What are the odds OOB feeder rights will end?

[Anonymous]

As with many DCUM threads there are two different and unrelated things being argued (plus the regular cabal of fools who post nonsense). One group argues that Deal and Wilson are over-enrolled, that reducing the number of students in attendance would alleviate the problems associated with that overcrowding, and that overcrowding could be addressed by ending OOB feeder rights. A different group argues that ending OOB feeder rights disproportionately hurts economically disadvantaged students, many of whom come from poorer neighborhoods. You can't possibly come to agreement because they aren't mutually exclusive. The issue is one of public policy, and that's the real disagreement and discussion that needs to be had. Scarcity of resources means we can't provide everything to everyone, so as a society we need to figure out what we value more (which I would point out doesn't mean we don't value everything - that's the red herring that gets used on DCUM a whole lot).

But I will call BS on the people who seem afraid to have the public policy argument and fall back on silly and illogical statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say chances are low. I know DCUM forgets they exist, but there are other middle/high schools beyond Hardy Deal and Wilson. There is no benefit for those schools to discontinue OOB feeder rights.

But my question is, if we eliminated out-of-boundary rights for middle school and high school, with the exception of at-risk students, how many would actually lose out? I have a strong sense that only Hardy, Deal, and Wilson would be affected.

Your strong sense is wrong. Stuart-Hobson is 45% economically disadvantaged (a broader category than at-risk) but 75% OOB.

But it is also wrong to say there's no benefit for middle/high schools outside of Wilson feeders to ending OOB feeder rights. The current issue is that families like OP are leaving their IB elementary schools not so much because they dislike those schools but so they can get a more desired middle and high school. If OP and people like her didn't have that option, they would have stronger (in terms of numbers, test scores, and fundraising) upper elementary programs in their own neighborhoods, and some of those kids would continue on to their IB middle and high schools as well.

I'm not convinced many OOB students would lose out if OOB feeder rights ended, not here in 2019. There are many good charters in the City's lower-income neighborhoods now, e.g. KIPP, along with rising DCPS programs. Going to school close to home confers many advantages as long as the school is decent.

BTW, SH is roughly 5% less OOB and at-risk with each passing year. Those percentages really add up as more neighborhood families enroll. As it should be.

Removing OOB won’t make Deal much smaller.

Huh? It would mean 400+ fewer kids in the building. It would reduce the number of staff also. It would be a tremendous improvement. And it could happen overnight. For free.

DCPS won't do it overnight (kick out kids who attended feeder schools OOB for 5th grade and are planning to start at Deal next month). I'd guess that they'd allow everyone starting PK3 and above this year to keep the right (not that deal feeders have PK3 but this would have to be applied district-wide). So that's 8 years until it would affect middle schools. Even if they did a 3-year phase in (like if you're starting grades 3-5 this year or are in middle school you get to keep feeder rights) by the time it's phased in the schools that feed Deal will be 95% IB and Deal will be over-full of IB kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As with many DCUM threads there are two different and unrelated things being argued (plus the regular cabal of fools who post nonsense). One group argues that Deal and Wilson are over-enrolled, that reducing the number of students in attendance would alleviate the problems associated with that overcrowding, and that overcrowding could be addressed by ending OOB feeder rights. A different group argues that ending OOB feeder rights disproportionately hurts economically disadvantaged students, many of whom come from poorer neighborhoods. You can't possibly come to agreement because they aren't mutually exclusive. The issue is one of public policy, and that's the real disagreement and discussion that needs to be had. Scarcity of resources means we can't provide everything to everyone, so as a society we need to figure out what we value more (which I would point out doesn't mean we don't value everything - that's the red herring that gets used on DCUM a whole lot).

But I will call BS on the people who seem afraid to have the public policy argument and fall back on silly and illogical statements.

The SJW need to get their talking points straight

Most of them keep crowing about neighborhood schools
WOTP is getting to the point where it could be almost all neighborhood schools
But that is somehow wrong because there aren't enough at-risk/black/brown kids

So SJW, what social engineering do you want exactly again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big picture perspectives needed here. When your public middle school has a dozen trailers, triple lunch shifts and absurdly crowded hallways, ending OOB feeder rights starts to seem reasonable. Michelle Rhee introduced these rights just a decade back for political reasons. Placing in-boundary preference on a par with OOB feeder elementary or middle school preference is not in fact a longstanding DC tradition.

