Active Boundary Study Proposals

[Anonymous]

Any info on a feeder pattern for Stevens Early Learning Center?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it sounds like I am less dense than I thought. The possibilities are being unveiled to each school community they may impact, one at a time, right, boundary study committee member?

Also since you guys are obviously reading this thread...I'm wondering how I can advocate for the boundary study committee to take a look at my school (an International Baccalaureate elementary) and potentially offer an IB middle option, ideally at our very good feeder middle. I like the elementary (Thomson). I like the middle (SWW@F-S). I just want to continue the International Baccalaureate framework because I think it's powerful.

Can SWW@F-S get this program (ideal) or can Thomson families get some sort of preference at Eliot-Hine or Deal, which also have it, in addition to SWW@F-S? (Don't want to lose our great current feeder, families love it!)

Did I miss the window for asking for that?

EH parent here. I like that idea!

Doesn’t Eastern have IB too? That would create a potential pathway through 12 especially if a Ward 6 elementary adopted it.

It's only going to work if DCPS commits to actually teaching the IB content. Which they won't.

In elementary and at least part of middle it’s a framework for all kids, a style of teaching and approaching learning. It’s a school commitment, not really a district one. Requires strong instructional leadership and good teachers. EH has that. I think Eastern is on its way.

How do you know? And what does that even really mean, given Eastern's PARCC scores. Is anyone going to look at Eastern and say "Literally all the kids are below grade level in math, but they have IB so I'm fine with that"?

Fair question!

At EH, I know because IB, an independent global nonprofit, doesn’t let a middle school call itself IB unless it meets IBs standards for instruction, course offerings, professional development, you name it. They visit and essentially do an independent audit of the school. They don’t take DCPS’ word for it, trust me. The standards are the same for schools all over the world. It takes a good leader with a strong staff to meet that high bar, so if EH got IBs blessing, it must have those things in place. (Jefferson for example pursued IB.)

I like the outside seal of approval cause I’d rather send my kid to a school with strong teachers and leaders than one with meh teachers and “honors” classes that only looks good because it has a socio-economically advantaged population. Which describes a lot of supposedly awesome suburban middles.

On Eastern, see above. They have at least some quality instruction in place, for some kids, or they couldn’t offer IB at all. The test scores are low overall because the program is pretty tiny.

I live in Ward 2 and send my kid to schools here. No plans to move to the Hill. I don’t have a kid at EH and it’s not my feeder. I like IB as a program but have no reason to booster EH. Or Eastern for that matter.

Ummmmm, Eastern has an IB program and literally fewer than 1 in 10 kids in the building is at grade level. Take your DCPS, IB marketing materials and go away.

Happy to. Sheesh. Why are so many mean-girls (or guys) here?

Just passing on info. Don't even have a kid at Eastern. Don't work for IB, though I do work in education and figured I'd share in case someone here found this to be a useful perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it sounds like I am less dense than I thought. The possibilities are being unveiled to each school community they may impact, one at a time, right, boundary study committee member?

Also since you guys are obviously reading this thread...I'm wondering how I can advocate for the boundary study committee to take a look at my school (an International Baccalaureate elementary) and potentially offer an IB middle option, ideally at our very good feeder middle. I like the elementary (Thomson). I like the middle (SWW@F-S). I just want to continue the International Baccalaureate framework because I think it's powerful.

Can SWW@F-S get this program (ideal) or can Thomson families get some sort of preference at Eliot-Hine or Deal, which also have it, in addition to SWW@F-S? (Don't want to lose our great current feeder, families love it!)

Did I miss the window for asking for that?

EH parent here. I like that idea!

Doesn’t Eastern have IB too? That would create a potential pathway through 12 especially if a Ward 6 elementary adopted it.

It's only going to work if DCPS commits to actually teaching the IB content. Which they won't.

In elementary and at least part of middle it’s a framework for all kids, a style of teaching and approaching learning. It’s a school commitment, not really a district one. Requires strong instructional leadership and good teachers. EH has that. I think Eastern is on its way.

How do you know? And what does that even really mean, given Eastern's PARCC scores. Is anyone going to look at Eastern and say "Literally all the kids are below grade level in math, but they have IB so I'm fine with that"?

Fair question!

At EH, I know because IB, an independent global nonprofit, doesn’t let a middle school call itself IB unless it meets IBs standards for instruction, course offerings, professional development, you name it. They visit and essentially do an independent audit of the school. They don’t take DCPS’ word for it, trust me. The standards are the same for schools all over the world. It takes a good leader with a strong staff to meet that high bar, so if EH got IBs blessing, it must have those things in place. (Jefferson for example pursued IB.)

