are now neighborhood schools?

Because the only thing that makes them " good" is that kids from the neighborhood fill the seats.

Kick the neighborhood kids out and you would have just another school filled with kids performing below grade level.

Dont we have enough of those?

There would need to be new neighborhood schools - around Oyster for example, or redrawn boundaries.

But access to Spanish dual language or immersions programs shouldn’t only be determined by one’s address. Or if they are, the programs’ location should be re-determined every ten years or so to make sure they are capturing IB native Spanish speakers.

I thought the Oyster- Adams had preferences of out of bounds Spanish speakers? Part of the the issues in North West is much of the high school seats are to "application schools" Banneker, Ellington, School without Walls. Is CHEC on 16th street also application? So there are many seats but they are only available to the people in the area if they prefer a specialist program. But this is not just a reflection of parent preferences, there are clearish indications that the city allocates many of these seats using criteria other than merit. These are not blind tested entry procedures. So 'revealed preference' concept used by another poster is a concept of limited use for understanding why parents end up enrolling their kids where they do. Furthermore there are capacity constraints and limits to enrollment which also weaken the ability to exercise ones preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why wouldn’t we do lottery for good schools that are now neighborhood schools?

Because the only thing that makes them " good" is that kids from the neighborhood fill the seats.

Kick the neighborhood kids out and you would have just another school filled with kids performing below grade level.

Dont we have enough of those?

There would need to be new neighborhood schools - around Oyster for example, or redrawn boundaries.

But access to Spanish dual language or immersions programs shouldn’t only be determined by one’s address. Or if they are, the programs’ location should be re-determined every ten years or so to make sure they are capturing IB native Spanish speakers.

I thought the Oyster- Adams had preferences of out of bounds Spanish speakers? Part of the the issues in North West is much of the high school seats are to "application schools" Banneker, Ellington, School without Walls. Is CHEC on 16th street also application? So there are many seats but they are only available to the people in the area if they prefer a specialist program. But this is not just a reflection of parent preferences, there are clearish indications that the city allocates many of these seats using criteria other than merit. These are not blind tested entry procedures. So 'revealed preference' concept used by another poster is a concept of limited use for understanding why parents end up enrolling their kids where they do. Furthermore there are capacity constraints and limits to enrollment which also weaken the ability to exercise ones preference.

Half of seats at Oyster-Adams are for Spanish dominant families, with IB Spanish-dominant families getting preference over OOB. OOB younger siblings do get preference for ECE (see the enrollment handbook).

CHEC HS is an application school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why wouldn’t we do lottery for good schools that are now neighborhood schools?

Because the only thing that makes them " good" is that kids from the neighborhood fill the seats.

Kick the neighborhood kids out and you would have just another school filled with kids performing below grade level.

Dont we have enough of those?

There would need to be new neighborhood schools - around Oyster for example, or redrawn boundaries.

But access to Spanish dual language or immersions programs shouldn’t only be determined by one’s address. Or if they are, the programs’ location should be re-determined every ten years or so to make sure they are capturing IB native Spanish speakers.

I thought the Oyster- Adams had preferences of out of bounds Spanish speakers? Part of the the issues in North West is much of the high school seats are to "application schools" Banneker, Ellington, School without Walls. Is CHEC on 16th street also application? So there are many seats but they are only available to the people in the area if they prefer a specialist program. But this is not just a reflection of parent preferences, there are clearish indications that the city allocates many of these seats using criteria other than merit. These are not blind tested entry procedures. So 'revealed preference' concept used by another poster is a concept of limited use for understanding why parents end up enrolling their kids where they do. Furthermore there are capacity constraints and limits to enrollment which also weaken the ability to exercise ones preference.

What the PP you were responding to was getting at, I think, is that there are schools with a majority Spanish-dominant IB families that do not have a dual language program (example Brightwood), whereas the number of IB Spanish-dominant families at Oyster is so low that they must admit significant numbers of OOB students to maintain the program.