Attending a school outside one's boundary is, in fact, a longstanding DC tradition. Before the last 20 years' of population growth, lotteries and waitlists, and upper middle-class families who live IB for Wilson deciding to attend their inbound school.... all a yone who wanted to attend a school outside their neighborhood would go and ask to enroll. Those with connections to the principal or front office staff would usually get in.

That's not what PP is saying. PP clearly indicated at OOB feeder rights isn't a longstanding DC tradition. This is very different from what you're suggesting which is just OOB enrollment with corruption but without the entitlement policy to attend.

The best option would be to end OOB feeder rights, but make it a preference in the lottery. So if Deal has 35 spots available, then those who attended a feeder school OOB would have a preference in the lottery and 35 would get in.

The real issue is that DCPS needs to offer amazing carrots to entice families to other schools. We're IB for Deal and Wilson, but I would fully support extra funding to go to other middle and high schools to encourage those IB families to attend.

I think this is one of the best middle ground ideas I've seen. End it by right, continue it as a preference. Keeps enrollment at a level the school can accommodate, with OOB feeders getting preference above strictly OOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big picture perspectives needed here. When your public middle school has a dozen trailers, triple lunch shifts and absurdly crowded hallways, ending OOB feeder rights starts to seem reasonable. Michelle Rhee introduced these rights just a decade back for political reasons. Placing in-boundary preference on a par with OOB feeder elementary or middle school preference is not in fact a longstanding DC tradition.

Attending a school outside one's boundary is, in fact, a longstanding DC tradition. Before the last 20 years' of population growth, lotteries and waitlists, and upper middle-class families who live IB for Wilson deciding to attend their inbound school.... all a yone who wanted to attend a school outside their neighborhood would go and ask to enroll. Those with connections to the principal or front office staff would usually get in.

That's not what PP is saying. PP clearly indicated at OOB feeder rights isn't a longstanding DC tradition. This is very different from what you're suggesting which is just OOB enrollment with corruption but without the entitlement policy to attend.

The best option would be to end OOB feeder rights, but make it a preference in the lottery. So if Deal has 35 spots available, then those who attended a feeder school OOB would have a preference in the lottery and 35 would get in.

The real issue is that DCPS needs to offer amazing carrots to entice families to other schools. We're IB for Deal and Wilson, but I would fully support extra funding to go to other middle and high schools to encourage those IB families to attend.

I think this is one of the best middle ground ideas I've seen. End it by right, continue it as a preference. Keeps enrollment at a level the school can accommodate, with OOB feeders getting preference above strictly OOB.

How about one step further --

Two preferences. First (stronger preference) would be At risk, feeder OOB. Second feeder OOB ...

Also probably siblings within those categories.

[Anonymous]

this may shock you but there's not a single "SJW agenda." Different people had different priorities.

In my opinion, if we had more integrated neighborhoods, neighborhood schools would be more equitable. Since we don't, and since DCPS wouldn't be able to affect neighborhood integration, school boundary and assignment processes have to reflect the city as it actually is, not as we wish it would be. That means giving an at-risk preference for OOB seats. I also support ending OOB feeder rights since I think they hurt schools with less desirable feeder patterns by encouraging families to look elsewhere even if they are currently happy with their IB school. I also think they're unfair to kids who move to DC after the early grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big picture perspectives needed here. When your public middle school has a dozen trailers, triple lunch shifts and absurdly crowded hallways, ending OOB feeder rights starts to seem reasonable. Michelle Rhee introduced these rights just a decade back for political reasons. Placing in-boundary preference on a par with OOB feeder elementary or middle school preference is not in fact a longstanding DC tradition.

Attending a school outside one's boundary is, in fact, a longstanding DC tradition. Before the last 20 years' of population growth, lotteries and waitlists, and upper middle-class families who live IB for Wilson deciding to attend their inbound school.... all a yone who wanted to attend a school outside their neighborhood would go and ask to enroll. Those with connections to the principal or front office staff would usually get in.

That's not what PP is saying. PP clearly indicated at OOB feeder rights isn't a longstanding DC tradition. This is very different from what you're suggesting which is just OOB enrollment with corruption but without the entitlement policy to attend.

The best option would be to end OOB feeder rights, but make it a preference in the lottery. So if Deal has 35 spots available, then those who attended a feeder school OOB would have a preference in the lottery and 35 would get in.

The real issue is that DCPS needs to offer amazing carrots to entice families to other schools. We're IB for Deal and Wilson, but I would fully support extra funding to go to other middle and high schools to encourage those IB families to attend.

