What would happen if families in dc all had their kids attend their In Boundary school?

[Anonymous]

OP, I'm sure you mean well, but try to understand the history here. OOB rights were created in part to add diversity and let kids out of all-low-income schools. Charters have no boundaries on purpose, to break the link between address and school assignment.

What you see in your neighborhood is not the whole picture of the city. What you propose does nothing for Ward 7 and Ward 8 except shut those kids out of better performing schools that they currently attend. Is that what you want? Think about it.

When you see schools in your area having what looks like a critical mass of higher-income kids, that doesn't mean what you think it means. 1) If everyone went IB and your fantasy of people tolerating that were true, DCPS would need to buy buildings and reboundary. Those high-income kids would be divided across more schools, and would no longer be an appealing proportion because a lot more low-income kids would come in from KIPP, Friendship, DC Prep, etc. 2) DCPS incompetence and corruption and general twisted sadistic approach runs so deep, it takes a truly massive amount of pressure to overcome it and sometimes even that is not enough. When you get a look at what's really going on in there, it's stunning. Eye-opening. I used to think recruitment and demographics was the solution, but never again. The longer high-income people attend DCPS the less they like it. Think about why that might be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sure you mean well, but try to understand the history here. OOB rights were created in part to add diversity and let kids out of all-low-income schools. Charters have no boundaries on purpose, to break the link between address and school assignment.

What you see in your neighborhood is not the whole picture of the city. What you propose does nothing for Ward 7 and Ward 8 except shut those kids out of better performing schools that they currently attend. Is that what you want? Think about it.

When you see schools in your area having what looks like a critical mass of higher-income kids, that doesn't mean what you think it means. 1) If everyone went IB and your fantasy of people tolerating that were true, DCPS would need to buy buildings and reboundary. Those high-income kids would be divided across more schools, and would no longer be an appealing proportion because a lot more low-income kids would come in from KIPP, Friendship, DC Prep, etc. 2) DCPS incompetence and corruption and general twisted sadistic approach runs so deep, it takes a truly massive amount of pressure to overcome it and sometimes even that is not enough. When you get a look at what's really going on in there, it's stunning. Eye-opening. I used to think recruitment and demographics was the solution, but never again. The longer high-income people attend DCPS the less they like it. Think about why that might be.

NP. I'm curious, can you explain the statement about DCPS's 'twisted and sadistic approach'? Do you have any examples of the corruption?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sure you mean well, but try to understand the history here. OOB rights were created in part to add diversity and let kids out of all-low-income schools. Charters have no boundaries on purpose, to break the link between address and school assignment.

What you see in your neighborhood is not the whole picture of the city. What you propose does nothing for Ward 7 and Ward 8 except shut those kids out of better performing schools that they currently attend. Is that what you want? Think about it.

When you see schools in your area having what looks like a critical mass of higher-income kids, that doesn't mean what you think it means. 1) If everyone went IB and your fantasy of people tolerating that were true, DCPS would need to buy buildings and reboundary. Those high-income kids would be divided across more schools, and would no longer be an appealing proportion because a lot more low-income kids would come in from KIPP, Friendship, DC Prep, etc. 2) DCPS incompetence and corruption and general twisted sadistic approach runs so deep, it takes a truly massive amount of pressure to overcome it and sometimes even that is not enough. When you get a look at what's really going on in there, it's stunning. Eye-opening. I used to think recruitment and demographics was the solution, but never again. The longer high-income people attend DCPS the less they like it. Think about why that might be.

NP. I'm curious, can you explain the statement about DCPS's 'twisted and sadistic approach'? Do you have any examples of the corruption?

I can't tell you personal stories without outing myself, but you could read the whole City Paper article about the food services contract and the whistleblower for an example of corruption. Or the Trogisch thing is a great example of how they will make a power play and punish people for standing up to them even if it is harmful to the school. Make them mad and they will really freak out on you and do things you would not imagine. You can read Joe Weedon's article about what Eliot-Hine was like for his daughter despite the efforts of him and many other parents over many years. Or the article about the principal of Miner slapping a kid in front of adult witnesses-- she was a patronage hire so I hear DCPS didn't even want to fire her after that. Those are just some examples, I'm sure others have more.

