Why Does Van Ness Elementary School Not Have a Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:also, the 400 units of public housing and any population growth from the market-rate units at CQ are still a little ways off. DCPS should draw the boundaries in a way that fills Van Ness now, starting the school with younger grades only and adding a grade a year until it's PK-5th. That probably means a boundary that extends into SW, with older kids still going to Amidon and some allowances for little kids to attend Amidon if they want to and they have a sibling there. If the population in Capitol Riverfront gets big enough that Van Ness is overfull with in-boundary kids, they can do what DCPS has recently done at other schools (put up portables and/or expand the school) or redraw the boundary at that point.

But the idea that CQ is going to get to gerrymander a school that cuts out poor kids (even for a few years until more public housing is built in the area and the main VN proponents' kids just happen to be in middle school or in charters that start in 5th grade) is just unrealistic.

I don't think having a boundary of South Capitol Street to the West, The SE/SW Freeway to the North, and the Anacostia River to the South and East is gerrymandering the Van Ness Elementary School Boundary. It makes a lot of sense to make that the boundary (take a look at the map). Also, take a look at the current boundary for Amidon-Bowen. Its huge!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:also, the 400 units of public housing and any population growth from the market-rate units at CQ are still a little ways off. DCPS should draw the boundaries in a way that fills Van Ness now, starting the school with younger grades only and adding a grade a year until it's PK-5th. That probably means a boundary that extends into SW, with older kids still going to Amidon and some allowances for little kids to attend Amidon if they want to and they have a sibling there. If the population in Capitol Riverfront gets big enough that Van Ness is overfull with in-boundary kids, they can do what DCPS has recently done at other schools (put up portables and/or expand the school) or redraw the boundary at that point.

But the idea that CQ is going to get to gerrymander a school that cuts out poor kids (even for a few years until more public housing is built in the area and the main VN proponents' kids just happen to be in middle school or in charters that start in 5th grade) is just unrealistic.

I don't think having a boundary of South Capitol Street to the West, The SE/SW Freeway to the North, and the Anacostia River to the South and East is gerrymandering the Van Ness Elementary School Boundary. It makes a lot of sense to make that the boundary (take a look at the map). Also, take a look at the current boundary for Amidon-Bowen. Its huge!

All the more reason to shift some into Van Ness, don't you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:also, the 400 units of public housing and any population growth from the market-rate units at CQ are still a little ways off. DCPS should draw the boundaries in a way that fills Van Ness now, starting the school with younger grades only and adding a grade a year until it's PK-5th. That probably means a boundary that extends into SW, with older kids still going to Amidon and some allowances for little kids to attend Amidon if they want to and they have a sibling there. If the population in Capitol Riverfront gets big enough that Van Ness is overfull with in-boundary kids, they can do what DCPS has recently done at other schools (put up portables and/or expand the school) or redraw the boundary at that point.

But the idea that CQ is going to get to gerrymander a school that cuts out poor kids (even for a few years until more public housing is built in the area and the main VN proponents' kids just happen to be in middle school or in charters that start in 5th grade) is just unrealistic.

I don't think having a boundary of South Capitol Street to the West, The SE/SW Freeway to the North, and the Anacostia River to the South and East is gerrymandering the Van Ness Elementary School Boundary. It makes a lot of sense to make that the boundary (take a look at the map). Also, take a look at the current boundary for Amidon-Bowen. Its huge!

All the more reason to shift some into Van Ness, don't you think?

But isn't Amidon way underenrolled? So no real need to shrink its boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:also, the 400 units of public housing and any population growth from the market-rate units at CQ are still a little ways off. DCPS should draw the boundaries in a way that fills Van Ness now, starting the school with younger grades only and adding a grade a year until it's PK-5th. That probably means a boundary that extends into SW, with older kids still going to Amidon and some allowances for little kids to attend Amidon if they want to and they have a sibling there. If the population in Capitol Riverfront gets big enough that Van Ness is overfull with in-boundary kids, they can do what DCPS has recently done at other schools (put up portables and/or expand the school) or redraw the boundary at that point.

