does anyone else find the social scene at Janney hard to take?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janney is apparently already at 8% oob.

Remember that the 10-15% set aside is for at risk OOB, not higher SES OOB.

No, it is a preference in the lottery, after OOB with siblings. I would hope all of you that think this set aside will work because of Janney's proximity to public transportation have read the definition of at risk. This is not farms or working poor, this is about kids that are homeless and in foster care and similar. These are children in families with serious functional problems. I support the concept of making quality education available to them, but I think we will need deducted buses, not public transportation options. This is likely at least a 1 hour trip each way every day to get children there by 8:45. I think that is highly optimistic. The set asides, however, are not limited to at risk kids, this is a set aside for OOB with the described priority so if at risk kids don't take the slots other OOB families will.

[Anonymous]

Deducted = dedicated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Janney is a lot more like Montgomery County schools than other city schools -- full of strivers -- but with a pitiful level of diversity. I think that's the hardest thing to take about Janney and why I sent my children to private even though I was IB there. The school is HUGE by DC standards and the vast majority of the kids are white.

What school (or general category of school) did you send your children to, PP?

Most private schools that I've seen in Upper NW are full of upper-middle class and rich folks with a few scholarship kids in the mix. You get more racial diversity that JKLMM but in some ways less SES diversity (barbell effect). Either way, whether you go to JKLMM or private, you are still sending your kids to a relatively non-diverse school. (Some of the catholics have more SES diversity but have their own issues...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I certainly appreciate and agree with the sentiment that proximity should be a highly prioritized factor in school boundaries, the reality of the current situation in upper northwest is we have 3 public elementary schools which are very, very close to each other. We already have a situation where some families live closer to one school but are zoned for another but the difference in distances we're talking about for a number of homes (not all certainly) are really quite marginal.

But back to the issue of 3 very closely positioned schools - Two of those schools - Janney, Murch - have geographically large boundaries and a high participation rate by neighborhood students. One - Hearst - has a relatively very small geographic boundary and low participation rate by neighborhood students. It simply seems illogical to me NOT to adjust the boundaries to more evenly distribute neighborhood kids among the 3 schools in the neighborhood. I truly don't understand how anyone can provide a rational argument not to support greater neighborhood participation at Hearst when you consider the neighborhood/system as a whole and not just on a school by school basis.

I could NEVER support a proposal for DCPS to spend another cent on a new school building in upper NW DC until all existing schools in upper NW DC including Hearst see equivalent neighborhood participation.

As a note in response to the PP comment about 'how at-risk kids will get to WOTP schools', I'd offer in general "where there's a will there's a way', and more specifically that Janney in particular is about 100 yards from a public bus stop and perhaps more relevantly the metro. Of all Ward 3 schools it is arguably the best logistically suited for OOB at risk students to get to given WMATA's provision for kids to ride free to school.

Thank you for writing this. I agree completely.

[Anonymous]

Hearst is over 60% IB in all of the lower grades and holds only 300 kids with the new remodeling. With the new pre-K 3 OOB kids will be much less able to attend, and the school is quickly becoming more reflective of the neighborhood (read: white and upper income). Your goals are very contradictory a more diverse Janney and a less diverse Hearst.

Janney has 700 students and over 40 IB kids on the pre-K waitlist.

[Anonymous]

Janney will have to expand significantly to meet the OOB quota. I doubt if any of the current 8% OOB meets the at-risk criteria. You will need to add space for about 100 new students. Upper NW needs more schools and more expansions.

[Anonymous]

I think there is some confusion about the 10% OOB set-aside and the 30% at-risk issue.

The way the proposal is currently written it is that:
- All schools would need to have 10% of slots set-aside for OOB kids. (They have not clarified exactly how that will work, and what the 10% is actually of, but let's leave that aside for now).

- IF a school is < 30% at-risk, then any OOB seats that are open would first be given to at risk kids. (Maybe after OOB with sibling; I'm not sure).

But what this means is basically that any NEW OOB kids that get into Janney would be at-risk, but not that they would need at this point to have 10% at risk kids.

What it also means to me is that it is going to be much harder for non-at-risk families from other parts of the city to get into schools OOB.

[Anonymous]

^^thanks PP for that explanation. Does anyone know what priority preference will be? For example, will OOB with sibling still get preference over the at-risk preference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^thanks PP for that explanation. Does anyone know what priority preference will be? For example, will OOB with sibling still get preference over the at-risk preference?

Yes, in the latest proposal, it is OOB w/sibling first and then at risk. For pre-k, IB w/sibling and IB come before any OOB.

The PP is correct that it is 10 % OOB total, not 10% at risk. Also, at schools with room for more than 10 % OOB the at risk kids will have a preference over general OOB for all slots, not just 10%.

