Ward 3 - Wilson feeders meeting last night: did anyone attend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The latest slide deck and notes from the community working group meeting have been posted to DCPS Planning's website.

https://dcpsplanning.wordpress.com/category/wilson-feeder-pattern/

Brian

Many thanks for posting this Brian. I have three questions/comments:

1. I see the next Working Group meeting is tomorrow, July 18, but the location is listed as TBD. Where will the meeting be? Is the meeting open for anyone interested to attend?

2. As someone who thinks that OOB feeder rights need to be considered as part of the package of solutions, I am impressed to see that out of the 450 survey responses so far, over 50% are interested in such steps. (https://dcpsplanning.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/06202017-wfp_community-working-group_meeting-2.pdf) This is notable because, IIRC, adjusting the automatic OOB feeder rights was intentionally excluded from the survey. That suggests to me that over half the respondents took the extra time to write that option in. Anyone who is interested in this issue should continue to highlight that option for DCPS and the CWG.

3. The document discussing the automatic OOB feeder rights (https://dcpsplanning.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/06202017_wfp_cwg_enrollment-committee.pdf) says that people working on that topics are requesting more information about the numbers of IB and OOB students at each school. ("The group requested OOB vs. IB rates by school to better how landscape differs by school.") If you get access to that data, would you mind posting here? I'm a fairly frequent poster about how DCPS should adjust the automatic feeder rights of OOB students to make their enrollment contingent on capacity constraints. In other words, OOB students get feeder rights only if there is enough space for them in the new school. Based on the numbers publicly available, it seems like that change would have a pretty significant impact on overcrowding. But if there is school-by-school data showing that there really are zero new OOB students entering the Wilson feeder system, then this step can be only one part of a group of steps that DCPS needs to take to address overcrowding.

Many thanks again for keeping us up to date.

Also impressed with #2 and I think it signals to DCPS that this generation of Ward 3 parents will not fold or run as easily as prior generations when it comes to overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

You're misstating #2 -- it was't just about OOB. But also about reducing PK enrollment.



"Over 50% indicated interest in solutions to limit or re-direct enrollment, such as reducing OOB enrollment and PK"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're misstating #2 -- it was't just about OOB. But also about reducing PK enrollment.



"Over 50% indicated interest in solutions to limit or re-direct enrollment, such as reducing OOB enrollment and PK"

K

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're misstating #2 -- it was't just about OOB. But also about reducing PK enrollment.

"Over 50% indicated interest in solutions to limit or re-direct enrollment, such as reducing OOB enrollment and PK"

So maybe DCPS and the CWG should state clearly how many write in to comment on the OOB issue.

Also while they're at it, clarify the number of people who support "facilities adjustment" or whatever they called it. They lumped a bunch of different response categories together under that umbrella to try to boost the number supposedly supporting that approach.

[Anonymous]

If Ward 3 parents are serious about the overcrowding, they can eliminate preschool. That will at least alleviate the physical space at the elementary level. Free preschool for the wealthy should be nobody's priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Ward 3 parents are serious about the overcrowding, they can eliminate preschool. That will at least alleviate the physical space at the elementary level. Free preschool for the wealthy should be nobody's priority.

1) Eliminate preschool

2) Combine Deal + Hardy -- 6th at Hardy; 7th and 8th at Deal

3) Wilson will be addressed because by combining Deal and Hardy you prevent 60+ OOB per year going to Hardy.

[Anonymous]

The thing is, the furthest-away schools in the Wilson feed are also the most racially diverse, right? Shepherd is, anyway, and they already tweaked Bancroft. So it's hard to bump anyone out of the feeder without that being a problem.

If they were serious about making Coolidge happen, the fastest way to do it would be to kick some schools out of the feeder pattern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thousands of families do it every day, both in DCPS and in charters. Something like 60,000 kids in DC attend a public school that is not their in-boundary school.

Do you mean 6,000? Only approximately 90,000 DC students total, including both DCPS + Charters.

I absolutely mean 60,000. Only about a quarter of public school kids in DC attend their in-boundary school. Roughly half (40,000+) attend charters, and roughly half of those who attend DCPS (20,000+) attend an out-of-boundary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thousands of families do it every day, both in DCPS and in charters. Something like 60,000 kids in DC attend a public school that is not their in-boundary school.

Do you mean 6,000? Only approximately 90,000 DC students total, including both DCPS + Charters.

I absolutely mean 60,000. Only about a quarter of public school kids in DC attend their in-boundary school. Roughly half (40,000+) attend charters, and roughly half of those who attend DCPS (20,000+) attend an out-of-boundary school.

I'll need some support for that claim. Link please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thousands of families do it every day, both in DCPS and in charters. Something like 60,000 kids in DC attend a public school that is not their in-boundary school.

Do you mean 6,000? Only approximately 90,000 DC students total, including both DCPS + Charters.

I absolutely mean 60,000. Only about a quarter of public school kids in DC attend their in-boundary school. Roughly half (40,000+) attend charters, and roughly half of those who attend DCPS (20,000+) attend an out-of-boundary school.

I'll need some support for that claim. Link please.

https://dme.dc.gov/node/808362

Download the spreadsheet. Go to the tab named summary. Column D is the in-boundary student count for each school, column F is the student count. The sum of column D is 21,079. The sum of column F is 50,982. So 29,903 students attend DCPS not at their in-boundary school. I don't think anyone disputes that roughly 40,000 kids are in public charter schools, just google it. So it's really closer to 70,000 public school kids who don't attend their neighborhood school.

