When will schools like Janney step up and do their fair share to take at-risk kids??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eaton has to take all kids from the new shelter set to open in the spring.
Eaton is 100% full, in fact in the temp trailers during Reno but still will have to take the homeless kids from the "ward 3" shelter.
Why cant janney, murch, & hearst all help as fellow responsible ward 3 schools?
Homeless kids actually have the right to attend any dcps school, so dont say "because the shelter is in the eaton boundary". And if ward 3 really wants to help the homeless kids than everyone should pool resources and do right by them. Not just mary cheh's usual target.

errrr , then why don;t they go to any school they want?

[Anonymous]

This whole post is pointless. The school is way overcrowded. They can’t even handle the in boundary kids.

You want to put an at risk kid in an overcrowded school without the experiences to handle such kids or without the resources needed with teachers who don’t have experiences or insight into the issues these kids face.

It will be a real winner, really.

[Anonymous]

+1. If DCPS wants to integrate more schools, they need to start housing test-in GT programs within schools with much larger catchment areas than those in the DC system, like NYC and other US cities do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when rezoning takes place and OSSE creates space overage for at-risk set-aside for which schools do not meet a minimum threshold for % at risk based on IB enrollment. Politically volatile but practical and systematic. No individual school will do this independently and every "successful" school is already at or above capacity.

should add that DCPS needs to provide incentives for the schools to take on at-risk students and penalties for falling short.

In other words, you want at risk kids to be forced into crowded classrooms when every study in the world says smaller class size is better for at risk kids? Because these schools aren't going to get physically bigger.

Schools don't need to get physically bigger -- the zones just needs to get smaller. As PP mentioned there are federal subsidies for transportation.

As long at the schools can provide the space they obviously can't make anyone enroll in a system where choice is a premium. At risk families have choices too but more hurdles and the system needs to help with those obstacles. Schools would need to offer enough supports to draw and retain at risk students. These are public schools that should offer a level playing field anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Situation: Child at janney got in OOB lottery. Child is not “at risk”. Has a younger sibling. Should younger sibling have priority in the lottery over at-risk students?

That's not how the "at-risk" designation would work. Each level of lottery preference would give a boost to at-risk. Here's how it would work, theoretically, for Pre-K3:

1. At-risk sibling preference in boundary
2. Sibling preference in boundary
3. At-risk sibling offered in boundary
4. Sibling offered in boundary
5. At-risk in boundary
6. In boundary
....
n. At-risk OOB
n+1. OOB

I think there was some initial analysis done in the last year and it showed that the at-risk preference would make very little impact to the WoTP elementary and middle schools. Why? Because these schools are nearly filled with in-boundary kids and the at-risk kids live outside the boundary.

The only way to get at-risk kids into WoTP schools before high school is to complete get rid of in-boundary designation. I honestly think Bowser is willing to do it. But we already know the results of this system - look at SF generally or NYC (non-magnet). The parents with any money leave for leafier suburbs; the school quality goes down; people remaining have ridiculous commutes as they trek kids across the city instead of attending the local school.

The problem with DC is that we don't have the competitive gifted and talented programs as a carrot to keep parents in the system. Nor do we have the robust public transportation infrastructure to get kids across the city in a timely manner. Getting rid of boundaries would, theoretically, send kids to all 8 Wards. Can you imagine how much worse traffic will be in this city if we eliminate neighborhood schools? It's a massive waste of productivity, money, and time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when rezoning takes place and OSSE creates space overage for at-risk set-aside for which schools do not meet a minimum threshold for % at risk based on IB enrollment. Politically volatile but practical and systematic. No individual school will do this independently and every "successful" school is already at or above capacity.

should add that DCPS needs to provide incentives for the schools to take on at-risk students and penalties for falling short.

In other words, you want at risk kids to be forced into crowded classrooms when every study in the world says smaller class size is better for at risk kids? Because these schools aren't going to get physically bigger.

Schools don't need to get physically bigger -- the zones just needs to get smaller. As PP mentioned there are federal subsidies for transportation.

As long at the schools can provide the space they obviously can't make anyone enroll in a system where choice is a premium. At risk families have choices too but more hurdles and the system needs to help with those obstacles. Schools would need to offer enough supports to draw and retain at risk students. These are public schools that should offer a level playing field anyway.

