How would this controlled choice nonsense actually work on Capitol Hill?

[Anonymous]

Not to beat a dead horse, but a quick survey of Title I schools (99% FARMs according to DC) on Cap Hill reveals most students are OOB, by a large margin.

Payne - 34% IB
Miner - 32% IB
JO Wilson - 28% IB
Tyler - 26% IB
Ludlow - 23% IB
Watkins - 21% IB

It appears that IB students effectively could be consolidated into two schools.

This can be contrasted with three other nearby Title I schools

*Amidon - 84% IB
*Thomson - 62% IB
*Walker-Jones - 68% IB

Only the Hill non-Title I schools -- i.e., Brent, Maury and Peabody -- are demonstrably majority IB, likely around 60 percent by now (wivirtue vast majority of OOB Brent students culled from the surrounding Title I jurisdictions). I also understand that there is a fair amount of cross-pollination at the PS and PK levels because there are simply not enough spaces to accommodate all three and four-year olds at their IB school.

Can someone explain how the targeted "controlled choice" model (I have seen reference to a two-mile radius) would work when it seems obvious that there are not nearly enough high-SES students to reach anything approaching the proposed 50/50 threshold, particulalry when there is an extant high-SES IB population queuing up for Van Ness in 2015. And how does all of this play out with SWS and CHM in the mix? I would like to dismiss all of this as yet more horse manure but nothing surprises me any more.

[Anonymous]

Yes, these are some of my exact questions. Would love to hear opinions. Can't fathom how this would work since a heck of a lot of the "diverse" kids filling Capitol Hill schools are not from Capitol Hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to beat a dead horse, but a quick survey of Title I schools (99% FARMs according to DC) on Cap Hill reveals most students are OOB, by a large margin.

Payne - 34% IB
Miner - 32% IB
JO Wilson - 28% IB
Tyler - 26% IB
Ludlow - 23% IB
Watkins - 21% IB

It appears that IB students effectively could be consolidated into two schools.

This can be contrasted with three other nearby Title I schools

*Amidon - 84% IB
*Thomson - 62% IB
*Walker-Jones - 68% IB

Only the Hill non-Title I schools -- i.e., Brent, Maury and Peabody -- are demonstrably majority IB, likely around 60 percent by now (wivirtue vast majority of OOB Brent students culled from the surrounding Title I jurisdictions). I also understand that there is a fair amount of cross-pollination at the PS and PK levels because there are simply not enough spaces to accommodate all three and four-year olds at their IB school.

Can someone explain how the targeted "controlled choice" model (I have seen reference to a two-mile radius) would work when it seems obvious that there are not nearly enough high-SES students to reach anything approaching the proposed 50/50 threshold, particulalry when there is an extant high-SES IB population queuing up for Van Ness in 2015. And how does all of this play out with SWS and CHM in the mix? I would like to dismiss all of this as yet more horse manure but nothing surprises me any more.

But aren't you looking at the wrong numbers? I would think that the TOTAL number of IB kids would be more relevant as opposed to the number that are actually attending. For example, aren't large numbers of kids who are IB for Watkins opting out?

The theory is based in part, at least as I understand it, on recapturing those IB students who are going charter/private/OOB.

[Anonymous]

How does controlled choice "recapture" inbound students who opt out of Watkins, for example?

Is it because it would no longer allow them to even apply to a charter or DCPS school outside of a neighborhood controlled choice zone?

And then once they are "captured" in this zone, they might be sent to one of three or four schools depending on a lottery.

Seems more like a mechanism to make these families jump even further away from their closest DCPS, like out of the city far.

[Anonymous]

Not the issue here, but just wanted to note that an indication of "99% FARMS" on a school profile does not necessarily mean that. I think it means that the school has a high enough percentage of poor families to tip it into the Title 1 category, so they declare the whole school FARMS, meaning even middle class kids don't pay for meals. That's the case at the Title 1 school where my child attends.

[Anonymous]

In prior years, a number of students IB for Watkins had the option to attend schools like Maury or Brent through the lottery process. In fact, as of last year, there were about two dozen Watkins kids at Brent. The Brent escape hatch was effectively shutdown around 2009 due to Brent's own IB enrollment. Presumably the principal option available to families IB for Watkins would be to go charter. With the new unified lottery, why would they rank Brent diluted to 50/50 over a highly-regarded charter, or not decamp to Cap Hill Day or St. Peter? I just don't see how diluting the top performing schools on the Hill will recapture families dissatisfied with Watkins. No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not the issue here, but just wanted to note that an indication of "99% FARMS" on a school profile does not necessarily mean that. I think it means that the school has a high enough percentage of poor families to tip it into the Title 1 category, so they declare the whole school FARMS, meaning even middle class kids don't pay for meals. That's the case at the Title 1 school where my child attends.

