Active Boundary Study Proposals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it sounds like I am less dense than I thought. The possibilities are being unveiled to each school community they may impact, one at a time, right, boundary study committee member?

Also since you guys are obviously reading this thread...I'm wondering how I can advocate for the boundary study committee to take a look at my school (an International Baccalaureate elementary) and potentially offer an IB middle option, ideally at our very good feeder middle. I like the elementary (Thomson). I like the middle (SWW@F-S). I just want to continue the International Baccalaureate framework because I think it's powerful.

Can SWW@F-S get this program (ideal) or can Thomson families get some sort of preference at Eliot-Hine or Deal, which also have it, in addition to SWW@F-S? (Don't want to lose our great current feeder, families love it!)

Did I miss the window for asking for that?

NP. I don’t think the boundary review process is making curriculum changes like that. Probably also an issue you should take up with the schools that it would affect, like FS. That would be a significant change to an established school community.

I am a different advisory committee member, and we are definitely talking about programmatic options at the schools and feeders across the city. Families travel across the city to attend schools that have certain programs from our of bounds, and it would be ideal if there were options for programs in all parts of city so there would be less need travel. Not sure if you are the same poster who wrote about this IB topic a few months ago, but after I read a thread mentioning that a few months ago I brought it up in discussion at our meeting. If you want to submit it as an idea you can log on to the townhalls in a few weeks, but there is also a link to provide input here
https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=8Unkj5SLt0-ZBm-Tnagtczxvnk3MmepBgILrceqyWwFUQ0wyT09DRURJRVZITU5CNU5INjk2UUU3RiQlQCN0PWcu

That is good to hear. Are you looking at access to dual language programs?

AC member 1 here: yes, that's a major topic, including potentially crossover feeder patterns from DCPS to charter and vice versa

Charter students do not deserve feeder access/rights to DCPS schools unless they are the students IB schools, full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it sounds like I am less dense than I thought. The possibilities are being unveiled to each school community they may impact, one at a time, right, boundary study committee member?

Also since you guys are obviously reading this thread...I'm wondering how I can advocate for the boundary study committee to take a look at my school (an International Baccalaureate elementary) and potentially offer an IB middle option, ideally at our very good feeder middle. I like the elementary (Thomson). I like the middle (SWW@F-S). I just want to continue the International Baccalaureate framework because I think it's powerful.

Can SWW@F-S get this program (ideal) or can Thomson families get some sort of preference at Eliot-Hine or Deal, which also have it, in addition to SWW@F-S? (Don't want to lose our great current feeder, families love it!)

Did I miss the window for asking for that?

NP. I don’t think the boundary review process is making curriculum changes like that. Probably also an issue you should take up with the schools that it would affect, like FS. That would be a significant change to an established school community.

I am a different advisory committee member, and we are definitely talking about programmatic options at the schools and feeders across the city. Families travel across the city to attend schools that have certain programs from our of bounds, and it would be ideal if there were options for programs in all parts of city so there would be less need travel. Not sure if you are the same poster who wrote about this IB topic a few months ago, but after I read a thread mentioning that a few months ago I brought it up in discussion at our meeting. If you want to submit it as an idea you can log on to the townhalls in a few weeks, but there is also a link to provide input here
https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=8Unkj5SLt0-ZBm-Tnagtczxvnk3MmepBgILrceqyWwFUQ0wyT09DRURJRVZITU5CNU5INjk2UUU3RiQlQCN0PWcu

That is good to hear. Are you looking at access to dual language programs?

AC member 1 here: yes, that's a major topic, including potentially crossover feeder patterns from DCPS to charter and vice versa

Charter students do not deserve feeder access/rights to DCPS schools unless they are the students IB schools, full stop.

I agree. The crossover idea sounds crazy to me.

[Anonymous]

Why would DCPS want to give feeder rights to charters when so many charters absolutely stink academically? No thank you. Give rights to DCPS kids if you want to give rights, then at least there's the possibility of curricular alignment.

IMO this is all deck chairs on the Titanic. The only thing that will move the needle is intensive academic remediation, at great financial cost.

[Anonymous]

Charter feeder rights to a DCPS language immersion MS/HS program makes sense maybe, but DCI seems to have that covered.

[Anonymous]

I could see the argument for CHML kids to get feeder rights to Truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I could see the argument for CHML kids to get feeder rights to Truth.

Like if they just give up on their own middle school?

I think it would be really bad for Truth to have to absorb so many kids who are academically behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could see the argument for CHML kids to get feeder rights to Truth.

Like if they just give up on their own middle school?

I think it would be really bad for Truth to have to absorb so many kids who are academically behind.

Meant for high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could see the argument for CHML kids to get feeder rights to Truth.

Like if they just give up on their own middle school?

I think it would be really bad for Truth to have to absorb so many kids who are academically behind.

Meant for high school.

Same question. CHML middle school kids are way behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it sounds like I am less dense than I thought. The possibilities are being unveiled to each school community they may impact, one at a time, right, boundary study committee member?

Also since you guys are obviously reading this thread...I'm wondering how I can advocate for the boundary study committee to take a look at my school (an International Baccalaureate elementary) and potentially offer an IB middle option, ideally at our very good feeder middle. I like the elementary (Thomson). I like the middle (SWW@F-S). I just want to continue the International Baccalaureate framework because I think it's powerful.