I think this is one of the best middle ground ideas I've seen. End it by right, continue it as a preference. Keeps enrollment at a level the school can accommodate, with OOB feeders getting preference above strictly OOB.

How about one step further --

Two preferences. First (stronger preference) would be At risk, feeder OOB. Second feeder OOB ...

Also probably siblings within those categories.

Disaster says this former New Yorker - a pack of longtime city employees and well-connected middle class families would surely emerge as "at risk" overnight. Set asides have a way of benefiting not the needy, but the middle-class, like rent control in NYC. I think it's much better to push for more strong schools in the neighborhoods where at-risk kids provide, e.g. DC Prep, KIPP, Seed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this may shock you but there's not a single "SJW agenda." Different people had different priorities.

In my opinion, if we had more integrated neighborhoods, neighborhood schools would be more equitable. Since we don't, and since DCPS wouldn't be able to affect neighborhood integration, school boundary and assignment processes have to reflect the city as it actually is, not as we wish it would be. That means giving an at-risk preference for OOB seats. I also support ending OOB feeder rights since I think they hurt schools with less desirable feeder patterns by encouraging families to look elsewhere even if they are currently happy with their IB school. I also think they're unfair to kids who move to DC after the early grades.

Totally unworkable where DCPS programs are over capacity. Where are these OOB seats? There are hardly any left in a dozen schools. Maintaining OOB seats in overcrowded schools just fuels resentment on the part of IB parents. Our EotP school was built for 325 but has nearly 500 students (85% in-boundary) and really no room for trailers on a tiny campus.

If DC didn't want a by-right schools system, they should have ditched the arrangement a long time ago, like San Fran and Boston did in the 70s. It's not DC middle-class parents fault that a by-right school system survived forced busing in other cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this may shock you but there's not a single "SJW agenda." Different people had different priorities.

In my opinion, if we had more integrated neighborhoods, neighborhood schools would be more equitable. Since we don't, and since DCPS wouldn't be able to affect neighborhood integration, school boundary and assignment processes have to reflect the city as it actually is, not as we wish it would be. That means giving an at-risk preference for OOB seats. I also support ending OOB feeder rights since I think they hurt schools with less desirable feeder patterns by encouraging families to look elsewhere even if they are currently happy with their IB school. I also think they're unfair to kids who move to DC after the early grades.

Totally unworkable where DCPS programs are over capacity. Where are these OOB seats? There are hardly any left in a dozen schools. Maintaining OOB seats in overcrowded schools just fuels resentment on the part of IB parents. Our EotP school was built for 325 but has nearly 500 students (85% in-boundary) and really no room for trailers on a tiny campus.

If DC didn't want a by-right schools system, they should have ditched the arrangement a long time ago, like San Fran and Boston did in the 70s. It's not DC middle-class parents fault that a by-right school system survived forced busing in other cities.

It's not unworkable. If your school is offering too many OOB seats that's a separate problem from who the offered seats go to. Even if there are just a tiny number of seats offered at some schools (Deal and its feeders did made some OOB offers this year) I have no problem with them going first to at-risk kids. Same with schools like Stuart-Hobson, Seaton, Garrison, Marie Reed, SWW@F-S, Ludlow-Taylor, or Watkins (all majority OOB but growing in popularity). At many of the schools in DCPS an at-risk preference is not going to cause any problem because nearly all the kids who lottery in are at-risk or because there are enough OOB seats to accommodate anyone who applies in the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big picture perspectives needed here. When your public middle school has a dozen trailers, triple lunch shifts and absurdly crowded hallways, ending OOB feeder rights starts to seem reasonable. Michelle Rhee introduced these rights just a decade back for political reasons. Placing in-boundary preference on a par with OOB feeder elementary or middle school preference is not in fact a longstanding DC tradition.

Attending a school outside one's boundary is, in fact, a longstanding DC tradition. Before the last 20 years' of population growth, lotteries and waitlists, and upper middle-class families who live IB for Wilson deciding to attend their inbound school.... all a yone who wanted to attend a school outside their neighborhood would go and ask to enroll. Those with connections to the principal or front office staff would usually get in.

That's not what PP is saying. PP clearly indicated at OOB feeder rights isn't a longstanding DC tradition. This is very different from what you're suggesting which is just OOB enrollment with corruption but without the entitlement policy to attend.

The best option would be to end OOB feeder rights, but make it a preference in the lottery. So if Deal has 35 spots available, then those who attended a feeder school OOB would have a preference in the lottery and 35 would get in.

