3 MS in Ward 5, but we can't have 2 in Ward 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. So what are ward 5 parents complaining about? They could go to their in-bounds school, which was not in ward 5 but that should not be a problem? So why did DCPS bend over backwards for them?

the community complains because they have LOST something...
http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/SCHOOLS/Boundary%20Maps%20-%202009/DCPS-Attendance-Zones-Middle-Schools-September-2009.pdf

[Anonymous]

and if you look at this map, you'll see the k-8 model hasn't been evenly applied to the entire city...there is no parity
http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/SCHOOLS/Boundary%20Maps%20-%202009/DCPS-Attendance-Zones-K8-Schools-September-2009.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. So what are ward 5 parents complaining about? They could go to their in-bounds school, which was not in ward 5 but that should not be a problem? So why did DCPS bend over backwards for them?

DCPS is trying to address the huge inequity in the system presumably. Right now, Ward 5 students only have rights to attend their in-boundary PS-8 school, which has typically meant there are around 100 students in the middle school grades total. With only 30 or so students per grade, because of the way per-student funding works this means there is no room for electives, extracurriculars, etc. No foreign languages, no science labs. These schools, built as elementaries, suddenly had to house middle schoolers, but they weren't renovated. Some have no gyms. Some do not have separate entrances for preschoolers/elementary school kids vs middle school kids.

Ward 5 students have had NO option other than the regular OOB process to go to middle school outside their ward.

The whole thing has been so badly mismanaged for so long that DCPS is finally waking up and trying to right this wrong.

Who knows whether they will succeed, because most middle class Ward 5 parents have little faith in the system and are opting out from the preschool level. DCPS is, I think, betting on bringing students back from OOBs, charters, and parochials to make this work.

Is that helpful?

[Anonymous]

edited to add: ok there are some foreign languages etc. But it is pretty minimal compared to the options you can get with a bigger school. That is why DCPS has heavily emphasized having the numbers to make the proposed options work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The whole thing has been so badly mismanaged for so long that DCPS is finally waking up and trying to right this wrong.

THe K-8 model is a recent phenomenon -- Rhee made the unilateral decision to change the schools in this way. It was another one of her reform failures.

[Anonymous]

PP here. Very true! But I meant that most Ward 5 schools have been in the toilet for a long time. Problems are much deeper than the lack of a standalone middle school, obviously. That is why this reform effort will have to address getting families into Ward 5 schools at the PS/PK level, not just the school grade structure. I believe that is supposed to happen starting in January. We shall see where it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Isn't this the beginning and end of the discussion? There's an existing middle school that is not fully enrolled with in-bounds middle school students. Why on earth should DCPS build another middle school in that same in-bounds area?

Because Hardy is already full of OOB kids, and even if it could successfully fill up with IB kids, it would take years of gradual change - test scores first, then more IB kids, leading to higher test scores, leading to more IB kids, in an upward spiral. If there were a blank slate/empty school available, more IB parents would be willing to take the risk.

The thing to do would be to guarantee the school would be 100% IB in the first three years, no more than 10% OOB in the fourth, fifth and sixth years, and no more than 20% OOB for the three years after that, even if it meant the school was under-subscribed at first. Parents would be guaranteed a critical mass of IB kids at the school for the full duration of their child's attendance at the school. After three full cycles of student attendance, I think the school could stand on its own without manufactured exclusivity.

Ward 3 parents with high achieving kids want to send those kids to school with other high achieving kids. They want their kids' classmates' parents to be educated and involved. If the school became a high performer it could then "afford" to let in OOB kids, because if the school were a high performer the OOB kids would be more likely to be high achievers with educated/involved parents. So it would be a great school for the IB families, and a great school for the OOB families too. And yes, it wouldn't be very fair or nice to OOB families that they didn't have the same shot at the school as the IB families, but sometimes making something fair and nice just means it turns to crud for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The thing to do would be to guarantee the school would be 100% IB in the first three years, no more than 10% OOB in the fourth, fifth and sixth years, and no more than 20% OOB for the three years after that, even if it meant the school was under-subscribed at first. Parents would be guaranteed a critical mass of IB kids at the school for the full duration of their child's attendance at the school. After three full cycles of student attendance, I think the school could stand on its own without manufactured exclusivity.

Why should DCPS spend all this extra money to build a new school (when there is already a decent middle school) and then not try to fill it up? This is a net zero game for money. If they spend more money on this, there is less money to spend elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Isn't this the beginning and end of the discussion? There's an existing middle school that is not fully enrolled with in-bounds middle school students. Why on earth should DCPS build another middle school in that same in-bounds area?

Because Hardy is already full of OOB kids, and even if it could successfully fill up with IB kids, it would take years of gradual change - test scores first, then more IB kids, leading to higher test scores, leading to more IB kids, in an upward spiral. If there were a blank slate/empty school available, more IB parents would be willing to take the risk.

The thing to do would be to guarantee the school would be 100% IB in the first three years, no more than 10% OOB in the fourth, fifth and sixth years, and no more than 20% OOB for the three years after that, even if it meant the school was under-subscribed at first. Parents would be guaranteed a critical mass of IB kids at the school for the full duration of their child's attendance at the school. After three full cycles of student attendance, I think the school could stand on its own without manufactured exclusivity.

