How would this controlled choice nonsense actually work on Capitol Hill?

[Anonymous]

SMH about Controlled Choice nonsense. The author succeeded in sucking you in. It's an idea irrelevant to DCs charter influenced landscape, but you're letting it make you his bee-yotch anyway. Ignore the useless social engineer. He doesn't have children in the system, you're just an experiment to him. Mental masturbation, and you're falling for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree that the boundaries on the Hill are somewhat arbitrary (especially the Cluster) and that any one of the Capitol Hill schools could be considered a "neighborhood" school for most people living on the Hill, using the dictionary definition of neighborhood. The problem is, not all DCPS schools are good enough for most parents (myself included). A significant number of DCPS schools on the Hill are not going to meet my standards or the standards of many other higher SES families. The only way our family could afford to stay in the city was if we could buy a house where we knew we could go to a higher-performing school as a matter of right. So we looked at the (somewhat arbitrary) boundary map and drew lines around areas in bounds for the better schools, and didn't consider anything else. If, by our housing choice, there was an equal chance of our kids going to Brent or Payne, there is no way we would have taken that risk and bought our current house, because we are not going to send our kids to Payne. We would have escaped to the burbs, and I imagine there are many families like us that would have done the same (some may criticize this attitude, but I think it is a reality, and the "we don't want your kind anyhow" attitude isn't helpful because the reality is that DCPS needs high SES families in them, and not just the ones who are very interested in getting their hands dirty improving the schools). A good way to keep higher-SES families in DC is by giving them some certainty that their kids can get a good public school education, and you can't do that with controlled choice, at least with the schools in their current state.

I don't agree with this. I live three blocks from Brent; the next nearest school is some 10 blocks away. My boundary doesn't seem arbitrary at all. And, 10 blocks (pushing a mile) is too far to make my 5-year old walk to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My point exactly. Boundaries are random lines on a map in the context of Capitol Hill. Remove the lines for argument's sake and you'll find that we're all more or less "in-boundary", from within Capitol Hill that is and we should all be able to choose from among "our" schools in a less "random boundary drawn" way. Controlled choice, for you and me on 10th St SE could then mean, for example, that we can both claim those proximities as enhancers (or "controls") of our choice. Of course, "controlled" choice can also add other factors into the mix, such as sibling preference, language "controls", racial controls, socio-economic controls etc. That's where the discussion starts turning ugly. But the idea is excellent if you ask me.

Well, sort of, I guess. On the other hand, I really like being a block and a half away from my IB attend by right school, instead of 15 blocks away, and I also really really like that my in boundary attend by right school is Maury, rather than being a shot at Maury, maybe, or a shot at somewhere on the other side of the Hill that is not nearly as good. And frankly, if it was a "take your chances on the Hill" plan, rather than an in-bounds for Maury plan, we wouldn't have bought here a year ago with two small kids. We would have moved to Takoma Park instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Controlled choice on the hill is terrible. High SES families would not be retained past K because their chance of winning a spot at a "good" school would be much decreased. That would be if there were any "good" schools left. I expect my house price (house that is well designed for a family of four plus grandparents) would go down by about 10 to 15 percent right when I wanted to sell it.

Actually, it would probably increase, for there would be dozens of schools in areas that you now have 0% chance of getting in added back into your mix, charters included.

On a separate note: PP who argues having paid that much more for a house just to be IB for a school. I can't help but question the financial literacy of well educated folks. Paying a whole lot extra for housing in DC based on school boundaries is just seriously not worth it. But I imagine real estate agents don't have much of an interest to educate potential buyers on those calculations and would much rather their customers wake up that reality once the deal is sealed.

[Anonymous]

Actually house value should be related to how many years you expect to benefit from free education less the probability that you will have to pay for private times the cost of private times the number of years you would have to pay for private. It would be a similar calculation to how you should estimate the value of a rental unit. Perhaps the "you are not financially literate" poster actually means that the probability of having to pay for private in DC is so close to 100 percent that home buyers should not even be doing this calculation?

[Anonymous]

What's the cost of ending up in a substandard IB school that doesn't adequately prepare your kid, so that he doesn't get into college, can't get into the preferred college, can't pursue the program he wants (for example STEM) because he is so woefully underprepared? That ends up impacting earnings and everything else, life long. That's a huge cost. This is why so many of us are so adamant about choice.

