26-27 Lottery data up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Spanish track students on the waitlist (45) will not get in this year, there is not space for them. There will be more waitlisted students as the feeders complete their growth.

I’m not anxious or worried. I have a child at a Spanish feeder and I would like to understand what middle school language options they will have. Can charter school students lottery in to the Spanish programs at DCPS middle schools? Do they just have to put Macfarland or CHEC on the lottery list or is there a separate process to get in the language track?

The real answer is that MacFarland and CHEC are so weak that you don’t need to bother with a formal process. List them in the lottery then tell them you want the Spanish track. Then panic when you simultaneously hear the stories your sixth grader comes home with and realize they aren’t learning a thing. And if you think things will miraculously change in the few years you have until middle school, go talk to the people on the Hill arguing about middle schools.

MacFarland bilingual school graduate family who did not continue to MacFarland for the reasons above.

This is one of the funniest but also saddest responses I’ve heard on this forum in a long time. It should be mandatory reading for all people considering middle school in dc.

Honestly what's crazy to me is the the Hill still doesn't have a viable high school equivalent to JR, although it's been gentrified and home to families for decades, longer than the upper NW. I am sure there is a history there, and I am hoping someone here can link out to a nice detailed article about it (or book!)...

First step to a viable HS is high quality MS feeders. The feeder pattern on the Hill and NoMa divides high performing cohorts into 3 different MS. This was DC at its most DC. The optics of having multiple gentrifying MS feed into the same MS was deemed offensive. The result was not to create 3 good MS that in turn would feed the HS. It was to encourage MS families to flee for charters or other MS options (that also came with HS paths).

Did this actually happen? And if so, when? During the 2013 boundary study?

It wasn’t even 3. It was Brent pushing hard to get into the Stuart-Hobson field alongside Watkins, which were then the #s 1 & 2 on the Hill. It’s really a shame, because Brent would have routed kids to SH and routes almost no one to Jefferson now and that might have stabilized Watkins a bit. With the later rise of L-T, the addition of Brent to that feed could have been a game changer.[/quote]


And they would have kicked JO Wilson out of the feed to do it. But with JO getting a remodel you may see even more neighborhood buy-in.

The Brent families did not help the cause. I'm white and even I bristled at the stuff coming out of Brent families' mouths. They were preternaturally focused on what was "really the Hill". A concept no one but 75 year old, double knit wearing real estate agents cared about. Somewhere along the way someone told Brent families it was a winning argument to try and isolate "those people" north of H Street. Go look at the threads. Brent families argued proximity to SH but didn't want to hear that JOW was actually closer. Their argument was that JOW wasn't actually part of the neighborhood so even though it was closer to SH than Brent, it wasn't culturally close. It was icky.

I don't think Brent arguing for the SH feed -- especially when the alternative is Jefferson -- is as bad as this makes it sound. There are families in the Brent zone (and not an insignificant number) with SH proximity preference, which is always a sign that it would be reasonable to change things up. They should have just argued to add themselves to the feed. Make SH bigger -- with fewer OOB kids, it could definitely accommodate the Brent influx -- and Jefferson smaller. Almost no kids go from Brent to Jefferson now, so this would affect things by <10 total.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Spanish track students on the waitlist (45) will not get in this year, there is not space for them. There will be more waitlisted students as the feeders complete their growth.

I’m not anxious or worried. I have a child at a Spanish feeder and I would like to understand what middle school language options they will have. Can charter school students lottery in to the Spanish programs at DCPS middle schools? Do they just have to put Macfarland or CHEC on the lottery list or is there a separate process to get in the language track?

The real answer is that MacFarland and CHEC are so weak that you don’t need to bother with a formal process. List them in the lottery then tell them you want the Spanish track. Then panic when you simultaneously hear the stories your sixth grader comes home with and realize they aren’t learning a thing. And if you think things will miraculously change in the few years you have until middle school, go talk to the people on the Hill arguing about middle schools.

MacFarland bilingual school graduate family who did not continue to MacFarland for the reasons above.

This is one of the funniest but also saddest responses I’ve heard on this forum in a long time. It should be mandatory reading for all people considering middle school in dc.

Honestly what's crazy to me is the the Hill still doesn't have a viable high school equivalent to JR, although it's been gentrified and home to families for decades, longer than the upper NW. I am sure there is a history there, and I am hoping someone here can link out to a nice detailed article about it (or book!)...

