So how many IB are going to really be at Hardy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
NP, with no kids at Hardy, pointing out that the primary reason Deal has so much is that their enrollment is so high - almost 3x that of Hardy. More students means funds for all the extras you're seeking. Right now, Hardy enrollment is around 400, but capacity is 650. If all the IB families decided next year that they were going to Hardy, there still wouldn't be enough to bring all that Deal has.

Those families are more likely to get what they want by attending than standing off to the side griping. Parents who want more challenging coursework won't get it from the outside. BUT, because of Hardy's capacity and the low demand for public schooling in that part of town, OOB numbers are not likely to change much. It seems the real issue is that IB families don't like the racial make-up of the school.

Which is a really weird dilemma considering diversity in middle school grades at charters. Nobody seems to have a problem with the number of non-white students at Basis.

IB Hardy families have no problem sending their kids to public schools, even majority-minority public schools. More IB kids go to Latin and Basis than Hardy. The IB elementary schools are jam-packed. A small number of IB kids get the opportunity to go to Deal, and almost all of them take it. Lots of kids go to Wilson and Walls. Wilson, Walls, Latin, Basis and Deal are all majority-minority.

[Anonymous]

At the end of the day, it's always about class and socio-economics. White folks are fine sending their kids to schools with majority Black and Hispanic students as long as those students come from middle class homes. No one want to have too many "poors" at their school. This is not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, it's always about class and socio-economics. White folks are fine sending their kids to schools with majority Black and Hispanic students as long as those students come from middle class homes. No one want to have too many "poors" at their school. This is not rocket science.

Absolutely correct. Diagnosing the problem is not hard. Fixing it is - unless you think the solution is to ban poor kids from attending Hardy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, it's always about class and socio-economics. White folks are fine sending their kids to schools with majority Black and Hispanic students as long as those students come from middle class homes. No one want to have too many "poors" at their school. This is not rocket science.

Absolutely correct. Diagnosing the problem is not hard. Fixing it is - unless you think the solution is to ban poor kids from attending Hardy.

Fixing it is easy: the parent cohorts at each feeder school need to agree among themselves to send their kids to Hardy. Voila. Test scores go up immediately. Advanced course participation rises immediately. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, it's always about class and socio-economics. White folks are fine sending their kids to schools with majority Black and Hispanic students as long as those students come from middle class homes. No one want to have too many "poors" at their school. This is not rocket science.

Absolutely correct. Diagnosing the problem is not hard. Fixing it is - unless you think the solution is to ban poor kids from attending Hardy.

Fixing it is easy: the parent cohorts at each feeder school need to agree among themselves to send their kids to Hardy. Voila. Test scores go up immediately. Advanced course participation rises immediately. Problem solved.

Good luck. I've experienced this. What will happen is that this group of parents will all look each other right in the eye, promise they are going to Hardy, then run off and secretly apply to privates and charters and buy houses in the suburbs or in the Deal district. A couple of parents who are saps will be left holding the bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, it's always about class and socio-economics. White folks are fine sending their kids to schools with majority Black and Hispanic students as long as those students come from middle class homes. No one want to have too many "poors" at their school. This is not rocket science.

Absolutely correct. Diagnosing the problem is not hard. Fixing it is - unless you think the solution is to ban poor kids from attending Hardy.

Fixing it is easy: the parent cohorts at each feeder school need to agree among themselves to send their kids to Hardy. Voila. Test scores go up immediately. Advanced course participation rises immediately. Problem solved.

Good luck. I've experienced this. What will happen is that this group of parents will all look each other right in the eye, promise they are going to Hardy, then run off and secretly apply to privates and charters and buy houses in the suburbs or in the Deal district. A couple of parents who are saps will be left holding the bag.

I don't think an attempt at that sort of group agreement has been achieved yet. If you get most of the 5th grade classes at feeders agree to go to Hardy, even if half of those parents eventually flake out, the numbers at Hardy would still look good the following year. The key right now is the number of students who decide to stay in 5th grade at the feeders (many of them bail after 4th grade) -- if those class sizes start to increase, game over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, it's always about class and socio-economics. White folks are fine sending their kids to schools with majority Black and Hispanic students as long as those students come from middle class homes. No one want to have too many "poors" at their school. This is not rocket science.

Absolutely correct. Diagnosing the problem is not hard. Fixing it is - unless you think the solution is to ban poor kids from attending Hardy.

Fixing it is easy: the parent cohorts at each feeder school need to agree among themselves to send their kids to Hardy. Voila. Test scores go up immediately. Advanced course participation rises immediately. Problem solved.

Good luck. I've experienced this. What will happen is that this group of parents will all look each other right in the eye, promise they are going to Hardy, then run off and secretly apply to privates and charters and buy houses in the suburbs or in the Deal district. A couple of parents who are saps will be left holding the bag.

Exactly. That fix won't work.

The fix that will work is to cut enrollment until about 70 to 80% of the seats are filled by IB families who want to to enroll in the 6th grade TODAY. Then, for every 7 or 8 more IB kids who enroll, admit another 2 or 3 OOB kids.

