Please explain relevance of "OOB crowding" to the DCPS boundary review process

[Anonymous]

Hi all,

I have been reading several DCUM threads about the upcoming DCPS boundary changes. I know, I know, I should get another hobby

There is one thing that keeps coming up that is making me very confused.

A lot of people cite out of boundary (OOB) students as a factor in over-crowding at, for example, Wilson (47% OOB).

But then in the next sentence, those posters propose "shrinking the boundaries" of Wilson.

If I understand this correctly, the 47% OOB students at Wilson do NOT come from within the Wilson boundary lines shown here:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/16725/wilson-high-drawbridge-to-students-east-of-park-is-going-up/

They must therefore come from Ward 7, Ward 8, Cap Hill, central city, eastern end of the city, maybe even PG county if parents managed to move away and keep kids there, etc.

So what I don't understand at all is, why would it be necessary to shrink the boundaries and deny access to Wilson for neighborhoods such as South West, Dupont, Mt Pleasant, Crestwood, as some posters suggest?

Wouldn't it be simpler and more fair to just eliminate or reduce the OOB admission? It is unfair to shrink the boundary lines because people moved there knowing it was in-bounds. But it is totally reasonable to cut off anyone outside the boundary lines because they could not have reasonably expected as-of-right admission to Wilson. So for example, Dupont should maintain access but Anacostia could be cut-off.

So can someone please explain why it is necessary to shrink boundaries? Why not just end or reduce OOB admissions?

And yes, I see that the article I linked to says Wilson stopped accepting OOB in 2012, but again I am confused, because it seems that when an OOB student goes to an Wilson IB elementary, they magically become IB for Wilson, which again does not make sense to me. If you manage to get OOB for an elementary, great, but shouldn't you have to try your luck again for MS and HS? Why should you get 12 guaranteed years of education in NW DC while owning a house in Cap Hill, Brookland or Anacostia???

Thanks for your help!

[Anonymous]

Under the Rhee administration of DCPS the law was changed to provide rights to OOB students to follow the feeder pattern of the school they lottery into. People have relied on that and think their rights are equal too (or some assert superior to) those that merely live in boundary. It is asserted that much of the Over enrollment problems at Deal and Wilson could be addressed by eliminating these feeder rights. It is a hot topic to say the least.

[Anonymous]

Rhee started the feeders. It was her belief that a feeder system would improve schools. The OOB kids at Wilson come in via feeders so while they are OOB, under current rules they have just as much right to be there as the IB kids.

[Anonymous]

Good question, OP.

With the boundary changes, are the feeder patterns supposed to be grandfathered in along with a student's current status?

[Anonymous]

OP here, thanks for the replies so far - this is helpful and I'll check back again tomorrow.

I guess what is happening here, in part, is that the DCPS press release was very vague/ambiguous and so everyone is projecting aspirations and fears onto this process, but it's really not clear what the scope of the review will be...

As a consequence I've seen suggestions on DCUM that in my opinion run the spectrum:

- encouraging and win-win (turn some charters into boundary-admission schools)

- reasonable albeit with vested interests opposed on either side (reduce OOB)

- unfair (shrink boundaries and hurt people who paid a premium for IB houses and invested in IB schools)

- crazy (eliminate the concept of IB and turn it all over to lottery)

BTW in any other city that last one wouldn't even be discussed by anyone, and I truly don't believe it will happen here. IB schools is a pretty sacred american idea and people have invested so much in certain DC schools for it all to go to waste. But DC can be pretty crazy and apparently it happened in San Francisco for HS, so who knows!

Anyway thanks for your thoughts!

[Anonymous]

It isn't just HS in SF. Happens in elementary and it is a mess. I doubt DC will go that far but then again, DCPS tends to be a tad crazy. I am just glad my kids are in middle school now. I can't imagine dealing with the changed that may come.

[Anonymous]

If your goal is to get high-SES parents to commit to DCPS (which it seems apparent to me was one of Rhee's primary goals), then the feeder system makes tons of sense. If parents can play the lottery in PS/PK & guarantee a spot for their child at a highly regarded MS or HS, then they're less likely to opt for privates.