Numbers are from 2014 but nothing has changed dramatically in the past three years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thousands of families do it every day, both in DCPS and in charters. Something like 60,000 kids in DC attend a public school that is not their in-boundary school.

Do you mean 6,000? Only approximately 90,000 DC students total, including both DCPS + Charters.

I absolutely mean 60,000. Only about a quarter of public school kids in DC attend their in-boundary school. Roughly half (40,000+) attend charters, and roughly half of those who attend DCPS (20,000+) attend an out-of-boundary school.

I'll need some support for that claim. Link please.

https://dme.dc.gov/node/808362

Download the spreadsheet. Go to the tab named summary. Column D is the in-boundary student count for each school, column F is the student count. The sum of column D is 21,079. The sum of column F is 50,982. So 29,903 students attend DCPS not at their in-boundary school. I don't think anyone disputes that roughly 40,000 kids are in public charter schools, just google it. So it's really closer to 70,000 public school kids who don't attend their neighborhood school.

Numbers are from 2014 but nothing has changed dramatically in the past three years.

Wow, that's eye-opening. I appreciate the info. Bringing it back to the thread topic, it seems a little strange that we're so worried about the "equity" for OOB students at Deal and Wilson, when they represent only 4% of the total number of OOB students citywide. How is it equitable to prioritize that tiny subset of OOB students over the 28,000 other OOB students in the system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thousands of families do it every day, both in DCPS and in charters. Something like 60,000 kids in DC attend a public school that is not their in-boundary school.

Do you mean 6,000? Only approximately 90,000 DC students total, including both DCPS + Charters.

I absolutely mean 60,000. Only about a quarter of public school kids in DC attend their in-boundary school. Roughly half (40,000+) attend charters, and roughly half of those who attend DCPS (20,000+) attend an out-of-boundary school.

I'll need some support for that claim. Link please.

https://dme.dc.gov/node/808362

Download the spreadsheet. Go to the tab named summary. Column D is the in-boundary student count for each school, column F is the student count. The sum of column D is 21,079. The sum of column F is 50,982. So 29,903 students attend DCPS not at their in-boundary school. I don't think anyone disputes that roughly 40,000 kids are in public charter schools, just google it. So it's really closer to 70,000 public school kids who don't attend their neighborhood school.

Numbers are from 2014 but nothing has changed dramatically in the past three years.

Wow, that's eye-opening. I appreciate the info. Bringing it back to the thread topic, it seems a little strange that we're so worried about the "equity" for OOB students at Deal and Wilson, when they represent only 4% of the total number of OOB students citywide. How is it equitable to prioritize that tiny subset of OOB students over the 28,000 other OOB students in the system?

Please don't be dense. It's about race and equity system-wide. If students of color are shut out of the best / only high performing schools because the city is racially segregated and a neighborhood school system exacerbates that, it's a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please don't be dense. It's about race and equity system-wide. If students of color are shut out of the best / only high performing schools because the city is racially segregated and a neighborhood school system exacerbates that, it's a problem.

Seems to me you're the one being dense.

What do the schooling choices of 1200 OOB students at Deal and Wilson have to do with "race and equity system-wide"? At best, you're giving a benefit to those 1,200 chosen students.
But you're doing nothing to help the other 80,000 students in the system.

What about your approach targets "students of color"? If a white student living in a million-dollar house in one of the many EOTP neighborhoods is attending Wilson OOB, how is it a problem to re-route that student?

Your definition of "segregation" needs help. Wilson is currently 27% white, which means it's 73% "students of color." If the changes discussed here change Wilson so that it's only 60% students of color, and 40% white, are you going to claim that's "segregation"? Even if every one of the 50% OOB students at Wilson were a student of color (which we all know is not the case), then that means at least 23% of Wilson's students of color are living in-bounds. So no matter what changes get made, a bare minimum of 23% of Wilson's students will be "students of color," and we both know the reality is a much higher percentage. Those ratios have Wilson as likely the most integrated school in the entire city. Where's the segregation again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're misstating #2 -- it was't just about OOB. But also about reducing PK enrollment.

"Over 50% indicated interest in solutions to limit or re-direct enrollment, such as reducing OOB enrollment and PK"

So maybe DCPS and the CWG should state clearly how many write in to comment on the OOB issue.

Also while they're at it, clarify the number of people who support "facilities adjustment" or whatever they called it. They lumped a bunch of different response categories together under that umbrella to try to boost the number supposedly supporting that approach.

Yes that is an incredibly deceptive way to report the responses. It combines things I like and things I would never, ever go for and makes each yes seem like a yes for all of the above. Man they seem to think we are dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're misstating #2 -- it was't just about OOB. But also about reducing PK enrollment.

"Over 50% indicated interest in solutions to limit or re-direct enrollment, such as reducing OOB enrollment and PK"

So maybe DCPS and the CWG should state clearly how many write in to comment on the OOB issue.

Also while they're at it, clarify the number of people who support "facilities adjustment" or whatever they called it. They lumped a bunch of different response categories together under that umbrella to try to boost the number supposedly supporting that approach.

Yes that is an incredibly deceptive way to report the responses. It combines things I like and things I would never, ever go for and makes each yes seem like a yes for all of the above. Man they seem to think we are dumb.

Come on. The survey is still open, and they'd had few responses. I think they were trying to give a gist of the results so far, not a detailed accounting.