It's foolish to set enrollment at 300 kids and expect a grassroots campaign among IB families to bring IB enrollment to 70 to 80%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, it's always about class and socio-economics. White folks are fine sending their kids to schools with majority Black and Hispanic students as long as those students come from middle class homes. No one want to have too many "poors" at their school. This is not rocket science.

Absolutely correct. Diagnosing the problem is not hard. Fixing it is - unless you think the solution is to ban poor kids from attending Hardy.

Fixing it is easy: the parent cohorts at each feeder school need to agree among themselves to send their kids to Hardy. Voila. Test scores go up immediately. Advanced course participation rises immediately. Problem solved.

Good luck. I've experienced this. What will happen is that this group of parents will all look each other right in the eye, promise they are going to Hardy, then run off and secretly apply to privates and charters and buy houses in the suburbs or in the Deal district. A couple of parents who are saps will be left holding the bag.

Exactly. That fix won't work.

The fix that will work is to cut enrollment until about 70 to 80% of the seats are filled by IB families who want to to enroll in the 6th grade TODAY. Then, for every 7 or 8 more IB kids who enroll, admit another 2 or 3 OOB kids.

It's foolish to set enrollment at 300 kids and expect a grassroots campaign among IB families to bring IB enrollment to 70 to 80%.

Nah, I disagree. The only thing that matters is 6th grade, and the # of IB students in 6th grade -- not the IB percentage of the entire school. That can only change in time. But if you get up to 50% IB enrollment in 6th grade, most Ward 3 parents would be happy with that. You don't need that many parents to agree to board the Hardy 6th grade ship to reach that %.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Incidentally, the fact that Deal is only 21% FARMs is probably no accident:

The U.S. Department of Education has assessed the effect of poverty concentration on
both poor and non-poor students alike. See, e.g., Poverty, Achievement and Distribution.
In schools with less than 7% poverty, 27.6% of poor students and 11% of non-poor
students achieved below the national average. But when school poverty levels increase to
greater than 24%, then 56% of poor students and 36.9% of non-poor students fell below
the national average. Although the primary conclusion is that both groups suffered
dramatically, it is noteworthy that concentrated poverty had a greater relative impact on
non-poor students. Id. at 21.7

http://www.prrac.org/pdf/annotated_bibliography_on_school_poverty_concentration.pdf

No, not an accident but not by design, either. More IB families send their kids to Deal. It's that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, it's always about class and socio-economics. White folks are fine sending their kids to schools with majority Black and Hispanic students as long as those students come from middle class homes. No one want to have too many "poors" at their school. This is not rocket science.

Absolutely correct. Diagnosing the problem is not hard. Fixing it is - unless you think the solution is to ban poor kids from attending Hardy.

Fixing it is easy: the parent cohorts at each feeder school need to agree among themselves to send their kids to Hardy. Voila. Test scores go up immediately. Advanced course participation rises immediately. Problem solved.

Good luck. I've experienced this. What will happen is that this group of parents will all look each other right in the eye, promise they are going to Hardy, then run off and secretly apply to privates and charters and buy houses in the suburbs or in the Deal district. A couple of parents who are saps will be left holding the bag.

Exactly. That fix won't work.

The fix that will work is to cut enrollment until about 70 to 80% of the seats are filled by IB families who want to to enroll in the 6th grade TODAY. Then, for every 7 or 8 more IB kids who enroll, admit another 2 or 3 OOB kids.

It's foolish to set enrollment at 300 kids and expect a grassroots campaign among IB families to bring IB enrollment to 70 to 80%.

Good plan. But it would mean pretty significant budget cuts for Hardy - cutting the 6th grade class size by 50 kids - from 150 to 100 - would mean DCPS budget cuts of about $500,000 - forcing cuts in teachers and curriculum, which of course, would only scare IB parents away. Do you think that some private funder or group of Ward 3 parents could raise that $500,000 privately and apply it to the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incidentally, the fact that Deal is only 21% FARMs is probably no accident:

The U.S. Department of Education has assessed the effect of poverty concentration on
both poor and non-poor students alike. See, e.g., Poverty, Achievement and Distribution.
In schools with less than 7% poverty, 27.6% of poor students and 11% of non-poor
students achieved below the national average. But when school poverty levels increase to
greater than 24%, then 56% of poor students and 36.9% of non-poor students fell below
the national average. Although the primary conclusion is that both groups suffered
dramatically, it is noteworthy that concentrated poverty had a greater relative impact on
non-poor students. Id. at 21.7

http://www.prrac.org/pdf/annotated_bibliography_on_school_poverty_concentration.pdf

No, not an accident but not by design, either. More IB families send their kids to Deal. It's that simple.

I think it might be by design, PP. The principal gets to decide how many OOB spots are available in the lottery. If, say, 80% of OOB kids who lottery in are FARMs, then a wise principal would make no more than 30% of the seats available in the OOB lottery.