[Anonymous]

The assignment of kids to schools via boundaries is supposed to create neighborhood schools, but the ability to attend a certain school is not an entitlement. If you buy a house anywhere in the US, you take the risk that school boundaries will change before your kid starts school. The school districts aren't required to worry about the fact that you paid a premium for your house because it is in a certain catchment area.

[Anonymous]

The overcrowding also demonstrates that there is a need to replicate those schools in model elsewhere in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The assignment of kids to schools via boundaries is supposed to create neighborhood schools, but the ability to attend a certain school is not an entitlement. If you buy a house anywhere in the US, you take the risk that school boundaries will change before your kid starts school. The school districts aren't required to worry about the fact that you paid a premium for your house because it is in a certain catchment area.

Very true. But it is also true that those who live close to the school can do a better Jon at creating and sustaining a school community long term, AND that they proved their interest with a significant investment. So, they are wayyyyyyyyy more entitled to attend the school than people who don't meet either condition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the replies so far - this is helpful and I'll check back again tomorrow.

I guess what is happening here, in part, is that the DCPS press release was very vague/ambiguous and so everyone is projecting aspirations and fears onto this process, but it's really not clear what the scope of the review will be...

As a consequence I've seen suggestions on DCUM that in my opinion run the spectrum:

- encouraging and win-win (turn some charters into boundary-admission schools)

- reasonable albeit with vested interests opposed on either side (reduce OOB)

- unfair (shrink boundaries and hurt people who paid a premium for IB houses and invested in IB schools)

- crazy (eliminate the concept of IB and turn it all over to lottery)

BTW in any other city that last one wouldn't even be discussed by anyone, and I truly don't believe it will happen here. IB schools is a pretty sacred american idea and people have invested so much in certain DC schools for it all to go to waste. But DC can be pretty crazy and apparently it happened in San Francisco for HS, so who knows!

Anyway thanks for your thoughts!

I think your assessment that people think it is a win-win to turn charters into neighborhood schools in inaccurate. I have read a lot of debate on both sides as that limits the population that can benefit from charters to offset sub-optimal IB choices. Given sibling preferences it basically would take some popular charters off the table for a large chunk of the city.

[Anonymous]

Out-of-boundary crowding is about the feeder patterns. The schools can set how's many seats go into the lottery for out-of-boundary students. Doing that well or poorly is a question of administrative competence, not really of policy.

The feeders however are links that must be set or undone by policy. They are the primary and in the future likely only way students who are not in boundary get into Deal or Wilson.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the OP and think the way to resolve this is to end the feeder rights, while grandfathering in the students that are already at Deal or Wilson and their younger siblings. Yes, some students will lose out on when feeder rights end. Some students are going to lose out no matter which way you slice it, but all the other alternatives seem more unfair to me. I think a companion to this will be coming up with more resources to support failing schools in other parts of the city, even if it means allocating away some Deal/Wilson resources -- good staff, funding, whatever it takes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the OP and think the way to resolve this is to end the feeder rights, while grandfathering in the students that are already at Deal or Wilson and their younger siblings. Yes, some students will lose out on when feeder rights end. Some students are going to lose out no matter which way you slice it, but all the other alternatives seem more unfair to me. I think a companion to this will be coming up with more resources to support failing schools in other parts of the city, even if it means allocating away some Deal/Wilson resources -- good staff, funding, whatever it takes.

Deal and Wilson do not get extra funding. They get standard per pupil funding and likely less than many other schools because they are not Title I schools. Several failing high schools across the city have gotten renovations in excess of $100 million in cost, lack of funding is not the problem. The key resource that Deal and Wilson have that is hard to replicate is the percentage of the student body that arrives prepared. That is not a resource you can allocate to another school. They need to find ways to make prepared students want to go to other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the OP and think the way to resolve this is to end the feeder rights, while grandfathering in the students that are already at Deal or Wilson and their younger siblings. Yes, some students will lose out on when feeder rights end. Some students are going to lose out no matter which way you slice it, but all the other alternatives seem more unfair to me. I think a companion to this will be coming up with more resources to support failing schools in other parts of the city, even if it means allocating away some Deal/Wilson resources -- good staff, funding, whatever it takes.

I don't think siblings should be grandfathered unless they would attend the school at the SAME TIME as the current child. if kids are 5 years apart and never going to be in D or W concurrently, shouldn't be grandfathered.