[Anonymous]

The divide between the poor and wealthy would increase. Equitable and affordable housing would need to be spread equally across all the wards for this to be successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had this exact same question when I was entering this system 6 years ago. My inexperienced self really believed that if we all could just trust our neighborhood schools, everything would be solved. 6 years later, I understand that people are not able to have the required level of trust when it comes to their kids. It's intractable. People will move before they risk their children. It's sad. It's horrible. But it's true.

Why so sad? You really want us to risk our children? You really think dcps has proven it deserves some kind of blind faith?

PP here. No, that's why it's sad. It's sad, horrible and true that DCPS does not deserve our trust. And people will absolutely not risk their kids. It's sad that it would be a risk at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sure you mean well, but try to understand the history here. OOB rights were created in part to add diversity and let kids out of all-low-income schools. Charters have no boundaries on purpose, to break the link between address and school assignment.

What you see in your neighborhood is not the whole picture of the city. What you propose does nothing for Ward 7 and Ward 8 except shut those kids out of better performing schools that they currently attend. Is that what you want? Think about it.

When you see schools in your area having what looks like a critical mass of higher-income kids, that doesn't mean what you think it means. 1) If everyone went IB and your fantasy of people tolerating that were true, DCPS would need to buy buildings and reboundary. Those high-income kids would be divided across more schools, and would no longer be an appealing proportion because a lot more low-income kids would come in from KIPP, Friendship, DC Prep, etc. 2) DCPS incompetence and corruption and general twisted sadistic approach runs so deep, it takes a truly massive amount of pressure to overcome it and sometimes even that is not enough. When you get a look at what's really going on in there, it's stunning. Eye-opening. I used to think recruitment and demographics was the solution, but never again. The longer high-income people attend DCPS the less they like it. Think about why that might be.

NP. I'm curious, can you explain the statement about DCPS's 'twisted and sadistic approach'? Do you have any examples of the corruption?

I can't tell you personal stories without outing myself, but you could read the whole City Paper article about the food services contract and the whistleblower for an example of corruption. Or the Trogisch thing is a great example of how they will make a power play and punish people for standing up to them even if it is harmful to the school. Make them mad and they will really freak out on you and do things you would not imagine. You can read Joe Weedon's article about what Eliot-Hine was like for his daughter despite the efforts of him and many other parents over many years. Or the article about the principal of Miner slapping a kid in front of adult witnesses-- she was a patronage hire so I hear DCPS didn't even want to fire her after that. Those are just some examples, I'm sure others have more.

New poster here. DCPS is doing their best to ruin Walls and Wilson. I truly believe they don’t like any school to stand out academically as it makes the poor performing schools look even worse. Except perhaps Banneker. They seem to leave Banneker alone.
Have you read the bios of the DCPS leadership? Not impressive at all. Not sure how most of these folks got these top positions. Political connections I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had this exact same question when I was entering this system 6 years ago. My inexperienced self really believed that if we all could just trust our neighborhood schools, everything would be solved. 6 years later, I understand that people are not able to have the required level of trust when it comes to their kids. It's intractable. People will move before they risk their children. It's sad. It's horrible. But it's true.

Why so sad? You really want us to risk our children? You really think dcps has proven it deserves some kind of blind faith?

PP here. No, that's why it's sad. It's sad, horrible and true that DCPS does not deserve our trust. And people will absolutely not risk their kids. It's sad that it would be a risk at all.

This. Trust is earned. You need to understand the long, long history here, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sure you mean well, but try to understand the history here. OOB rights were created in part to add diversity and let kids out of all-low-income schools. Charters have no boundaries on purpose, to break the link between address and school assignment.

What you see in your neighborhood is not the whole picture of the city. What you propose does nothing for Ward 7 and Ward 8 except shut those kids out of better performing schools that they currently attend. Is that what you want? Think about it.

