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

[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.

Sadly, it can and probably will happen. That tiny AU Park colonial you paid $1M will be worth about $800k overnight. What are you going to do about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uhh, what? Isn't that paying taxes, of which schools with at-risk kids get more?

[Anonymous]

It's inevitable that DC scraps the system of neighborhood schools and moves to an all-lottery system with sibling and at-risk preferences. It's the only manageable way to drive toward more equity and inclusion, so that everyone has an equal chance at the better schools. A number of the key decision-makers in the Chancelor's office and OSSE want to do this. It's just a question of when the mayor feels that the political moment is ripe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's inevitable that DC scraps the system of neighborhood schools and moves to an all-lottery system with sibling and at-risk preferences. It's the only manageable way to drive toward more equity and inclusion, so that everyone has an equal chance at the better schools. A number of the key decision-makers in the Chancelor's office and OSSE want to do this. It's just a question of when the mayor feels that the political moment is ripe.

So never, then? Got it. Doing this would cripple DCPS for good and decimate DC's tax base, and the mayor knows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's inevitable that DC scraps the system of neighborhood schools and moves to an all-lottery system with sibling and at-risk preferences. It's the only manageable way to drive toward more equity and inclusion, so that everyone has an equal chance at the better schools. A number of the key decision-makers in the Chancelor's office and OSSE want to do this. It's just a question of when the mayor feels that the political moment is ripe.

So never, then? Got it. Doing this would cripple DCPS for good and decimate DC's tax base, and the mayor knows it.

Think of the traffic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's inevitable that DC scraps the system of neighborhood schools and moves to an all-lottery system with sibling and at-risk preferences. It's the only manageable way to drive toward more equity and inclusion, so that everyone has an equal chance at the better schools. A number of the key decision-makers in the Chancelor's office and OSSE want to do this. It's just a question of when the mayor feels that the political moment is ripe.

They tried this in San Francisco and it only made segregation worse, to the point where the city got rid of its city-wide lottery system. From the New York Times, last April: "What happened in San Francisco suggests that without remedies like wide-scale busing, or school zones drawn deliberately to integrate, school desegregation will remain out of reach."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/san-francisco-school-segregation.html

DC is never, ever going to try wide-scale busing. It might make David Alpert's head explode to find out that more vehicles would be put on the streets, and the GGWash crowd would throw one of their patented hissyfits. And it will be next to impossible to get creative with school boundaries without creating zones that would make a Maryland gerrymanderer blush.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's inevitable that DC scraps the system of neighborhood schools and moves to an all-lottery system with sibling and at-risk preferences. It's the only manageable way to drive toward more equity and inclusion, so that everyone has an equal chance at the better schools. A number of the key decision-makers in the Chancelor's office and OSSE want to do this. It's just a question of when the mayor feels that the political moment is ripe.

What makes the "better schools" better? Most of these "better schools" are serving high populations of advantaged kids who are performing at or above grade level. An all-lottery system would fundamentally change this and will also alter the pride and investment that families have in the "better" neighborhood schools. An all lottery system isn't the way for everyone to have an equal chance at the better schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's inevitable that DC scraps the system of neighborhood schools and moves to an all-lottery system with sibling and at-risk preferences. It's the only manageable way to drive toward more equity and inclusion, so that everyone has an equal chance at the better schools. A number of the key decision-makers in the Chancelor's office and OSSE want to do this. It's just a question of when the mayor feels that the political moment is ripe.

What makes the "better schools" better? Most of these "better schools" are serving high populations of advantaged kids who are performing at or above grade level. An all-lottery system would fundamentally change this and will also alter the pride and investment that families have in the "better" neighborhood schools. An all lottery system isn't the way for everyone to have an equal chance at the better schools.

I've had 3 kids at Janney (last one is still there). It's a "better school" because 95% of the inboundary kids (and frankly most of the out-of-boundary kids) come from households of two parents with advanced degrees and high level jobs who are incredibly invested in their kids. The soil isn't magic and the teachers aren't either. They're good but they have a remarkably easy job compared to teachers across the park. They're teaching kids who arrived at school already enriched up the wazoo from birth. Aside from kids with special needs most of the kids are at grade level or well beyond. This is not meant as disparaging towards the teachers but in the realm of teaching this is about as easy as it gets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's inevitable that DC scraps the system of neighborhood schools and moves to an all-lottery system with sibling and at-risk preferences. It's the only manageable way to drive toward more equity and inclusion, so that everyone has an equal chance at the better schools. A number of the key decision-makers in the Chancelor's office and OSSE want to do this. It's just a question of when the mayor feels that the political moment is ripe.

When Bowser leaves office in January 2023. Right after she approves the school boundary plan.

She just endorsed Bloomberg, so it looks like she has her post-Mayoral career ready to go.

[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?

it might mean more schools. DCPS opens new schools on regular basis. Some schools are under enrolled. The distribution can always be adjusted in bounder rezoning.

[Anonymous]

If they want to move to lottery, they need to do some version of what Seattle used to do (note that Seattle ended this a number of years ago). It was a lottery with guarantees that you could access one of a set of four neighborhood elementary schools but the option to lottery into some specialized schools. It reduces the uncertainty for families that want neighborhood schools but provides incentives to spread high SES kids throughout the city in the form of progressive education models that are citywide. This provided space for more kids in the successful neighborhood schools plus a good number of high SES kids attending the specialized schools.

The problem with a city wide lottery is that nobody wants it, not even the families that you all think would benefit most from it. I went to the boundary reivew meetings, there was zero support for all lottery outside the extreme school reform advocates without children in the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sadly, it can and probably will happen. That tiny AU Park colonial you paid $1M will be worth about $800k overnight. What are you going to do about it?

Honestly, I’ll probably still move to the suburbs. I initially thought I’d “wait and see” what would happen to the schools. But I can’t stomach the idea of trying to get two kids to two possibly two different schools somewhere (anywhere) in the city, and then try to make my way to work by 8 AM.

Even losing $200K on my house, the math still works in favor of a move when you consider the cost of private school tuition, plus the fact DC doesn’t have a viable in-state college option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sadly, it can and probably will happen. That tiny AU Park colonial you paid $1M will be worth about $800k overnight. What are you going to do about it?

Isn't San Francisco a non-boundary, lottery school system? Also, isn't San Francisco one of the most expensive housing markets in the country? Despite the horror of your dc potentially attending school on the other side of the city and stepping over human feces on your daily commute to drop them off at said school and being accosted by beggars, real estate values don't seem to have taken a hit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sadly, it can and probably will happen. That tiny AU Park colonial you paid $1M will be worth about $800k overnight. What are you going to do about it?

Isn't San Francisco a non-boundary, lottery school system? Also, isn't San Francisco one of the most expensive housing markets in the country? Despite the horror of your dc potentially attending school on the other side of the city and stepping over human feces on your daily commute to drop them off at said school and being accosted by beggars, real estate values don't seem to have taken a hit.

Because San Francisco has armies of single, childless coders pulling down $250-300K per year in their 20s who will pay $4K/month for a tiny 1BR apartment. And once they exercise their options or IPO, they become overnight millionaires.

We don't have that kind of job market in DC. In fact, the flight to the suburbs once kids arrive is even worse in SF than in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Janney teachers are not prepared to take at-risk kids. The only reason Janney is high performing is the students come from families that are highly educated. The teachers are average at best and many have serious classroom management issues in the case when there is a child who is disruptive. Yes - the environment is better than most schools across DCPS - but it is not the end all be all.

Cause you rich privileged kids are never disruptive??? Try again.