Boundary Review December town halls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel seen and heard. All the strategies I've suggested are being discussed. Highest among them would be at risk set aside for all schools until said school is 30% at risk. By name, they said biggest opportunity schools would be Brent, Lafayette, and Oyster Adams.

Did they say how this would play out in terms of whether it's grade-by-grade or school overall? Grade-by-grade 30% targets seem fine, but filling the upper grades (where there is more space) exclusively with at-risk kids to try to get to 30% overall seems like it could be incredibly disruptive. Our school could literally go from 15% at risk to 45% at risk between two grade levels if they did it that way.

there’s no way this works statistically is there? and also unclear the set-asides would be filled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel seen and heard. All the strategies I've suggested are being discussed. Highest among them would be at risk set aside for all schools until said school is 30% at risk. By name, they said biggest opportunity schools would be Brent, Lafayette, and Oyster Adams.

Did they say how this would play out in terms of whether it's grade-by-grade or school overall? Grade-by-grade 30% targets seem fine, but filling the upper grades (where there is more space) exclusively with at-risk kids to try to get to 30% overall seems like it could be incredibly disruptive. Our school could literally go from 15% at risk to 45% at risk between two grade levels if they did it that way.

this is actually the situation at Maury naturally due to charter enrollment- at risk concentrated in grades 3-5. It has not been working well b/c the school does not provide enough support.

[Anonymous]

Where are the slides or video?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel seen and heard. All the strategies I've suggested are being discussed. Highest among them would be at risk set aside for all schools until said school is 30% at risk. By name, they said biggest opportunity schools would be Brent, Lafayette, and Oyster Adams.

Did they say how this would play out in terms of whether it's grade-by-grade or school overall? Grade-by-grade 30% targets seem fine, but filling the upper grades (where there is more space) exclusively with at-risk kids to try to get to 30% overall seems like it could be incredibly disruptive. Our school could literally go from 15% at risk to 45% at risk between two grade levels if they did it that way.

this is actually the situation at Maury naturally due to charter enrollment- at risk concentrated in grades 3-5. It has not been working well b/c the school does not provide enough support.

This is true at most Hill schools. But imagine how much worse it would be if they could only accept new OOB at risk students to those upper grades and there was pressure to keep filling them more to hit the overall school target? So now you’d have not only at risk kids, but all new kids would be at risk and the vast majority of those would be way behind grade level. It’s bad for school cohesiveness and bad for learning in the upper grades.

I have no problem with filling individual grades to 30% if space permits. But the effect on academics has to be viewed on a grade by grade and not whole school basis. There’s a huge difference between 30% at risk and 70% at risk, and the latter would be closer to the mark by every Hill school’s 5th grade it this plan went into effect.

[Anonymous]

I would also add that given that lottery seats are made available on a grade by grade basis, this would also be way easier to implement if calculated grade by grade. It seems borderline impossible to administer on a school wide basis without knowing which set aside seats will fill and which won’t.

Also, all DCPCSes need to do this too if they don’t just want the end result to be UMC families heading to charters… right when DCPS was starting to win them back; such a waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would also add that given that lottery seats are made available on a grade by grade basis, this would also be way easier to implement if calculated grade by grade. It seems borderline impossible to administer on a school wide basis without knowing which set aside seats will fill and which won’t.

Also, all DCPCSes need to do this too if they don’t just want the end result to be UMC families heading to charters… right when DCPS was starting to win them back; such a waste.

All DCPS schools that are under 30% would participate.

[Anonymous]

I'm an OOB parent at a elementary school that is currently 45 percent at-risk. We are a middle income family and our child is not an English learner and not in special education.

Would I be able to keep sending my child to our school under this proposal? Our current plan is to keep them there through grade 5.

Would another parent like me who didn't previously have a kid at the school be able to enroll since we are above the 30 percent threshold?

I think the answer to both of these questions is yes, but asking those who went to the meeting or are on the committee.

Would I - and would this theoretical new parent - retain feeder rights to our middle school, which is currently 29 percent at-risk? (I'm less certain of this one.)

Assuming we can stay at our elementary and retain feeder rights to our middle, I think this is a good plan, both equity-wise and selfishly. (And yes, before you point it out, DCUM, I'm for what's good for equity as long as I get to stay in my preferred schools, which is yes, hypocritical and I realize that). I also think my school (disadvantaged population but good feeder and reputation) could benefit enrollment-wise under this plan.

[Anonymous]

I don't know who rg is but I agree that Bancroft should go to MacFarland, like the other bilingual programs do/should..I think oyster-adams should feed to Roosevelt, or become elementary only and feed to MacFarland. It makes sense to have bilingual elementary schools feed to a bilingual jr high and high school, and deal/he is not that.

Glad they are considering getting rid of oob feeder rights. How often do you hear people say they like their elementary school but are doing the lottery for a better feeder pattern? It would be good if they stayed at their in bounds school longer and then decided on middle school when their kids were in 4th or 5th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know who rg is but I agree that Bancroft should go to MacFarland, like the other bilingual programs do/should..I think oyster-adams should feed to Roosevelt, or become elementary only and feed to MacFarland. It makes sense to have bilingual elementary schools feed to a bilingual jr high and high school, and deal/he is not that.