When you see schools in your area having what looks like a critical mass of higher-income kids, that doesn't mean what you think it means. 1) If everyone went IB and your fantasy of people tolerating that were true, DCPS would need to buy buildings and reboundary. Those high-income kids would be divided across more schools, and would no longer be an appealing proportion because a lot more low-income kids would come in from KIPP, Friendship, DC Prep, etc. 2) DCPS incompetence and corruption and general twisted sadistic approach runs so deep, it takes a truly massive amount of pressure to overcome it and sometimes even that is not enough. When you get a look at what's really going on in there, it's stunning. Eye-opening. I used to think recruitment and demographics was the solution, but never again. The longer high-income people attend DCPS the less they like it. Think about why that might be.

NP. I'm curious, can you explain the statement about DCPS's 'twisted and sadistic approach'? Do you have any examples of the corruption?

I can't tell you personal stories without outing myself, but you could read the whole City Paper article about the food services contract and the whistleblower for an example of corruption. Or the Trogisch thing is a great example of how they will make a power play and punish people for standing up to them even if it is harmful to the school. Make them mad and they will really freak out on you and do things you would not imagine. You can read Joe Weedon's article about what Eliot-Hine was like for his daughter despite the efforts of him and many other parents over many years. Or the article about the principal of Miner slapping a kid in front of adult witnesses-- she was a patronage hire so I hear DCPS didn't even want to fire her after that. Those are just some examples, I'm sure others have more.

New poster here. DCPS is doing their best to ruin Walls and Wilson. I truly believe they don’t like any school to stand out academically as it makes the poor performing schools look even worse. Except perhaps Banneker. They seem to leave Banneker alone.
Have you read the bios of the DCPS leadership? Not impressive at all. Not sure how most of these folks got these top positions. Political connections I guess.

Yes! I tried so hard for our IB school. For four years, I believed and I tried SO HARD. But they make it so hard! It's hard because of them!

[Anonymous]

One time I tried to get downtown to fill out a form so that our PTA could raise a piddling amount of money with the Giant supermarket card benefits program. Unfortunately the person I had to deal with was a moron. It took MONTHS to get this done. He literally screwed up every line on the form. It was as if he had a concussion or something the whole time. Some people who work for DCPS are great, but huge swathes of them are just not mentally up to the job. They could all be fired and replaced with a smaller number of competent people and we'd be much better off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sure you mean well, but try to understand the history here. OOB rights were created in part to add diversity and let kids out of all-low-income schools. Charters have no boundaries on purpose, to break the link between address and school assignment.

What you see in your neighborhood is not the whole picture of the city. What you propose does nothing for Ward 7 and Ward 8 except shut those kids out of better performing schools that they currently attend. Is that what you want? Think about it.

When you see schools in your area having what looks like a critical mass of higher-income kids, that doesn't mean what you think it means. 1) If everyone went IB and your fantasy of people tolerating that were true, DCPS would need to buy buildings and reboundary. Those high-income kids would be divided across more schools, and would no longer be an appealing proportion because a lot more low-income kids would come in from KIPP, Friendship, DC Prep, etc. 2) DCPS incompetence and corruption and general twisted sadistic approach runs so deep, it takes a truly massive amount of pressure to overcome it and sometimes even that is not enough. When you get a look at what's really going on in there, it's stunning. Eye-opening. I used to think recruitment and demographics was the solution, but never again. The longer high-income people attend DCPS the less they like it. Think about why that might be.