But the idea that CQ is going to get to gerrymander a school that cuts out poor kids (even for a few years until more public housing is built in the area and the main VN proponents' kids just happen to be in middle school or in charters that start in 5th grade) is just unrealistic.

I don't think having a boundary of South Capitol Street to the West, The SE/SW Freeway to the North, and the Anacostia River to the South and East is gerrymandering the Van Ness Elementary School Boundary. It makes a lot of sense to make that the boundary (take a look at the map). Also, take a look at the current boundary for Amidon-Bowen. Its huge!

All the more reason to shift some into Van Ness, don't you think?

But isn't Amidon way underenrolled? So no real need to shrink its boundary.

By this logic, there is no real need to open Van Ness.

[Anonymous]

If DCPS is going to invest millions of dollars into re-opening Van Ness, I would think they would want larger boundaries to help ensure that the classes are filled. Of course, the smaller boundaries allow for more OOB lottery slots. Either way, I don't see how this school can remain the exclusive property of Capitol Quarter families as there just aren't enough of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS is going to invest millions of dollars into re-opening Van Ness, I would think they would want larger boundaries to help ensure that the classes are filled. Of course, the smaller boundaries allow for more OOB lottery slots. Either way, I don't see how this school can remain the exclusive property of Capitol Quarter families as there just aren't enough of them.

Agreed. I know if I weren't already happy with our school, I'd definitely go for an OOB spot at a newly renovated school. Especially if the one we were attending hadn't been updated since the Brady Bunch era it was built in.

[Anonymous]

a) Amidon has been updated since the Brady Bunch era...see http://www.capitalcommunitynews.com/content/amidon-bowen-opens-new-doors and it just had all its windows replaced.

b) Amidon is not "way underenrolled." http://dc.gov/DC/DME/Media%20Releases/newsroom_archive/Press%20Releases/Final%202013%20DC%20Public%20Education%20Plan.pdf shows a capacity of 400 students. The DCPS profile shows 342 kids enrolled this year, and since they're taking over the 2 Appletree classrooms there should be about 40 more kids next year. That's pretty close to capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:a) Amidon has been updated since the Brady Bunch era...see http://www.capitalcommunitynews.com/content/amidon-bowen-opens-new-doors and it just had all its windows replaced.

b) Amidon is not "way underenrolled." http://dc.gov/DC/DME/Media%20Releases/newsroom_archive/Press%20Releases/Final%202013%20DC%20Public%20Education%20Plan.pdf shows a capacity of 400 students. The DCPS profile shows 342 kids enrolled this year, and since they're taking over the 2 Appletree classrooms there should be about 40 more kids next year. That's pretty close to capacity.

From your own link:

Renovations alone will not turn Amidon-Bowen around, which is still suffering from declining attendance over the past few years and test scores among the lowest in the city. According to DC Public Schools, only 15% of students at Amidon-Bowen met or exceeded the Washington, DC Comprehensive Assessment System (DC CAS) standards in math and 19% met, or exceeded standards in reading. As a result, the school was reconstituted before the 2011-12 school year in order to help improve performance. All faculty members had to reapply for their jobs and a new principal, Izabela Miller was hired. Advocacy from organizations such as the PTA are important, but with more than half of the students at the elementary school from out-of-bounds, which means they come from a different area of the city than the location of the school, it makes it difficult for parents to get involved due to the relatively long distance most of them are from Amidon-Bowen.

[Anonymous]

So the solution to having too many OOB students at A-B is to shrink their boundary?

[Anonymous]

The goal isn't to reduce the number of OOB students at A-B, but rather to get as many students as possible into a school where they can learn. A-B doesn't seem to be working well for many of its students. Maybe Van Ness would be an improvement for some of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The goal isn't to reduce the number of OOB students at A-B, but rather to get as many students as possible into a school where they can learn. A-B doesn't seem to be working well for many of its students. Maybe Van Ness would be an improvement for some of them.