Ok, then that would necessitate more schools. How are ya gonna do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Situation: Child at janney got in OOB lottery. Child is not “at risk”. Has a younger sibling. Should younger sibling have priority in the lottery over at-risk students?

That's not how the "at-risk" designation would work. Each level of lottery preference would give a boost to at-risk. Here's how it would work, theoretically, for Pre-K3:

1. At-risk sibling preference in boundary
2. Sibling preference in boundary
3. At-risk sibling offered in boundary
4. Sibling offered in boundary
5. At-risk in boundary
6. In boundary
....
n. At-risk OOB
n+1. OOB

I think there was some initial analysis done in the last year and it showed that the at-risk preference would make very little impact to the WoTP elementary and middle schools. Why? Because these schools are nearly filled with in-boundary kids and the at-risk kids live outside the boundary.

The only way to get at-risk kids into WoTP schools before high school is to complete get rid of in-boundary designation. I honestly think Bowser is willing to do it. But we already know the results of this system - look at SF generally or NYC (non-magnet). The parents with any money leave for leafier suburbs; the school quality goes down; people remaining have ridiculous commutes as they trek kids across the city instead of attending the local school.

The problem with DC is that we don't have the competitive gifted and talented programs as a carrot to keep parents in the system. Nor do we have the robust public transportation infrastructure to get kids across the city in a timely manner. Getting rid of boundaries would, theoretically, send kids to all 8 Wards. Can you imagine how much worse traffic will be in this city if we eliminate neighborhood schools? It's a massive waste of productivity, money, and time.

Additionally, there aren't enough high performing, not-at risk kids to make it work. They need to be the majority in a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole post is pointless. The school is way overcrowded. They can’t even handle the in boundary kids.

You want to put an at risk kid in an overcrowded school without the experiences to handle such kids or without the resources needed with teachers who don’t have experiences or insight into the issues these kids face.

It will be a real winner, really.

It goes without saying that to follow the law/DCPS guideline with respect to providing more opportunities for at-risk students in high performing schools, DCPS will have to adjust Janney's boundaries to make them smaller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when rezoning takes place and OSSE creates space overage for at-risk set-aside for which schools do not meet a minimum threshold for % at risk based on IB enrollment. Politically volatile but practical and systematic. No individual school will do this independently and every "successful" school is already at or above capacity.

should add that DCPS needs to provide incentives for the schools to take on at-risk students and penalties for falling short.

In other words, you want at risk kids to be forced into crowded classrooms when every study in the world says smaller class size is better for at risk kids? Because these schools aren't going to get physically bigger.

Schools don't need to get physically bigger -- the zones just needs to get smaller. As PP mentioned there are federal subsidies for transportation.

As long at the schools can provide the space they obviously can't make anyone enroll in a system where choice is a premium. At risk families have choices too but more hurdles and the system needs to help with those obstacles. Schools would need to offer enough supports to draw and retain at risk students. These are public schools that should offer a level playing field anyway.

Ok, then that would necessitate more schools. How are ya gonna do that?

Not really. You can shift Janney kids to Murch or Mann or Hearst or all three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they start forcing in bounds Janney kids to go to other schools. That'll be the day in DC.

What other schools, pray tell? Are there any schools even remotely close to that neighborhood that have room to spare?

I know kids who got into Key OOB recently.

Key taking more OOB kids is absurd. They already have TWO HOLE GRADES in trailers!

I thought that one reason for the John Eaton renovation and expansion is that DCPS wants to guarantee a minimum percentage of OOB students there, like at least 30 %. As the OOB percentage continues to fall in Ward 3 schools, at least one school needs to be designated and designed to help Ward 3 do its part for equity and inclusion. This would appear to be Eaton's role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when rezoning takes place and OSSE creates space overage for at-risk set-aside for which schools do not meet a minimum threshold for % at risk based on IB enrollment. Politically volatile but practical and systematic. No individual school will do this independently and every "successful" school is already at or above capacity.

should add that DCPS needs to provide incentives for the schools to take on at-risk students and penalties for falling short.

In other words, you want at risk kids to be forced into crowded classrooms when every study in the world says smaller class size is better for at risk kids? Because these schools aren't going to get physically bigger.

