How is the meeting at Dunbar going?

[Anonymous]

This proposal basically screws anyone not in Ward 3, Ross, Brent or Maury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This proposal basically screws anyone not in Ward 3, Ross, Brent or Maury.

...who were already screwed because they lacked a decent neighborhood school option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone help me understand? In this new scenario will all schools end up with 30% at-risk enrollment?

There's a big difference between 2 homeless kids in a class of 20 and 6 homeless kids in a class of 20. Did anyone express concern over that number in the meeting?

No, the way it will work is, schools that are less than 30% at risk must accept 10% OOB. And at-risk students get preference in the lottery. Their preference is below IB, siblings and preference but above non-at-risk OOB.

So no, the well-regarded schools that are under 30% at risk will never be more than 10% at risk, because IB parents and siblings will take all the spots that are not reserved for at-risk.

Actually, everyone must have a minimum of 10% OOB, not just the schools that have at-risk students under 30%. And with the end of principal discretion to keep formerly in-boundary students who are now OOB, there are probably going to be more OOB spots at some of those WOTP schools. Over time, the policy will ensure that all OOB students are at risk.

Ok, maybe I am not understanding the proposal, but I read in the proposal that at-risk students will have lottery preference below OOB siblings and below OOB proximity. So how could this statement in bold be true? I think what you mean to say is that there will no longer be very many OOB spots at the most desirable schools for people who are none of: sibling, proximity? But there will still be lots of OOB spots available at good schools with less IB interest (Murch, Hearst, Eaton), and there will still be a lot of OOB students who are not at-risk, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you're concerned about the set asides, does it make you feel any better that they would phase the 10% set aside in at 6th and at 9th grade only (not sure about Elem). As currently envisioned this would not be corrected for every year, offering some measure of stability and continuity.

6th grade seems like too little, too late. If these at-risk students aren't reading at grade level by 3rd or 4th, their entire academic future is at risk. The odds that they'll even graduate high school are poor. How is a child coming from a low-performing ES going to keep up with and compete with his well-prepared peers at Deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This proposal basically screws anyone not in Ward 3, Ross, Brent or Maury.

...who were already screwed because they lacked a decent neighborhood school option.

Seriously. There's a scarcity of high performing schools. This fight was inevitable and there were always going to be winners and losers. The only thing to discuss here is whether it is it better to use equity as a criteria or to make it completely random.

We more good schools. What are you going to do to help - because DCPS has proven incapable of doing it alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This proposal basically screws anyone not in Ward 3, Ross, Brent or Maury.

It actually shifts some of the burden of educating our most at-risk children to the best schools with the most experienced teachers.

THE HORROR!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that, if any preference is adopted, it should be as it was originally outlined--for people, regardless at income, who are in low-performing schools.

I prefer the focus to be keep on the child's SES not on the artificial construct (in my mind) of a "low performing" school.

I don't think there is anything artificial about a school where 70% of the kids are not at grade level. Why should working class families at these schools be forced to stay because they don't qualify as at risk and can't afford to move in boundary for a promising school? In fact, they are not going to compromise their kid's education; they will either go charter or move to the 'burbs, where they can afford to live IB for a good school. This will leave the struggling schools even worse off.

This. Why is the solution always to screw the middle class? We're the boots on the ground. We make the investments in our communities and schools. We work the hardest. To solution to make sure that our needs are ignored is going to have to stop if the city is going to continue to grow. The ultra-rich and the poorest of the poor are pretty stagnant numbers-wise. The middle guys are what's moving this city forward.

Isn't this what people are already doing anyway? For example, it's not like anyone was realistically planning to lottery into Key. I don't see how this isn't pretty much the status quo. It just formalizes a few things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone help me understand? In this new scenario will all schools end up with 30% at-risk enrollment?

There's a big difference between 2 homeless kids in a class of 20 and 6 homeless kids in a class of 20. Did anyone express concern over that number in the meeting?

No, the way it will work is, schools that are less than 30% at risk must accept 10% OOB. And at-risk students get preference in the lottery. Their preference is below IB, siblings and preference but above non-at-risk OOB.

So no, the well-regarded schools that are under 30% at risk will never be more than 10% at risk, because IB parents and siblings will take all the spots that are not reserved for at-risk.

Actually, everyone must have a minimum of 10% OOB, not just the schools that have at-risk students under 30%. And with the end of principal discretion to keep formerly in-boundary students who are now OOB, there are probably going to be more OOB spots at some of those WOTP schools. Over time, the policy will ensure that all OOB students are at risk.

Ok, maybe I am not understanding the proposal, but I read in the proposal that at-risk students will have lottery preference below OOB siblings and below OOB proximity. So how could this statement in bold be true? I think what you mean to say is that there will no longer be very many OOB spots at the most desirable schools for people who are none of: sibling, proximity? But there will still be lots of OOB spots available at good schools with less IB interest (Murch, Hearst, Eaton), and there will still be a lot of OOB students who are not at-risk, no?

If principal discretion goes away, eventually you run out of OOB sibs and the endless supply of at-risk kids moves closer to the front of the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This proposal basically screws anyone not in Ward 3, Ross, Brent or Maury.

It actually shifts some of the burden of educating our most at-risk children to the best schools with the most experienced teachers.