Glad they are considering getting rid of oob feeder rights. How often do you hear people say they like their elementary school but are doing the lottery for a better feeder pattern? It would be good if they stayed at their in bounds school longer and then decided on middle school when their kids were in 4th or 5th grade.[/quote]

I hear you but my child is at an under-enrolled Title I DCPS ES in part because I like the school but also to get to a decent middle.

And no, that decent middle is not Deal. Or Hardy. Or even Stuart-Hobson or Eliot-Hine. I get the idea of OOB losing feeder rights to overcrowded schools like Deal/JR, but we shouldn't make policy just for Ward 3. My school flies under the radar in general but there are definitely parents who seek it because it offers a solid path through 8.

I would at least like an exception to losing OOB feeder rights for those who are in Title I elementary schools with high at-risk populations and low enrollment. It's a selling point for our school.

[Anonymous]

I read the slides online. I did not see anything on them related to getting rid of middle school feeder rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know who rg is but I agree that Bancroft should go to MacFarland, like the other bilingual programs do/should..I think oyster-adams should feed to Roosevelt, or become elementary only and feed to MacFarland. It makes sense to have bilingual elementary schools feed to a bilingual jr high and high school, and deal/he is not that.

Glad they are considering getting rid of oob feeder rights. How often do you hear people say they like their elementary school but are doing the lottery for a better feeder pattern? It would be good if they stayed at their in bounds school longer and then decided on middle school when their kids were in 4th or 5th grade.

But they wouldn't actually go to MacFarland. 22% of the IB students go to MacFarland, and the kids from Bancroft or Oyster-Adams would go at even lower rates. You mean, they should be assigned to MacFarland, and then they would actually go someplace else. Which I mean, I don't have much of a dog in this particular fight, but rezoning students to a school they're not going to actually go to because you think it makes sense for them to go to that school...I'm not sure what anyone is getting from that. The problem here is the total inadequacy of most DCPS middle schools. Changing feeder rights or zoning is just rearranging the deck chairs there.

[Anonymous]

I am also curious how the 30% at risk quota for lotterying OOB would work in practice. How would it interact with sibling preference? Would it eliminate sibling preference for non at risk families at some schools? This could be relevant to families with multiple kids who moved out of bounds before all kids started attending or families whose older kids had lotteried OOB under the old system.

How would they estimate at risk at a school? Right now my impression is they estimate it by inflating the collected at risk values for title 1 status assuming underreporting. Would they do the same or use actual reported numbers?

I don't know how I feel about ending feeder rights. There are pros/cons to both policies. As a parent of an OOB kid one of the largest advantages is feeling like you have some ability to control and predict future education choices. One of the largest problems with having a mediocre inbound feeder pattern is not knowing whether you'll have good enough middle and high school. Even if it does work out and your kid can lottery into a good enough middle or high school waiting until 4th, 5th, or 9th grade is stressful enough to want to move now.

[Anonymous]

I also think both policies at risk quota for OOB and ending feeder rights for OOB could create social chism between in bound and out of bound students at a school. Out of bounds students might be perceived as more different and less permanent. It could be harder to integrate out of bounds students and that might prevent at risk out of bounds students from getting as much of the academic benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm an OOB parent at a elementary school that is currently 45 percent at-risk. We are a middle income family and our child is not an English learner and not in special education.

Would I be able to keep sending my child to our school under this proposal? Our current plan is to keep them there through grade 5.

Would another parent like me who didn't previously have a kid at the school be able to enroll since we are above the 30 percent threshold?

I think the answer to both of these questions is yes, but asking those who went to the meeting or are on the committee.

Would I - and would this theoretical new parent - retain feeder rights to our middle school, which is currently 29 percent at-risk? (I'm less certain of this one.)

Assuming we can stay at our elementary and retain feeder rights to our middle, I think this is a good plan, both equity-wise and selfishly. (And yes, before you point it out, DCUM, I'm for what's good for equity as long as I get to stay in my preferred schools, which is yes, hypocritical and I realize that). I also think my school (disadvantaged population but good feeder and reputation) could benefit enrollment-wise under this plan.

My understanding of the proposed policy ideas is with respect to your kid's situation:
- Under loss of OOB feeder bounds rights only. Your kid would lose rights to the MS and could lottery in. Their chances of getting a spot would be dependent on their luck and the percent of kids getting in OOB. No guaranteed spot, but a chance.
- Under 30% at risk preference for OOB only. Your kid would have a guaranteed spot at the MS.
- Under both combined policies. Your kid would lose rights to the MS and not be able to lottery in because the at risk was less than 30% (assuming your kid is not at risk). Your kid would not be able to attend the MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this is what we get when we let technocrats run the asylum. all the money and time and good will spent on literally nibbling around the edges in a way that can never solve DC’s severe educational issues.

Yep. If the city can't figure out how to get more kids on grade-level from the start, then DCPS will forever spend it's energy on devising rules for OOB.