How is the meeting at Dunbar going?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole at risk set aside is a HORRIBLE plan! In D.C. the face of "at-risk" is, in peoples' minds, the young black child. With this plan, the young black child at a Janney or Lafayette or Hearst, will immediately be identified as one of the "at risk" set aside kids. Will this make black kid that is in bounds feel pressure to have his peers know that "I am not one of them"? Will this make the OOB at risk child feel somehow "less than"? Will people look on that child with disdain? This has huge unfortunate social repercussions especially when "at risk" is closely associated with race in the minds of people.

Yeah --- I thought of that too, but wonder what better alternatives there are - and how different it is from the situation, let's say, of some private schools that take scholarship students who are mainly of another race. How does that work out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that, if any preference is adopted, it should be as it was originally outlined--for people, regardless at income, who are in low-performing schools.

I prefer the focus to be keep on the child's SES not on the artificial construct (in my mind) of a "low performing" school.

[Anonymous]

Can someone help me understand? In this new scenario will all schools end up with 30% at-risk enrollment?

There's a big difference between 2 homeless kids in a class of 20 and 6 homeless kids in a class of 20. Did anyone express concern over that number in the meeting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were people actually expecting the proposal to address improving schools? I thought the purpose was to right-size the boundaries. It seems to me the conversation or plans to improve schools should continue beyond this proposal.

Well, I was at least hoping it wouldn't make things worse. And if you have middle income people "stuck" at low performing schools, unable to get out as they can now, ad the most motivated at-risk families leaving, the middle income families will opt out of DCPS entirely.

I thought everyone wanted neighborhood schools. The first proposal with choice sets was rejected. Am I missing something?

I'd say that the biggest outcry was for neighborhood schools - and it would require both parents and DCPS "stepping up" to help make good neighborhood schools happen.

Though school improvement was not the focus of the boundary plan I think DCPS must make its intent to facilitate good neighborhood schools very clear very fast. I'm afraid people have too much bad experience with DCPS to spend much time hanging around hoping for the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But will DCPS and other agencies step up and provide the funding and resources for the comprehensive services and supports that homeless, foster and other AR students require? This includes, for example, additional SpEd teachers, classroom aides, etc. I have heard nothing from the DME about this critical piece necessary for implementing the set asides. In any event, I am not sure what PP is talking about, as even our highly-regarded elementary hardly qualifies as "resource rich" unless there is an endowment fund of which I am not aware.

Legendary wotp PTAs.

It's about more than finding more dollars per pupil at schools that dont qualify for Title I or other programs. It's about puttting thr necessary infrastructure in place to deal with behavioral and other issues (check out the Watkins thread). In the end, the devil is in the details and no one seems to be taking a step back and consider some of the most obvious consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were people actually expecting the proposal to address improving schools? I thought the purpose was to right-size the boundaries. It seems to me the conversation or plans to improve schools should continue beyond this proposal.

Well, I was at least hoping it wouldn't make things worse. And if you have middle income people "stuck" at low performing schools, unable to get out as they can now, ad the most motivated at-risk families leaving, the middle income families will opt out of DCPS entirely.

I thought everyone wanted neighborhood schools. The first proposal with choice sets was rejected. Am I missing something?

I'd say that the biggest outcry was for neighborhood schools - and it would require both parents and DCPS "stepping up" to help make good neighborhood schools happen.

Though school improvement was not the focus of the boundary plan I think DCPS must make its intent to facilitate good neighborhood schools very clear very fast. I'm afraid people have too much bad experience with DCPS to spend much time hanging around hoping for the best.

To paraphrase Kaya's sentiment about middle schools, improving schools is hard work, and DCPS just doesn't do that very well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that, if any preference is adopted, it should be as it was originally outlined--for people, regardless at income, who are in low-performing schools.

I prefer the focus to be keep on the child's SES not on the artificial construct (in my mind) of a "low performing" school.

I don't think there is anything artificial about a school where 70% of the kids are not at grade level. Why should working class families at these schools be forced to stay because they don't qualify as at risk and can't afford to move in boundary for a promising school? In fact, they are not going to compromise their kid's education; they will either go charter or move to the 'burbs, where they can afford to live IB for a good school. This will leave the struggling schools even worse off.