Exactly. So the Capitol Quarter crew who would like to exclude them needs to understand exactly what they would be doing. It's unbecoming, not to mention fruitless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The goal isn't to reduce the number of OOB students at A-B, but rather to get as many students as possible into a school where they can learn. A-B doesn't seem to be working well for many of its students. Maybe Van Ness would be an improvement for some of them.

Exactly. So the Capitol Quarter crew who would like to exclude them needs to understand exactly what they would be doing. It's unbecoming, not to mention fruitless.

You seem like a mean person. Where do your kids go to school and how committed are you to surrounding your kids with econ disadvantaged kids are you? Please provide details.

It's real easy to take cheap shots at parents who want a school that is predominantly middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:also, the 400 units of public housing and any population growth from the market-rate units at CQ are still a little ways off. DCPS should draw the boundaries in a way that fills Van Ness now, starting the school with younger grades only and adding a grade a year until it's PK-5th. That probably means a boundary that extends into SW, with older kids still going to Amidon and some allowances for little kids to attend Amidon if they want to and they have a sibling there. If the population in Capitol Riverfront gets big enough that Van Ness is overfull with in-boundary kids, they can do what DCPS has recently done at other schools (put up portables and/or expand the school) or redraw the boundary at that point.

But the idea that CQ is going to get to gerrymander a school that cuts out poor kids (even for a few years until more public housing is built in the area and the main VN proponents' kids just happen to be in middle school or in charters that start in 5th grade) is just unrealistic.

I don't think having a boundary of South Capitol Street to the West, The SE/SW Freeway to the North, and the Anacostia River to the South and East is gerrymandering the Van Ness Elementary School Boundary. It makes a lot of sense to make that the boundary (take a look at the map). Also, take a look at the current boundary for Amidon-Bowen. Its huge!

All the more reason to shift some into Van Ness, don't you think?

But isn't Amidon way underenrolled? So no real need to shrink its boundary.

By this logic, there is no real need to open Van Ness.

Except, if you don't open a school that is acceptable to CQ families, you won't have any CQ families DC in DCPS elementary schools. Which will change the nature of the city. The residents of the new condos and apartments will be defined by what schooling is available to them. And the people paying big bucks for housing aren't going to send their children to A-B. Just ain't gonna happen. Creating a 35% FARM school for these families is a net positive for DC's finances. The extra real-estate taxes accruing on the extra priciness of these condos and the extra income taxes more than pays for the cost of a not yet full elementary school.

You can look at this as 'entitled' (yep, it is!) or as a trade-off (pay taxes, get services you value). It is still a better deal for the city than not providing a school that high-SES city residents will use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The goal isn't to reduce the number of OOB students at A-B, but rather to get as many students as possible into a school where they can learn. A-B doesn't seem to be working well for many of its students. Maybe Van Ness would be an improvement for some of them.

There is nothing wrong with Amidon-Bowen as a school. The problem with test scores and whatever else that determines whether a school is successful or not is not because of the school, teachers or curriculum. The issue lies in the type of students attending the schools and the families they come from. Ask yourself this question. If every student from Brent Elementary School went to Amidon-Bowen, and every Amidon-Bowen student went to Brent Elementary School, would Amidon-Bowen Elementary School still be considered a "bad" school, and would Brent Elementary School still be considered a "good" school?

[Anonymous]

I haven't spent any time at A-B but I have spent time at Brent. I have tremendous respect for the principal, staff and teachers who work tirelessly to provide the best education they can for all students in the building. Not many years ago, Brent had a higher number of low income kids, and I thought it was a good school then too. A measure of a good school is much greater than just the test scores.

I have no idea how Brent kids would do at A-B, as I've never been there, but I do think that A-B kids would get a good education at Brent were they there.