Proposal is up!

[Anonymous]

Exactly, check out the map. Watkins /Peabody cuts clear across the Hill and filters into SH. People who live in the Brent area are much closer physically to stuart Hobson than the people who live in about half the watkins pink area.

This is a doubling down on the Cluster

[Anonymous]

Page 7, big opportunity for savvy low-income families. Move IB and rent for 1 year for K or PK, move back to your old neighborhood but stay at the school until grade 5, and then presumably until grade 12 with feeder rights. One year of renting and you can do Janney/Deal/Wilson from anywhere in the city. Can't say I am totally critical - maybe low-income families deserve the break, but this did surprise me. Maybe the definition of at-risk is more narrow than I think:

"25.
A student whose place of residence within the District of Columbia changes from one attendance zone
to a different attendance zone shall be permitted to stay in his or her current school until the end of the
school year, and students who are defined as
at-risk under the UPSFF
shall be permitted to attend the
school until the final grade level"

[Anonymous]

Well, I feel kinda screwed in SW. Losing Wilson, while expected, sucks. A guaranteed right to attend PK in-bounds doesn't make up for that. Actually can't tell if I'll be in Van Ness or Amidon, but I don't have a huge preference.

Also, it's at-risk KIDS, not kids in schools with lots of at-risk kids, who get preference at the wealthier schools. So if you are middle class but live in an area with crappy schools, you have less of a chance now to get into a better school OOB than you did before. Your only "benefit" is that some of the poorer kids will be able to go elsewhere--but it's the ones with the most motivated parents, so that's not actually good.

[Anonymous]

Bowser and Catania have publically stated they will support none of these proposals. Catania also stated in April that he would not support any plan that would reassign parents into lower performing schools. These proposals do not meet Catania's criteria.

Elementary school students should have guaranteed access to schools less than half a mile (0.5) from their homes. Item 12 of the proposal is exceptionally convoluted. You only have a right to your closest neighborhood school if your other option is over a mile away. Why not make it simple and have a right of access provision that states that children can go to the closest school to their homes?

The new mayor can undertake these matters in a serious way. Saying there is data underlying assumptions for demographic estimates and not providing it in the proposals is unacceptable.

The data that DCPS is not disclosing readily is that the system is rapidly losing students -- the only way to retain enrollment is by extending preK 3 to larger and larger sections of the city, including the most affluent Wards. It is unacceptable that Ward 3 gets more optional expanded preK3s while Ward 7 struggles to offer a minimum quality neighborhood school for elementary students.

Where is the evidence of the stated overcrowding in the listed schools. Haven't several of these schools been renovated? Aren't some of these schools slated for major renovations in the next year? The prinicipals don't think they are overcrowded because are offering optional programming such as expanded preK4. Why work on perks when you can't provide an acceptable level of education for the majority of DC children? DCPS please get your priorities straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Page 7, big opportunity for savvy low-income families. Move IB and rent for 1 year for K or PK, move back to your old neighborhood but stay at the school until grade 5, and then presumably until grade 12 with feeder rights. One year of renting and you can do Janney/Deal/Wilson from anywhere in the city. Can't say I am totally critical - maybe low-income families deserve the break, but this did surprise me. Maybe the definition of at-risk is more narrow than I think:

"25.
A student whose place of residence within the District of Columbia changes from one attendance zone
to a different attendance zone shall be permitted to stay in his or her current school until the end of the
school year, and students who are defined as
at-risk under the UPSFF
shall be permitted to attend the
school until the final grade level"

I found the definition - how does this overlap with FARM?

"Q:
What is the definition of “at risk”?
A:
The at
-
risk weight applies to students who are homeless, in the District’s foster care
system, qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or the
Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), or high school students that are one
year older, or more, than the expected age for the grade in which the students are
enrolled. The at
-
risk weight is cumulative to all other weights, with the exception of the
adult and alternat
ive weights. At
-
risk dollars are unrestricted in their use.
This definition is consistent with the “Fair Student Funding and School
-
Based Budgeting
Amendment Act of 2013”. The definition of at
-
risk weight in the proposed FY15 Budget
Support Act is broader
than what was recommended in the Adequacy Study. For more
information on how the at
-
risk weight will be implemented, see below."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like a huge expansion of SH boundary, but Brent still missed out. Of course, many of the kids with proposed new rights could have gotten there through Watkins.

It looks to me like the only addition to SH is JO Wilson, but I can't tell where JO Wilson feeds now, so it could already be SH. If this is a new feed, it makes a lot more sense than a Brent feed, since JO Wilson is very walkable to SH. I walk by both schools (from my home IB for LT) every weekend on my way to Union Market. They are very close together.

JO Wilson already feeds to SH. So no actual change. I think the subtext is that the Cluster is being broken up - Peabody/Watkins is listed as one school, SH another. No mention of the CH Cluster anymore.

A feed is different than a boundary. SH's boundary now stops at G to the north and ECap to the south. The change means that if you are now at Brent or Maury, for example, but your IB school is JO or Watkins, you can go straight to SH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's Crestwood that was neatly cut out of Deal and Wilson boundaries. Biggest loser under this proposal (w/ 16th St H).