First step to a viable HS is high quality MS feeders. The feeder pattern on the Hill and NoMa divides high performing cohorts into 3 different MS. This was DC at its most DC. The optics of having multiple gentrifying MS feed into the same MS was deemed offensive. The result was not to create 3 good MS that in turn would feed the HS. It was to encourage MS families to flee for charters or other MS options (that also came with HS paths).

Did this actually happen? And if so, when? During the 2013 boundary study?

It wasn’t even 3. It was Brent pushing hard to get into the Stuart-Hobson field alongside Watkins, which were then the #s 1 & 2 on the Hill. It’s really a shame, because Brent would have routed kids to SH and routes almost no one to Jefferson now and that might have stabilized Watkins a bit. With the later rise of L-T, the addition of Brent to that feed could have been a game changer.[/quote]


And they would have kicked JO Wilson out of the feed to do it. But with JO getting a remodel you may see even more neighborhood buy-in.

The Brent families did not help the cause. I'm white and even I bristled at the stuff coming out of Brent families' mouths. They were preternaturally focused on what was "really the Hill". A concept no one but 75 year old, double knit wearing real estate agents cared about. Somewhere along the way someone told Brent families it was a winning argument to try and isolate "those people" north of H Street. Go look at the threads. Brent families argued proximity to SH but didn't want to hear that JOW was actually closer. Their argument was that JOW wasn't actually part of the neighborhood so even though it was closer to SH than Brent, it wasn't culturally close. It was icky.

I don't think Brent arguing for the SH feed -- especially when the alternative is Jefferson -- is as bad as this makes it sound. There are families in the Brent zone (and not an insignificant number) with SH proximity preference, which is always a sign that it would be reasonable to change things up. They should have just argued to add themselves to the feed. Make SH bigger -- with fewer OOB kids, it could definitely accommodate the Brent influx -- and Jefferson smaller. Almost no kids go from Brent to Jefferson now, so this would affect things by <10 total.

Proximity preference is for PK3-5. It would have no bearing on middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Spanish track students on the waitlist (45) will not get in this year, there is not space for them. There will be more waitlisted students as the feeders complete their growth.

I’m not anxious or worried. I have a child at a Spanish feeder and I would like to understand what middle school language options they will have. Can charter school students lottery in to the Spanish programs at DCPS middle schools? Do they just have to put Macfarland or CHEC on the lottery list or is there a separate process to get in the language track?

The real answer is that MacFarland and CHEC are so weak that you don’t need to bother with a formal process. List them in the lottery then tell them you want the Spanish track. Then panic when you simultaneously hear the stories your sixth grader comes home with and realize they aren’t learning a thing. And if you think things will miraculously change in the few years you have until middle school, go talk to the people on the Hill arguing about middle schools.

MacFarland bilingual school graduate family who did not continue to MacFarland for the reasons above.

This is one of the funniest but also saddest responses I’ve heard on this forum in a long time. It should be mandatory reading for all people considering middle school in dc.

Honestly what's crazy to me is the the Hill still doesn't have a viable high school equivalent to JR, although it's been gentrified and home to families for decades, longer than the upper NW. I am sure there is a history there, and I am hoping someone here can link out to a nice detailed article about it (or book!)...

First step to a viable HS is high quality MS feeders. The feeder pattern on the Hill and NoMa divides high performing cohorts into 3 different MS. This was DC at its most DC. The optics of having multiple gentrifying MS feed into the same MS was deemed offensive. The result was not to create 3 good MS that in turn would feed the HS. It was to encourage MS families to flee for charters or other MS options (that also came with HS paths).

Did this actually happen? And if so, when? During the 2013 boundary study?

It wasn’t even 3. It was Brent pushing hard to get into the Stuart-Hobson field alongside Watkins, which were then the #s 1 & 2 on the Hill. It’s really a shame, because Brent would have routed kids to SH and routes almost no one to Jefferson now and that might have stabilized Watkins a bit. With the later rise of L-T, the addition of Brent to that feed could have been a game changer.[/quote]


And they would have kicked JO Wilson out of the feed to do it. But with JO getting a remodel you may see even more neighborhood buy-in.

The Brent families did not help the cause. I'm white and even I bristled at the stuff coming out of Brent families' mouths. They were preternaturally focused on what was "really the Hill". A concept no one but 75 year old, double knit wearing real estate agents cared about. Somewhere along the way someone told Brent families it was a winning argument to try and isolate "those people" north of H Street. Go look at the threads. Brent families argued proximity to SH but didn't want to hear that JOW was actually closer. Their argument was that JOW wasn't actually part of the neighborhood so even though it was closer to SH than Brent, it wasn't culturally close. It was icky.