The real issue is that DCPS needs to offer amazing carrots to entice families to other schools. We're IB for Deal and Wilson, but I would fully support extra funding to go to other middle and high schools to encourage those IB families to attend.

I think this is one of the best middle ground ideas I've seen. End it by right, continue it as a preference. Keeps enrollment at a level the school can accommodate, with OOB feeders getting preference above strictly OOB.

How about one step further --

Two preferences. First (stronger preference) would be At risk, feeder OOB. Second feeder OOB ...

Also probably siblings within those categories.

Disaster says this former New Yorker - a pack of longtime city employees and well-connected middle class families would surely emerge as "at risk" overnight. Set asides have a way of benefiting not the needy, but the middle-class, like rent control in NYC. I think it's much better to push for more strong schools in the neighborhoods where at-risk kids provide, e.g. DC Prep, KIPP, Seed.

The good news about this is that if you lie to become at risk by committing food stamp or TANF fraud, the federal government gets involved and the penalties are much more severe than what DC does for current residency cheats. So if families are tempted to try it, they may soon be deterred by seeing what the Trump Administration's USDA thinks about SNAP fraud.

[Anonymous]

DCPS needs to get rid of feeder rights after preschool. Its absurd that someone could get in OOB to a preschool which isn't even required and end up in a feeder OOB though HS. the flip side is make preschool a by right gaurantee to kids who are IB for the K at the same school. its amazing how you can build a solid UMC coalition of families if you start in PK for your IB school. Otherwise, some parents would never even consider their IB if they didn't start there in PK and meet other families. The problem at our EoTP PK is that many IB families aren't even getting into the PK and just settle somewhere else and don't come back even thought they wanted into our IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this may shock you but there's not a single "SJW agenda." Different people had different priorities.

In my opinion, if we had more integrated neighborhoods, neighborhood schools would be more equitable. Since we don't, and since DCPS wouldn't be able to affect neighborhood integration, school boundary and assignment processes have to reflect the city as it actually is, not as we wish it would be. That means giving an at-risk preference for OOB seats. I also support ending OOB feeder rights since I think they hurt schools with less desirable feeder patterns by encouraging families to look elsewhere even if they are currently happy with their IB school. I also think they're unfair to kids who move to DC after the early grades.

Outside of upper NW, DC neighborhoods in the Wards 1, 2 and 4 are very integrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this may shock you but there's not a single "SJW agenda." Different people had different priorities.

In my opinion, if we had more integrated neighborhoods, neighborhood schools would be more equitable. Since we don't, and since DCPS wouldn't be able to affect neighborhood integration, school boundary and assignment processes have to reflect the city as it actually is, not as we wish it would be. That means giving an at-risk preference for OOB seats. I also support ending OOB feeder rights since I think they hurt schools with less desirable feeder patterns by encouraging families to look elsewhere even if they are currently happy with their IB school. I also think they're unfair to kids who move to DC after the early grades.

Totally unworkable where DCPS programs are over capacity. Where are these OOB seats? There are hardly any left in a dozen schools. Maintaining OOB seats in overcrowded schools just fuels resentment on the part of IB parents. Our EotP school was built for 325 but has nearly 500 students (85% in-boundary) and really no room for trailers on a tiny campus.

If DC didn't want a by-right schools system, they should have ditched the arrangement a long time ago, like San Fran and Boston did in the 70s. It's not DC middle-class parents fault that a by-right school system survived forced busing in other cities.

It's not unworkable. If your school is offering too many OOB seats that's a separate problem from who the offered seats go to. Even if there are just a tiny number of seats offered at some schools (Deal and its feeders did made some OOB offers this year) I have no problem with them going first to at-risk kids. Same with schools like Stuart-Hobson, Seaton, Garrison, Marie Reed, SWW@F-S, Ludlow-Taylor, or Watkins (all majority OOB but growing in popularity). At many of the schools in DCPS an at-risk preference is not going to cause any problem because nearly all the kids who lottery in are at-risk or because there are enough OOB seats to accommodate anyone who applies in the lottery.

