If the DME goes forward with 10% set asides, will this be a common outcome?

[Anonymous]

If the final outcome of the boundary/redistricting effort is that all schools (at least DCPS schools) in DC will have 10% of all the seats set aside for students districted into the lowest performing schools, what would stop people from:

renting an apartment IB for one of these low performing schools,
moving into it for the period between the lottery and the start of the school year,
and then, once OOB status has been granted, moving to another part of the city or back to their original address?

It seems like it would be legal, as long as the family actually lives in the apartment for the specified period, and, once someone is admitted to a school, there is no requirement that they stay at their lottery address. They are given OOB rights even if they move to a new address. An apartment in these parts of the city can't be more than $1,500 a month. A six month lease would be $9,000. Even if you had to get a year long lease, it would only be $18,000. While that isn't cheap, it is a lot less than private school, even for one year. And, such a plan would give you rights to a school or even a feeder pattern for years to come. With a 10% chance at every school in the city and no certainty that I would get into an IB school I want because of controlled choice, I would consider making such a move for the short term. This is one of the problems that I have with the set asides. It will open up the system to this kind of gaming.

[Anonymous]

Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

Why wow? If you set up a system that privileges certain addresses with an edge in school admissions, why would it be shocking that people would seek to live at those addresses?

[Anonymous]

I think that they could just say that your spot there is contingent on your living in boundary for the school you got the spot through. Similar to having to continue to live in-boundary to keep an in-boundary spot today.

[Anonymous]

It is true that you could rent a place really cheaply in some of those areas...

[Anonymous]

Um, I think people who could afford that would just move IB for the good school rather than spend 9K for preference in a lottery they could still lose.

More likely, "what will happen" is that neighborhood schools will continue to lose the most active and involved families, which will further degrade neighborhood schools and lead to more neighborhood schools being closed; the charters will continue to grow, the commitment to improving neighborhood schools will weaken, and eventually the charter school folks will find their way to get all of our education tax dollars - just like they want.

Every proposal on the table is about weakening neighborhood schools, while strengthening charters. On it's face I have zero problem with an OOB set aside , but it's just another proposal that does zero to improve neighborhood schools and allows the charters to continue gaining advantage over dcps without any accountability or requirement that they serve all kids, instead of just the ones they want.

[Anonymous]

Your math and logic are fucked. If you argue that there are 10% chance for OOB (there isn't), then the right play would be to get something IB at a good school, not a bad one since that has a 90% chance (it doesn't).

The problem is that 10% set aside is just that - 10% of a fixed number. What you'd need to know is how many people are in the low performing bounds and how many seats there are at each school, neither of which you know. So we can't say that the odds are 10%, and it's absolutely not 10% at every school, or that would imply that your odds exceed 100%. It's not additive.

Take the total number (not %) of OOB set asides at a school that you like, add that to the set asides of other schools you want, then divide by the number of people in shitty boundaries who might want into those schools. Those are your odds. It won't be 10%.

And anyway, if your theory held water, rents would go up to reflect that game. People lie about boundaries today too btw.

[Anonymous]

I was talking about the various options with some neighbors on Saturday and we came to the conclusion that very little has been thought through.

I see a lot of unintended consequences in these proposals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that they could just say that your spot there is contingent on your living in boundary for the school you got the spot through. Similar to having to continue to live in-boundary to keep an in-boundary spot today.

This seems somewhat problematic, especially with feeder pattern rights. If you move when your child is in seventh grade, but they got into the feeder school at PK3 OOB, does the child have to go back to his or her IB school? What about if it is fifth grade or second grade? It would effectively trap some people into their current living situations or risk losing their spot at a school their child is used to attending.

[Anonymous]

The proposed 10% set aside is just small door through the wall that they're trying to build around neighborhood schools.

It would never displace kids who are in-boundary for any school. It's merely a way to avoid completely closing off access to people who can't afford the zip code.

It would be foolish to move next to a low-income school merely for the long, long shot of winning a lottery seat at a better school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The proposed 10% set aside is just small door through the wall that they're trying to build around neighborhood schools.

It would never displace kids who are in-boundary for any school. It's merely a way to avoid completely closing off access to people who can't afford the zip code.

It would be foolish to move next to a low-income school merely for the long, long shot of winning a lottery seat at a better school.