THE HORROR!!!!!

While leaving no options within DCPS for the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that, if any preference is adopted, it should be as it was originally outlined--for people, regardless at income, who are in low-performing schools.

I prefer the focus to be keep on the child's SES not on the artificial construct (in my mind) of a "low performing" school.

I don't think there is anything artificial about a school where 70% of the kids are not at grade level. Why should working class families at these schools be forced to stay because they don't qualify as at risk and can't afford to move in boundary for a promising school? In fact, they are not going to compromise their kid's education; they will either go charter or move to the 'burbs, where they can afford to live IB for a good school. This will leave the struggling schools even worse off.

This. Why is the solution always to screw the middle class? We're the boots on the ground. We make the investments in our communities and schools. We work the hardest. To solution to make sure that our needs are ignored is going to have to stop if the city is going to continue to grow. The ultra-rich and the poorest of the poor are pretty stagnant numbers-wise. The middle guys are what's moving this city forward.

People who are in boundary for my school go to Hearst, Eaton, Francis-Stevens, and a few other schools on the list. So yes, it does make a difference.
Isn't this what people are already doing anyway? For example, it's not like anyone was realistically planning to lottery into Key. I don't see how this isn't pretty much the status quo. It just formalizes a few things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This proposal basically screws anyone not in Ward 3, Ross, Brent or Maury.

It actually shifts some of the burden of educating our most at-risk children to the best schools with the most experienced teachers.

THE HORROR!!!!!

+1 ...Quelle Horreur!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone help me understand? In this new scenario will all schools end up with 30% at-risk enrollment?

There's a big difference between 2 homeless kids in a class of 20 and 6 homeless kids in a class of 20. Did anyone express concern over that number in the meeting?

No, the way it will work is, schools that are less than 30% at risk must accept 10% OOB. And at-risk students get preference in the lottery. Their preference is below IB, siblings and preference but above non-at-risk OOB.

So no, the well-regarded schools that are under 30% at risk will never be more than 10% at risk, because IB parents and siblings will take all the spots that are not reserved for at-risk.

Actually, everyone must have a minimum of 10% OOB, not just the schools that have at-risk students under 30%. And with the end of principal discretion to keep formerly in-boundary students who are now OOB, there are probably going to be more OOB spots at some of those WOTP schools. Over time, the policy will ensure that all OOB students are at risk.

Ok, maybe I am not understanding the proposal, but I read in the proposal that at-risk students will have lottery preference below OOB siblings and below OOB proximity. So how could this statement in bold be true? I think what you mean to say is that there will no longer be very many OOB spots at the most desirable schools for people who are none of: sibling, proximity? But there will still be lots of OOB spots available at good schools with less IB interest (Murch, Hearst, Eaton), and there will still be a lot of OOB students who are not at-risk, no?

First, people who are OOB but got in while IB will get kicked out. Second, any new OOB people will be at risk. Third, eventually current legit OOB families (who did not move from in boundary) will leave and not have more kids. Eventually, all OOB seats will be at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This proposal basically screws anyone not in Ward 3, Ross, Brent or Maury.

It actually shifts some of the burden of educating our most at-risk children to the best schools with the most experienced teachers.

THE HORROR!!!!!

+1 ...Quelle Horreur!

+1 aussi!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This proposal basically screws anyone not in Ward 3, Ross, Brent or Maury.

...who were already screwed because they lacked a decent neighborhood school option.

No, they had a shot to get in via OOB lottery, and now they don't. You can't tell me that they never got in because I know a bunch who go to desirable OOB schools from my neighborhood and got in via the OOB lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone help me understand? In this new scenario will all schools end up with 30% at-risk enrollment?

There's a big difference between 2 homeless kids in a class of 20 and 6 homeless kids in a class of 20. Did anyone express concern over that number in the meeting?

No, the way it will work is, schools that are less than 30% at risk must accept 10% OOB. And at-risk students get preference in the lottery. Their preference is below IB, siblings and preference but above non-at-risk OOB.

So no, the well-regarded schools that are under 30% at risk will never be more than 10% at risk, because IB parents and siblings will take all the spots that are not reserved for at-risk.

Actually, everyone must have a minimum of 10% OOB, not just the schools that have at-risk students under 30%. And with the end of principal discretion to keep formerly in-boundary students who are now OOB, there are probably going to be more OOB spots at some of those WOTP schools. Over time, the policy will ensure that all OOB students are at risk.

Ok, maybe I am not understanding the proposal, but I read in the proposal that at-risk students will have lottery preference below OOB siblings and below OOB proximity. So how could this statement in bold be true? I think what you mean to say is that there will no longer be very many OOB spots at the most desirable schools for people who are none of: sibling, proximity? But there will still be lots of OOB spots available at good schools with less IB interest (Murch, Hearst, Eaton), and there will still be a lot of OOB students who are not at-risk, no?

First, people who are OOB but got in while IB will get kicked out. Second, any new OOB people will be at risk. Third, eventually current legit OOB families (who did not move from in boundary) will leave and not have more kids. Eventually, all OOB seats will be at risk.

Sure, but JKLM can all absorb that and be fine. I have to wonder how many seats we're really talking about anyway.