Come on, enough pie in the sky, PP in a city where seats in high-performing schools are scarce. The two problems can't be separated and at-risk kids pretty clearly belong in schools set up to serve needy kids, vs. schools serving hundreds of UMC students. The at-risk kids in my children's classes at a school with an at-risk rate in the single digits are mostly in-boundary students whose school situation doesn't look all that great to me. They suck up teachers energy and attention in a program poorly set up to meet their needs, creating resentment on the part of parents and, frankly, upper grades classmates. The upper grades at-risk kids tend to be so far behind most other students, who commonly work above grade level, that their school days can't be smooth sailing. Sadly, they are objects of derision. They attend school with kids with expensive uniforms, bikes, backpacks and so forth who take fancy vacations and attend pricey summer camps needy kids don't have access to, which can't be easy for them. It looks to me like they'd be better off in a program offering extended day, full-year schooling, more serious and appropriate counseling supports, wrap-around services for their families etc. etc. A group of at-risk OOB students who don't even live nearby would be even worse off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As with many DCUM threads there are two different and unrelated things being argued (plus the regular cabal of fools who post nonsense). One group argues that Deal and Wilson are over-enrolled, that reducing the number of students in attendance would alleviate the problems associated with that overcrowding, and that overcrowding could be addressed by ending OOB feeder rights. A different group argues that ending OOB feeder rights disproportionately hurts economically disadvantaged students, many of whom come from poorer neighborhoods. You can't possibly come to agreement because they aren't mutually exclusive. The issue is one of public policy, and that's the real disagreement and discussion that needs to be had. Scarcity of resources means we can't provide everything to everyone, so as a society we need to figure out what we value more (which I would point out doesn't mean we don't value everything - that's the red herring that gets used on DCUM a whole lot).

But I will call BS on the people who seem afraid to have the public policy argument and fall back on silly and illogical statements.

The SJW need to get their talking points straight

Most of them keep crowing about neighborhood schools
WOTP is getting to the point where it could be almost all neighborhood schools
But that is somehow wrong because there aren't enough at-risk/black/brown kids

So SJW, what social engineering do you want exactly again

I was the person who posted what you're responding to and I have no earthly idea what SJW means or WTH you are talking about. But you are a perfect illustration of the problem with trying to have a reasoned discussion on this topic. I didn't actually express an opinion ; in truth I don't know where I come out because this is complicated stuff without easy answers. The trade-offs are real as are possible negative consequences.

I'd also like to add that you don't understand what social engineering means, although good on you for throwing out incendiary talking points. Almost every public policy debate and choice comes down to competing or conflicting interests and trade-offs. Regressive taxation vs progressive taxation. Housing subsidies. Tax abatements for commercial development. Eminent Domain. Public moneys for stadiums. How and where to deploy school resources (SPED/economically disadvantaged/honors classes). You remind me of those people who held signs against the Affordable Care Act saying "Keep your damn government hands off my Medicare". We get it; government intervention is bad when you are against it but good when you are for it.

Please sit down and let the adults talk now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As with many DCUM threads there are two different and unrelated things being argued (plus the regular cabal of fools who post nonsense). One group argues that Deal and Wilson are over-enrolled, that reducing the number of students in attendance would alleviate the problems associated with that overcrowding, and that overcrowding could be addressed by ending OOB feeder rights. A different group argues that ending OOB feeder rights disproportionately hurts economically disadvantaged students, many of whom come from poorer neighborhoods. You can't possibly come to agreement because they aren't mutually exclusive. The issue is one of public policy, and that's the real disagreement and discussion that needs to be had. Scarcity of resources means we can't provide everything to everyone, so as a society we need to figure out what we value more (which I would point out doesn't mean we don't value everything - that's the red herring that gets used on DCUM a whole lot).

But I will call BS on the people who seem afraid to have the public policy argument and fall back on silly and illogical statements.

The SJW need to get their talking points straight

Most of them keep crowing about neighborhood schools
WOTP is getting to the point where it could be almost all neighborhood schools
But that is somehow wrong because there aren't enough at-risk/black/brown kids

So SJW, what social engineering do you want exactly again

This is peak Dunning-Kruger.

Translation "I think it makes me seem smart to call people whom I disagree with social justice warriors because that lets me discount all the things they say that I don't understand. I think it sounds even smarter to use an acronym that my nutty right wing friends and I can use when we forward fake news alt-right quackery to each other on Facebook. I don't understand the terms "public policy", "alleviate" and "scarcity of resources" and don't get what PP means, so I'll make myself feel clever by inventing a nonsense strawman dichotomy that I think really puts those people who use big words on the spot."

Of course, folks with functioning brains understand that people of good will can disagree and that intelligent people can value competing priorities, but all of that requires waaay more brainpower than PP possesses.