Schools don't need to get physically bigger -- the zones just needs to get smaller. As PP mentioned there are federal subsidies for transportation.

As long at the schools can provide the space they obviously can't make anyone enroll in a system where choice is a premium. At risk families have choices too but more hurdles and the system needs to help with those obstacles. Schools would need to offer enough supports to draw and retain at risk students. These are public schools that should offer a level playing field anyway.

Ok, then that would necessitate more schools. How are ya gonna do that?

Not really. You can shift Janney kids to Murch or Mann or Hearst or all three.

No way. All of these schools are bursting at the seams or will be in the next 5 years. Have you seen the projected birth rates and predicted school attendance rates for Ward 3 over the next 5-10 years? Under the current system, OOB will be completely shut out of WoTP schools by 2025: https://ggwash.org/view/71802/can-dcps-survive-the-coming-enrollment-surge

The child growth is not evenly spread out - it's concentrated in Wards 3, west side of Ward 2, and EoTP north of Columbia Heights.

How will shrinking the catchment areas for JKLMM help create more room for OOB? The kids outside the newly shrunken catchment areas will need to go somewhere else. Where do they go that's decently close to their neighborhood? You shrink boundaries but the kids who are now outside the boundary will need to be placed in a school. Your proposal makes no sense.

That's why I think Bowser will dismantle the boundary system when she leaves office in 2022. It will be the lasting piece of her legacy and then she can go peddle herself as an "education reformer" and make money. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be left to navigate the mess she leaves behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when rezoning takes place and OSSE creates space overage for at-risk set-aside for which schools do not meet a minimum threshold for % at risk based on IB enrollment. Politically volatile but practical and systematic. No individual school will do this independently and every "successful" school is already at or above capacity.

should add that DCPS needs to provide incentives for the schools to take on at-risk students and penalties for falling short.

In other words, you want at risk kids to be forced into crowded classrooms when every study in the world says smaller class size is better for at risk kids? Because these schools aren't going to get physically bigger.

Schools don't need to get physically bigger -- the zones just needs to get smaller. As PP mentioned there are federal subsidies for transportation.

As long at the schools can provide the space they obviously can't make anyone enroll in a system where choice is a premium. At risk families have choices too but more hurdles and the system needs to help with those obstacles. Schools would need to offer enough supports to draw and retain at risk students. These are public schools that should offer a level playing field anyway.

yeah because we all know how well that worked in San Francisco.....
Ok, then that would necessitate more schools. How are ya gonna do that?

Not really. You can shift Janney kids to Murch or Mann or Hearst or all three.

No way. All of these schools are bursting at the seams or will be in the next 5 years. Have you seen the projected birth rates and predicted school attendance rates for Ward 3 over the next 5-10 years? Under the current system, OOB will be completely shut out of WoTP schools by 2025: https://ggwash.org/view/71802/can-dcps-survive-the-coming-enrollment-surge

The child growth is not evenly spread out - it's concentrated in Wards 3, west side of Ward 2, and EoTP north of Columbia Heights.

How will shrinking the catchment areas for JKLMM help create more room for OOB? The kids outside the newly shrunken catchment areas will need to go somewhere else. Where do they go that's decently close to their neighborhood? You shrink boundaries but the kids who are now outside the boundary will need to be placed in a school. Your proposal makes no sense.

That's why I think Bowser will dismantle the boundary system when she leaves office in 2022. It will be the lasting piece of her legacy and then she can go peddle herself as an "education reformer" and make money. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be left to navigate the mess she leaves behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when rezoning takes place and OSSE creates space overage for at-risk set-aside for which schools do not meet a minimum threshold for % at risk based on IB enrollment. Politically volatile but practical and systematic. No individual school will do this independently and every "successful" school is already at or above capacity.

should add that DCPS needs to provide incentives for the schools to take on at-risk students and penalties for falling short.

In other words, you want at risk kids to be forced into crowded classrooms when every study in the world says smaller class size is better for at risk kids? Because these schools aren't going to get physically bigger.

Schools don't need to get physically bigger -- the zones just needs to get smaller. As PP mentioned there are federal subsidies for transportation.