OP here. Yeah, I am aware of the Community Eligibility Option for Title I schools, but as we all know there is a fairly close door correlation in DCPS schools, particularly those on the Hill, between race and SES. Obviously, not all white kids are middle class and not all AA or Latino kids are lower income, but the racial profiles of the Title I Cap Hill schools are informative.

[Anonymous]

I would liove to see the Brent PTA invite Petrilli to the March meeting and have him explain why he apparently believes that a travesty has taken place and then attempt to defend his proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does controlled choice "recapture" inbound students who opt out of Watkins, for example?

Is it because it would no longer allow them to even apply to a charter or DCPS school outside of a neighborhood controlled choice zone?

And then once they are "captured" in this zone, they might be sent to one of three or four schools depending on a lottery.

Seems more like a mechanism to make these families jump even further away from their closest DCPS, like out of the city far.

But here's the funny thing that strikes me about the Capitol Hill situation. If you started restricting Capitol Hill schools to only Capitol Hill students, they could potentially end up with even lower FARMs numbers than you have now. Which is not to say that Capitol Hill doesn't have socioeconomic "diversity" (i.e. people who are relatively poor), it still does. But nonetheless, if kids weren't coming in from all over the city, some Capitol Hill parents might say "Great, this is going to be a neighborhood school again with my friends, the Johnsons and the Diaz's from the block. Maybe we'll stay." Anyway, I soooo don't think it will play out this way. But if you stop thinking about Brent and start thinking about Payne, it makes you wonder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would liove to see the Brent PTA invite Petrilli to the March meeting and have him explain why he apparently believes that a travesty has taken place and then attempt to defend his proposal.

He was invited several years ago and he demurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does controlled choice "recapture" inbound students who opt out of Watkins, for example?

Is it because it would no longer allow them to even apply to a charter or DCPS school outside of a neighborhood controlled choice zone?

And then once they are "captured" in this zone, they might be sent to one of three or four schools depending on a lottery.

Seems more like a mechanism to make these families jump even further away from their closest DCPS, like out of the city far.

But here's the funny thing that strikes me about the Capitol Hill situation. If you started restricting Capitol Hill schools to only Capitol Hill students, they could potentially end up with even lower FARMs numbers than you have now. Which is not to say that Capitol Hill doesn't have socioeconomic "diversity" (i.e. people who are relatively poor), it still does. But nonetheless, if kids weren't coming in from all over the city, some Capitol Hill parents might say "Great, this is going to be a neighborhood school again with my friends, the Johnsons and the Diaz's from the block. Maybe we'll stay." Anyway, I soooo don't think it will play out this way. But if you stop thinking about Brent and start thinking about Payne, it makes you wonder.

In theory, you may very well be correct with regard to schools other than Peabody, Brent and Maury. However, in reality, I don't think there are enough IB kids to fill all of these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would liove to see the Brent PTA invite Petrilli to the March meeting and have him explain why he apparently believes that a travesty has taken place and then attempt to defend his proposal.

He was invited several years ago and he demurred.

No reason not to extend another invitation now that he pretends to be something more than the subject of a WP interest piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would liove to see the Brent PTA invite Petrilli to the March meeting and have him explain why he apparently believes that a travesty has taken place and then attempt to defend his proposal.

He was invited several years ago and he demurred.

No reason not to extend another invitation now that he pretends to be something more than the subject of a WP interest piece.

+1 saying you asked "several" years ago seems like a cop out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to beat a dead horse, but a quick survey of Title I schools (99% FARMs according to DC) on Cap Hill reveals most students are OOB, by a large margin.

Payne - 34% IB
Miner - 32% IB
JO Wilson - 28% IB
Tyler - 26% IB
Ludlow - 23% IB
Watkins - 21% IB

Pretty sure Watkins is not actually Title I - yet. At least according to a recent flyer from the school about aftercare, and it isn't listed as Title I in the DCPS school profile.

[Anonymous]

My fix? Close Watkins and Payne. Watkins kids go to L-T (which is right near SH and Peabody and has a lot of usable space). Payne kids go to Tyler. At some point, maybe do a similar combo with Miner, Wilson and Maury.