[Anonymous]

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janney is apparently already at 8% oob.

Remember that the 10-15% set aside is for at risk OOB, not higher SES OOB.

No, it is a preference in the lottery, after OOB with siblings. I would hope all of you that think this set aside will work because of Janney's proximity to public transportation have read the definition of at risk. This is not farms or working poor, this is about kids that are homeless and in foster care and similar. These are children in families with serious functional problems. I support the concept of making quality education available to them, but I think we will need deducted buses, not public transportation options. This is likely at least a 1 hour trip each way every day to get children there by 8:45. I think that is highly optimistic. The set asides, however, are not limited to at risk kids, this is a set aside for OOB with the described priority so if at risk kids don't take the slots other OOB families will.

With the St. Ann's school becoming vacant next door, maybe DCPS could rent it so that Janney could create a "school within a school" annex for the at-risk kids. That way, they could get special attention and services in a safe environment and under Janney supervision but not hold the other kids back if they are not functioning at grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janney is apparently already at 8% oob.

Remember that the 10-15% set aside is for at risk OOB, not higher SES OOB.

No, it is a preference in the lottery, after OOB with siblings. I would hope all of you that think this set aside will work because of Janney's proximity to public transportation have read the definition of at risk. This is not farms or working poor, this is about kids that are homeless and in foster care and similar. These are children in families with serious functional problems. I support the concept of making quality education available to them, but I think we will need deducted buses, not public transportation options. This is likely at least a 1 hour trip each way every day to get children there by 8:45. I think that is highly optimistic. The set asides, however, are not limited to at risk kids, this is a set aside for OOB with the described priority so if at risk kids don't take the slots other OOB families will.

With the St. Ann's school becoming vacant next door, maybe DCPS could rent it so that Janney could create a "school within a school" annex for the at-risk kids. That way, they could get special attention and services in a safe environment and under Janney supervision but not hold the other kids back if they are not functioning at grade level.

Anyone else concerned this raises image of 'separate but equal' all over again ????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janney is apparently already at 8% oob.

Remember that the 10-15% set aside is for at risk OOB, not higher SES OOB.

No, it is a preference in the lottery, after OOB with siblings. I would hope all of you that think this set aside will work because of Janney's proximity to public transportation have read the definition of at risk. This is not farms or working poor, this is about kids that are homeless and in foster care and similar. These are children in families with serious functional problems. I support the concept of making quality education available to them, but I think we will need deducted buses, not public transportation options. This is likely at least a 1 hour trip each way every day to get children there by 8:45. I think that is highly optimistic. The set asides, however, are not limited to at risk kids, this is a set aside for OOB with the described priority so if at risk kids don't take the slots other OOB families will.

With the St. Ann's school becoming vacant next door, maybe DCPS could rent it so that Janney could create a "school within a school" annex for the at-risk kids. That way, they could get special attention and services in a safe environment and under Janney supervision but not hold the other kids back if they are not functioning at grade level.

Anyone else concerned this raises image of 'separate but equal' all over again ????

No more than academic tracking of kids does or the DC practice of having "academies" within schools. Moreover, it would all be part of the same school so there is no true separation. Finally,, "at risk" I would hope is not a race-based classification unless that is what DME really intends but is using a neutral term

[Anonymous]

Does any DCPS school has formalized academic tracking now?

I just can't imagine that is what they have in mind with the at-risk set asides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janney is apparently already at 8% oob.

Remember that the 10-15% set aside is for at risk OOB, not higher SES OOB.

No, it is a preference in the lottery, after OOB with siblings. I would hope all of you that think this set aside will work because of Janney's proximity to public transportation have read the definition of at risk. This is not farms or working poor, this is about kids that are homeless and in foster care and similar. These are children in families with serious functional problems. I support the concept of making quality education available to them, but I think we will need deducted buses, not public transportation options. This is likely at least a 1 hour trip each way every day to get children there by 8:45. I think that is highly optimistic. The set asides, however, are not limited to at risk kids, this is a set aside for OOB with the described priority so if at risk kids don't take the slots other OOB families will.

With the St. Ann's school becoming vacant next door, maybe DCPS could rent it so that Janney could create a "school within a school" annex for the at-risk kids. That way, they could get special attention and services in a safe environment and under Janney supervision but not hold the other kids back if they are not functioning at grade level.

This is ridiculous. Janney does not have any special expertise in educating at risk kids. That is exactly not its current student profile. I think bringing at risks kids into successful classrooms can benefit those kids to a certain point, but when you start throwing around ideas like building a second school on the same grounds to teach large numbers of kids from across the city you are talking about changing what currently works with no basis to think it will benefit the kids it is intended to benefit. Build a special school where it is convenient for these kids to attend, work with successful schools to replicate their successful practices.