Lottery for all middle and high schools -- what are people really proposing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you bought wotp you put a bet on the status quo, when I bought in Petworth I put a bet on change. We both took risks. Neither of us have rights to a particular set of boundaries. They are politically defined and thus subject to change.

EXACTLY! Like changing YOUR neighborhood school. Look there are certain geographic realities for city services. What's next Mr Petworth? If you are unhappy with your police district, do you think you have a right for the 2D officers to patrol your streets? You want the 30 buses to swing by to pick you up just because you pay taxes? No way.

[Anonymous]

To suddenly expect all neighborhoods to be equal is to suddenly expect some utopia. Has anyone on the thread lived in NYC with kids? Are there similar issues? While they have more stellar HS, demand very clearly outstrips supply there as well.

[Anonymous]

A lot more commitment to differentiation and testing in programs in NYC. And there, "gifted and talented" isn't a dirty word. They actually have an official department called that with a formal admissions process: http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/GiftedandTalented/default.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree, I think it would irreparably harm the school system to do city wide lottery, even if only for MS and HS. I also highly doubt they would take this approach. But I wouldn't be surprised if some super complicated hybrid of in boundary and lottery spots was attempted.

OP here. The reason I want to set aside these sorts of argument is not that they are not relevant but they are one of the natural counterarguments that folks make, and I was hoping to focus on what a "non-neighborhood school" model for high school might look like. How might it be set up to improve the educational system? What concrete steps could/should it be paired with to move towards that goal? And frankly, if it were being offered to those already happy with their neighborhood schools, what reasons would they have maybe not to be happy with it -- because they probably won't -- but at least feel that an honest attempt was being made to make schools better for everyone and not just take away their piece of the pie.

But I am replying to your post in particular because I am intrigued by your last sentence. What do you (or someone else who might pick up on it) have in mind?

[Anonymous]

We already have a hybrid of neighborhood and lottery. Roughly 25% of the kids in public education in DC attend neighborhood schools as a matter of right, the other 75% attend schools they won a space in the lottery at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of the DCPS schools, I believe that Stuart Hobson had a wait list that not all students were admitted.

don't forget the charter middle schools, which on your list would join Hardy as a "lottery". Basis, Cap City, Washington Latin, 2 Rivers, EL Haynes, I would guess all had more 5th / 6th graders interested than they were able to enroll.

In a couple years, DCI will also be "lottery".

OP here again. These are reasonable factoids, but again I want to try to pull folks back to the original post, since they are not *reasons* for a lottery. I am hoping to hear an argument why a city-wide lottery makes sense, and not to re-type all the other stuff, why it might move towards making us better off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We already have a hybrid of neighborhood and lottery. Roughly 25% of the kids in public education in DC attend neighborhood schools as a matter of right, the other 75% attend schools they won a space in the lottery at.

OP. Yes, the "hybrid" piece is quickly happening not within schools but across schools. You could imagine a world where every school -- even the charters -- has neighborhood and lottery pieces, maybe to varying degrees if there are good reasons for that. Not saying that this is a good solution. Frankly I haven't thought about it that much. But it is an intriguing thought.

[Anonymous]

A citywide lottery would be a disaster for a lot of reasons. You scatter children all over a city that has a failing transit system and many households where both parents work and barely have enough time in the mornings/afternoons to get their kids to the closest neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

What about building a new middle school? I remember that was brought up by Mary Cheh at some point a while back. Any mention of that in the focus groups, or other meetings? Or turning Duke Ellington back to Western. Seems like better option to overcrowding, Would have to pull kids from successful school and put them into failing ones in unsafe neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A citywide lottery would be a disaster for a lot of reasons. You scatter children all over a city that has a failing transit system and many households where both parents work and barely have enough time in the mornings/afternoons to get their kids to the closest neighborhood school.

I second that. An exceptionally inefficient solution. The only way this could work in favor of a "better allocation of resources" (i.e. improve the efficiency) is if those schools then specialize and cater to particular demands (be it languages, science, arts, G&T etc.) but the very opposite is true. To assign those offerings, by default, based on proximity seems by far more logical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot more commitment to differentiation and testing in programs in NYC. And there, "gifted and talented" isn't a dirty word. They actually have an official department called that with a formal admissions process: http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/GiftedandTalented/default.htm

Actually, NYC has at least as big a problem as DC--except there, you aren't even guaranteed a spot in your neighborhood kindergarten:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/nyregion/26waitlist.html

And a "commitment to differentiation" via test-in G&T hasn't helped with overcrowding/boundary problems::
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/nyregion/as-ranks-of-gifted-soar-in-ny-fight-brews-for-kindergarten-slots.html?_r=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about building a new middle school? I remember that was brought up by Mary Cheh at some point a while back. Any mention of that in the focus groups, or other meetings? Or turning Duke Ellington back to Western. Seems like better option to overcrowding, Would have to pull kids from successful school and put them into failing ones in unsafe neighborhoods.

The problem is not lack of space system wide. There is plenty of extra capacity The problem is that there is a finite number of students who are academically proficient and advanced and these kids are, mostly, located at one DCPS location because they happen to live near the school. So naturally, every parent across the city wants their kid to be part of this peer group, despite the obvious space limitations and daily commute burden. DCPS needs to have some tough love with all the central city high SES parents and tell them they need to stay home and improve their neighborhood MS. There are enough new residents to tip these schools in the right direction. Time to Stand and Deliver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if I am reading this thread correctly, the posters who are inboundary for overcrowded west of the park schools are chiding and belittling people who live in the rest of the city for not buying small apartments in those school neighborhoods.

You do realize that if all of us pretentious and poor planning people bought in your neighborhood your schools would be much more overcrowded? [/quote

Not really. 1. The wotp areas are built out and new units aren't being added in any statistically significant way. The housing stock is pretty static. All of "you" COULDN'T have bought in AU park, not physically possible.

But.

2. You COULD have bought in silver spring, Kensington, falls church, south Arlington, McLean, north Bethesda and 37 other zip codes with excellent schools for the same exact price.. However, you didn't. You prioritized other factors, ranging from commute to architecture to the concentration of farm-to-table trattorias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if I am reading this thread correctly, the posters who are inboundary for overcrowded west of the park schools are chiding and belittling people who live in the rest of the city for not buying small apartments in those school neighborhoods.

You do realize that if all of us pretentious and poor planning people bought in your neighborhood your schools would be much more overcrowded? [/quote

Not really. 1. The wotp areas are built out and new units aren't being added in any statistically significant way. The housing stock is pretty static. All of "you" COULDN'T have bought in AU park, not physically possible.

But.

2. You COULD have bought in silver spring, Kensington, falls church, south Arlington, McLean, north Bethesda and 37 other zip codes with excellent schools for the same exact price.. However, you didn't. You prioritized other factors, ranging from commute to architecture to the concentration of farm-to-table trattorias.

According to Catania's website only 15% of the households in Ward 3 have school-age children. There are enough housing units in Ward 3 to house the entire DCPS population if every family wanted to and could afford to live there.

I realize that school boundaries don't overlap ward boundaries but I think the point is made.

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/davidcatania/pages/226/attachments/original/1383062653/Deal_Prep_Memo.pdf?1383062653

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
According to Catania's website only 15% of the households in Ward 3 have school-age children. There are enough housing units in Ward 3 to house the entire DCPS population if every family wanted to and could afford to live there.

Only if every family wanted to live in a 1-bedroom apartment