So what happens when the in-boundary population of a school grows to more than 90% of its capacity. Do they shrink the boundaries or enlarge the school? If the answer is they shrink the boundaries, then, yes, someone is being displaced. If they always grow the school they've limited flexibility. You're basically back in the mess they're in now where the boundaries can never change once they're set.

Just another aspect of the not-well-thought-out nature of the proposals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your math and logic are fucked. If you argue that there are 10% chance for OOB (there isn't), then the right play would be to get something IB at a good school, not a bad one since that has a 90% chance (it doesn't).

The problem is that 10% set aside is just that - 10% of a fixed number. What you'd need to know is how many people are in the low performing bounds and how many seats there are at each school, neither of which you know. So we can't say that the odds are 10%, and it's absolutely not 10% at every school, or that would imply that your odds exceed 100%. It's not additive.

Take the total number (not %) of OOB set asides at a school that you like, add that to the set asides of other schools you want, then divide by the number of people in shitty boundaries who might want into those schools. Those are your odds. It won't be 10%.

And anyway, if your theory held water, rents would go up to reflect that game. People lie about boundaries today too btw.

But the point is that it wouldn't be lying or cheating. It would be following the rules of the system, as silly as they would be.

I am sort of playing devil's advocate here because I think that the set asides are really problematic. For someone like me, who owns a house that I don't want to sell that is IB for a very mediocre school but not one that would probably end up on the list of low performing schools, something like this might make sense. In the past, many people in my neighborhood used the OOB process to get into a better school. In the new system, people in the middle (not in the best schools but not in the worst) are especially harmed. I recognize that the proposed system is 10% of a fixed number (and it might end up being at the school as a whole or it might be at each grade level, both proposals have been floated). Assuming they keep the common lottery and the set aside is for each grade, I could have a chance at a seat at 12-15 schools that I would have no chance at if I didn't rent an apartment because all the available OOB seats will be filled by students from the low performing schools and there will be no chance for anyone else to get a seat OOB. Since I could rent an apartment month to month and cancel it if I don't get lucky (or even not rent one until after the lottery but before registration and be out no money at all), it might be worth the gamble.

[Anonymous]

Are the set aside seats for kids who get FARMs? Or just live IB for a low performing school?

Maybe the FARMS designation would eliminate "working the system" because if you can pony up $9000 in rent for a place that you won't live in, you are not FARMS.

Isn't that what teh set asides are for-helping disadvantaged kids--not creating a new game for clever parents?

Also, isn't the set aside thing a lot like No child Left Behind? Kids in crappy schools had/have the right to go to a "receiving" school. DCPS even provides buses for these kids. So, we already have this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are the set aside seats for kids who get FARMs? Or just live IB for a low performing school?

Maybe the FARMS designation would eliminate "working the system" because if you can pony up $9000 in rent for a place that you won't live in, you are not FARMS.

Isn't that what teh set asides are for-helping disadvantaged kids--not creating a new game for clever parents?

Also, isn't the set aside thing a lot like No child Left Behind? Kids in crappy schools had/have the right to go to a "receiving" school. DCPS even provides buses for these kids. So, we already have this.

But right now these kids don't have preference in the OOB lottery and they change would be that they would move ahead of other students in the city. The first question here is an open one. The literature presented at the public meeting uses the language "lowest performing schools," indicating that the privilege is conferred by address, not by SES-status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your math and logic are fucked. If you argue that there are 10% chance for OOB (there isn't), then the right play would be to get something IB at a good school, not a bad one since that has a 90% chance (it doesn't).

The problem is that 10% set aside is just that - 10% of a fixed number. What you'd need to know is how many people are in the low performing bounds and how many seats there are at each school, neither of which you know. So we can't say that the odds are 10%, and it's absolutely not 10% at every school, or that would imply that your odds exceed 100%. It's not additive.

Take the total number (not %) of OOB set asides at a school that you like, add that to the set asides of other schools you want, then divide by the number of people in shitty boundaries who might want into those schools. Those are your odds. It won't be 10%.

And anyway, if your theory held water, rents would go up to reflect that game. People lie about boundaries today too btw.

Your first point is correct despite the presentation. Your second is not: this would likely have no impact on rent prices. Supply exceeds demand for housing in these areas, so you would need hundreds of families playing this game to even scratch the surface and you would probably need them doing it in the same area.