[Anonymous]

Controlled choice would decrease your chance of getting in to an acceptable school assuming you are not FARMs and increase the chance of the scenario you are writing about and thus the likelihood that you will feel compelled to sell your house and others who have children will be less interested in buying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree that the boundaries on the Hill are somewhat arbitrary (especially the Cluster) and that any one of the Capitol Hill schools could be considered a "neighborhood" school for most people living on the Hill, using the dictionary definition of neighborhood. The problem is, not all DCPS schools are good enough for most parents (myself included). A significant number of DCPS schools on the Hill are not going to meet my standards or the standards of many other higher SES families. The only way our family could afford to stay in the city was if we could buy a house where we knew we could go to a higher-performing school as a matter of right. So we looked at the (somewhat arbitrary) boundary map and drew lines around areas in bounds for the better schools, and didn't consider anything else. If, by our housing choice, there was an equal chance of our kids going to Brent or Payne, there is no way we would have taken that risk and bought our current house, because we are not going to send our kids to Payne. We would have escaped to the burbs, and I imagine there are many families like us that would have done the same (some may criticize this attitude, but I think it is a reality, and the "we don't want your kind anyhow" attitude isn't helpful because the reality is that DCPS needs high SES families in them, and not just the ones who are very interested in getting their hands dirty improving the schools). A good way to keep higher-SES families in DC is by giving them some certainty that their kids can get a good public school education, and you can't do that with controlled choice, at least with the schools in their current state.

I don't agree with this. I live three blocks from Brent; the next nearest school is some 10 blocks away. My boundary doesn't seem arbitrary at all. And, 10 blocks (pushing a mile) is too far to make my 5-year old walk to school.

The Brent boundaries are actually fairly logical. E. Capitol to the north, SE/SW Freeway to the south, and Washington Avenue (395) to the west. I'll concede the eastern boundary is a little wonky, but remains westerly of Barracks Row.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Capitol Hill is actually the perfect example to demonstrate why such heavy emphasis on boundaries makes no sense at all. By starting this discussion based on the % of IB children, you completely disregard that in fact a great many children at all of the Capitol Hill schools live in Capitol Hill (subtract those that actually live in MD). The IB numbers at all of our schools we're all picking schools from around here that don't happen to be our IB schools, sometimes simply because the official boundaries are totally screwed up. Brent kids go to Watkins, Watkins kids go to Maury, Miner kids go to Ludlow-Taylor, J.O. Wilson Kids attend Brent, those in turn attend SWS and Logan Montessori, Tyler has kids from from all other Capitol Hill boundaries due to Spanish, likewise J.O. Wilson due to French, so on and so forth. I'd claim that if you drew one big boundary for what you think of "Capitol Hill Schools" and examined how many kids within all of these schools are from within that boundary, I'd guess you'd be at about 75% to 80%. Can someone run the data please to prove me wrong?

This post seems way off base to me. While, yes, some of the OOB populations at Hill schools are other kids from Capitol Hill, my guess is that it is a relatively small proportion (20-30% tops?), and it's not willy nilly. There are a limited number of very specific vectors, e.g. Brent/Maury/Peabody waitlisted preschoolers going to Payne/Tyler/Ludlow-Taylor, Hill kids in the Tyler Spanish Immersion, and a few Brent and other 4th and 5th graders at Watkins so they can go to S-H. And there are likely older OOB students (2nd-5th grade) from the Hill at Brent/Maury/Peabody but given their IB crowding, that is likely the end of those vectors. SWS and Logan Montessori don't count because they are citywide.

And saying that a school that is 1.5 miles away is just as much of your "neighborhood" school as the school that is 2 blocks away is sooo... not true.

My guess is the poster is inbounds for a school they find undesirable and is hoping controlled choice will come to fruition so they have preference at another school. But the problem is that the schools may all sink to the lowest common denominator at that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shutting down Capitol Hill schools that are hugely OOB would probably help the remaining schools turn into neighborhood schools faster. This would accelerate the flip, which, as a person IB for a CH school that is very very far from such a flip, I would be happy.

You're forgetting one hugely important point, namely that most of the OOB that you potentially vilify with this statement are actually your neighbors. Take Watkins: It has a considerable OOB population simply because for years, decades in fact, few found Maury good enough or even Brent good enough. They enrolled their kids and siblings at Watkins. Tyler has a large OOB population from all over Capitol Hill because some place a heavy emphasis on Spanish. So you want to close those because they're popular options drawing from the Hill catchment? How absurd!
If you feel so strongly that people's enrollment desires should somehow be steered towards certain options, then "controlled choice" is a much better way to do that than heavy handed and contentious school closures. As stated previously, "controls" (i.e. weights) can be added for any number of things such as proximity, siblings, language, etc.

[Anonymous]

Based on my limited knowledge, the principal reason that students IB for Brent attend other Capitol Hill elementary schools is the fact they were shut out of the lottery in the past two or three years. Very few opt for Tyler fir SI or attend Watkins for its gardens, although a few have transferred to Watkins for Fifth so that SH is at least a fall-back option

With few exceptions, the PS/PK students eventually return to Brent for K, if not before, as spaces open up as the result of relocations and transfers to CHDS or charters like Yu Ying. A couple of rising Fourth Graders Found spots at Eaton this year and several more, including siblings, could follow next.