I like the outside seal of approval cause I’d rather send my kid to a school with strong teachers and leaders than one with meh teachers and “honors” classes that only looks good because it has a socio-economically advantaged population. Which describes a lot of supposedly awesome suburban middles.

On Eastern, see above. They have at least some quality instruction in place, for some kids, or they couldn’t offer IB at all. The test scores are low overall because the program is pretty tiny.

I live in Ward 2 and send my kid to schools here. No plans to move to the Hill. I don’t have a kid at EH and it’s not my feeder. I like IB as a program but have no reason to booster EH. Or Eastern for that matter.

Ummmmm, Eastern has an IB program and literally fewer than 1 in 10 kids in the building is at grade level. Take your DCPS, IB marketing materials and go away.

Happy to. Sheesh. Why are so many mean-girls (or guys) here?

Just passing on info. Don't even have a kid at Eastern. Don't work for IB, though I do work in education and figured I'd share in case someone here found this to be a useful perspective.

If you know so much about IB, maybe you can explain to us how Eliot-Hine and Eastern both have IB programs with external accreditation, yet the test scores at Eastern are still so terrible. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that a quality program can't get anyone to pass Algebra 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another question: at one point, one of the study websites said that any changes will be rolled out slowly, so if you’re enrolled in a school by 2025, you can stay there or choose to go to your newly assigned school.

How does that principle work with the Miner-Maury cluster idea?

+1 It looks like the grandfathering clause doesn't apply in the Maury / Miner cluster scenario. My approach to the school lottery from my current prek3 kids (at Miner) would have been completely different if this was known at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another question: at one point, one of the study websites said that any changes will be rolled out slowly, so if you’re enrolled in a school by 2025, you can stay there or choose to go to your newly assigned school.

How does that principle work with the Miner-Maury cluster idea?

+1 It looks like the grandfathering clause doesn't apply in the Maury / Miner cluster scenario. My approach to the school lottery from my current prek3 kids (at Miner) would have been completely different if this was known at the time.

I would also love to hear the answer to this question. Because a few months ago, we were told, oh, don’t worry about disruption— changes (if any) will roll out slowly, you will NOT need to leave your current school if you’re happy.

And now one of the most disruptive ideas (putting aside the merits), may happen immediately, and half the student body of two different schools may need to move. What gives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it sounds like I am less dense than I thought. The possibilities are being unveiled to each school community they may impact, one at a time, right, boundary study committee member?

Also since you guys are obviously reading this thread...I'm wondering how I can advocate for the boundary study committee to take a look at my school (an International Baccalaureate elementary) and potentially offer an IB middle option, ideally at our very good feeder middle. I like the elementary (Thomson). I like the middle (SWW@F-S). I just want to continue the International Baccalaureate framework because I think it's powerful.

Can SWW@F-S get this program (ideal) or can Thomson families get some sort of preference at Eliot-Hine or Deal, which also have it, in addition to SWW@F-S? (Don't want to lose our great current feeder, families love it!)

Did I miss the window for asking for that?

EH parent here. I like that idea!

Doesn’t Eastern have IB too? That would create a potential pathway through 12 especially if a Ward 6 elementary adopted it.

It's only going to work if DCPS commits to actually teaching the IB content. Which they won't.

In elementary and at least part of middle it’s a framework for all kids, a style of teaching and approaching learning. It’s a school commitment, not really a district one. Requires strong instructional leadership and good teachers. EH has that. I think Eastern is on its way.

How do you know? And what does that even really mean, given Eastern's PARCC scores. Is anyone going to look at Eastern and say "Literally all the kids are below grade level in math, but they have IB so I'm fine with that"?

Fair question!

At EH, I know because IB, an independent global nonprofit, doesn’t let a middle school call itself IB unless it meets IBs standards for instruction, course offerings, professional development, you name it. They visit and essentially do an independent audit of the school. They don’t take DCPS’ word for it, trust me. The standards are the same for schools all over the world. It takes a good leader with a strong staff to meet that high bar, so if EH got IBs blessing, it must have those things in place. (Jefferson for example pursued IB.)

I like the outside seal of approval cause I’d rather send my kid to a school with strong teachers and leaders than one with meh teachers and “honors” classes that only looks good because it has a socio-economically advantaged population. Which describes a lot of supposedly awesome suburban middles.

On Eastern, see above. They have at least some quality instruction in place, for some kids, or they couldn’t offer IB at all. The test scores are low overall because the program is pretty tiny.