OOB was mandated by the courts after DCPS spent the first 20 years after Brown v. Board trying to maintain segregation by drawing boundaries along racial boundaries and requiring all students to attend their in-boundary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the question demonstrates the narrowness of your experience. You are probably thinking of the following outcomes, which could be seen as more equitable (though it’s more complex and I think there are real questions as to whether this would create more equity):

- Wealthier parents who currently choose to send their kids to charters for things like language immersion or Montessori would be forced to invest in their inbound DCPS
- Gentrifiers would be forced to invest in their neighborhood schools

But here are some other outcomes:

- Parents in neighborhoods with low incomes and high crime would be forced to send their kids to their IB school, even though schools in low income, high crime neighborhoods are some of the most challenged in the city, with high percentages of at risk kids, limited sources for PTA and other funding, and difficulty attracting and retaining teachers and administrators
- Wealthy parents would simply move or send their kids to private, rather than attend what is already in many cases one of the better schools in the city. Note these options would not be available to low income families who can’t afford private or homes with better local schools
- Most schools would racially segregated, as the manufactured integration at charters and citywide schools disappeared. Only schools in gentrifying neighborhoods would be diverse in this way, and intensely so (as white gentrifiers either come to dominate the school or flee to avoid the school)
- Black flight to PG County and other majority black locales would increase as black families recognize they have been consigned to failing schools with no other options. Wealthier black families would increasingly choose private as well.
- Overall enrollment would decline as parents flee for suburbs and privates. As enrollment declined, so too would funding and family involvement, creating a race to the bottom for families unfortunate enough to have no better options.

I think this was definitely, almost 100% true 10 years ago. I think it's less true in 2021. Here's looking at you, 16th St. corridor and near NE.

I live in NE. I know many families in my neighborhood. All are at charters or private. All would move if they had no choice but to go to our IB where almost all kids are below grade level.

But if all those families sent their kids to the neighborhood school it would no longer be failing. That is OPs point.

Exactly

Sure. And if I could fly, my commute would be really short.

But I can't, and they won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the question demonstrates the narrowness of your experience. You are probably thinking of the following outcomes, which could be seen as more equitable (though it’s more complex and I think there are real questions as to whether this would create more equity):

- Wealthier parents who currently choose to send their kids to charters for things like language immersion or Montessori would be forced to invest in their inbound DCPS
- Gentrifiers would be forced to invest in their neighborhood schools

But here are some other outcomes:

- Parents in neighborhoods with low incomes and high crime would be forced to send their kids to their IB school, even though schools in low income, high crime neighborhoods are some of the most challenged in the city, with high percentages of at risk kids, limited sources for PTA and other funding, and difficulty attracting and retaining teachers and administrators
- Wealthy parents would simply move or send their kids to private, rather than attend what is already in many cases one of the better schools in the city. Note these options would not be available to low income families who can’t afford private or homes with better local schools
- Most schools would racially segregated, as the manufactured integration at charters and citywide schools disappeared. Only schools in gentrifying neighborhoods would be diverse in this way, and intensely so (as white gentrifiers either come to dominate the school or flee to avoid the school)
- Black flight to PG County and other majority black locales would increase as black families recognize they have been consigned to failing schools with no other options. Wealthier black families would increasingly choose private as well.
- Overall enrollment would decline as parents flee for suburbs and privates. As enrollment declined, so too would funding and family involvement, creating a race to the bottom for families unfortunate enough to have no better options.

I think this was definitely, almost 100% true 10 years ago. I think it's less true in 2021. Here's looking at you, 16th St. corridor and near NE.

OK, why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the question demonstrates the narrowness of your experience. You are probably thinking of the following outcomes, which could be seen as more equitable (though it’s more complex and I think there are real questions as to whether this would create more equity):

- Wealthier parents who currently choose to send their kids to charters for things like language immersion or Montessori would be forced to invest in their inbound DCPS
- Gentrifiers would be forced to invest in their neighborhood schools

But here are some other outcomes:

- Parents in neighborhoods with low incomes and high crime would be forced to send their kids to their IB school, even though schools in low income, high crime neighborhoods are some of the most challenged in the city, with high percentages of at risk kids, limited sources for PTA and other funding, and difficulty attracting and retaining teachers and administrators
- Wealthy parents would simply move or send their kids to private, rather than attend what is already in many cases one of the better schools in the city. Note these options would not be available to low income families who can’t afford private or homes with better local schools
- Most schools would racially segregated, as the manufactured integration at charters and citywide schools disappeared. Only schools in gentrifying neighborhoods would be diverse in this way, and intensely so (as white gentrifiers either come to dominate the school or flee to avoid the school)
- Black flight to PG County and other majority black locales would increase as black families recognize they have been consigned to failing schools with no other options. Wealthier black families would increasingly choose private as well.
- Overall enrollment would decline as parents flee for suburbs and privates. As enrollment declined, so too would funding and family involvement, creating a race to the bottom for families unfortunate enough to have no better options.