As long at the schools can provide the space they obviously can't make anyone enroll in a system where choice is a premium. At risk families have choices too but more hurdles and the system needs to help with those obstacles. Schools would need to offer enough supports to draw and retain at risk students. These are public schools that should offer a level playing field anyway.

Ok, then that would necessitate more schools. How are ya gonna do that?

Not really. You can shift Janney kids to Murch or Mann or Hearst or all three.

No way. All of these schools are bursting at the seams or will be in the next 5 years. Have you seen the projected birth rates and predicted school attendance rates for Ward 3 over the next 5-10 years? Under the current system, OOB will be completely shut out of WoTP schools by 2025: https://ggwash.org/view/71802/can-dcps-survive-the-coming-enrollment-surge

The child growth is not evenly spread out - it's concentrated in Wards 3, west side of Ward 2, and EoTP north of Columbia Heights.

How will shrinking the catchment areas for JKLMM help create more room for OOB? The kids outside the newly shrunken catchment areas will need to go somewhere else. Where do they go that's decently close to their neighborhood? You shrink boundaries but the kids who are now outside the boundary will need to be placed in a school. Your proposal makes no sense.

That's why I think Bowser will dismantle the boundary system when she leaves office in 2022. It will be the lasting piece of her legacy and then she can go peddle herself as an "education reformer" and make money. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be left to navigate the mess she leaves behind.

That will never happen. And, please stop trying to use my kids for your SJW experimentation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when rezoning takes place and OSSE creates space overage for at-risk set-aside for which schools do not meet a minimum threshold for % at risk based on IB enrollment. Politically volatile but practical and systematic. No individual school will do this independently and every "successful" school is already at or above capacity.

should add that DCPS needs to provide incentives for the schools to take on at-risk students and penalties for falling short.

In other words, you want at risk kids to be forced into crowded classrooms when every study in the world says smaller class size is better for at risk kids? Because these schools aren't going to get physically bigger.

Schools don't need to get physically bigger -- the zones just needs to get smaller. As PP mentioned there are federal subsidies for transportation.

As long at the schools can provide the space they obviously can't make anyone enroll in a system where choice is a premium. At risk families have choices too but more hurdles and the system needs to help with those obstacles. Schools would need to offer enough supports to draw and retain at risk students. These are public schools that should offer a level playing field anyway.

Ok, then that would necessitate more schools. How are ya gonna do that?

Not really. You can shift Janney kids to Murch or Mann or Hearst or all three.

No way. All of these schools are bursting at the seams or will be in the next 5 years. Have you seen the projected birth rates and predicted school attendance rates for Ward 3 over the next 5-10 years? Under the current system, OOB will be completely shut out of WoTP schools by 2025: https://ggwash.org/view/71802/can-dcps-survive-the-coming-enrollment-surge

The child growth is not evenly spread out - it's concentrated in Wards 3, west side of Ward 2, and EoTP north of Columbia Heights.

How will shrinking the catchment areas for JKLMM help create more room for OOB? The kids outside the newly shrunken catchment areas will need to go somewhere else. Where do they go that's decently close to their neighborhood? You shrink boundaries but the kids who are now outside the boundary will need to be placed in a school. Your proposal makes no sense.

That's why I think Bowser will dismantle the boundary system when she leaves office in 2022. It will be the lasting piece of her legacy and then she can go peddle herself as an "education reformer" and make money. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be left to navigate the mess she leaves behind.

That will never happen. And, please stop trying to use my kids for your SJW experimentation.

PP here:
I'm 1000% opposed to Bowser doing this. But I think there is a very good chance she tries it.

Here's what was published by the Wilson HS feeder pattern working group last year:

2022 Comprehensive Student Assignment and School Boundary Review
DCPS is scheduled to conduct a citywide comprehensive review of its student assignment policies and school boundaries in 2022. During this process, DCPS will review enrollment, capacity, population data, student access policies, and other information to identify potential changes to policies and boundaries.

https://thedcline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Wilson-Feeder-Pattern-Community-Working-Group-Summary-Report_February-2019_Final.pdf

[Anonymous]

I'm 100% against it too. However there are some places in the city where the math doesn't work which will make it easier to argue for this. Look at Navy Yard and SW. Van Ness is already full a year early and I would think A-B will be next.