I live in Ward 2 and send my kid to schools here. No plans to move to the Hill. I don’t have a kid at EH and it’s not my feeder. I like IB as a program but have no reason to booster EH. Or Eastern for that matter.

Ummmmm, Eastern has an IB program and literally fewer than 1 in 10 kids in the building is at grade level. Take your DCPS, IB marketing materials and go away.

Happy to. Sheesh. Why are so many mean-girls (or guys) here?

Just passing on info. Don't even have a kid at Eastern. Don't work for IB, though I do work in education and figured I'd share in case someone here found this to be a useful perspective.

If you know so much about IB, maybe you can explain to us how Eliot-Hine and Eastern both have IB programs with external accreditation, yet the test scores at Eastern are still so terrible. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that a quality program can't get anyone to pass Algebra 1.

Again, I don't have a kid at either school or live in on Hill. And I do not work for DCPS, or IB, just in education. So I'm totally speculating, but I believe the Eliot-Hine program is brand new - can't judge the results of its alumn at Eastern yet - and the Eastern program is tiny. If this is important to you, you should take that question to the schools or to IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it sounds like I am less dense than I thought. The possibilities are being unveiled to each school community they may impact, one at a time, right, boundary study committee member?

Also since you guys are obviously reading this thread...I'm wondering how I can advocate for the boundary study committee to take a look at my school (an International Baccalaureate elementary) and potentially offer an IB middle option, ideally at our very good feeder middle. I like the elementary (Thomson). I like the middle (SWW@F-S). I just want to continue the International Baccalaureate framework because I think it's powerful.

Can SWW@F-S get this program (ideal) or can Thomson families get some sort of preference at Eliot-Hine or Deal, which also have it, in addition to SWW@F-S? (Don't want to lose our great current feeder, families love it!)

Did I miss the window for asking for that?

EH parent here. I like that idea!

Doesn’t Eastern have IB too? That would create a potential pathway through 12 especially if a Ward 6 elementary adopted it.

It's only going to work if DCPS commits to actually teaching the IB content. Which they won't.

In elementary and at least part of middle it’s a framework for all kids, a style of teaching and approaching learning. It’s a school commitment, not really a district one. Requires strong instructional leadership and good teachers. EH has that. I think Eastern is on its way.

How do you know? And what does that even really mean, given Eastern's PARCC scores. Is anyone going to look at Eastern and say "Literally all the kids are below grade level in math, but they have IB so I'm fine with that"?

Fair question!

At EH, I know because IB, an independent global nonprofit, doesn’t let a middle school call itself IB unless it meets IBs standards for instruction, course offerings, professional development, you name it. They visit and essentially do an independent audit of the school. They don’t take DCPS’ word for it, trust me. The standards are the same for schools all over the world. It takes a good leader with a strong staff to meet that high bar, so if EH got IBs blessing, it must have those things in place. (Jefferson for example pursued IB.)

I like the outside seal of approval cause I’d rather send my kid to a school with strong teachers and leaders than one with meh teachers and “honors” classes that only looks good because it has a socio-economically advantaged population. Which describes a lot of supposedly awesome suburban middles.

On Eastern, see above. They have at least some quality instruction in place, for some kids, or they couldn’t offer IB at all. The test scores are low overall because the program is pretty tiny.

I live in Ward 2 and send my kid to schools here. No plans to move to the Hill. I don’t have a kid at EH and it’s not my feeder. I like IB as a program but have no reason to booster EH. Or Eastern for that matter.

Ummmmm, Eastern has an IB program and literally fewer than 1 in 10 kids in the building is at grade level. Take your DCPS, IB marketing materials and go away.

Happy to. Sheesh. Why are so many mean-girls (or guys) here?

Just passing on info. Don't even have a kid at Eastern. Don't work for IB, though I do work in education and figured I'd share in case someone here found this to be a useful perspective.

If you know so much about IB, maybe you can explain to us how Eliot-Hine and Eastern both have IB programs with external accreditation, yet the test scores at Eastern are still so terrible. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that a quality program can't get anyone to pass Algebra 1.

Again, I don't have a kid at either school or live in on Hill. And I do not work for DCPS, or IB, just in education. So I'm totally speculating, but I believe the Eliot-Hine program is brand new - can't judge the results of its alumn at Eastern yet - and the Eastern program is tiny. If this is important to you, you should take that question to the schools or to IB.

Eliot-Hine's IB program dates from 2015, so nope.

Why is the Eastern program so tiny?

What's important to me is calling out the BS that there is a quality IB program at Eastern. Or really any quality. Ten out of 800+ kids passing a math PARCC test is not setting the bar very high. If this is what it means to have IB in middle and high school, why would that matter to anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another question: at one point, one of the study websites said that any changes will be rolled out slowly, so if you’re enrolled in a school by 2025, you can stay there or choose to go to your newly assigned school.