Can't speak for other Hill schools, but there very, very few OOB students at Brent in the PS thru 1st Grade cohort, virtually all of whom lost IB status when their families moved out of the Brent district or have older siblings who attend Brent. As to 2nd, 3rd and 4th Grades, OOB students are principally from other parts of the Hill, although there is a sizable contingent from the Amidon district and Bolling. Fifth Grade is by large majority OOB.

[Anonymous]

K and 1st at Brent both have around 10 OOB siblings. 4th grade may be half OOB mainly from the Hill. I think the 5th grade will be larger next year, especially if a large number of kids are shut out of Latin and Basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, it only sounds excellent if your IB school is one that is underperforming. No one IB for Brent is sending their kids to Watkins for the gardens or DPR athletic facility. By the same token only a couple of families IB for other CH schools might be admitted to Brent at the upper grades (even though Brent can't fill FIfth Grade with OOB students).

At most you'd find a very small number of Brent families switching to Watkins for 5th grade only, and even there it's not likely the Brent IB kids but the upper grade OOB kids seeking SH for MS. No one IB for Brent is sending their kids to Watkins for any other reason.

How do you know that those Brent OOB kids are not Hill kids? Isn't that the discussion for the last several pages - that people are as a matter of strict boundaries, OOB for some Capitol Hill schools but are actually neighborhood kids? One poster, not me, thought that the overall Hill presence is about 70-75%. But your message dismisses the OOB kids at Brent. Or is this code for something else?

PP here. You need to tighten up your tin foil hat. Did I miss something, given that I never mentioned anything about where said OOB kids lived?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree that the boundaries on the Hill are somewhat arbitrary (especially the Cluster) and that any one of the Capitol Hill schools could be considered a "neighborhood" school for most people living on the Hill, using the dictionary definition of neighborhood. The problem is, not all DCPS schools are good enough for most parents (myself included). A significant number of DCPS schools on the Hill are not going to meet my standards or the standards of many other higher SES families. The only way our family could afford to stay in the city was if we could buy a house where we knew we could go to a higher-performing school as a matter of right. So we looked at the (somewhat arbitrary) boundary map and drew lines around areas in bounds for the better schools, and didn't consider anything else. If, by our housing choice, there was an equal chance of our kids going to Brent or Payne, there is no way we would have taken that risk and bought our current house, because we are not going to send our kids to Payne. We would have escaped to the burbs, and I imagine there are many families like us that would have done the same (some may criticize this attitude, but I think it is a reality, and the "we don't want your kind anyhow" attitude isn't helpful because the reality is that DCPS needs high SES families in them, and not just the ones who are very interested in getting their hands dirty improving the schools). A good way to keep higher-SES families in DC is by giving them some certainty that their kids can get a good public school education, and you can't do that with controlled choice, at least with the schools in their current state.

I don't agree with this. I live three blocks from Brent; the next nearest school is some 10 blocks away. My boundary doesn't seem arbitrary at all. And, 10 blocks (pushing a mile) is too far to make my 5-year old walk to school.

I'm against controlled choice because I don't want to live in the same boundary with people like this poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree that the boundaries on the Hill are somewhat arbitrary (especially the Cluster) and that any one of the Capitol Hill schools could be considered a "neighborhood" school for most people living on the Hill, using the dictionary definition of neighborhood. The problem is, not all DCPS schools are good enough for most parents (myself included). A significant number of DCPS schools on the Hill are not going to meet my standards or the standards of many other higher SES families. The only way our family could afford to stay in the city was if we could buy a house where we knew we could go to a higher-performing school as a matter of right. So we looked at the (somewhat arbitrary) boundary map and drew lines around areas in bounds for the better schools, and didn't consider anything else. If, by our housing choice, there was an equal chance of our kids going to Brent or Payne, there is no way we would have taken that risk and bought our current house, because we are not going to send our kids to Payne. We would have escaped to the burbs, and I imagine there are many families like us that would have done the same (some may criticize this attitude, but I think it is a reality, and the "we don't want your kind anyhow" attitude isn't helpful because the reality is that DCPS needs high SES families in them, and not just the ones who are very interested in getting their hands dirty improving the schools). A good way to keep higher-SES families in DC is by giving them some certainty that their kids can get a good public school education, and you can't do that with controlled choice, at least with the schools in their current state.

I don't agree with this. I live three blocks from Brent; the next nearest school is some 10 blocks away. My boundary doesn't seem arbitrary at all. And, 10 blocks (pushing a mile) is too far to make my 5-year old walk to school.

Yes, people who don't make their 5 year olds walk a mile to school uphill both ways are not to be tolerated...

I'm against controlled choice because I don't want to live in the same boundary with people like this poster.