Ward 3 parents with high achieving kids want to send those kids to school with other high achieving kids. They want their kids' classmates' parents to be educated and involved. If the school became a high performer it could then "afford" to let in OOB kids, because if the school were a high performer the OOB kids would be more likely to be high achievers with educated/involved parents. So it would be a great school for the IB families, and a great school for the OOB families too. And yes, it wouldn't be very fair or nice to OOB families that they didn't have the same shot at the school as the IB families, but sometimes making something fair and nice just means it turns to crud for everyone.

1. hardy is full of OOB kids as inbounds kids avoid going
2. Build a school, in case they come? when the designated school was recently renovated to the tune of millions?
3. Build a whole new school, and don't let anyone else in, so little Milly can be one of 5 kids in a class?
4. Are you prepared to accept that if only 40 kids show up, only monies for 40 kids will be allotted? You have the equivalent of a one-room schoolhouse?
5. "if the school were a high performer the OOB kids would be more likely to be high achievers with educated/involved parents"....yet eveyone has an equal shot at lottery, so how is this logical?
6. 'making something fair and nice just means it turns to crud for everyone'...sounds like the reasoning behind white flight. Maybe it's time to move to a county where OOB doesn't exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Isn't this the beginning and end of the discussion? There's an existing middle school that is not fully enrolled with in-bounds middle school students. Why on earth should DCPS build another middle school in that same in-bounds area?

Because Hardy is already full of OOB kids, and even if it could successfully fill up with IB kids, it would take years of gradual change - test scores first, then more IB kids, leading to higher test scores, leading to more IB kids, in an upward spiral. If there were a blank slate/empty school available, more IB parents would be willing to take the risk.

The thing to do would be to guarantee the school would be 100% IB in the first three years, no more than 10% OOB in the fourth, fifth and sixth years, and no more than 20% OOB for the three years after that, even if it meant the school was under-subscribed at first. Parents would be guaranteed a critical mass of IB kids at the school for the full duration of their child's attendance at the school. After three full cycles of student attendance, I think the school could stand on its own without manufactured exclusivity.

Ward 3 parents with high achieving kids want to send those kids to school with other high achieving kids. They want their kids' classmates' parents to be educated and involved. If the school became a high performer it could then "afford" to let in OOB kids, because if the school were a high performer the OOB kids would be more likely to be high achievers with educated/involved parents. So it would be a great school for the IB families, and a great school for the OOB families too. And yes, it wouldn't be very fair or nice to OOB families that they didn't have the same shot at the school as the IB families, but sometimes making something fair and nice just means it turns to crud for everyone.

I think this is the craziest thing I've ever read on DCUM (excepting posts where the poster is obviously mentally ill), which is saying a lot. Please, just move to MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Isn't this the beginning and end of the discussion? There's an existing middle school that is not fully enrolled with in-bounds middle school students. Why on earth should DCPS build another middle school in that same in-bounds area?

Because Hardy is already full of OOB kids, and even if it could successfully fill up with IB kids, it would take years of gradual change - test scores first, then more IB kids, leading to higher test scores, leading to more IB kids, in an upward spiral. If there were a blank slate/empty school available, more IB parents would be willing to take the risk.

The thing to do would be to guarantee the school would be 100% IB in the first three years, no more than 10% OOB in the fourth, fifth and sixth years, and no more than 20% OOB for the three years after that, even if it meant the school was under-subscribed at first. Parents would be guaranteed a critical mass of IB kids at the school for the full duration of their child's attendance at the school. After three full cycles of student attendance, I think the school could stand on its own without manufactured exclusivity.

Ward 3 parents with high achieving kids want to send those kids to school with other high achieving kids. They want their kids' classmates' parents to be educated and involved. If the school became a high performer it could then "afford" to let in OOB kids, because if the school were a high performer the OOB kids would be more likely to be high achievers with educated/involved parents. So it would be a great school for the IB families, and a great school for the OOB families too. And yes, it wouldn't be very fair or nice to OOB families that they didn't have the same shot at the school as the IB families, but sometimes making something fair and nice just means it turns to crud for everyone.

Oh no! You didn't! You didn't just unintentionally suggest that parents in wards other than 3, don't want to send their high-achieving students to school with other high-achieving students?

Damn. You did.

Karma's gonna get you, if DCUM don't get you first.

[Anonymous]

I agree with 22:05 - move to MoCo

or go private - just stop using your tortured logic here. We see through it.

[Anonymous]

Yup. DCUM's gonna get her first.

[Anonymous]

The thing to do is put the resources into Hardy that are available via well off parents at Deal. This might not quite get Deal's scores as a lot has to do with demographics i.e. how poor you start but do some programs like summer bridge programs and extra tutoring and you might be surprised at how good Hardy would get. Also provide a decent bus option from Brookland to Georgetown, this can be done as they are already doing one to Mckinely.

[Anonymous]

Well. The inboundary majority that makes Deal "what it is" and, to the point, what other people want doesn't rely on summer school, remediation and tutoring. So I'm pretty sure adding those things to Hardy isn't going to be a compelling draw to the tweens of palisades. And without that majority cohort, Hardy will never be Deal, etc etc etc