If 200 IB kids left Deal at the end of the year, I highly doubt that those spots would become available in the OOB lottery. The school would simply contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, it's always about class and socio-economics. White folks are fine sending their kids to schools with majority Black and Hispanic students as long as those students come from middle class homes. No one want to have too many "poors" at their school. This is not rocket science.

Absolutely correct. Diagnosing the problem is not hard. Fixing it is - unless you think the solution is to ban poor kids from attending Hardy.

Fixing it is easy: the parent cohorts at each feeder school need to agree among themselves to send their kids to Hardy. Voila. Test scores go up immediately. Advanced course participation rises immediately. Problem solved.

Good luck. I've experienced this. What will happen is that this group of parents will all look each other right in the eye, promise they are going to Hardy, then run off and secretly apply to privates and charters and buy houses in the suburbs or in the Deal district. A couple of parents who are saps will be left holding the bag.

Exactly. That fix won't work.

The fix that will work is to cut enrollment until about 70 to 80% of the seats are filled by IB families who want to to enroll in the 6th grade TODAY. Then, for every 7 or 8 more IB kids who enroll, admit another 2 or 3 OOB kids.

It's foolish to set enrollment at 300 kids and expect a grassroots campaign among IB families to bring IB enrollment to 70 to 80%.

Good plan. But it would mean pretty significant budget cuts for Hardy - cutting the 6th grade class size by 50 kids - from 150 to 100 - would mean DCPS budget cuts of about $500,000 - forcing cuts in teachers and curriculum, which of course, would only scare IB parents away. Do you think that some private funder or group of Ward 3 parents could raise that $500,000 privately and apply it to the school?

It sounds like a lot, but is it really, PP? If the budget is about $3M, then $500K is only about a 17% cut.

At my federal agency, the fully-loaded cost of a staff member is about $275K, so a $500K cut would be less than two staff members. What is the fully-load cost of a DCPS teacher? $225K $200K? 175K?

If there are 50 fewer 6th graders, then you need about two fewer teachers anyway, assuming about 25 kids per 6th grade section. (1.7 teachers if there are 30 kids per section.) So, most of the $500K cut would be absorbed by not providing services to the 50 OOB 6th graders who are no longer there.

On the other hand, imagine how quickly Hardy would be transformed if next year's incoming 6th grade class of 100 kids was 60, 70 or 80% IB.

I think its a no-brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incidentally, the fact that Deal is only 21% FARMs is probably no accident:

The U.S. Department of Education has assessed the effect of poverty concentration on
both poor and non-poor students alike. See, e.g., Poverty, Achievement and Distribution.
In schools with less than 7% poverty, 27.6% of poor students and 11% of non-poor
students achieved below the national average. But when school poverty levels increase to
greater than 24%, then 56% of poor students and 36.9% of non-poor students fell below
the national average. Although the primary conclusion is that both groups suffered
dramatically, it is noteworthy that concentrated poverty had a greater relative impact on
non-poor students. Id. at 21.7

http://www.prrac.org/pdf/annotated_bibliography_on_school_poverty_concentration.pdf

No, not an accident but not by design, either. More IB families send their kids to Deal. It's that simple.

I think it might be by design, PP. The principal gets to decide how many OOB spots are available in the lottery. If, say, 80% of OOB kids who lottery in are FARMs, then a wise principal would make no more than 30% of the seats available in the OOB lottery.

If 200 IB kids left Deal at the end of the year, I highly doubt that those spots would become available in the OOB lottery. The school would simply contract.

Deal hasn't accepted kids from the lottery in at least five years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incidentally, the fact that Deal is only 21% FARMs is probably no accident:

The U.S. Department of Education has assessed the effect of poverty concentration on
both poor and non-poor students alike. See, e.g., Poverty, Achievement and Distribution.
In schools with less than 7% poverty, 27.6% of poor students and 11% of non-poor
students achieved below the national average. But when school poverty levels increase to
greater than 24%, then 56% of poor students and 36.9% of non-poor students fell below
the national average. Although the primary conclusion is that both groups suffered
dramatically, it is noteworthy that concentrated poverty had a greater relative impact on
non-poor students. Id. at 21.7

http://www.prrac.org/pdf/annotated_bibliography_on_school_poverty_concentration.pdf

No, not an accident but not by design, either. More IB families send their kids to Deal. It's that simple.

I think it might be by design, PP. The principal gets to decide how many OOB spots are available in the lottery. If, say, 80% of OOB kids who lottery in are FARMs, then a wise principal would make no more than 30% of the seats available in the OOB lottery.

If 200 IB kids left Deal at the end of the year, I highly doubt that those spots would become available in the OOB lottery. The school would simply contract.

Deal hasn't accepted kids from the lottery in at least five years.

OK, PP. What do you think would happen if 200 IB kids left Deal at the end of the year? Would the principal make those spots available in the OOB lottery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OK, PP. What do you think would happen if 200 IB kids left Deal at the end of the year? Would the principal make those spots available in the OOB lottery?

Kind of an odd question, but I'll try. This year? No, the school is 300 kids over capacity right now. Once the addition is finished? Yes, he'd have to.

But what are you getting at?