I don't think Brent arguing for the SH feed -- especially when the alternative is Jefferson -- is as bad as this makes it sound. There are families in the Brent zone (and not an insignificant number) with SH proximity preference, which is always a sign that it would be reasonable to change things up. They should have just argued to add themselves to the feed. Make SH bigger -- with fewer OOB kids, it could definitely accommodate the Brent influx -- and Jefferson smaller. Almost no kids go from Brent to Jefferson now, so this would affect things by <10 total.

Proximity preference is for PK3-5. It would have no bearing on middle school.

Sorry, I did not mean they could use it (obviously, if they could, the zoning wouldn't matter since there are always OOB slots)... just that they would have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think Brent arguing for the SH feed -- especially when the alternative is Jefferson -- is as bad as this makes it sound. There are families in the Brent zone (and not an insignificant number) with SH proximity preference, which is always a sign that it would be reasonable to change things up. They should have just argued to add themselves to the feed. Make SH bigger -- with fewer OOB kids, it could definitely accommodate the Brent influx -- and Jefferson smaller. Almost no kids go from Brent to Jefferson now, so this would affect things by <10 total.

Van Ness and Chisholm are closer to SH than they are to Jefferson too. Jefferson is somewhat inconvenient for all the feeders except Amidon-Bowen.

[Anonymous]

The SH building has some real size constraints. You would basically need to redraw the Watkins boundary and then reroute Watkins to EH (to make room for Brent etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The SH building has some real size constraints. You would basically need to redraw the Watkins boundary and then reroute Watkins to EH (to make room for Brent etc.).

This is just not true. Brent has like 20-25 kids graduating each year. Maybe the SH feed would have stopped the disasterous attrition that they currently have and it would be 30. 7-8 already go to SH each year. So we're talking sending 13-22 extra each year, which is less than the number of OOB spaces they offer.

Van Ness families are equidistant-ish between Jefferson and SH; it's nowhere near as extreme as Brent. Jefferson is a totally reasonable feed for Van Ness. Chisholm doesn't actually feed super naturally to Jefferson either, but EH is equidistant a SH, so maybe that's the answer there as EH is also very underfilled. If Jefferson is totally inconvenient to most ESes, maybe something else should be switched up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SH building has some real size constraints. You would basically need to redraw the Watkins boundary and then reroute Watkins to EH (to make room for Brent etc.).

This is just not true. Brent has like 20-25 kids graduating each year. Maybe the SH feed would have stopped the disasterous attrition that they currently have and it would be 30. 7-8 already go to SH each year. So we're talking sending 13-22 extra each year, which is less than the number of OOB spaces they offer.

Van Ness families are equidistant-ish between Jefferson and SH; it's nowhere near as extreme as Brent. Jefferson is a totally reasonable feed for Van Ness. Chisholm doesn't actually feed super naturally to Jefferson either, but EH is equidistant a SH, so maybe that's the answer there as EH is also very underfilled. If Jefferson is totally inconvenient to most ESes, maybe something else should be switched up.

It's just not really a compelling enough argument in itself. There are many places in the city where students are zoned for one MS but actually live closer to another one.

[Anonymous]

I think there is almost nowhere else right now where you cannot instead attend the closer dcps middle school oob through the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SH building has some real size constraints. You would basically need to redraw the Watkins boundary and then reroute Watkins to EH (to make room for Brent etc.).

This is just not true. Brent has like 20-25 kids graduating each year. Maybe the SH feed would have stopped the disasterous attrition that they currently have and it would be 30. 7-8 already go to SH each year. So we're talking sending 13-22 extra each year, which is less than the number of OOB spaces they offer.

Van Ness families are equidistant-ish between Jefferson and SH; it's nowhere near as extreme as Brent. Jefferson is a totally reasonable feed for Van Ness. Chisholm doesn't actually feed super naturally to Jefferson either, but EH is equidistant a SH, so maybe that's the answer there as EH is also very underfilled. If Jefferson is totally inconvenient to most ESes, maybe something else should be switched up.

It's just not really a compelling enough argument in itself. There are many places in the city where students are zoned for one MS but actually live closer to another one.

I think Brent is fairly unique in that it has kids who could walk to SH in under 10 minutes instead having to get 2 forms of transit or 1 + a 30 minute walk to get to Jefferson. I am not IB for Brent, but do think it’s pretty ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there is almost nowhere else right now where you cannot instead attend the closer dcps middle school oob through the lottery.