[Anonymous]

If you're concerned about the set asides, does it make you feel any better that they would phase the 10% set aside in at 6th and at 9th grade only (not sure about Elem). As currently envisioned this would not be corrected for every year, offering some measure of stability and continuity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone help me understand? In this new scenario will all schools end up with 30% at-risk enrollment?

There's a big difference between 2 homeless kids in a class of 20 and 6 homeless kids in a class of 20. Did anyone express concern over that number in the meeting?

No, the way it will work is, schools that are less than 30% at risk must accept 10% OOB. And at-risk students get preference in the lottery. Their preference is below IB, siblings and preference but above non-at-risk OOB.

So no, the well-regarded schools that are under 30% at risk will never be more than 10% at risk, because IB parents and siblings will take all the spots that are not reserved for at-risk.

[Anonymous]

9:54 the people who like neighborhood schools are the ones who have good neighborhood schools, not the people with crappy neighborhood schools. Pretty simple. But choice were weren't any better (with our choice set). Pick from 3 crappy schools, whee!

We are safely in a charter but I still see huge downsides to this plan for anyone not in a good school already. Also presents risk to "good" schools with the at risk students as mentioned up thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that, if any preference is adopted, it should be as it was originally outlined--for people, regardless at income, who are in low-performing schools.

I prefer the focus to be keep on the child's SES not on the artificial construct (in my mind) of a "low performing" school.

I don't think there is anything artificial about a school where 70% of the kids are not at grade level. Why should working class families at these schools be forced to stay because they don't qualify as at risk and can't afford to move in boundary for a promising school? In fact, they are not going to compromise their kid's education; they will either go charter or move to the 'burbs, where they can afford to live IB for a good school. This will leave the struggling schools even worse off.

This. Why is the solution always to screw the middle class? We're the boots on the ground. We make the investments in our communities and schools. We work the hardest. To solution to make sure that our needs are ignored is going to have to stop if the city is going to continue to grow. The ultra-rich and the poorest of the poor are pretty stagnant numbers-wise. The middle guys are what's moving this city forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you're concerned about the set asides, does it make you feel any better that they would phase the 10% set aside in at 6th and at 9th grade only (not sure about Elem). As currently envisioned this would not be corrected for every year, offering some measure of stability and continuity.

There is no phase-in for elementary--it starts in 2015 (so for the next lottery).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone help me understand? In this new scenario will all schools end up with 30% at-risk enrollment?

There's a big difference between 2 homeless kids in a class of 20 and 6 homeless kids in a class of 20. Did anyone express concern over that number in the meeting?

No, the way it will work is, schools that are less than 30% at risk must accept 10% OOB. And at-risk students get preference in the lottery. Their preference is below IB, siblings and preference but above non-at-risk OOB.

So no, the well-regarded schools that are under 30% at risk will never be more than 10% at risk, because IB parents and siblings will take all the spots that are not reserved for at-risk.

sorry: below IB, siblings and "proximity". Note that proximity will work differently too but I haven't really understood that part yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone help me understand? In this new scenario will all schools end up with 30% at-risk enrollment?

There's a big difference between 2 homeless kids in a class of 20 and 6 homeless kids in a class of 20. Did anyone express concern over that number in the meeting?

No, the way it will work is, schools that are less than 30% at risk must accept 10% OOB. And at-risk students get preference in the lottery. Their preference is below IB, siblings and preference but above non-at-risk OOB.

So no, the well-regarded schools that are under 30% at risk will never be more than 10% at risk, because IB parents and siblings will take all the spots that are not reserved for at-risk.

Actually, everyone must have a minimum of 10% OOB, not just the schools that have at-risk students under 30%. And with the end of principal discretion to keep formerly in-boundary students who are now OOB, there are probably going to be more OOB spots at some of those WOTP schools. Over time, the policy will ensure that all OOB students are at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not FARMs; it's at risk. They are two different measures. Francis-Stevens is 48% FARM but less than 30% at risk. People get in OOB, but they won't under this proposal.

What's the difference? What exactly does "at risk" mean?