I think this was definitely, almost 100% true 10 years ago. I think it's less true in 2021. Here's looking at you, 16th St. corridor and near NE.

OK, why is that?

Not PP, but because neighborhood demographics really have changed and neighborhood schools really have improved. But OP doesn't grasp the overcrowding/reboundarying issue. It's just not as simple as OP thinks. There are a few neighborhoods sufficiently gentrified that what OP envisions might happen, but it's mostly not the case citywide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sure you mean well, but try to understand the history here. OOB rights were created in part to add diversity and let kids out of all-low-income schools. Charters have no boundaries on purpose, to break the link between address and school assignment.

What you see in your neighborhood is not the whole picture of the city. What you propose does nothing for Ward 7 and Ward 8 except shut those kids out of better performing schools that they currently attend. Is that what you want? Think about it.

When you see schools in your area having what looks like a critical mass of higher-income kids, that doesn't mean what you think it means. 1) If everyone went IB and your fantasy of people tolerating that were true, DCPS would need to buy buildings and reboundary. Those high-income kids would be divided across more schools, and would no longer be an appealing proportion because a lot more low-income kids would come in from KIPP, Friendship, DC Prep, etc. 2) DCPS incompetence and corruption and general twisted sadistic approach runs so deep, it takes a truly massive amount of pressure to overcome it and sometimes even that is not enough. When you get a look at what's really going on in there, it's stunning. Eye-opening. I used to think recruitment and demographics was the solution, but never again. The longer high-income people attend DCPS the less they like it. Think about why that might be.

That is exactly what they want.

[Anonymous]

OP, I'd love for this to be the case. Here in Petworth there are, what, 5? DCPS elementary schools near the Middle School and High School complex, and while we're interested in sending our kids all the way through depending on their interests, I know that having more of the mix that's in our neighborhood in those schools would be better than the sorted-curated experience that exists now.

I think the broad expectation that people would flee is incorrect. I think if the system's rules changed people would self-sort earlier, but a place like Petworth would still be full of gentrifiers (not using the term angrily) just not the ones who insist on diversity meaning 30%+ white in a neighborhood that's 1/3 that or insists on a curriculum meant to shed students who aren't working at grade level.

An interesting follow-on effect would probably be that neighborhoods where middle class families haven't in real life embraced the schools would probably gentrify faster/harder.

However - and think about this in context of the boundary changes coming up - I do not believe that an ironclad "middle-class-families-can't-sort-in-DCPS" choice is going to be on the table. The Mayor does not want it on the table (ironic because my guess is that her daughter will go to Catholic schools) and the people who are against it are the more powerful voices.

So OP - I love this, but let's think further about how we make more of this actually get done.
Perhaps we make the lottery narrower: in DCPS you get 3 choices and PCS you get 3 choices and if your student is at-risk they get 12 choices.
Or you put at-risk preference ahead of everything and let at risk push middle class families back down the waitlist by enrolling whenever they want wherever they want because they have information gaps, typically.
Or you add programs add local MS/HS that promote buy-in without making them hard cohorts, e.g., Petworth's own MacFarland gets a DCPS promise and can state that they'll have a teacher for Algebra I and Algebra II and may share them with Roosevelt HS. Or McKinley Tech offers HS-level science for students who can do the work.
Just some ideas - this isn't my job but I feel like people who do the work in DCPS, PCS, and in related think tanks can come up with reasonable limits and carrots to put into the political process. They just aren't really proposing any of it.