Well we knew this was going to be proposed eventually, but the promise of a new MacFarland is not comforting without some additional commitment from DCPS. I think there are enough parents to make it work, but we need a lot from DCPS too.
Jeff, did that list of ideas for how to make MacFarland and Jefferson ever go anywhere?

Being that they can contine at Deal for immediate future, it's hard to say they are losers. Who know what will happen will MacFarland opens?

That is not a comforting statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Page 7, big opportunity for savvy low-income families. Move IB and rent for 1 year for K or PK, move back to your old neighborhood but stay at the school until grade 5, and then presumably until grade 12 with feeder rights. One year of renting and you can do Janney/Deal/Wilson from anywhere in the city. Can't say I am totally critical - maybe low-income families deserve the break, but this did surprise me. Maybe the definition of at-risk is more narrow than I think:

"25.
A student whose place of residence within the District of Columbia changes from one attendance zone
to a different attendance zone shall be permitted to stay in his or her current school until the end of the
school year, and students who are defined as
at-risk under the UPSFF
shall be permitted to attend the
school until the final grade level"

The definition of "at risk" is kids who:

Are homeless
Are in foster care
Receive TANF
Receive SNAP (this will probably be the largest category)
High school students who are more than a year "old for grade".

SNAP is the largest category there.

One thing I don't know is whether a child who is at risk, and ceases to qualify (such as leaving foster care, or homelessness, or increasing income and coming of SNAP/TANF) will be able to stay through graduation? I hope so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Page 7, big opportunity for savvy low-income families. Move IB and rent for 1 year for K or PK, move back to your old neighborhood but stay at the school until grade 5, and then presumably until grade 12 with feeder rights. One year of renting and you can do Janney/Deal/Wilson from anywhere in the city. Can't say I am totally critical - maybe low-income families deserve the break, but this did surprise me. Maybe the definition of at-risk is more narrow than I think:

"25.
A student whose place of residence within the District of Columbia changes from one attendance zone
to a different attendance zone shall be permitted to stay in his or her current school until the end of the
school year, and students who are defined as
at-risk under the UPSFF
shall be permitted to attend the
school until the final grade level"

It's not going to be easy for a family that qualifies for SNAP or TANF, or is homeless, to move WOTP. Honestly, anyone who's able to make that work is so incredibly savvy and motivated that they'll be successful wherever.

Since DC is moving towards what other states do with TANF (kicking families off after 5 years) I wonder how they'll figure out at-risk.

[Anonymous]

It sounds to me like they are also eliminating principal discretion to let people who got into a school in boundary stay when they move out of boundary, unless they are high-risk. I think that's great and might relieve some of the overcrowding, to the extent that principals let students stay even when they move. I've heard this is a real problem at Oyster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the whole thing strikes me as pretty reasonable. Not perfect, but close enough and probably should go forward despite some people still being unhappy.

But I have to say that it makes me wonder again if all of the craziest stuff was all a screen for us to be happy with these changes. If this version was the first version, folks would be fighting hard over small changes and maybe even that wouldn't get through. This way we get to be relieved.

That was exactly my thinking when DCPS announced the closings last year. First they announced 20, then clawed back to 15.

[Anonymous]

Bowser will endorse this and win the election. There's not much for Catania to punch at in the latest DME report. Congratulations, public servants.

[Anonymous]

Brookland kids will go to Dunbar? Seems odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the whole thing strikes me as pretty reasonable. Not perfect, but close enough and probably should go forward despite some people still being unhappy.

But I have to say that it makes me wonder again if all of the craziest stuff was all a screen for us to be happy with these changes. If this version was the first version, folks would be fighting hard over small changes and maybe even that wouldn't get through. This way we get to be relieved.

Maybe -- or they realized their original plan would mean mass hysteria and mass exit to the suburbs, and so backed off, perhaps influenced more by real estate developers than by frantic parents. Whatever.

I suspect that parents had been so malleable up to now - willing to play the lottery with their kids' education and settle for long commutes - that many expected they would continue to go along. When that didn't happen, those in power realized they had to respond adequately, or screw up the whole gentrification of DC -- which is their #1 goal. I suppose they've looked at the demographic patterns and know very well that there is an increasingly favorable SES spread across the city, ensuring more good schools outside of NW. It may screw up some plans for more charter openings, but it will keep more high income families in DC, which is the name of the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like a huge expansion of SH boundary, but Brent still missed out. Of course, many of the kids with proposed new rights could have gotten there through Watkins.

It looks to me like the only addition to SH is JO Wilson, but I can't tell where JO Wilson feeds now, so it could already be SH. If this is a new feed, it makes a lot more sense than a Brent feed, since JO Wilson is very walkable to SH. I walk by both schools (from my home IB for LT) every weekend on my way to Union Market. They are very close together.

JO Wilson already feeds to SH. So no actual change. I think the subtext is that the Cluster is being broken up - Peabody/Watkins is listed as one school, SH another. No mention of the CH Cluster anymore.

A feed is different than a boundary. SH's boundary now stops at G to the north and ECap to the south. The change means that if you are now at Brent or Maury, for example, but your IB school is JO or Watkins, you can go straight to SH.

We live near Watkins on the south end of the new SH boundary and and our kids go to a charter. We are currently zoned for EH because we're not at Watkins. Under this proposal we can go to SH, right?