How does that principle work with the Miner-Maury cluster idea?

+1 It looks like the grandfathering clause doesn't apply in the Maury / Miner cluster scenario. My approach to the school lottery from my current prek3 kids (at Miner) would have been completely different if this was known at the time.

I would also love to hear the answer to this question. Because a few months ago, we were told, oh, don’t worry about disruption— changes (if any) will roll out slowly, you will NOT need to leave your current school if you’re happy.

And now one of the most disruptive ideas (putting aside the merits), may happen immediately, and half the student body of two different schools may need to move. What gives?

“The earliest any changes to school assignment zones or feeder patterns implemented from the Boundary Study would go into effect are SY2025-26, starting in August of 2025. New policies will be clear to families in advance of the lottery process that begins in December 2024. However, to support a smooth transition, “phase-in” provisions may buffer the immediate impact on many current students and their families. No student will be required to enroll in a different school than they are currently enrolled.”

https://dme.dc.gov/node/1649726

This is where the “if you’re enrolled in a school by 2025, you won’t need to move” concept came from.

I would love a real answer to this question. I’m sure many people may have played the lottery process differently if this “doesn’t apply” to Miner/Maury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another question: at one point, one of the study websites said that any changes will be rolled out slowly, so if you’re enrolled in a school by 2025, you can stay there or choose to go to your newly assigned school.

How does that principle work with the Miner-Maury cluster idea?

+1 It looks like the grandfathering clause doesn't apply in the Maury / Miner cluster scenario. My approach to the school lottery from my current prek3 kids (at Miner) would have been completely different if this was known at the time.

I would also love to hear the answer to this question. Because a few months ago, we were told, oh, don’t worry about disruption— changes (if any) will roll out slowly, you will NOT need to leave your current school if you’re happy.

And now one of the most disruptive ideas (putting aside the merits), may happen immediately, and half the student body of two different schools may need to move. What gives?

“The earliest any changes to school assignment zones or feeder patterns implemented from the Boundary Study would go into effect are SY2025-26, starting in August of 2025. New policies will be clear to families in advance of the lottery process that begins in December 2024. However, to support a smooth transition, “phase-in” provisions may buffer the immediate impact on many current students and their families. No student will be required to enroll in a different school than they are currently enrolled.”

https://dme.dc.gov/node/1649726

This is where the “if you’re enrolled in a school by 2025, you won’t need to move” concept came from.

I would love a real answer to this question. I’m sure many people may have played the lottery process differently if this “doesn’t apply” to Miner/Maury.

Agreed, I would like to hear a response from prior advisory committee members on this as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another question: at one point, one of the study websites said that any changes will be rolled out slowly, so if you’re enrolled in a school by 2025, you can stay there or choose to go to your newly assigned school.

How does that principle work with the Miner-Maury cluster idea?

+1 It looks like the grandfathering clause doesn't apply in the Maury / Miner cluster scenario. My approach to the school lottery from my current prek3 kids (at Miner) would have been completely different if this was known at the time.

I would also love to hear the answer to this question. Because a few months ago, we were told, oh, don’t worry about disruption— changes (if any) will roll out slowly, you will NOT need to leave your current school if you’re happy.

And now one of the most disruptive ideas (putting aside the merits), may happen immediately, and half the student body of two different schools may need to move. What gives?

“The earliest any changes to school assignment zones or feeder patterns implemented from the Boundary Study would go into effect are SY2025-26, starting in August of 2025. New policies will be clear to families in advance of the lottery process that begins in December 2024. However, to support a smooth transition, “phase-in” provisions may buffer the immediate impact on many current students and their families. No student will be required to enroll in a different school than they are currently enrolled.”

https://dme.dc.gov/node/1649726

This is where the “if you’re enrolled in a school by 2025, you won’t need to move” concept came from.

I would love a real answer to this question. I’m sure many people may have played the lottery process differently if this “doesn’t apply” to Miner/Maury.

Agreed, I would like to hear a response from prior advisory committee members on this as well.

Ok so I attended the Maury meeting and while there was a slide about timing implementation/“phase in” of this cluster idea, it was entirely unclear what that meant. I’m not sure they went over it.

I just reviewed the slides again and it’s still super unclear. It says: “Enrolled students can continue in their current school.” But also: “Brief period of feeder phase-in and sibling enrollment.”

I have no idea what that means or how that even works (practically speaking) when you’re both combining and dividing two schools by grade.