Can SWW@F-S get this program (ideal) or can Thomson families get some sort of preference at Eliot-Hine or Deal, which also have it, in addition to SWW@F-S? (Don't want to lose our great current feeder, families love it!)

Did I miss the window for asking for that?

EH parent here. I like that idea!

Doesn’t Eastern have IB too? That would create a potential pathway through 12 especially if a Ward 6 elementary adopted it.

It's only going to work if DCPS commits to actually teaching the IB content. Which they won't.

In elementary and at least part of middle it’s a framework for all kids, a style of teaching and approaching learning. It’s a school commitment, not really a district one. Requires strong instructional leadership and good teachers. EH has that. I think Eastern is on its way.

How do you know? And what does that even really mean, given Eastern's PARCC scores. Is anyone going to look at Eastern and say "Literally all the kids are below grade level in math, but they have IB so I'm fine with that"?

Fair question!

At EH, I know because IB, an independent global nonprofit, doesn’t let a middle school call itself IB unless it meets IBs standards for instruction, course offerings, professional development, you name it. They visit and essentially do an independent audit of the school. They don’t take DCPS’ word for it, trust me. The standards are the same for schools all over the world. It takes a good leader with a strong staff to meet that high bar, so if EH got IBs blessing, it must have those things in place. (Jefferson for example pursued IB.)

I like the outside seal of approval cause I’d rather send my kid to a school with strong teachers and leaders than one with meh teachers and “honors” classes that only looks good because it has a socio-economically advantaged population. Which describes a lot of supposedly awesome suburban middles.

On Eastern, see above. They have at least some quality instruction in place, for some kids, or they couldn’t offer IB at all. The test scores are low overall because the program is pretty tiny.

I live in Ward 2 and send my kid to schools here. No plans to move to the Hill. I don’t have a kid at EH and it’s not my feeder. I like IB as a program but have no reason to booster EH. Or Eastern for that matter.

Ummmmm, Eastern has an IB program and literally fewer than 1 in 10 kids in the building is at grade level. Take your DCPS, IB marketing materials and go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it sounds like I am less dense than I thought. The possibilities are being unveiled to each school community they may impact, one at a time, right, boundary study committee member?

Also since you guys are obviously reading this thread...I'm wondering how I can advocate for the boundary study committee to take a look at my school (an International Baccalaureate elementary) and potentially offer an IB middle option, ideally at our very good feeder middle. I like the elementary (Thomson). I like the middle (SWW@F-S). I just want to continue the International Baccalaureate framework because I think it's powerful.

Can SWW@F-S get this program (ideal) or can Thomson families get some sort of preference at Eliot-Hine or Deal, which also have it, in addition to SWW@F-S? (Don't want to lose our great current feeder, families love it!)

Did I miss the window for asking for that?

NP. I don’t think the boundary review process is making curriculum changes like that. Probably also an issue you should take up with the schools that it would affect, like FS. That would be a significant change to an established school community.

I am a different advisory committee member, and we are definitely talking about programmatic options at the schools and feeders across the city. Families travel across the city to attend schools that have certain programs from our of bounds, and it would be ideal if there were options for programs in all parts of city so there would be less need travel. Not sure if you are the same poster who wrote about this IB topic a few months ago, but after I read a thread mentioning that a few months ago I brought it up in discussion at our meeting. If you want to submit it as an idea you can log on to the townhalls in a few weeks, but there is also a link to provide input here
https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=8Unkj5SLt0-ZBm-Tnagtczxvnk3MmepBgILrceqyWwFUQ0wyT09DRURJRVZITU5CNU5INjk2UUU3RiQlQCN0PWcu

That is good to hear. Are you looking at access to dual language programs?[/quote

Yes, the topic of having dual language programs, especially beyond elementary in more parts of the city has been discussed frequently.

It’s a start, but it really needs to start at equitable access in elementary school. In addition, they could put a dual language school four blocks from my home, but if we are not zoned for it it is hardly equitable access. They should never have access to specialized program be determined by your address. Everyone should have equal opportunity to participate in such programs.

[Anonymous]

Those in the know— do these proposals take into account the opinions/ideas from the teachers and administrators at affected schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Committee members, is there any talk of actually providing above-grade-level work, instead of just pretending to?

That's outside of our scope. And remember, we are only providing recommendations to the Mayor, who can take or leave them, and subject to available budget.

We talk about "access to high-quality schools" but keep asking what "high-quality" actually means.

Um shouldn’t all kids have access to high-quality schools? Like isn’t that the goal of the school district and one of the most important things they do? What does that have to do with boundary revisions? If a school is that sh**y and low quality shut it down and rebuild. No child deserves that.

[Anonymous]

Boundary study folks: Have all the proposals been workshopped, or been scheduled to be?

Or might some still be floated?

For instance, in another thread someone wondered about doing something similar with JO Wilson and Ludlow Taylor as has been proposed for Maury-Miner...off the table at this point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boundary study folks: Have all the proposals been workshopped, or been scheduled to be?

Or might some still be floated?

For instance, in another thread someone wondered about doing something similar with JO Wilson and Ludlow Taylor as has been proposed for Maury-Miner...off the table at this point?

They are in the feedback stage. There aren't going to be entirely new different ideas presented.

[Anonymous]

Another question: at one point, one of the study websites said that any changes will be rolled out slowly, so if you’re enrolled in a school by 2025, you can stay there or choose to go to your newly assigned school.

How does that principle work with the Miner-Maury cluster idea?