Much of Eaton and Mann boundary closer to Deal than Hardy.

Much of Marie Reed boundary closer to Oyster-Adams than CHEC.

Some of John Francis closer to Oyster-Adams.

Some of Walker Jones closer to Stuart Hobson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Brent families did not help the cause. I'm white and even I bristled at the stuff coming out of Brent families' mouths. They were preternaturally focused on what was "really the Hill". A concept no one but 75 year old, double knit wearing real estate agents cared about. Somewhere along the way someone told Brent families it was a winning argument to try and isolate "those people" north of H Street. Go look at the threads. Brent families argued proximity to SH but didn't want to hear that JOW was actually closer. Their argument was that JOW wasn't actually part of the neighborhood so even though it was closer to SH than Brent, it wasn't culturally close. It was icky.

That's VERY different from "make one giant middle school with all the Eastern feeders"

I think you could make the case for consolidating into two middle schools, but it's really hard to do in a geographically logical way with the gerrymandered Peabody/Watkins boundary.

Yes, quite different. Like I said, they didn't help themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SH building has some real size constraints. You would basically need to redraw the Watkins boundary and then reroute Watkins to EH (to make room for Brent etc.).

This is just not true. Brent has like 20-25 kids graduating each year. Maybe the SH feed would have stopped the disasterous attrition that they currently have and it would be 30. 7-8 already go to SH each year. So we're talking sending 13-22 extra each year, which is less than the number of OOB spaces they offer.

Van Ness families are equidistant-ish between Jefferson and SH; it's nowhere near as extreme as Brent. Jefferson is a totally reasonable feed for Van Ness. Chisholm doesn't actually feed super naturally to Jefferson either, but EH is equidistant a SH, so maybe that's the answer there as EH is also very underfilled. If Jefferson is totally inconvenient to most ESes, maybe something else should be switched up.

I'm pretty sure EH is nearly full after the renovation and the growth they've had in the past few years. The middle schools were all built years ago, so of course they're not going to be perfectly located to match the current population. Any of them are still closer than most of the charters/privates for which families leave DCPS.

Looking at current 4th grade class sizes, EH has 216 kids in 4th at feeder schools (Maury, Miner, Payne, SWS), SH has 236 (JO, LT, Watkins) and Jefferson has 226 (Amidon, Brent, Chisholm, VN). Obviously, different feeders send their kids to MS in different rates, but for the most part, the feeder populations are currently pretty balanced for each MS.

[Anonymous]

Real reason lottery numbers are down... familes have had to move out of the district. Between the federal layoffs, housing voucher program terminations, and immigration (ICE) removals... lower lottery numbers could be reflective of an exodus of families out of the district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Real reason lottery numbers are down... familes have had to move out of the district. Between the federal layoffs, housing voucher program terminations, and immigration (ICE) removals... lower lottery numbers could be reflective of an exodus of families out of the district.

I don’t think any of those are it. It’s declining birth rates for the preK set, more families going to their IB for elementary, more movement to private schools for middle/HS. But who knows. Maybe someone can suss it out from the available data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Real reason lottery numbers are down... familes have had to move out of the district. Between the federal layoffs, housing voucher program terminations, and immigration (ICE) removals... lower lottery numbers could be reflective of an exodus of families out of the district.

I don’t think any of those are it. It’s declining birth rates for the preK set, more families going to their IB for elementary, more movement to private schools for middle/HS. But who knows. Maybe someone can suss it out from the available data.

I think it’s too early to say based on the lottery data alone. If the issue is people leaving DC, we would expect enrollment decline more or less across all grades. This seems to be more concentrated in PreK, but that’s also where we would see declines if PreK families are leaving DC.

Schools may not realize they should/could have opened more lottery seats spots than normal to backfill for later grades that they expect to fill with re-enrollment (though I know of at least one charter ED who said in a public board meeting that they are offering back fill spots in the first round of the lottery for the first time because they expect more families to leave DC). If so, we would then probably expect to see faster waitlist movement than usual across most grades. But I think we probably have to wait for the audited enrollment data next fall to really tell.

That said, WaPO had a piece a couple of weeks ago arguing that it’s mostly related to ICE fears using data about seeing more drops in Spanish programs than others https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2026/04/12/dc-school-enrollment-applications-lottery/

I didn’t really find it all that convincing, though; several of the schools they mention mostly appeal to English speaking families who want their children to learn Spanish, not heritage speakers.